Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump suggests he may strip FEMA and let states “take care of their own problems”

President Donald Trump went on Fox News' "Hannity" Wednesday to complain about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), accusing it of "getting in the way of everything" and promising to have a "whole big discussion very shortly" on its fate.

Officials in the Trump administration and the president himself have spoken of plans to overhaul parts of the federal government or eliminate them completely, and in many cases have set those plans in motion. His comments about FEMA on "Hannity" raised concerns that he might strip funding from an agency that coordinated the federal response to the natural disasters in Los Angeles and Asheville.

The text of Project 2025, whose authors are closely connected with or hold official positions in the Trump administration, suggests "reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government."

Trump echoed its proposal in his interview with Sean Hannity, saying he'd "rather see the states take care of their own problems" and that the federal government should only provide money if the state decided they needed it later, using the example of tornadoes in Oklahoma to illustrate his point. The president had previously accused FEMA of acting in a biased manner against Republicans affected by disaster, including those living in western North Carolina during Hurricane Helene, even though the agency just announced Monday that it was extending its Transitional Sheltering Assistance program in western North Carolina for two months.

Minutes later, Trump said that the federal government should not give California "anything" in the wake of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles until its Democratic government changes its water policy, which he blames for the shortage of water to combat the flames, to his liking.

“Uncertainy, fear and panic”: Trump abruptly cancels NIH meetings, upending scientific research

Meetings and panels across federal science and health agencies were abruptly cancelled Wednesday, prompting fresh concern over how a potential remaking of the agencies by President Donald Trump's administration could interrupt important research and official responses to disease outbreaks, including a surge of H5N1 bird flu in dairy cows and poultry.

According to Stat News, a scientific publication, the cancelled meetings include several gatherings of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) study sections, which review applications for fellowships and grants; a Jan. 28-29 meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria; and a Feb. 20-21 meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, which advises the Department of Health and Human Services on vaccine policy and development.

Some of the meetings were not rescheduled. It's unclear whether the cancellations were related to the Trump administration's freeze on most federal health agencies' travel and external communications until Feb. 1. Because of that freeze, spokespeople from affected agencies were unable to answer questions to reporters about the meetings, but one told Stat News: “this is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization. There are exceptions for announcements that HHS divisions believe are mission critical, but they will be made on a case-by-case basis.”

The Trump administration is expected to impose pauses for other agencies as it gets its own appointees in place. While a communications pause is not unusual at the start of a presidential term, the uncertainty over how long this one will last, the addition of a travel ban and cancelled meetings, is likely to cause significant disruptions across the whole system, experts said.

“This kind of disruption could have long ripple effects,” says Jane Liebschutz, an opioid addiction researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, told Science.org. “Even short delays will put the United States behind in research.” She said that she and her colleagues are feeling “a lot of uncertainty, fear and panic."

The uncertainty of how long the cancellations will take effect could cause immense stress, said Rebecca Pompano, a chemist and biomedical engineer at the University of Virginia whose study session was canceled 20 minutes before it was supposed to start. It would also "delay grants being distributed, which affects the ability of labs to pay their students and postdocs and staff … in some cases, if there was a gap in funding, it could result in someone either not being hired at all or having to be laid off." Compounding the stress, she added, was the specter of Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy, a vaccine denier who has said that he would subject federal health agencies to extensive overhaul and personnel purges.

The communications freeze could also delay information sharing over unfolding health events — three new reports on the H5N1 outbreaks set to be published this week have been held back, according to a CDC official who spoke to Stat News anonymously, and it's unclear when they'll be released.

DOJ is trying to “scare” local Democrats into carrying out Trump’s mass deportations

In a directive late Tuesday, the acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, instructed the Department of Justice to launch criminal investigations into state and local officials whose policies do not adhere to the Trump administration’s federal policies with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an elaborate “scare” tactic foreshadowed late in President Trump’s first term.

