Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

As bird flu rises, federal health agencies are halting external communications. Are we flying blind?

Earlier this week, news broke that the Trump administration put a “pause” on federal health agency communications. According to a memo obtained by NPR, the directive told federal health agencies to stop most external communications for the time being, which includes issuing documents, guidance or notices, until they can be approved by "a presidential appointee." This also includes communication on social media. The action, according to the document, is "consistent with precedent,” and reportedly applies until February 1.

According to the NPR report, federal officials are concerned about how “temporary” this freeze will be, and if they will be allowed to release information they had already planned for this week. These concerns come at an urgent time — when public health experts have been advocating relentlessly for more surveillance around the current bird flu situation.

While the bird flu crisis began several years ago, it ramped up last April when the H5N1 virus spread from wild animals to dairy cows. Since then, 67 human cases have been reported across several states, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including one death. Each human infection raises the possibility of another pandemic like COVID-19.

Most of these infections have occurred in farmworkers who came into contact with infected cows or poultry, except three cases with unknown origins, which is a worrisome trend if we want to keep a lid on this crisis. Public health officials have criticized the Biden administration for not properly handling and monitoring the situation. But as Salon previously reported, experts don’t have faith that the situation will improve under the new Trump administration either. Now, the temporary freeze is ringing alarm bells for many. 

This is the “exact opposite” of how the CDC should be acting right now.

“It is a major concern that amid an evolving situation with avian influenza in the U.S. that the CDC’s communications with physicians and local and state health departments is being constrained,” Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease and senior scholar at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Salon via email. “Real-time situational awareness is needed to be as proactive as possible with containing and recognizing the spread of H5N1 in the population.”

According to Adalja, this is the “exact opposite” of how the CDC should be acting right now. 

In a statement to Salon, when asked about the freeze and how it will affect bird flu surveillance, a CDC spokesperson said “the HHS has issued a pause on mass communications and public appearances that are not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health.” 


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


“This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization,” the statement read. “There are exceptions for announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical, but they will be made on a case-by-case basis.”

Dr. Rajendram Rajnarayanan, of the New York Institute of Technology campus in Jonesboro, Arkansas, told Salon he sincerely hopes the pause is short, as the memo states, and that the administration can provide clarity during the transition. He pointed out that the pause isn’t unprecedented. 

“Similar temporary freezes were implemented during presidential transitions previously. These pauses typically allow incoming leadership to review and align agency activities with new priorities,” he said. “However lack of clarity with respect to the scope, duration and implementation — especially concerns about potential delays in critical public health information are valid.”

As Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist and author of the newsletter Your Local Epidemiologist, explained in her recent newsletter, the scope of the pause is unusual to public health scientists.

“For example, CDC’s scientific publication, MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report], wasn’t published yesterday,” Jetelina said in her newsletter. “It was the first time in 70 years this has happened, and it included three discoveries on the H5N1 (bird flu) outbreak — an active biosecurity threat to Americans.”

We need your help to stay independent

As recently reported by STAT, meetings and panels across federal science and health agencies have been abruptly canceled, including gatherings like the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and the Presidential Advisory Council for Combating Antibiotic Resistance. Rajnarayanan told Salon the so-called pause will also affect training workshops and last-minute postponement of grant proposal review panels.

“This also impacts the pre-planned rollout of the NIH grant review processes, which debuts a simplified peer review framework for most research project grants,” Rajnarayanan said. “At the minimum, these pauses create uncertainty and anxiety among researchers and NIH staff.”

However, for H5N1, Rajnarayanan said states are still reporting cases and infected herd and avian counts. 

“So we will still be getting information, but it won't appear in any coordinated national level report at the agency level,” Rajnarayanan said.

Chuck Schumer challenges Trump to declassify UFO documents. Experts say it’s a good move

With three words, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer challenged President Donald Trump to open a potential Pandora’s Box of scientific news: “Now do UFOs,” the leading Democrat posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, referring to unidentified flying objects.

While it remains to be seen whether Schumer’s suggestion was serious or merely an attempt to embarrass a Republican president, experts agree that he raised a provocative question. Since Trump has already ordered the declassification of documents pertaining to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he could, in theory, spill the government’s secrets about UFOs, formerly called UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena).

Indeed, as military pilots continue to report UAP sightings, the government has convened exploratory panels into the issue. As of 2023, experts admitted to receiving dozens of UFO sighting reports each month, although only 2% to 4% of those require further investigation.

For these reasons, experts who spoke to Salon said they support Schumer’s call for declassifying UFO documents, although they urged the public to temper their expectations.

“Keep in mind that declassification doesn’t necessarily come with explanations,” Haley Morris, co-founder of the military pilot-led nonprofit Americans for Safe Aerospace, the world's largest UAP advocacy organization, told Salon. She added that the “best case is that with transparency, people can see the UAP mystery for themselves and hard data is made available for the scientific community to try and get some answers.”

"There are thousands of classified UAP records across government agencies that would be subject to declassification by executive order."

Harvard astronomy professor Avi Loeb told Salon that it is always a good thing for scientists to have as much information as possible about their “cosmic neighborhood,” even if it involved institutions coming rather late to the party. It took the Vatican until 1992 to admit that astronomer Galileo Galilei was right almost four centuries earlier about the Sun being the center of our solar system. Even though scientists overall had already accepted that Galileo was correct, it still mattered for institutional reasons that the Vatican acknowledged its error.

“We would never reach Mars if we thought that it orbits the Earth,” Loeb said. “The time is ripe for us to know whether we are at the intellectual center of the universe.”

He added, “The worst case scenario, from my perspective as a curious scientist, is that all of these objects are human-made. This would be rather boring, as far as I am concerned.”

Regardless of whether UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin or not, Morris points out that it would benefit ordinary citizens to better understand them as a matter of public safety.


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


“Today we already know that unidentified objects and unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP) in our airspace with advanced performance characteristics represent a national security and aviation safety threat and disclosing these records would call attention to the domain awareness gap that has existed for years,” Morris said. The American security establishment remains in a “Cold War mentality” where it focuses on tracking ballistic missiles and fast jets instead of emergent threats like drones and these objects.

“There are thousands of classified UAP records across government agencies that would be subject to declassification by executive order and include high definition video, sensor data, official reports, and compelling testimony regarding unidentified objects with anomalous characteristics and the (secret) government programs that studied them, and there are still other records that could be exempt for national security reasons,” Morris said.

Yet as Loeb observed, even if one of these objects is not human-made, the declassification would be revolutionary.

We need your help to stay independent

“Even if one in a million objects is from an extraterrestrial origin, it could inform us that we are not alone and be the biggest scientific discovery in human history,” Loeb said. “As a scientist, I would love to have access to any data that indicates a nonhuman origin of technological objects.” He added that, as a professional astronomer, he spends every day engaged in precisely these kinds of research projects.

“My day job is studying what lies outside the solar system,” Loeb said. “I lead the Galileo Project at Harvard University, which is constructing three new observatories that are expected to track more than a million objects in the sky this year.”

Harry Reid, the late Senator and Democratic Majority Leader who made waves in 2021 by calling for the declassification of UFO documents, articulated at the time a non-scientist’s perspective on the subject.

“I believe it’s crucial to lead with the science when studying UFOs,” Reid wrote at the time. “Focusing on little green men or conspiracy theories won’t get us far.” Acknowledging that millions of people will believe in conspiracy theories no matter what, he added that “ultimately, the U.F.O. debate can be broken down into a sincere belief in science versus a sincere belief in extraterrestrials. I side with science.”

Elon’s global takeover: Can one billionaire dismantle democracy? We’ll find out

Elon Musk’s MAGA-world feud with Steve Bannon is probably best understood as 50 percent theater. Intentionally or otherwise, it distracts media attention from more substantive areas of the impressively dire Trump Reloaded agenda, while fueling the undying liberal faith that, somehow or other and sooner or later, the MAGA movement will collapse of its own contradictions and some dimly imagined new era of normalcy will emerge. 

That particular variety of nostalgia for the good old days of neoliberalism — for “that hopey-changey stuff,” in the immortal phrase of Sarah Palin — is an especially humiliating center-left failure, one that has been immeasurably helpful to Musk and Bannon’s campaigns of conquest. But I think the other 50 percent of the MAGA realm’s internal conflict, the part that reflects genuine and serious disagreement over ideological visions and political outcomes, is important too, and has global consequences well beyond the scope of the Trump presidency.

You’ve probably seen the headlines that flowed from a technical dispute over immigration visas for high-skilled tech workers: Bannon called Musk “a truly evil guy” and an advocate of “techno-feudalism on a global scale,” whose caste of “oligarchs” is alien to the true MAGA spirit. In an interview with an Italian newspaper published on Jan. 8, Bannon made a promise he undoubtedly now regrets: “I will have Elon Musk run out of here by Inauguration Day.” To put it mildly, that did not happen. By the time NPR’s Steve Inskeep interviewed Bannon on Jan. 17, his tone had shifted dramatically. He avoided any direct or personal criticism of Musk and praised the X owner for supporting Trump, while insisting there was “a fundamental chasm” between them in terms of how they view government. 

Now that we’re several days into Trump’s second term, with the Project 2025-inspired “shock and awe” onslaught well underway, U.S. political media has largely forgotten that both Musk and Bannon see all the world as their stage, and the MAGAsphere as just one arena of combat (though admittedly a central one). Earlier in January, we were treated to the spectacle of Musk abruptly injecting himself into European right-wing politics, a zone where Bannon has tried to play Svengali for the last seven or eight years, with mixed results. 

Both men clearly perceive the possibility of a rising far-right tide — call it “national conservatism,” call it the F-word, call it whatever you like — that will sweep away the decaying ramparts of the liberal-democratic world order. But their visions of what can or should arise from the ruins, although partially and temporarily aligned, are actually quite different. 

If it makes you feel better about all this, we can skip ahead to the spoiler alert: Neither of these dudes will get what they want, because nobody’s version of political utopia — the thousand-year Reich, the “end of history,” the withering-away of the state — ever survives contact with actual history. But yeah, in the meantime things could get ugly.

Musk waded into Euro-politics with all the misbegotten confidence of a person who has gotten obscenely rich on exploiting other people’s ideas without quite having any of his own. He trolled British Prime Minister Keir Starmer — who faces plenty of real problems, many of his own creation — with a decade-old sexual abuse scandal that Starmer may or may not have mishandled, retweeting far-right calls for King Charles to dissolve Parliament and call a new election. That kind of fantasy gets certain people hot and bothered: Maybe we can get rid of democracy just by saying so! But just to clear that up: Yeah, it's still called the United Kingdom, but that doesn't mean the king can actually do stuff like that on his own.

Both Musk and Bannon perceive the possibility of a rising far-right tide that will sweep away the last decaying ramparts of the liberal-democratic world order. But their visions of what comes next are very different. 

Musk also picked a fight with Nigel Farage of the U.K. Reform Party, Britain’s closest thing to a Trump analogue, over a minor doctrinal dispute that isn’t worth exploring here. That was nothing more or less than a power play, or an announcement that there was a new sheriff in town: Farage isn’t going anywhere, having finally won his post-Brexit far-right movement a handful of seats in Parliament, but his version of racist or “ethnocentric” nationalism is much closer to Bannon’s ideal than to Musk’s dudealicious, currency-lubricated libertarianism. 

Musk seems to be echoing many of the European far right’s most noxious anti-immigrant talking points at the same time as he tries to airbrush or update the movement’s image. Farage may strike Musk as too old-school for the 2020s, with his dandyish pinstriped suits and pseudo-posh mannerisms; he comes off less like an Edwardian Anglo aristocrat than like a caricature of one as played by Benny Hill. 

Let’s note that Musk has also held high-profile kissyface photo-ops with French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and on Jan. 9 made international headlines by hosting a 74-minute interview on X with Alice Weidel, co-leader of Alternative for Germany or AfD, the far-right party often accused of being fash-flavored or Nazi-curious. Details matter, and the fact that all three of these figureheads of the new European right are women (and conventionally photogenic blonde women, at that) is no coincidence: Musk perceives the propaganda value of such semiotics, I suspect, in a way Steve Bannon absolutely does not. 

It’s not remotely surprising that the Old World’s new-wave right-wingers are eager to cultivate relationships with the world’s richest man. Dark money, in the Yank sense of that term, plays virtually no role in European electoral campaigns, which tend to be tightly controlled, brief in duration and mostly financed by the state. It’s not clear how much Musk can do to hack that problem with his bottomless piles of cash, but he’s definitely going to try. In the NPR interview cited above, Bannon himself said that Musk’s money could be a continental game changer that destroys “centrist government”: 

He brings the two tactical nuclear weapons of modern politics. He brings unlimited cash, and he brings a social media platform that he can bind or loosen. 

The more important unanswered questions, however, may concern exactly what Faustian bargain Europe’s far right is making in aligning with Musk, and whether the differences between his techno-libertarianism and Bannon’s retro-macho, supposed working-class populism are purely superficial or more fundamental. 

As I suggested earlier, the analytical task here is to tread carefully between the twin temptations of unwarranted optimism and hopeless cynicism. No, the Musk-Bannon split is not going to expose the fatal flaws of the Trumpian coalition and bring the whole edifice crashing down. On the other hand, Musk’s apparent ascendancy, and Bannon’s apparent eclipse, pose problems that far-right politics cannot easily solve. 

American media punditry has almost entirely avoided these substantive issues in favor of the usual war-room melodramatics, veering from initial takes that Musk’s role in Trump’s inner circle was as a hapless wannabe to portraying him (as in a recent New Yorker cover illustration) as the president-in-fact or power behind the throne. It took a European philosopher now working in Asia — Slavoj Žižek, in a column for the Korean daily Hankyoreh — to offer a genuinely nuanced analysis of the Musk-Bannon split and its consequences. (As far as I know, his article has not appeared in the West.)

No, the Musk-Bannon split is not going to bring the entire Trumpian coalition crashing down. But it exposes deep ideological conflicts that far-right politics cannot easily solve. 

Žižek is a provocateur par excellence, and may horrify some readers by describing Trump as a “liberal,” although he immediately clarifies that: only in the 19th-century sense of “allowing corporations to operate outside state control” and, in the current context, granting “much more freedom to the new digital feudal masters.” Although I’ve never found the “fascism” debate especially fruitful, Žižek argues that the term doesn’t fit Trump’s bizarre alliance. In true fascism, everyone and everything is subservient to the party: “What is happening now in the U.S. — techno-feudal masters directly occupying high government positions — is unimaginable in fascism.”

But Žižek’s most significant point is that in the long run, the MAGAfied new right cannot accommodate both the “digital-corporate” master class and the Bannonite “populists who pretend to speak for ordinary workers.” If the latter finally grow disillusioned (admittedly a big if), that creates a difficult but crucial opening for the left. There can be no “pact between Steve Bannon and Bernie Sanders,” he writes, but

a key element of the left’s strategy should be to ruthlessly exploit divisions in the enemy camp and fight to get Bannon followers to their side. To cut a long story short, there is no victory of the left without the broad alliance of all anti-establishment forces. One should never forget that our true enemy is the global capitalist establishment and not the new populist right which is merely a reaction to its impasses.

Žižek is not suggesting, as in old-fashioned Marxist doctrine, that this will inevitably happen or that some awakening of “class consciousness” will finally convert right-wing populists to a more virtuous path. The outcome, he writes, "depends on political struggle, not on 'objective' socio-economic processes." He does, however, suggest that without forging new alliances, “the left will simply disappear from the map,” as has virtually occurred in much of Europe. 

Ultimately, Žižek argues that Trump’s “'impossible' coalition” of “feudal masters” and “exploited workers” cannot stand, and that the “ideological tension” between libertarianism and authoritarianism within “the two aspects of Trumpian politics” cannot be resolved:

[T]he corporate feudal masters present themselves as radical liberals, they advocate the use of mass media free from restrictions imposed by the state (the actual result of this freedom is, as we have already seen, the freedom of digital masters to control their digital feudal domain), while the self-declared partisans of ordinary people are deeply authoritarian, they advocate stronger state control over political and cultural life, banning phenomena they consider subversive — LGBT+ pressures, leftist protest movements. 

As political analysis, that strikes me as inescapably correct — but it may have more relevance to how events unfold in Europe over the next decade or so than to the current crisis in the United States. It isn’t likely or even plausible that Musk and Bannon, separately or together, can overturn liberal democracy anywhere and everywhere, although they can do a hell of a lot to damage it. But on this side of the ocean, in God’s most favored nation, conditions are different: As long as Donald Trump is with us, his followers will willingly swallow all contradictions, all forms of hypocrisy, all outrageous lies and all kinds of pain. 

“Boggles my mind”: Experts think Trump’s “blatantly unconstitutional” order has a chance with SCOTUS

President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship, and the legal arguments supporting the order, fall flat, according to constitutional lawyers. However, experts warn, that whether judges choose to buy into the Trump administration's view of history comes down to whether "conservatives take history and tradition seriously" and what wins judges want to give the new administration.

Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order was blocked by a federal judge in Seattle on Thursday. Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee overseeing the case, called the order “blatantly unconstitutional.” The order is aimed at rolling back birthright citizenship for children born in the country to parents who are not legal permanent residents. 

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional,” Coughenour said. “It just boggles my mind.” 

In this case, the Trump administration is leaning on 19th-century laws, like the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and deployed arguments that call into question not just the citizenship of the children of immigrants, but also the citizenship of Native Americans. 

In the filing, Justice Department lawyers cite the Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, in which the court ruled that “because members of Indian tribes owe ‘immediate allegiance’ to their tribes, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to Citizenship.”

Robert Peck, the founder of the Center for Constitutional Litigation, told Salon that he found “this attempt by the administration to utilize the 1866 law grasping." Peck explained that the United States government essentially treated Native American tribes as sovereign nations up until 1871, five years after the 1866 Civil Rights Act was passed, when Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act.

In the Indian Appropriations Act, Congress stopped considering Native Americans as members of sovereign nations and instead considered them wards of the United States government. The question of whether Native Americans were subject to United States governance was further expounded upon in 1886, with the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Kagama, in which the court held that Native Americans are “wards of the nation.”

"From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal Government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arises the duty of protection, and with it the power," the court’s opinion read

We need your help to stay independent

In 1924, the question of Native American citizenship was revisited by Congress in the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, while allowing states to decide whether Native Americans were allowed to vote. Because of this law, a 14th Amendment ruling on birthright citizenship would be unlikely to affect the citizenship status of Native Americans. 

While there are some special cases in which Native Americans and Native American lands, described as “domestic dependent nations” are treated differently than other jurisdictions, Peck said that the federal government “continues to treat the members of the tribes as subject to federal jurisdiction for most purposes.”

Dan Lewerenz, the director of the Indian Law Certificate Program at the University of North Dakota, told Salon that the Trump administration's interpretation of the Elk v. Wilkins decision is also a misreading. He explained that while the ruling did find that Native Americans did not enjoy birthright citizenship, it wasn't simply because they were subjects of another government.

“The reason they were not subject is much more complicated. It’s not just that they were citizens of a foreign power, that being the tribe, but that they were born within the territory of a foreign power,” Lewerenz said. “A child from another country may still be subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country but they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Lewerenz noted that "even if the Supreme Court accepts the poor analogy" presented by the Trump administration, Native Americans would still likely retain their citizenship due to other laws, like the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Like the question of Native American birthright citizenship, the question of whether the children of immigrants enjoy the right of birthright citizenship was also settled over 100 years ago. In 1898, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that the children born in the United States to immigrant parents maintain birthright citizenship.

While both of these questions have been settled for over a century, Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale University, told Salon that he expects the Trump administration to highlight the history of those who argued against birthright citizenship in the case as it percolates through the courts. The ultimate strategy, Moyn notes, is likely to push the case into a “history-and-tradition” ruling, in which judges can decide what history they consider relevant to the case.

“I am kind of a skeptic of constitutional interpretation. I think that what the constitution means is always being decided in the present and it depends on how many justices want to take Donald Trump’s side,” Moyn said. “The Supreme Court is in an interesting spot because it has to define where it stands in relation to Donald Trump’s revolution. They have to decide what losses is it going to inflict on his administration and when is it going to let him.”


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


Moyn highlighted that courts reviewing the case will have to decide whether Wong Kim Ark is “just about permanent residents and their children or is it about any foreigner who happens to be on the territory and has a child.”

“If it's the first Trump has an argument, if it's the second he loses,” Moyn said. “If he does have an argument and Wong Kim Ark is distinguished there is going to be a concerted debate about history and tradition,” Moyn said. “There is a very long history of recognizing the birthright citizenship of immigration.”

Then, Moyn said, the question for the arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court becomes “do conservatives take history and tradition seriously in this case?”

James Sample, a professor of law at Hofstra University, told Salon  that “almost no scholars or constitutional lawyers, including very, very conservative thinkers, believe that this is constitutional or that it will succeed.”

“But even if it fails in the courts the mere fact that we’re talking about it means that Trump has succeeded in shifting the Overton window and Trump has succeeded in taking our focus to something that has been settled for 130 years,” Sample said. “There’s a special tone deafness to people of European descent and other descendants telling Native Americans what their citizenship is and is not.”

Sample said that Trump has effectively attempted to amend the Constitution via executive order, adding that “even bills passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president don't get priority over the Constitution of the United States” and calling the attempt “arrogant.”

Sample, however, highlighted the practical consequences of such a legal theory being accepted, which could reopen the debate over which people born in the United States are considered citizens as well as casting people who have only ever lived in the United States into legal limbo.

“If you have a child who is by law a citizen of the United States and you separate the family that is already incredibly disruptive, but if you start down the road of saying that the children born on U.S. soil don’t get birthright citizenship then my question becomes this: Where exactly are those children supposed to go or supposed to be when the only home they’ve known is the United States?” Sample said.

These are the new rules for saving for retirement

In the good old days, employers offered traditional pension plans that paid a set amount monthly or a lump sum. That’s mostly gone the way of the dinosaur. Another linchpin of retirement, a Social Security check, may not be as hefty in the next decade if the program's funds aren't shored up by Congress.

The retirement landscape is different these days, and there’s new legislation that kicks in this year. With that said, do you need to make adjustments to the retirement strategy playbook? What pages should you keep, and which should you bid adieu? 