The memo, issued by Bove, previously Trump’s criminal defense lawyer, warned that state and local officials who do not comply with ICE would be subject to investigation and potential criminal prosecution, citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and threats to “public safety and national security.” 

“The Supremacy Clause and other authorities require state and local actors to comply with the Executive branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives. Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests,” the memo reads

U.S. attorneys will, under this directive, be responsible for investigating alleged non-cooperation and referring state and local officials for “potential prosecution,” with the memo referring to harboring an undocumented immigrant, refusing to disclose information about someone's immigration status and conspiracy as potential charges that official could face. 

According to the memo, a newly established “Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group” in the Justice Department will be responsible for flagging state and local laws and policies that do not adhere to the Trump administration’s preferred policies and taking legal action “to challenge such laws.”

The memo echos a plan described by the former attorney general, Bill Barr, in a 2020 speech where he indicated that the Justice Department was in the process of reviewing “the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country” including a review of whether jurisdictions where “complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States.”

Trump’s homeland security advisor Stephen Miller's organization, America First Legal, also attempted to lean on state and local authorities earlier this week by sending letters notifying them that “[y]ou and your subordinates could potentially face up to 20 years in prison” and invoking potential racketeering charges if they do not go along with the president's immigration plans.

Such investigations and prosecutions against state and local officials would, if followed through on, see the DOJ attempt to press charges against officials around the country, from New York to Louisiana to Nebraska.

However, Matt Cameron, an immigration attorney at Cameron Micheroni and Silvia, told Salon he's skeptical it will come to that. “This is all just to scare them," he said, describing directives to cooperate with ICE as essentially an unfunded mandate.

“There’s a good reason that they might not want to do ICE's enforcement: they want the trust of their community," Camerson said. "They want to be able to enforce the law in their community without the federal government. I can’t think of any other field in which conservatives expect the states to do the federal government’s business.”

Cameron said that, in his opinion, harboring charges probably wouldn’t hold up in court in most instances because federal law does not require jurisdictions to assist ICE.

“All of these things are essentially ICE asking for favors and you can’t prosecute somebody for refusing to do you a favor,” Cameron said.

We need your help to stay independent

This is an issue Barr noted in his 2020 speech. “While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts," he said.'

According to Cameron, this directive from the DOJ is probably an attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate state and local authorities into dedicating significant resources towards assisting ICE, something ICE needs because it lacks the resources necessary to carry out Trump’s mass deportation agenda, at least without an act of Congress.

“They want every available resource because the truth is that ICE does not have anywhere near the resources they would need to do this,” Cameron said. “They want people to believe that they can show up anywhere at any time.”

Kermit Roosevelt, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, told Salon that while “obstruction of federal functions is probably a crime," Trump's order runs up against issues of what is and is not considered obstruction versus declining to enforce federal laws on behalf of another enforcement agency.

“The limit that this order is running up against is the principle, announced by the Supreme Court in Printz v. United States, that state and local officials can’t be required to enforce federal law. So the line-drawing question is going to be distinguishing between requiring state officials to comply with federal law, which is okay, and requiring them to enforce it, which is not,” Roosevelt told Salon.

This ties into a common misunderstanding of what sanctuary jurisdictions are and what they are not. “Sanctuary jurisdiction” is not a formal category but rather a name given to a collection of jurisdictions that have a variety of policies in terms of performing enforcement actions on ICE’s behalf. 

Sanctuary jurisdictions do not hide immigrants from ICE or prevent ICE from operating in the jurisdiction. Rather, sanctuary jurisdiction policies play out in the context of detention periods for people brought into police custody and what sort of notification is or is not sent to ICE. A sanctuary jurisdiction may choose not to notify ICE when an undocumented immigrant is released from jail, or they may notify ICE but not hold them on behalf of ICE.

Roosevelt noted that even if the Justice Department successfully challenged state and local laws regarding notifying ICE, enforcing a state law that was later struck down would not normally be considered a crime.