What’s new

Before delving into what to keep and to toss, be on top of what’s new. Many changes are already in effect from the SECURE ACT 2.0, legislation passed in 2022 that made sweeping changes to 401(k) plans, particularly plans sponsored by small businesses.. New provisions take effect in 2025.

All 401(k) and 403(b) plans established after Dec. 29, 2022, must automatically enroll eligible employees at a contribution rate between 3-10% of their salary. In 2025, the catch-up contribution to their workplace retirement accounts increases for those ages 60 to 63 from $7,500 to up to $11,250.  There is also expanded coverage for long-term, part-time employees.

Starting in 2025, non-spouse beneficiaries of inherited IRAs must take distributions from their account every year until the end of the 10-year period, when all the money should be withdrawn. If you don’t take the distribution, you’ll face penalties.

"These changes might be a reason to reconsider how you're saving for retirement, especially with the timing of your withdrawals and how much you're putting in each year. Consider consulting a financial adviser to tailor your strategies to take advantage of the new rules," said Brandon Blakeley, a retirement expert and senior living adviser at Mirador.

We need your help to stay independent

What to toss

"The old '4% rule' for retirement withdrawals is no longer the golden standard. Economic cycles and volatile markets demand dynamic withdrawal strategies adjusting annual withdrawals based on market performance and portfolio health," said Ali Zane, CEO of Imax Credit Repair.

For example, cutting back to 3.5% in down years and splurging slightly above 4% in bull markets allows your portfolio to outlast unpredictable conditions. Pair this with a buffer fund (e.g. cash reserves) to avoid selling assets during downturns, he said.

Tax diversification is the new asset diversification. "It’s no longer just about stocks and bonds. Balancing tax buckets Roth (tax-free), Traditional IRA (tax-deferred) and taxable accounts is the real game-changer for retirement flexibility," said Zane. 

For instance, leveraging a Roth account during high-tax year and taxable accounts when capital gains are favorable lets retirees maintain control over their effective tax rate. This mix also provides wiggle room for unplanned expenses, such as health care costs, said Zane.

Another classic piece of advice was the 60/40 — to have 60% of your retirement money in stocks and 40% in bonds. "The 60/40 asset allocation model has been a staple for decades, but with the low interest rates we’ve seen in recent years, the bond portion of that strategy may not be as effective in generating income," Blakeley said. "Bonds traditionally offer a stabilizing role in a portfolio, but the current economic environment has made many reconsider the reliability of that allocation. This can be modified based on risk tolerance and time horizon, as some investors may move toward a more growth-oriented strategy or even alternatives such as real estate or commodities."

"Generic retirement targets — thinking you'll need exactly $1 million — is outdated"

One of the most popular "old rules" of retirement was if you saved X amount, you’d be set for retirement. There were debates on what the "magic number" was — $1 million, $5 million or some other number, but $1 million was typically touted as the holy grail. "Generic retirement targets — thinking you'll need exactly $1 million — is outdated. Life’s costs, like health care and rising costs due to inflation, usually break those molds. Instead, Iook closely at your expected future costs and start planning from there," said Alex Langan, chief investment officer at Langan Financial Group

Similarly, 65 is no longer necessarily the age you’ll say adios to the 9 to 5 gig. "Plan for a flexible retirement. The days of working till 65 and then hitting the golf course are over for many. I've had clients who 'retired' multiple times, mixing periods of work and leisure. This can take the pressure off your savings and keep you engaged," said Michael Ryan, a financial expert at michaelryanmoney.com. You may need to work part-time at 65 to bridge a savings gap, or delay retirement.

Age-old strategies that still work

There is truth in the saying "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."

"Real estate, private equity and precious metals can offer higher returns and protect against market downturns"

"While new rules offer opportunities, the playbook's core principles — diversification, disciplined saving and consistent contributions — remain timeless. The best strategy combines these foundational practices with adjustments for today’s realities," said Adam Garcia, a certified financial planner and founder of The Stock Dork.

Diversify, diversify, diversify. Having a variety of assets is as important as it always was, if not even more so. "Traditional investments like stocks and bonds are important, but they might not be enough in today’s unpredictable market," said Kelly Ann Winget, founder and CEO of Alternative Wealth Partners. "Take calculated risks with alternative investments. Real estate, private equity and precious metals can offer higher returns and protect against market downturns. These alternatives offer high returns and can provide passive income that might replace your active income in retirement."

Wealth is a marathon, not a sprint. Slow and steady still wins the race. "Markets will fluctuate, but sticking to your investment strategy is key," Winget said. "Avoid panic-selling or chasing quick gains. Consistent investing and a disciplined approach pays off. Automate your savings and investments and review your strategy regularly to adjust for life changes or market shifts. Patience and discipline are essential for a comfortable retirement."

Finally, Langan recommends people "start saving early, stick with it and always be flexible to adapt. Team up with a fiduciary advisor to help you mix the old with the new and to make sure your retirement plan is customized perfectly for you."

“Winning is what matters, right?”: Hegseth confirmed as defense secretary by single vote

The Senate voted to confirm Pete Hegseth as defense secretary on Friday night, with the former Fox News host squeaking through the upper chamber by the narrowest possible margin. 

The Senate deadlocked in a 50-50 vote as three Republicans joined all Senate Democrats in voting against Hegseth's confirmation. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, had already announced their opposition to the nominee. They were joined by the former leader of Republicans in the Senate, Mitch McConnell

Ultimately, Vice President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking to push through the nomination of the Trump Cabinet pick whose bid has been beset by allegations of sexual assault and problem drinking.

"I thought I was done voting in the Senate," former Ohio Sen. Vance joked of his tie-breaking ballot in a post to X.

Hegseth's squeaker of a confirmation victory marks only the second time that a vice president has broken a Senate tie on a Cabinet confirmation vote. Both were Trump nominees. Mike Pence cast the deciding vote for former Department of Education head Betsy DeVos in 2017. 

Trump celebrated the confirmation of his choice to head up the Pentagon before Vance's deciding vote was cast. If the no vote of his former ally in McConnell fazed him, the president didn't let on.

“Winning is what matters, right?” he said, per CNN.

Hegseth has yet to share a victory announcement on social media. As of this writing, his most recent post is a letter shared at 9:04 p.m. ET that denies allegations of drunkenness, racism, misogyny and domestic abuse.

“I admired the bravery”: Lorne Michaels has come around on Sinead O’Connor’s “SNL” pope photo stunt

Lorne Michaels has built up a ton of grudges over 50 years of running "Saturday Night Live," perhaps none more infamous than his animus toward Sinead O'Connor

O'Connor tore a photo of Pope John Paul II after a performance on the sketch show in October 1992. She did not share her planned protest of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church with the show's producers, shocking Michaels when she tossed the torn photo of the Holy See on the ground and said "Fight the real enemy" directly into the camera.

Michaels has consistently derided the late singer's actions and O'Connor was not welcomed back to the show in her lifetime. In a new documentary about the musical history "Saturday Night Live," however, Michaels seems to have softened his opinion of O'Connor's actions. 

“There was a part of me that just admired the bravery of what she’d done, and also the absolute sincerity of it,” Michaels shared in "Ladies & Gentleman… 50 Years of SNL Music."

He sang a different tune for years after the stunt, calling it "inappropriate" in a 1993 interview with SPIN.

"I thought was sort of the wrong place for it, I thought her behavior was inappropriate," he said. "Because it was difficult to do two comedy sketches after it."

Time, and the singer's death in 2023, seem to have mellowed Michaels' feelings. O'Connor, for her part, never once questioned her decision. In her memoir, the "Nothing Compares 2 U" singer said she was never meant to be famous on the level of artists who perform on "Saturday Night Live."

"Everyone wants a pop star, see? But I am a protest singer. I just had stuff to get off my chest. I had no desire for fame," she wrote. "A lot of people say or think that tearing up the pope's photo derailed my career. That's not how I feel about it. I feel that having a number-one record derailed my career and my tearing the photo put me back on the right track. I had to make my living performing live again. And that's what I was born for. I wasn't born to be a pop star. You have to be a good girl for that."

"Ladies & Gentlemen" premieres Jan. 27 on NBC.

“Horrendous”: Trump call with Denmark PM over Greenland deal left Danes in “crisis mode”

If Donald Trump is serious about his plans to take control of Greenland, he couldn't be off to a much worse start.

Leaders in the country have dug in their heels, refusing a situation that results in anything less than a fully independent Greenland. A phone call between Trump and Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen last week did little to help the situation, with sources familiar with the call describing it as "horrendous."

Speaking to the Financial Times, several anonymous sources said the call frightened Danish authorities and moved both parties farther from a deal.

"He was very firm. It was a cold shower," one source shared. "Before, it was hard to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious and potentially very dangerous."

 "The Danes are utterly freaked out by this," another source added.

The prime minister's office rejected this characterization of the 45-minute phone call, saying that they told Trump in no uncertain terms "that Greenland is not for sale."

Trump's expansionist push was a late-breaking bit of oddity from his seemingly endless presidential campaign. Surprisingly, the desire to take control of Greenland, the Panama Canal and Canada has lingered beyond Inauguration Day, with Vice President JD Vance threateningly noting that the United States already has troops in the Danish country. 

Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede went on Fox News earlier this month to tell Trump's constituents the country was not considering joining the United States.

"We are close neighbors, we have been cooperating in the last 80 years, and I think in the future we have a lot to offer to cooperate with," Múte Egede said, "but we want to also be clear. We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be a part of the U.S."

“You can’t have ’em forever”: Trump cuts Fauci’s security detail loose

President Donald Trump has reportedly canceled a federal security detail for Dr. Anthony Fauci, capping a week full of stripping protections from political opponents.

CNN shared that the former head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases had his security detail revoked on Thursday night. Fauci was the face of Trump's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and was commended by Trump for his work on the vaccine creation program, Operation Warp Speed. Trump has soured on the public health figure as his base has turned on the idea of vaccinations.

After Trump lost re-election in 2020, Fauci became the subject of even darker conspiracy theories and threats. Former President Joe Biden pardoned Fauci in his final hours in office after GOP figures called for prosecution against the top doctor.

Fauci is one of several former Trump administration alumni-turned-critics who have lost their security details this week. Facing death threats from Iran, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton also found themselves sans protection at the outset of Trump's second term. Potential threats to Fauci’s safety are largely domestic, coming from pro-Trump extremists who heavily protested his pandemic response.

"When you work for government, at some point you're security detail comes off," Trump said of the move when speaking to reporters on Friday. "You can't have 'em forever."

Trump added that he wouldn’t feel responsible if Bolton, Fauci or Pompeo were harmed. The president implored his former advisers to hire their own private security. 

"They all made a lot of money. They can hire their own security, too," Trump said.

Trump, who was the target of two assassination attempts on the campaign trail, joked that he could "give them some good numbers of very good security people."

Fauci hired private security shortly after learning Trump had scrapped his government-issued detail, according to Reuters. 

Over 100,000 pounds of frozen chicken products have been recalled due to undeclared allergens

Custom Food Solutions, a food supplier based in Louisville, Kentucky, issued a voluntary recall Wednesday for more than 100,000 pounds of frozen Drunken Chicken over undeclared allergens. Pouches of Yats Drunken Chicken, which contain cooked thigh meat in spicy tomato sauce with beer, were distributed to 11 Yats restaurants in Indiana.

The recalled products may contain egg and sesame, which were not explicitly declared on the product labels, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). They were produced between March 14, 2024 through January 15, 2025 and distributed in 60-lb cases containing 12, 5-lb pouches. The product has a shelf-life of one year.

The recall concerns a total of 105,164 pounds of chicken. They contain the following lot codes:  4074, 4102, 4130, 4144, 4163, 4178, 4214, 4229, 4236, 4255, 4325, 4326, 4339, 4355, 5002 and 5015.

FSIS said the undeclared allergens were discovered during routine labeling reviews. At this time, there have been “no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of this product,” the agency said.

Restaurants that may have the recalled chicken are urged to not serve it to customers. The product should be thrown out or returned to the place of purchase.

“FEMA is not good”: Trump looking into ending federal disaster aid agency

As wildfires continue to rage in California, President Donald Trump says he's considering "getting rid" FEMA.

During a visit to hurricane-ravaged North Carolina on Friday, Trump said he would soon sign an executive order “fundamentally reforming and overhauling" the disaster relief agency.

“I think, frankly, FEMA is not good,” the president said. "FEMA's turned out to be a disaster…I think we're going to recommend that FEMA go away."

Trump does not have the authority to shutter FEMA entirely. Still, he seems to be leaning toward a recommendation that the agency be wound down, which could be carried out by his allies in an entirely Republican-controlled government.

Trump's ideal replacement would be a state-level response to natural disasters, something that could be a serious hindrance to many of the states that make up the Republican base, as they are poorer on average.

“I like, frankly, the concept [that] when North Carolina gets hit, the governor takes care of it. When Florida gets hit, the governor takes care of it, meaning the state takes care of it,” Trump said on Friday.

FEMA has managed American disaster relief for over four decades. The agency was created in 1978 to help centralize the response to disasters. States are not required to accept FEMA help, but the agency received more than 180 disaster and assistance declarations in 2024 alone.

The agency was the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories in the wake of Hurricane Helene. Trump boosted a false claim that disaster relief funds were spent on undocumented immigrants days before the election, and widespread paranoia boosted by Trumpworld led to confrontations between militias and federal aid workers.

In an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity earlier this week, President Trump said the organization was “getting in the way of everything” and floated a “whole big discussion” on eliminating FEMA. Gutting FEMA was a central promise of Project 2025, the far-right policy handbook that has guided many of Trump’s early actions.

Without FEMA, Trump told Hannity, states could “take care of their own problems.” And for states who do want federal help, they should stop expecting an unconditional check.

The president signaled that he would be more open to helping some states than others, telling reporters that he would “have a condition” on giving aid to California but not North Carolina, where billions of dollars are needed to rebuild.

We need your help to stay independent

“I have a condition. In California, we want them to have voter ID so the people have a voice, because right now, the people don’t have a voice because you don’t know who’s voting, and it’s very corrupt,” Trump said. “If they released the water when I told them to… you wouldn’t have had the problem.”

Trump is not alone in seeking to strong-arm California. Wyoming GOP Senator John Barrasso told CBS earlier this month that there “will be strings attached” to rebuilding cost assistance after a bout of wildfires in Los Angeles County became one of the costliest disasters in US history.

Trump's Friday comments aren't the first time that the president has attempted to politicize natural disasters. In 2018, Trump briefly withheld disaster aid from California until aides showed him data demonstrating the presence of his supporters in the state. Two years later, he temporarily rejected California’s requests for FEMA assistance during a feud with Governor Gavin Newsom.

Trump WH Press Secretary took hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions

Karoline Leavitt is serving as the White House Press Secretary to a president who launched a crypto scheme mere days before entering the office. A new report from NOTUS revealed that the 27-year-old is no stranger to the grifty side of politics.

The report shared that Leavitt hid nearly $300,000 in campaign debt from her failed 2022 congressional run. Leavitt took a job as the national press secretary for Trump’s 2024 campaign last year. Days after taking office as a member of the Trump administration, Leavitt’s congressional campaign made changes to 17 financial reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, nearly tripling the reported amount of debt that her failed bid owed. 

The report dives into Leavitt's amended filings, which revealed that Leavitt's campaign had already spent the money gained from illegal donations. Roughly two-thirds of the new debt derives from mandated refunds to donors who gave more than the campaign contribution limit. 

Per federal campaign finance law, Leavitt should have re-designated or returned excess funds within 60 days of receiving the donations. But NOTUS’s review of the updated filings suggests she still hasn’t done so. Leavitt’s campaign is still required to return hundreds of thousands to donors.

Leavitt’s campaign was accused in 2022 of unlawfully accepting campaign checks beyond the legal limits just before election day by the End Citizens United group. The group says the Thursday filing proves their complaint was true.

“She took excessive contributions, which is against the law, and is just now reporting them — two years later,” End Citizens United spokesperson Bawadden Sayed told NOTUS, adding that fundraising to close the debt could create a “glaring conflict of interest” for the press secretary.

“She still needs to raise money to refund these contributions, potentially opening the door for wealthy donors and corporate special interests to curry favor with her," Sayed shared.

The FEC says its review of the matter is still ongoing.

Trump’s crypto order signals growth for industry he is invested in

President Donald Trump has issued an executive order and a slew of appointments to govern digital assets, signaling his further alliance with an industry he and his family are invested in.

On Thursday, he signed an executive order that contained few details but was an apparent attempt to boost the development of cryptocurrencies. Crypto "might not be exciting, but it’s going to make a lot of money for the country," Trump told reporters.

The order creates a working group to establish a regulatory framework for crypto and possibly a national crypto stockpile controlled by the government. It revokes an order from President Joe Biden in March 2022 that primarily addressed national security concerns related to digital assets. 

Trump's measure says the industry "plays a crucial role in innovation and economic development in the United States, as well as our nation's international leadership. It is therefore the police of my administration to support the responsible growth and use of digital assets."

It pledges "fair and open access to banking services," a reference to the industry's criticism of banks denying accounts.

Critics noted the order focuses more on issuers’ ability to introduce new digital assets, rather than protecting investors. 

Alex Thorn of Galaxy Research, an analytics firm that sponsored a "Crypto Ball" to celebrate Trump's inauguration, said the measure "doesn’t accomplish everything, and is not as durable as formal rulemaking or legislation." The order does not direct federal agencies to drop lawsuits against crypto companies, or instruct the government to start buying bitcoin.

But "it nonetheless signals that President Trump was serious about moving the U.S. into a digital golden era," Thorn said in a research note.

Investments raise ethics concerns

Trump, who said in his first administration that crypto's "value is highly volatile and based on thin air," reversed course last year as he courted the crypto vote. The industry poured more than $130 million into pro-crypto candidates' campaigns, The New York Times reported.

Trump sold a series of digital trading cards, and along with his sons launched a crypto trading platform with Steve Witkoff, a co-chair of his inaugural committee and Middle East envoy. The Trumps are not owners or employees of the business, World Liberty Financial, but promote it and can receive a cut of the sales of its cryptocurrency.

In mid-November, the Financial Times reported Trump Media was in talks to buy Bakkt, a crypto trading firm previously led by Kelly Loeffler, another co-chair of his inaugural committee.

Days before his inauguration, Trump and his wife Melania began selling memecoins, a volatile cryptocurrency inspired by internet jokes or cultural trends. 

A flurry of crypto appointments

Trump's agency appointments suggest the crypto industry will not face the crackdown it did under the Biden administration. 

On Tuesday, Trump appointed Mark Uyeda acting chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the agency that regulates crypto. Uyeda announced the creation of a crypto task force "dedicated to developing a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework for crypto assets." He will lead the SEC until Paul Atkins, a crypto advocate appointed by Trump as chair of the agency, is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Trump has tapped David Sacks, a venture capitalist and crypto fan, to oversee his administration's policies on AI and crypto. “The war on crypto is over,” Sacks told the crowd at the Crypto Ball, as reported by CNBC. “This is just the beginning of America reclaiming its position as the world’s innovation leader.”

Trump named Travis Hill acting chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Hill immediately pledged a "a more open-minded approach to innovation and technology adoption, including a more transparent approach to fintech partnerships and to digital assets and tokenization."

Trump appointed Caroline Pham, who has been critical of the SEC’s aggressive approach to crypto, as acting chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

“We must also refocus and change direction with new leadership to fulfill our statutory mandate to promote responsible innovation and fair competition in our markets that have continually evolved over the decades,” Pham said in a statement. “It’s time for the CFTC to get back to the basics.”

Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by pardoning Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, who had been serving a life sentence since 2015 for operating an illicit online marketplace that facilitated over $200 million in bitcoin-based transactions, Reuters reported.

On Thursday, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) named U.S. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) the “first-ever chair of the new Senate panel devoted to digital assets.”

The FDA has officially banned Red No. 3. Here are some products that contain the cancer-causing dye

In a bombshell announcement made last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it will ban the use of FD&C Red No. 3, a synthetic food dye, from the nation’s food supply. The latest initiative comes more than three decades after the colorant was barred from cosmetics and non-oral medications due to potentially causing cancer.

“On January 15, 2025, the FDA issued an order to revoke these authorizations. Manufacturers who use FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs will have until January 15, 2027, or January 18, 2028, respectively, to reformulate their products,” the agency said in a statement. “Consumers could see FD&C Red No. 3 as an ingredient in a food or drug product on the market past the effective date in the order if that product was manufactured before the effective date.”

The FDA continued, saying it’s “revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).” Enacted in 1960 as part of the Color Additives Amendment to the FD&C Act, the clause “prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals.”

A 2022 color additive petition filed by two dozen food safety and health advocates found that Red No. 3 causes cancer in male laboratory rats exposed to high levels of the dye. The FDA noted that studies conducted with other animals and humans did not show the same effect, but that doesn't diminish the dye's potential health risks. 

Red No. 3 (also known as erythrosine) gives certain foods and drinks a distinct and bright, cherry-red hue. Here’s a complete list of common products that contain the dye:

01
Candies
Specifically, Pez Candy Assorted Fruit, Dubble Bubble Original Twist Bubble Gum, Brach's Candy Corn, Jelly Belly candies and Trolli Sour Crunchy Crawlers.
02
Baked Goods and Snacks
Most cupcakes and other confectionary treats that have red icing contain Red No. 3. That includes Entenmann's Little Bites Party Cake Mini Muffins, Betty Crocker Fruit by the Foot, Betty Crocker Red Decorating Icing, toaster pastries (like Pop-Tarts) and cookies with red icing or decorations.
03
Dairy and Frozen Desserts
Like strawberry-flavored milk, ice cream, puddings, frozen yogurt, popsicles and frozen fruit bars. The Associated Press noted that TruMoo Strawberry Whole Milk contains Red No. 3.
04
Artificial Fruit Products
Kroger Extra Cherry canned fruit cocktail contains Red No. 3. Several maraschino cherry brands, including the Walmart and Kroger store brands, now use Red 40, according to the AP.
05
Beverages
Ensure Original Strawberry Nutrition Shake and Yoo-hoo Strawberry Drink both contain Red No. 3. Hawaiian Punch, Kool-Aid, Fanta, Jarritos strawberry sodas and Faygo black cherry soda all contain Red 40.
06
Processed Meats
Such as vegetarian meat alternatives, bacon bits and sausages.
07
Medications and Supplements
PediaSure Grow & Gain Kids' Ready-to-Drink Strawberry Shake contains Red No. 3. Same with some cough syrups and gummy vitamins. Vicks Formula 44, Luden’s and Halls cough drops contain Red 40. Additionally, Mucinex Children’s Cough Syrup, Robitussen Adult Cough and Chest Congestion and Vick’s NyQuil Cold and Flu use Red 40.