“To the extent that there’s a state law that frustrates the objective of federal law, that would probably be preempted, but acting in compliance with a state law that’s preempted is not itself a federal crime—the conduct would have to fall under some other federal prohibition,” Roosevelt said.

Some law enforcement officials, such as Philadelphia's Democratic district attorney, Larry Krasner, have indicated that they won't bend under this pressure from the Justice Department and will continue abiding by local sanctuary measures, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

"My office is a law enforcement entity. We are going to follow the Constitution and uphold the law. We are under no obligation to do things that are illegal … or simply on Donald Trump’s fascist wish list, where he has no authority to compel our conduct,” Krasner said.

“I believe almost everything he says”: Why Trump just unleashed homegrown criminals on America

All I’ve got to say is
You don’t care anyway.
That’s why I know
One of us has got to go.

I've often said it would be a cold day in hell before Donald Trump walked back into the White House. Monday was a cold day in Washington. Many people think the place is hell. And Donald Trump just walked back into the White House. Snow on Bourbon Street in New Orleans was merely icing on the cake.

Trump’s second administration began in his typical fashion: divisive, destructive, delusional and defeating, with a side order of bombastic baloney followed by anger, petulance, darkness and threats. It was like watching Darth Vader getting inaugurated — all that was missing was "The Imperial March," though Elon Musk tried his best to substitute that with a Nazi-like salute.

Trump fans focused on his idea of merit-based hiring, ending DEI and his promises to protect free speech while declaring there are only two genders. Trump detractors focused on his divisive nature, threats against Panama his political enemies, and everything else, including how the first lady dressed and that oddball Musk, who looks more and more like a cartoon criminal from a 1970s "Scooby Doo" episode.

The facts show that Trump is quite aware of how to deal with American voters in his second time at bat from the Oval Office, and that he obviously doesn’t care what his detractors think. That makes him much more dangerous. 

“That’s what makes him loved by millions. He doesn’t give a sh** what anybody thinks and people love him for it,” his former fixer Michael Cohen told me for the podcast "Just Ask the Question."

“What if Donald Trump is somehow successful?" Cohen asked. "Then at that point, the Trumpers are not part of a cult. They are the majority and Donald Trump will have subverted the Constitution. That leaves many Americans cheering for the president to fail. Who wants the president to fail? If he fails, then we all do,” he added. “And if he’s successful, our republic fails. That’s the historic situation we find ourselves in.”

So while his fans praised his new administration and his haters decried his return to the White House, Donald Trump took his first three days to plow forward with a score of executive orders, ranging from the serious to the silly and to the sublime.

He forced federal workers to “go back to work” at the office. He unleashed ICE to go after illegal immigrants; “millions of dangerous criminals,” he said, are ravishing the countryside. At the same time, he pardoned the dangerous criminals who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, much to the chagrin, fear and anger of police, the victims of their violence and even some of the family members who testified against the seditionists. 

After his release from prison, the former head of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, called into conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ show and vowed retribution against domestic enemies real and imagined. “I’m happy that the president’s focusing not on retribution … but I will tell you that I’m not gonna play by those rules,” he said. “The people who did this, they need to feel the heat. They need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted.”

This is Donald Trump at his most destructive.

It’s obvious Donald Trump supports homegrown convicted criminals, since he is one, and doesn’t want any immigrants muscling in on his turf. This is straight-up gangsterism, but don’t tell Donnie, he might have you whacked — or at least some of his minions might — just to prove their loyalty to the Godfather.

By Wednesday morning the Trump Justice Department, realigned in his image, issued a memo that threatened prosecution of state and local officials who resist his crackdown on immigration in sanctuary cities. 

The Don also declared a national emergency and threatened to send troops to the border (again) though he still doesn’t understand the Posse Comitatus Act and doesn’t seem to care. His minions do, however, and have tried to craft the order to send troops to the border to conform with national law.