The makers of “Star Trek: Section 31” had a difficult mission, so they decided to make it fun

Section 31 has been a sorely divisive concept for “Star Trek” fans ever since it was introduced in “Deep Space Nine.” Some view its the covert, autonomous organization's existence as contradictory to Gene Roddenberry’s vision of a utopian future, where the United Federation of Planets is guided by a sense of scientific exploration, cultural openness and acceptance.

What need would an evolved society have for a clandestine branch of special agents greenlit to engage in subterfuge, assassinations, and other grim dirty work? Starfleet has its own sanctioned intelligence subject that works within the rulebook; that’s fair. Black-ops agents empowered to complete their missions by any means necessary are so 21st century.

“This idea of the Federation and all of its perfection and all of its beauty is wonderful, except the light can only exist with shadow. And who are the people in shadow who have to do the work to keep the light present? That is obviously a very relevant topic now.”

But you can almost hear Michelle Yeoh's Philippa Georgiou arguing that sometimes taking down monstrous foes takes sending other monsters against them, a notion plenty of Trekkies agree with. Peaceful worlds are constantly threatened by lawless criminals, hence the need for a Starfleet charter to include an article allowing for "extraordinary measures to be taken in times of extreme threat." Plus, who wouldn’t want to enjoy fresh action scenes starring Yeoh, one of the few recent Oscar winners who can also kick a biped in the face?

All this is to say, “Star Trek: Section 31” was saddled with an impossible degree of difficulty from the jump. Building a universally pleasing story around Section 31 might be the Kobayashi Maru of the Trek universe — a no-win situation. Director Olatunde Osunsanmi and his fellow executive producer Alex Kurtzman know that.

“What we talk about in every iteration of ‘Star Trek,’ be it ‘Section 31’ or the conversations that we're having on ‘Starfleet Academy’ or ‘Strange New Worlds,’ which really is harkening back to the original series in many ways . . . is, how does this story reflect a conversation that's happening now?” Kurtzman told Salon in an interview he shared with Osunsanmi. “This idea of the Federation and all of its perfection and all of its beauty is wonderful, except the light can only exist with shadow. And who are the people in shadow who have to do the work to keep the light present? That is obviously a very relevant topic now.”

Although “Section 31” was originally pitched as a series, the movie finds Georgiou tending an elegant lounge where anything goes located outside of Federation space. More than this, it’s set during The Lost Era set in the Prime timeline years between the end of “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the beginning of the events chronicled in “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

The Georgiou we know from “Star Trek: Discovery” hails from the Mirror Universe, where she was a genocidal leader of the Terran Empire – a sinister past of which we’re brutally reminded in the opening scenes of “Section 31.”  And it’s that side of her that Section 31 needs, sending Alok (Omari Hardwick) and his team to recruit her on a mission to avert an existential crisis – the classic spy game specialty.

Craig Sweeny wrote the story as a one-off, with the idea that any newcomer to the “Trek” universe could drop into this story and understand what’s going on. Sweetening that notion are the references and Easter eggs, including a significant one that nods at Yeoh’s most famous movie in recent years, scattered throughout the story.

Still, it might be helpful to know that once Georgiou crossed over to the Prime Universe with Michael Burnham and the Discovery crew, her arc became one of self-examination and, eventually, a chance at redemption.

“Discovery” walks us through that evolution over several seasons; “Section 31” doesn’t have as much time. Alok’s role, then, aside from bringing Georgiou in from the cold, is to tug Georgiou’s empathy out of deep storage.

Star Trek Section 31Omari Hardwick as Alok, Michelle Yeoh as Georgiou and Sam Richardson as Quasi in "Star Trek: Section 31" (Jan Thijs/Paramount+)

Osunsanmi could have played up the anguished side of Yeoh’s antihero – and Hardwick’s, since he has plenty of red in his ledger too. “’Section 31’ could go really dark, and there was a darker hue to some of the episodes taken from the ‘Deep Space Nine’ era and even the ‘Discovery’ era,” he said. “But that's not what we wanted to do here."

“We wanted people, when they walked away, for the word that would pop into their minds and out their mouths to be, ‘fun,’” he continued. “We wanted to put them on a roller coaster, and we really felt that there was room within the Trek Universe for that particular flavor.”

Every version of “Star Trek” that’s debuted since “Discovery” has played with the idea of what is or is not “Star Trek.” “Section 31” challenges those sensibilities by taking Georgiou, a serious character, and reeling her into what is essentially an “Oceans 11” heist film.

Surrounding Yeoh with a cast of familiar actors may ease skeptics into that mission. Joining Georgiou are Sam Richardson, who guest starred in “Ted Lasso” and "Veep,” along with Kacey Rohl, who “Hannibal” viewers may remember as a teen psychopath. Robert Kazinsky’s part as a team’s mech-enhanced muscle is reminiscent of his role in “Pacific Rim.”  Sven Ruygrok and “Ginny & Georgia” star Humberly Gonzalez round out the team.  

We need your help to stay independent

But it’s Hardwick who may bring the largest fanbase with him to “Section 31,” owing to the six seasons he spent playing James "Ghost" St. Patrick in Starz’s hit drama “Power."

“Alok and Georgiou are “really mirrors of each other, you know,” Kurtzman observed. “They're both characters who were in different ways, forced to become the people that they are.”

Hardwick also understands too well what it’s like to be viewed in a certain way forevermore, despite “Power” having left the air five years ago. “You have certain fans who can never see me and not see Ghost,” he said in a separate interview citing, for example, a fan who came up to him at the grocery store while he was with his kids and joked, “You’re not dead.”

“In front of my children, and that's really difficult to hear,” he admits. “There are certain fans that are just, you know, fan can go to fanatic.” But he also stressed the importance of maintaining what he described as the conversation he began with his fan base who loved him as Ghost through Alok, his “Section 31” team leader.

“I think a lot of fans really do struggle, and I'm getting better at embracing the empathy for that, that they want what they want, he said.

Star Trek Section 31Director Olatunde Osunsanmi and Sam Richardson as Quasi in "Star Trek: Section 31" (Jan Thijs/Paramount+)

Hardwick, Osunsanmi and Kurtzman all express some version of that opinion, although as the guy responsible for overseeing the newest series in “Star Trek” franchise, Kurtzman is used to standing his ground in the eternal argument over what is or isn’t “Star Trek.”

To him, “Section 31” fits into the universe because it’s about outsiders, the types of people Trekkies can relate to more than most.  “We're making a show about misfits who don't necessarily fit into a Federation starship, where they've gone to Starfleet Academy and they put on uniforms every day,” he proposes. “But they want the same thing, which is to protect a better future, a future where our angels have led us to our best selves. It's very much a conversation, just a different conversation about all the things that ‘Star Trek’ has always been about.”


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


Osunsanmi’s view is more complex, citing the levels of an argument that spans the show whose fictional characters critique the morality of Section 31; the fans who believe the notion goes against Roddenberry’s philosophy; and within countries who decry the influence that unofficial agencies and their acts can wield over governments.

“It's an argument that occurs across at least three different spheres, so it's very meta for me, and I think a very necessary conversation to have,” the director said. “And you can get into some, you know, some dark territories when you're talking about this type of stuff, which is why it was really important for us to have a bit of a lighter tone in approaching how we came about doing ‘Section 31.’”

Kurtzman added that while the movie is simply that, it ends in a way that lends itself to tell “infinite combinations of stories . . . We'd love to do more. Michelle would love to do more,” he said.

“The fans, equally, are basically stuck sometimes, and I guess it's our job to subtly, not forcefully, unstick them,” he said. “You have to subtly go, ‘Can we try to go this way?' . . . And perhaps slowly but surely, they'll go, ‘OK, I'll give it a shot.’ As long as people give you a shot, I think you're okay.”

"Star Trek: Section 31" premieres Friday, January 24 on Paramount+.

Food costs are rising again. Here’s why.

Unfortunately for inflation-weary consumers, 2025 won’t bring any immediate reprieve as food costs are projected to continue rising due to environmental factors and recent outbreaks threatening food safety.

As of December, overall food inflation was 2.5% year over year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer price index summary. Grocery prices (described as “food-at-home”) rose 0.3% month over month in December, while dining costs (also known as “food-away-from-home”) experienced a similar hike. 

Average annual food-at-home prices were five percent higher in 2023 compared to 2022, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The department found that prices for fats and oils rose nine percent, which was the highest hike amongst food products in 2023. Prices of sugar and sweets increased 8.7% while cereals and bakery products increased 8.4%. Increases were also noted for beef and veal (3.6%), eggs (1.4%), fresh vegetables (0.9 %), fresh fruits (0.7 %) and fish and seafood (0.3 %).

The recent price hikes can’t be attributed to just one factor, The Wall Street Journal first reported. A recent — and ongoing — bird flu outbreak is killing chickens nationwide and, consequently, causing egg prices to soar.

The cost of eggs has been on the rise since 2022, when U.S. officials confirmed a highly pathogenic strain of avian influenza (H5N1) in a commercial flock. Last June, a flock of approximately 103,000 turkeys in Cherokee County, Iowa, was reportedly infected with bird flu, per the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. Another outbreak was reported amongst a flock of about 4.2 million egg-laying chickens in Sioux County, Iowa. In December, a patient in Louisiana was hospitalized with a severe case of H5N1 bird flu, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed. Since April 2024, there have been a total of 61 reported human cases of H5N1 bird flu within the U.S.

“Eggs are one of the primary drivers of food inflation,” the WSJ’s Patrick Thomas and Jesse Newman wrote. “The index for eggs was up 37% from a year ago, according to the latest Labor Department figures, and the average retail price of a dozen large eggs increased nearly 14% to $4.15 in December.”

In California — where a state of emergency was declared over growing concerns about bird flu, which has spread amongst dairy cattle and humans — the average cost of a dozen eggs is now $8.97, Barron’s reported. As of recently, the average cost for a carton of eggs is $4.85 per dozen, according to the USDA.

“The outbreaks have the potential to affect prices for poultry and even dairy products, too,” Barron’s Megan Leonhardt said. “Avian influenza was first detected in dairy cattle in March 2024 and has led to reduced milk production.”

Lower prices are a possibility if the number of bird flu cases starts to dwindle. But considering that the outbreak remains rampant (the latest outbreak has plagued Long Island’s last major commercial duck farm), that doesn’t seem likely for the time being. In fact, U.S. producers are projected to face more outbreaks and fewer egg supplies this year.

Alongside bird flu, extreme environmental conditions and national disasters have caused food prices to soar. Ongoing drought conditions in the Western and Plain states have threatened the livelihood of livestock, forcing many producers to start cutting back on their herds. 