Riding roughshod through the wilderness of D.C. like a rotund headless horseman in a dark suit, white shirt and red tie; wielding his trusty, husky, musky sword and a peashooter armed with ignorance and fear, the new Trump empire feels like four years after only three days. One of his executive orders “restored” free speech — obviously showing that he doesn’t know or care that it is already enshrined in a Constitution that supersedes his executive orders. Of course, he’s never read it, wants to shred it and can’t be bothered with it. All rights flow through Don. 

We need your help to stay independent

There are now only two genders according to Don, the genders (presumably he means sexes) are those at conception, which is deeply confusing to actual scientists, because everyone is female at conception. Male pattern baldness only develops after about six weeks of gestation.

And while Trump dropped his “promises met, promises kept” agenda on a fully suspecting world, even his supporters admit he’s part of the problem. The country is in “a weird state” and while some are hopeful for a fun-loving, cooperative and united future, many supporters think it is beyond Trump's grasp to supply the unity he also promised in his inaugural address.

He declared his new administration “The Golden Age of America,” while minions like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene declared that the Democrats could control the weather. Even as the snow began to fall in the District, his fans shook their heads.

One woman I met came from San Francisco and said she spent her life savings to bring her children to see Trump because she “worships” him. “I believe almost everything he says, but he can’t unite us because the liberal snowflakes hate us," she told me with a smile. "They just want war." 

Trump declared he was enacting a new “power structure” to battle a “radical and corrupt establishment.” He called Inauguration Day a new liberation day and said he’d be a “peacemaker.” That liberation, however, doesn’t refer to LGBTQ individuals, immigrants or anyone who's outside the MAGA tent. I guess it was Liberation Day for Trump lovers only. There’s the unity. In Don we trust. All others pay cash.

We ran into three guys from Georgia who loved Trump as they walked toward his indoor rally at Capital One Arena. “l liked Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Clinton was my favorite president before Donald Trump,” one of them told me. He thinks Trump will bring peace to the country, "and will bring us unseen prosperity.” Meanwhile, a preacher from Houston told me Trump is his guy because he “supports Christians and is against the gays.”

After the inaugural address, a couple of middle-aged men from Akron told me, “That was a great speech,” while a Democrat who worked on Kamala Harris' campaign called it “very dark.” Trump, he noted, kept telling us “how bad we are” and was happy to send “millions of criminal aliens” back to their home countries.

Most of the Democrats and even a few Republicans laughed at the Village People hit “YMCA” being played at the inaugural. “He’s the only guy I know that can get elected president and have a dance named after him,” Cohen explained. “It’s not a surprise that a gay Pride slogan is being used by Donald,” a Republican from Iowa told me. “He makes everything so relatable.”

No, this is not satire.

Martin Luther King Jr. told us “We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.” There's no doubt that Trump's supporters truly believe he is the embodiment of that statement, and the greatest example of it in this century. “What a comeback story,” I was told. “For only the second time in history do we have a president coming back for a second chance after being booted from office.”

True that. But more than half the country, as was reported on MSNBC on Inauguration Day, believe we are “no longer the shining beacon on the hill.” Over on Fox News, people were celebrating like Jesus had returned.

Trump is already being sued for trying to end birthright citizenship — which is guaranteed in our Constitution. But Don thinks he has found a loophole. He’s telling us “Drill, baby, drill” and that he “won every swing state by a lot.” (The second part isn’t true, and it remains to be seen how he can implement the first). 

But, of course, Donald the “unifier” couldn’t help himself in his inaugural address and every speech since then. He admonished Joe Biden’s administration as “the worst in history” and swore that countries across the globe were releasing gang members from prisons to invade our country. They come from “all over the world. They’re emptying their prisons and mental institutions on us. It stops at one o’clock this afternoon,” he emphatically declared. A few weeks from now, he can say that he was successful and countries were no longer sending us their criminals and mental patients — because they actually never did.

This is Donald Trump at his most destructive. As Cohen said, “If he wants to be successful, then just stop it. Be a unifier. Be the peacemaker. We’re all Americans. Don’t go after other Americans. But with Donald, it’s always about himself.”