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


“When drought conditions diminish forage production and availability, beef cattle producers often must buy supplemental feed and forage or reduce their herd size,” the USDA explained. “Periods of more intense drought are associated with decreases in the U.S. beef cattle herd size, such as when the national beef cattle herd shrank about 1 to 2 percent a year during drought between 2011 and 2015.”

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that sirloin steak prices increased 38% since 2019 while ground beef prices rose 45%. Sirloin steak prices averaged $11.67 per pound in December, compared to November’s high of $12.01 per pound. Ground beef prices averaged $5.61 per pound in December, compared to an astounding $5.67 in September.

Meat and eggs aren’t the only food items rising in price. Some of our favorite sweet treats are also becoming more costly due to the higher costs of cocoa and sugar. The WSJ reported that an unnamed candy company will raise its prices by 10%. Similarly, Conagra Brands will raise the prices of Swiss Miss hot cocoa and Duncan Hines products. The high cost of cocoa beans, fueled by climate change, has also encouraged major snack companies like Hershey and Mondelez to continue upping their prices.

Steven Soderbergh’s “Presence” is a ghost story unlike anything you’ve seen before

In a time of twisty, “prestige” supernatural horror, the good, old-fashioned ghost story has fallen by the wayside. These days, everything’s a demonic entity that will climb inside your mouth to possess you and make you sport an eerie grin, or Nicolas Cage playing a burnt-out glam rocker conjuring the devil inside of a custom-made doll. (As if that’s such a stretch for ol’ Nickster!) We’ve got vampires, ghouls, werewolves and zombies galore. The monsters are all gruesome and gory, and everything, everything is an allegory for grief.

Koepp's writing is thorny and cuts deceptively deep, like a scrape that looks like a surface wound until it won’t stop bleeding.

Happily, Steven Soderbergh’s latest film, “Presence,” gets back to basics. It’s a classically eerie ghost movie that’s not at all reliant on jump scares or metaphorical frights to unnerve viewers. “Presence” does away with all of those unnecessary frills found in contemporary horror, leaving one unusual, but very simple, stylistic device in their place: The camera is the ghost. 

Soderbergh’s Ghost-O-Vision conceit requires no learning curve. It is uncomplicated and devoid of showy spectacle. Right from the initial glimpses inside the suburban home where the film is set, we can understand exactly how the rest of the film will look and feel. It’s not a gimmick or a trick. Rather, it’s a clever way for Soderbergh to make the viewer feel like a voyeur, listening in on increasingly intimate conversations that we wouldn’t otherwise be privy to. In your standard horror film, characters would (hopefully) speak so naturally that we would disregard the fact that we’re watching a movie. In “Presence,” we’re rarely allowed to forget that we are an interloper in the lives of a family as they slowly unspool. But as fascinating as the film is in technical form, it’s screenwriter David Koepp’s script that makes “Presence” a real draw. His writing is thorny and cuts deceptively deep, like a scrape that looks like a surface wound until it won’t stop bleeding. Soderbergh’s keen directorial experiment and Koepp’s screenplay enable “Presence” to flourish as one of the smartest horror dramas in recent memory, and no sage or exorcism will be enough to keep it from lingering beside you long after you leave this house.

But first, we must cross the threshold of the front door. Or, in this case, awaken from a phantasmic slumber in a bedroom upstairs to the sound of a car pulling into the driveway outside. Someone is coming, and the journey downstairs allows the viewer to get a sense for the house’s layout. We’re inside of a 100-year-old, two-story home with updated appliances and original wood finishings. All of that and more will soon be pointed out by the flighty realtor Cece (a criminally underused Julia Fox, whose role is, unfortunately, more of a cameo, despite some inspired pre-release marketing suggesting otherwise), who arrives only minutes before the family she’s trying to unload the house on. Rebekah (Lucy Liu), Chris (Chris Sullivan), and teenagers Tyler (Eddy Maday) and Chloe (Callina Liang) have been looking for a house just like this. It’s in the right school district for Tyler to continue his varsity swimming career, and enough of a new start for Chloe, who has just experienced a seismic tragedy after losing a close friend.

You may be thinking, “Great, another grief allegory,” but the ghost in “Presence” is not necessarily emblematic of Chloe’s distress. Whether or not the entity watching them knows about what Chloe is going through is something that every viewer gets to decide for themselves as the film rolls on. Koepp isn’t interested in offering easy answers on that front, and “Presence” is all the better for it. Instead of using the supernatural as an analogy for the unknowable weight of loss, the film is steeped in this burden. The grief doesn’t just affect Chloe, it’s slowly working its way into the lives of her entire family, pulling them apart as they retreat further into themselves. In “Presence,” the fleeting traces of connection between parents and their children are as obvious yet intangible as any ghost. 

Be it in “Contagion” or “Unsane,” Soderbergh’s formal experiments often serve as stylistic entry points for the sharp cultural commentary within a film’s script, and “Presence” is no different. It features the director’s favored skewed angles and ambitious yet prudent style, but in this film, those signatures allow us to sit up close and watch as two teenagers grow up too fast. Koepp gradually unfurls the dynamic between Chloe and Tyler, who are close in age but far apart in maturity. They’re minors in the modern world, where naivete is a currency that buys a one-way ticket to the obliteration of their innocence. Alcohol, drugs and whatever certain hell teenagers get up to online are all fair game. 

But the film stops short of feeling like an after-school special with a supernatural twist. Soderbergh’s ghost camera is not here to preach, it’s here to observe, and it’s within those observations that Koepp builds out a tale that is both cautionary and honest. Rebekah and Chris can barely make their children interact, let alone get along. With all of the impact it’s having on their two high schoolers, it’s straining their marriage even more. Chris is open and warm, while Rebekah is glacial and keeps her mind on the stresses of work. And when Chloe starts to get a sense that someone, or something, is watching her, her parents respond accordingly. Rebekah refutes Chloe’s claims and insists that she needs time to process what has happened to her. Chris, on the other hand, can’t stand that Rebekah won’t consider therapy for their daughter, and in turn, becomes something of a therapist himself.

Rebekah and Tyler cannot and will not see the darkness, and their myopia stands at odds with the serenity one can achieve by accepting that there are forces far greater than themselves.

As the ghost peers on, gazing at Chloe and Chris’ conversations from mere feet away, “Presence” hits a stunning emotional stride. Chris Sullivan and Callina Liang’s touching, believable chemistry provides the movie’s emotional foundation. After the presence makes itself known to their entire family, Rebekah shuts down, still unable to give her daughter the support she needs, gravitating toward her beloved first-born Tyler, whom she encourages despite his progressively bad behavior. But sitting in Chloe’s room, Chris tells his daughter that he understands her and he believes her theories about what is happening wholeheartedly. The affection is so strong that it feels like they’re conjuring something out of thin air. Their mutual trust fills the room, and suddenly, it’s all too easy to feel like we’re imposing.

Soderbergh’s camera moves slowly enough for the viewer to forget that they’re an active part of his film, letting each long, single-shot take wander as it would if we were surveying the house ourselves. That’s part of the spectral magic at play in “Presence.” To our knowledge, this ghost has no emotions. We don’t know its past or its personality (if it even has either). But as events play out and details stack on top of one another, the audience is called to project their feelings into this being. How is it feeling, what does it want to say? The choice is up to us. At other times, the camera bolts forward and up a set of stairs, reminding the viewer that this spirit must be lingering in the earthly realm for a reason.

The most thrilling part of “Presence” is determining that reason. We watch as things grow darker, and as Rebekah and Tyler close themselves off to the chaos invading their home. They cannot and will not see it, and their myopia stands at odds with the serenity one can achieve by accepting that there are forces far greater than themselves. The ghost itself is limited by how much and how often it can intervene, and when Koepp dives headfirst into the prickly topic of choice and control, things become slightly more transparent, but not too quickly. 

“Presence” unfolds like an electrifying mystery novel, asking us to pay attention to the details tucked away between the lines. Though it’s an economical movie in every sense — a small cast, a single location, a brief 85-minute runtime — its layers are intricately crafted and begging to be examined closely. Soderbergh forces his audience to remain open to the possibility of other realms by conveying exactly what it would be like to be trapped in one, begging to be acknowledged. As “Presence” suggests, maybe that disconnection isn’t so different from how we’re already living.

“A new low”: WSJ editorial board slams Trump for leaving ex-staffers open to assassination

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board on Thursday slammed President Donald Trump for leaving three of his former foreign policy advisors open to a potential Iranian attack.

The New York Times on Thursday reported that Trump pulled ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's security detail as well as that of his aide Brian Hook on Wednesday, after removing former national security advisor John Bolton’s Secret Service detail hours after his inauguration.

The conservative, Murdoch-owned paper’s opinion writers conceded that “falling out of President Trump’s good graces is an occupational hazard” for his staffers but called the move a “new low.”

“If Iran commits violence against any of these men, Mr. Trump won’t be able to escape some responsibility,” the Journal’s editorial board said, referencing a foiled assassination plot against Bolton by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Bolton and Pompeo fell out with the former president in 2019 and 2021 respectively, the former for his foreign policy views and the latter for criticizing Trump's attempted election overturn.

All three men received protections beyond their tenure because of credible threats of violence from the Iranian government following the first Trump administration’s killing of Qasem Soleimani. Iran’s revenge schemes for Soleimani’s killing included a plan to assassinate Trump himself, a November DOJ report alleged.

The WSJ plea contends, possibly somewhat naively, that Trump “doesn’t seem to be taking this all [potential violence] that seriously,” urging him not to make security decisions based on “some vindictive whim.”

The security detail removals come alongside other actions that critics say increase the specter of violence for President Trump’s political opponents. Trump pardoned over 1,500 Jan 6 rioters including Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, each sentenced to over a decade in jail for leading violent militias, and anti-abortion demonstrators who injured a nurse with a blockade on a reproductive care clinic.

Trump has chosen former fast-food chain CEO Andrew Puzder as his pick for EU ambassador

President Donald Trump has picked former fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder to serve as ambassador to the European Union. Puzder was previously nominated to serve as Secretary of Labor during Trump’s first term, but ultimately withdrew due to allegations of spousal abuse, labor law violations and tax avoidance.

Trump praised Puzder — the former chief of CKE restaurants, which is the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr. — as a “successful attorney, businessman, economic commentator, and author,” in a Truth Social post announcing the nomination Wednesday.

“During his 17 year tenure as CEO, Andy led the company out of serious financial difficulty, allowing it to survive, become financially secure, and grow,” Trump continued. “Andy will do an excellent job representing our Nation’s interests in this important region. Congratulations Andy!”

Puzder celebrated the announcement in a post on X, saying, “It will be an honor to help implement the Trump administration’s policies internationally. Together, we will protect America’s interests in the EU.”

The latest nomination comes nearly eight years after Puzder withdrew his nomination on February 15, 2017, to lead the Labor Department. He came under fire for allegations of prior spousal abuse, which he has denied. His former wife also disavowed the claims as part of a child custody agreement, saying she “impulsively filed for a divorce without [Puzder’s] knowledge and was counseled then to file an allegation of abuse,” according to an open letter

Puzder also faced criticism from Senate Republicans for employing an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper and failing to pay taxes for her services.

Scientists find Ozempic may treat cancer, Alzheimer’s and more. Is it hype or truly a “wonder drug?”

Few drugs have captured public attention like Ozempic; many of us have even taken it. The type 2 diabetes medication, generically known as semaglutide, has received unprecedented attention in the press and the medical community for its ability to trigger profound weight loss. 

Although this popularity betrays a certain bias against people of higher weight, the reasons for these drugs’ media stardom isn’t hard to grasp: they work and they are safe with relatively few side effects for most people. Indeed, it's often described as a "wonder drug." That hasn’t stopped a torrent of fat phobia and often frankly hateful cultural attitudes towards weight the drugs have helped fuel, despite having benefits and risks like any other medication.

But diabetes management and weight loss are far from the most interesting things about semaglutide. In fact, the more we learn about biochemical pathways that this class of drug targets, the more it seems that we have opened the door to a dramatically improved understanding of metabolism and the many, often surprising, ways these pathways affect every aspect of our health. 

As a result, semaglutide and its fellow glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs are spawning a tremendous outpouring of research that often clarifies connections between health issues that have long been recognized, but previously not understood. Like why, for example, having diabetes can put you at higher risk of Alzheimer’s. Or the mysterious relationship between osteoarthritis and obesity.

Semaglutide mimics the action of the natural protein glucagon-like peptide 1(GLP-1), a hormone from a family of chemical messengers called the incretins, which Belgian physiologist Jean LaBarre first purified as an extract from the gut back in 1929. The substance stimulates the pancreas to release insulin, lowering glucose in the blood to keep blood sugar in balance. GLP-1, the second incretin to be identified, in the 1980s, is also found in the intestines, which release GLP-1 when you eat to help control your blood sugar. 

The relationship with glucose metabolism may be a crucial central part in the many related conditions it seems to treat.

In the 1990s, Lotte Bjerre Knudsen, a Novo Nordisk researcher who previously studied detergent enzymes, was put on a type 2 diabetes drug development working group. Twenty years later (and with many other players and intermediate steps), Ozempic was born, and the game changed.

Svetlana Mojsov, a researcher at Rockefeller University whose work has been important in the characterization of GLP-1 and clarification of its role in glucose metabolism, explained in an interview with PNAS this September, “Once we solve obesity, I think a lot of other disorders will be taken care of …  As for all the other pathophysiological states in which GLP-1-based drugs appear to be beneficial, I think it may have something to do with the drugs’ central role in regulating glucose metabolism.”

But lowering glucose isn’t GLP-1’s only job, though as Mojsov said, the relationship with glucose metabolism may be a crucial central part in the many related conditions it seems to treat. Since Ozempic came on the market in 2017, we’ve seen that it can do far more than simply treat type 2 diabetes. The FDA approved Wegovy for chronic weight management in 2021.

The basic science around GLP-1

Think of the way things happen in our bodies as involving a lock and a key. The lock is a protein called a receptor  — in the case of GLP-1 and other G protein-coupled receptors, it’s a protein located on the surface of a cell. The key is the ligand  —  that’s the general word for whatever chemical messenger or signaling molecule attaches to the receptor, activating it. For GLP-1 receptors, it’s GLP-1. Ozempic, or semaglutide, is a GLP-1 agonist, meaning its molecules mimic the structure of GLP-1, binding to its receptor like a counterfeit key someone’s carved out of a bar of soap.


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


“These are just natural gut peptides that everyone makes,” explained Dr. Andrea Coviello, a professor of medicine at University of North Carolina and medical director of the UNC Medical Weight Program, in a video interview with Salon. “And I think that’s why, to a large extent, you see a really good response.”

Ozempic and Wegovy do the same thing as GLP-1 would normally do for you — but to enable them to treat diabetes and obesity, not just the glucose impact of individual meals, they’ve been designed, largely thanks to Knudsen’s work, with slight changes to allow them to hang out in the blood longer than GLP-1 normally does.

GLP-1 briefly slows the rate food moves through the gut, which explains the most common side effects: bloating and constipation. Newer GLP-1 receptor agonists like tirzepatide, (which combines a GLP-1 mimic with the mimic of a different gut peptide) are designed to mitigate the effects on gut motility.

“The main side effects that we see are predictable when you understand the mechanism of action of these drugs,” Coviello told Salon.

"Subsequent waves seem likely to improve health outcomes in people with a range of chronic disorders."

We’ve learned GLP-1 receptors are found all over the place in the body  —  most notably in pancreatic beta cells, in the intestine, and in the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord). They can also be found in blood vessels, in the peripheral nervous system, in the joints, the lungs, the heart, the alpha cells of the pancreas, and in the kidneys, giving them many different functions in the body: activating a protein here, lowering a different protein there, playing a role in intricate paths of cause and effect, getting things done. GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic are thus able to produce many surprising effects by activating the same pathways as GLP-1, pathways that we are beginning to understand in ever-greater levels of detail thanks to the research they’ve inspired.

Dr. Daniel Drucker is a clinician-researcher and professor at the University of Toronto, and holds the Canada Research Chair in Regulatory Peptides and the Banting and Best Diabetes Centre-Novo Nordisk chair in Incretin biology. He pointed Salon to a recent article in which he writes, “The initial chapter of GLP-1 innovation focused on glucose control, and later, weight loss. Subsequent waves seem likely to improve health outcomes in people with a range of chronic disorders.”

That’s because we’ve learned that insulin resistance and metabolism are important in ways we didn’t previously realize. And it’s because GLP-1 has roles in the body, beyond its role in the management of glucose, that weren’t previously appreciated.

“We don't fully understand the weight loss-independent mechanisms through which GLP-1 reduces inflammation  —  is it through the brain, or via T cells, or other pathways? A lot of work is ongoing to understand this,” Drucker told Salon in an email interview.

Dealing with sugar

But let’s start with insulin resistance. People with obesity have a tendency towards insulin resistance, when the hormone insulin stops effectively lowering glucose (sugar) levels in the blood. Ultimately, this can result in type 2 diabetes, a condition where insulin resistance becomes a chronic problem and blood sugar levels become too high as a result. But not everyone with diabetes is obese  —  in fact, in East Asian patients, type 2 diabetes develops at lower BMI, and fat accumulation tends to be in the viscera, such that patients may have more body fat at any given BMI.

We need your help to stay independent

Nevertheless, GLP-1 agonists like Ozempic are effective in these patients, suggesting that what is measured when we define obesity according to body mass index is not the aspect of overweight that is relevant to insulin resistance (likely because BMI was originally based on white European populations). More importantly, we need to focus on what GLP-1 does: trigger the pancreas’s beta cells to release insulin, which lowers blood sugar.

And when that doesn’t work, you get elevated blood sugar, or hyperglycemia. Since sugar, in the form of glucose, provides energy for every cell and system in the body, when there’s too much of it, all sorts of things get out of whack, with extra carbohydrates being stored as fat triglycerides in adipose tissue, in the liver and elsewhere. Improving insulin resistance with GLP-1 drugs turns out to be beneficial not just for obesity and diabetes, but also for the prevention of pancreatitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

The heart of the matter

Both type 2 diabetes and obesity put you at risk of cardiovascular disease, though we haven’t known exactly why. When the first clinical study of Ozempic came out, it was found that the once-weekly injection slashed rates of non-fatal heart attacks and strokes as well as cardiovascular deaths.

Making insulin work better (another way of describing good glycemic control) and weight loss are two of the indirect ways in which GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve cardiovascular health. Another is by reducing inflammation. In fact, says Coviello, under certain still unknown conditions or at a still-to-be-determined point, healthy adipose tissue acquires pathological qualities. As if responding to an injury, you get a rush of inflammatory proteins of various kinds into adipose (fat) tissue.

“Under the microscope you see a lot of inflammatory infiltrate in the adipose tissue,” Coviello said. “At some point, once that has reached sort of critical mass, you start to have insulin resistance, and you start to have the negative side effects of a lot of inflammation.”

Inflammation causes insulin resistance and insulin resistance causes poor sugar control and high blood sugar levels cause damage to the lining of your blood vessel. Ozempic may also act directly on the cardiovascular system. There are GLP-1 receptors in blood vessels and on the heart, including, Coviello said, on the sinoatrial nodes that controls the heart rate.

“So knowing that, it’s not perhaps surprising that there were cardiovascular benefits that were potentially even outside of the degree of weight loss that we see, or the degree of glycemic control that we see,” Coviello explained.

“It’s a more complex system”

Coviello’s patients receiving treatment for obesity have reported incidental improvements in their chronic inflammatory diseases such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis or psoriatic arthritis.

We’ve long known of a link between osteoarthritis and metabolic syndrome related to obesity, but the nature of this link didn’t start to become clear until the discoveries of the past decade that underlie the invention of Ozempic, and more recently the anecdotal reports of patients like Coviello’s. It was just known that the biggest risk factor in getting osteoarthritis (OA) was having metabolic syndrome. Type 2 diabetes is also strongly associated with OA. And inflammation, associated with arthritis, is also an important risk factor for conditions ranging from heart disease to cancer to neurodegenerative diseases.

Now we’re learning that in osteoarthritis associated with obesity, metabolic syndrome causes inflammation by activating small proteins called cytokines that activate or calm down the immune system, right in the synovium area — the space in a joint, your knee for example, bringing white blood cells, or macrophages, rushing in, another sign of inflammation. (It’s rheumatoid rather than osteoarthritis that is more generally considered an inflammatory disease but inflammation is a factor in both.)

And guess what’s also found in joint tissues? GLP-1 receptors. So it turns out that GLP-1 drugs may be able to target and ease the low-grade local inflammation of the synovium that causes such misery in osteoarthritis patients. But so far, the studies of this and most other inflammation-related impact of GLP-1 drugs are restricted to animal (usually mouse or rat) models.

“Will this work in humans with a wide range of inflammation-driven disorders, independent of weight loss?” Drucker asked. “We don't yet know.”

A range of autoimmune diseases that affect various organ systems and cause muscle wasting may be good candidates (mouse and preliminary human studies suggest) for GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment because of their ability to reduce the expression and release of inflammatory cytokines. Other conditions that might be treated with the use of GLP-1 receptor medications include conditions that affect the optic nerve and the spinal cord, asthma and bone pathologies where GLP-1 is part of complex pathways involving the release or suppression of cytokines, those inflammatory proteins.

Coviello says that with such long and intricate biochemical pathways, there’s potential in new medications that incorporate more than one receptor agonist.

“I suspect that what we’ll learn is that it’s a more complex system. Many of the new drugs coming out are combinations, so they are mimicking many different hormones, and that, if you think about it, is going to be much more physiologic, because when you do eat … it sets off an entire cascade” of mostly peptide hormones as well as neurologic signals (such as signals in the brain telling you when you feel full) “to actually metabolize food and provide fuel,” Coviello said.

After all, GLP-1 is just one of the gut hormones that have multiple effects through the body. The closer we can mimic what’s actually supposed to be going on, the better they should work and the fewer side effects we should expect.

Can GLP-1 fight cancer?

“Obesity is associated with over ten different types of cancers,” said Coviello. These include hormonal cancers like uterine cancer, as well as epithelial cancers, such as some types of liver cancer.

Through further chains of biochemical interactions — key fitting into lock, upregulating one protein that causes the release of a different key to fit into a different lock, triggering downregulating some other molecule, and so on — GLP-1 seems to play a role in the progression or inhibition of cancer, perhaps explaining the risk associations of various cancers with obesity, and with systemic inflammation, and helping to elucidate the relationship between cancer and metabolic processes like blood sugar management. This offers hope that GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs may one day be able to treat cancers.