In his first few days, Trump also withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accords all over again, “saving trillions,” he claimed. He took us out of the World Health Organization, claiming that will save lives and money, and placed a freeze on all federal hiring and federal regulations.

He even compared himself to Al Capone and claimed he was the most investigated person in the history of the country, even as he decried the crime in our streets and the destruction he said exists across the country. On Fox News, a pundit exclaimed, "He brings laughter and joy back to the presidency." Millions are not laughing. Millions more are suffering. And Donald Trump is riding high.

An ancient volcano blotted out the sun, killing crops. People likely reacted by making “sun stones”

Almost five millennia ago, hundreds of engraved, disc-shaped stones were deposited in a giant pit at the Neolithic Vasagård site on the small Danish island of Bornholm. For decades the so-called “sun stones” mystified researchers, but now scientists report in the journal Antiquity reveal that they may have served a very specific purpose: A ritualistic attempt by Neolithic humans to protect themselves from climate change and disease.

Climate scientists from the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in Bornholm analyzed ice cores from Greenland’s ice sheets and demonstrated that a major volcanic eruption occurred on the island 2,900 years ago. Because this roughly corresponds with the date of the sun stones, it follows that the stones would have been created as part of a religious or other supernatural ritual to address the weather changes.

"Residents deposited them in ditches forming part of a causewayed enclosure together with the remains of ritual feasts in the form of animal bones, broken clay vessels, and flint objects around 2,900 BC," archaeologist Rune Iversen from the University of Copenhagen, who previously participated in site excavations led by the Museum of Bornholm and the National Museum, said in a statement. "The ditches were subsequently closed.”

Speaking with Salon, Iversen brought the Neolithic rituals to life by describing the elaborate ceremonies that would have been practiced by the ancient humans.

"It does not, therefore, seem unreasonable to consider the engraved stones as fertility offerings."

“Causewayed enclosures were large ritual gathering sites with a significance to a larger community,” Iversen said. “People returned to these sites and made depositions (offerings) and at many of these we see traces of feasting indicating that many people came together and participated in the ceremonies that took place there. I imagine that such gatherings also were of social significance and served to facilitate social integration of the communities.”

This can be seen from the engravings on the stones themselves, which the researchers divide into six types. There are sun motifs, which have many varieties but usually include, as the study authors put it, “incised lines (rays), including concentric circles, emanating from a circular central motif”; bands that either run up like a ladder or follow a transverse and longitudinal pattern; lines and strokes in geometric patterns such as patchworks and crosses, or being merely random; plants; blank spaces; and figures that cannot yet be categorized.

The sun and plant motifs were by far the most prevalent on the sun stones. Now that we know they were made during a time of weather-related crises, this makes sense.


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


“Neolithic societies relied on the sun for the successful growth of their crops and thus for the continued prosperity of the families dependent upon each harvest,” the authors write. “It does not, therefore, seem unreasonable to consider the engraved stones as fertility offerings, their deposition at Vasagård an invocation to secure the growth of crops. The virtual absence of figurative imagery in the archaeological record of the north-west European Neolithic highlights the exceptional nature of the stone plaques from Vasagård.”

The sun stones correspond with the decline of the so-called Funnel Beaker tradition in European Neolithic culture, or the era in which the pottery-using hunter-gatherers in the north began to adopt farming and husbandry for food.

“At Vasagård the deposition of the engraved stones correlates with a change from activities centred on the causewayed enclosure to new rituals taking place in small, circular cult houses inside wooden palisades,” the authors write. “The effects of the climate crisis may have resulted in increased competition and conflicts at a time when the classical Funnel Beaker tradition was dissolving and was soon to be followed by new cultural changes resulting from migrations impacting eastern, central and northern Europe and beyond.”

In addition to the volcanic eruption, Northern Europeans during the Neolithic period would have also worried about infectious disease. Archaeologists and DNA scientists studying bones from the region and time found evidence of widespread plague. While this does not seem to be reflected on the stones themselves, that does not mean there are not more enigmas about the sun stones which need to be cracked.