“It tackles these inflammatory pathways and reverses that process so you have less inflammation even at the tissue level,” Coviello explained. At the University of North Carolina, she says, three clinical trials are underway to see if the GLP-1 receptor class of medications might work.

Then there’s the brain

Most Alzheimer’s research in recent years has focused on the damning role of tau proteins and beta-amyloid deposits. But in the background, work on the role of glucose in the brain, and on insulin’s role in regulating it, has piled up, along with other possible mechanisms. We know that obesity and type 2 diabetes are both associated with Alzheimer’s disease. And Alzheimer’s definitely has a connection with insulin resistance — so much so that a 2005 paper proposed it be called type 3 diabetes, with actual insulin resistance in the brain demonstrated nearly a decade later.

Spraying insulin up the nose — where brain tissue reaches outside the brain, making up the olfactory bulb — improves cognition in people with early Alzheimer’s dementia and with mild cognitive impairment. So there’s reason to believe that if we could just improve insulin signalling in the brain, we could treat more severe cases as well. But until the first GLP-1 drugs came along, there was no medication that could get through the blood-brain barrier or last long enough without quickly breaking down, just as GLP-1 hormone itself does in the body. (After a meal, newly released GLP-1 has a half life of less than ten minutes. It does its job, then gets broken down in your stomach.)

Now we’re learning that GLP-1 in the brain plays important roles in metabolism there, just as GLP-1 in the gut and pancreas does in the rest of the body, including the brain. GLP-1’s functions inside our heads include regulating insulin signalling in the brain; promoting the differentiation of new neurons from precursor cells; and protecting the brain from injuries like stroke, Parkinson’s and some Alzheimer’s cases.

Associative learning, which takes place in the midbrain, can be impaired in some cases of obesity as a result of poor signaling to the brain from the GLP-1 peptides in the intestine. The ability to form sensory associations can be restored with the use of an early GLP-1 receptor agonist drug, liraglutide, a small study found last year.. Restoration of other normal functions of impaired GLP-1 signalling in the brain could have even more important effects.

As far as non-weight or diabetes-related benefits of GLP-1 drugs go, Drucker says “probably most exciting …is the potential for benefit in Alzheimer's disease. “Huge problem, large unmet need for a drug that works and is also safe,” Drucker said.

In fact, trials of oral semaglutide for Alzheimer’s Disease are underway and Drucker says that within a year we should know if it works.

Meanwhile, a paper published Monday in Nature Medicine provides further reason for hope. Researchers Yan Xie, Taeyoung Choid and Ziyad Al-Aly mapped associations between GLP-1 receptor drug use and a wide range of health outcomes, comparing such associations with health outcomes associated with usual care using non-GLP-1 treatment.

Over the 175 different positive and negative outcomes assessed, they found GLP-1 receptor agonists like semaglutide to be associated with reduced risk for dozens of conditions. These include neurocognitive disorders, including Alzheimer’s and other dementia; seizures; clotting disorders; a number of respiratory conditions; and various infectious illnesses. Unsurprisingly, there was also a reduced risk of cardiometabolic disorders. Another striking positive finding: reduced risks of substance use disorders and psychotic disorders.

Equally importantly, GLP-1 receptor agonist use was associated with some increased risks compared to usual care with other treatments. These risks include gastrointestinal disorders, low blood pressure, nephrolithiasis (kidney stone disease), interstitial nephritis, and drug-induced pancreatitis. Perhaps surprisingly, given the inflammatory pathways discussed above, the researchers also found a heightened risk of arthritic disorders in patients using GLP-1 drugs, compared to usual treatment. 

While it’s trendy to either feverishly promote Ozempic, Wegovy or their many knock-off versions, or to dump on the whole idea, dismissing it as the product of a sick and bigoted society and corporations eager to medicalize anything they can, there’s far more to it than that. Understanding better the complex pathways that get things done in the body — and that sometimes go awry — is like delicately unwrapping an intricately wrapped package until you can see with clarity just what’s inside and how it all works. For all the hype, semaglutide and similar drugs bring real substance in the hope they offer of doing just that.

Trump pardons anti-abortion protesters convicted of blockading clinic entrances

President Donald Trump on Thursday issued pardons for some of the nation’s most prolific anti-choice protesters one day ahead of an anti-abortion march in Washington, D.C.

Trump signed the pardons for 23 so-called “peaceful pro-life protesters” on Thursday, days after freeing more than 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants.

“23 people were prosecuted, they should not have been prosecuted,” Trump said in the Oval Office, adding that many of those convicted were “elderly.”

Trump pardons anti-abortion rights activists who physically blocked women from accessing reproductive health care

[image or embed]

— FactPost (@factpostnews.bsky.social) January 23, 2025 at 4:13 PM

Lauren Handy, 31, one of the most notable pardon recipients, was serving a nearly five-year prison sentence for a 2020 abortion clinic blockade that injured a nurse at the facility, per The Associated Press. Law enforcement officials also said they found multiple fetuses inside Handy’s home. 

She and at least nine others who received pardons were charged in federal court for violating laws safeguarding women accessing reproductive care clinics.

The pardons came a day ahead of the annual March for Life, a protest that Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are scheduled to headline.

The freed anti-choice demonstrators join the pro-Trump Jan. 6 defendants and militia leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges, as well as prolific drug trafficker and “Silk Road” operator Ross Ulbricht, also pardoned by Trump.

Critics say the pardons together send a strong message on shifting attitudes towards crime from the GOP, now headed by a man convicted on 34 felony counts.

“With Trump springing classes of crooks — insurrectionists, violent anti-abortion protestors, the kingpin of a drug-and-CSAM marketplace — from prison, any future GOP rhetoric about ‘amnesty’ for peaceable immigrants should get mown down by ridicule,” Democratic strategist Greg Greene said in a post to Bluesky. 

Sweetgreen ditches seed oils, launches seed oil-free menu

On Jan. 7, Sweetgreen co-founder and CEO Jonathan Neman announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the salad chain has removed seed oils from its menu, replacing them with extra virgin olive oil and avocado oil for roasting vegetables and proteins.

Neman explained the change as part of the company’s commitment to using thoughtfully chosen ingredients that align with both its values and evolving customer preferences. He added that, starting in January, Sweetgreen would offer its "first-ever seed oil-free menu," featuring options crafted without seed oils.

"Extra virgin olive oil and avocado oil are key to this shift — not just for their flavor, but for their health benefits and alignment with our values," Neman wrote. "These oils are minimally processed, rich in healthy fats and free from the high-heat extraction methods used for seed oils like sunflower oil."

Neman also shared that health-focused changes have been a "calling" at Sweetgreen "from day one," concluding, "Change is within reach. Let's choose a future where food serves us all. It's possible if we do it together."

In a separate post, Neman shared a photo of himself wearing a "Make America Healthy Again" hat, noting the hats were made in 2016. He expressed his satisfaction with the growing public conversation about food and health, especially in light of the FDA’s recent ban on Red Dye No. 3.

The seed oil-free menu is now available at Sweetgreen locations.

Republican introduces measure to allow Trump a third term — but not Obama

Rep. Andy Ogles, R.-Tenn., is the latest House Republican to make a splashy grab for President Donald Trump’s attention, introducing a proposal to amend the Constitution and allow the 78-year-old to try for a third term.

In a statement, Ogles claimed Trump “must be given the time necessary” to enact his legislation and praised the president as the “only figure in modern history” who could properly lead the country.

“This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs,” Ogles said. 

His plan would modify the 22nd Amendment – ratified in 1951 after Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four consecutive terms by wide margins – to allow a president to serve up to three four-year stints in the White House. The proposal is not quite as sycophantic as Florida Rep. Greg Steube's proposal last year to rename the U.S. coastline after Trump, though it's a somewhat transparent ploy for presidential attention.

The amendment is also carefully crafted to leave Trump open for a third term while excluding Barack Obama, mandating no eligibility for a third term if a president was “elected to two consecutive terms.”

Back in November, Trump told House GOP representatives that he wouldn’t be running again “unless you do something,” a cue Ogles seemingly took literally despite reported laughter from his colleagues.

Still, any amendment to the Constitution faces tremendous obstacles. Ogles’ bill is nearly certain not to receive the needed two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of states, but it could land him on Trump’s radar.

The Tennessee representative might soon need a lifeline as George Santos-esque campaign finance fraud and resume falsification allegations face congressional scrutiny. A January Congressional Ethics report urged further review after concluding Ogles “may have omitted or misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure statements.”

Executive orders show Trump is already running Project 2025 playbook despite denials

Project 2025 has landed in the Oval Office.

The 922-page policy manifesto described as a "playbook of actions" for a new conservative administration crafted by more than 140 veterans of Donald Trump's White House, many of whom returned this week, is aligned with many of Trump’s more than 30 first-week executive orders, despite his campaign trail condemnations.

The proposal, which calls for hundreds of federal policy reversals and sweeping power consolidations, became a flashpoint in the 2024 election, forcing the president to distance himself from numerous allies he'd later invite back into the fold.

Trump said in a debate that he was “not going to read” the Heritage Foundation-crafted document and routinely distanced himself from the policy directives during the campaign. But his first-day staffing and policy moves read like a near-direct implementation of the policy.

Trump has already tapped Project 2025 authors and contributors Russ Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget, Brendan Carr to chair the FCC, the agency he authored a chapter of plans for inside Project 2025, and Tom Homan as ‘border czar,’ along with numerous other Heritage Foundation alumni.

Many of Project 2025’s answers for border security mirror Trump’s first-day orders on immigration, too. While the document called for the “use of active-duty military personnel…to assist in arrest operations along the border,” Trump’s day-one executive order directs “the Armed Forces… [to] prioritize the protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.”

Project 2025 also championed an order overturning a civil rights initiative from President Lyndon B. Johnson that prevented federal contractors from engaging in racial discrimination as a counter against “the DEI Revolution in Labor Policy.” On page 584, the mandate advises that “the president should… rescind EO 11246 [Johnson’s Equal Employment Opportunity order].”

Trump’s Tuesday order uses much of the same language as the Project 2025 passage recommending the repeal, including similar diatribes against corporate DEI initiatives.

We need your help to stay independent

The president’s repeal of a Biden-era sex discrimination protection order takes similar guidance from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. In a section penned by Vought, the playbook calls for immediately revoking Biden’s Executive Order 14020.

A Trump order ending the policy “would eliminate central promotion of abortion; comprehensive sexuality education; and the new woke gender ideology,” Vought wrote. Trump’s inauguration-day order fulfills these policy recommendations with largely similar language, claiming “gender ideology replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity.”

Other sweeping federal policy changes included in the mandate and signed by the president on his first day include a broad mandate to extract oil and gas from swaths of Alaska with less regulation, and an end to the Biden-era promotion of electric vehicles. Trump also left the Paris Climate Accords and World Health Organization, two pleas from the far-right manifesto.

Not every executive order came straight from Project 2025. One, which gives Trump a broad license to fire career civil servants and replace them with partisan appointees at many levels of the federal bureaucracy, was included in the mandate but was initially the policy of the first Trump administration.