“​​The sun stones are completely unique, also in a European context,” Lasse Vilien Sørensen, senior researcher at The National Museum of Denmark and co-author of the research paper, said in a statement. ”The closest we get to a similar sun-cult in the Neolithic is some passage graves in southern Scandinavia or henge structures like Stonehenge in England, which some researchers associate with the sun. With the sun stones, there is in my mind no doubt.”

We need your help to stay independent

Sørensen added, “It is quite simply an incredible discovery, which demonstrates that depositions honouring the sun is an ancient phenomenon, which we encounter again in South Scandinavia during the climate disaster caused by a volcanic eruption in the year 536 AD, where several large gold hoards were deposited as sacrifices.”

Iversen compared the Neolithic reactions to their era’s climate changes with humanity’s own climate changes today. The latter are primarily caused by human activity such as the use of fossil fuels.

“The Neolithic people didn’t know why the sun was shrouded so they tried to handle the situation by communal efforts to bring back the sun,” Iversen said. “If we can learn from this, it might be that we as individuals are not alone in facing climatic changes and challenges and a communal effort is indeed needed today.”

Donald Trump’s war on DEI is not about “merit”

Donald Trump lies about everything, but the lies strewn throughout his executive order shutting down diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies in the federal government are especially taxing on one's credulity. Efforts to improve diversity, the order reads, "deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement." This paean to the importance of "excellence" and "hard work" comes from a man who, a mere five years ago, looked a row of medical researchers and doctors in the eye and suggested he understood science better than they did, despite having not studied it for a day of his life. He then theorized that Lysol and bleach be used to treat COVID-19 patients "by injection inside, or almost a cleaning, because, you see, it gets in the lungs," aware of the basic scientific principle that painting your lungs with poisonous substances will kill you. 

The new executive order insists that recruiting diverse applicants is "diminishing the importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work, and determination." It was signed by a man who has nominated Pete Hegseth, an understudy Fox News host, to run the Department of Defense. Hegseth's only prior administrative experience comes from running two small-time charities into the ground, resulting in his removal from leadership. This ode to the value of skills and knowledge comes from the same half-literate president who also nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run Health and Human Services, even though Kennedy claims cognitive decline from a brain worm and also refuses to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective. The only reason the alleged testament to "merit" is even readable is because someone other than Trump wrote it. The "merit"-loving president famously can't get through a 240-character social media post without multiple grammatical errors and misspellings. 

All three of these men embody the concept of incompetence, but they are white, straight and male. When Trump or any MAGA devotee is talking about "merit" or "excellence," that is what they mean: whiteness, straightness and maleness.

And the more incompetent or ignorant the straight white man is, the more he is held out as the exemplar of "merit" in MAGA-speak. For all the talk about opposition to discrimination and belief in a "colorblind" society, the actions of MAGA show that their true goal is reserving better jobs and opportunities for straight white men, while relegating women, LGBTQ folks and people of color to underpaid and lower-status employment. 


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


This much is evident in the other executive orders Trump has been signing. On Monday, he signed an executive order forcing the federal government to discriminate against trans people, even stripping them of health care. He also signed an executive order to repeal federal funds to help Black farmers and investments in majority-Black neighborhoods. Neither program has anything to do with "merit," unless "merit" is code for "white." He made it legal for federal contractors to discriminate "in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin." As a capper, he fired Adm. Linda Fagan from command of the Coast Guard. There were some empty pretexts offered for this, but she was obviously targeted for no other reason than being the first woman to head a branch of the U.S. military. 

Republicans are lining up to confirm a clown car worth of Trump's dangerously unqualified candidates to run important federal offices. If anything, their lack of qualifications is what is securing them the positions, reflecting this deep-seated MAGA hostility to competence.

But the most in-your-face proof that neither Trump nor his MAGA followers care about merit can be seen in their admiration of subject-matter ignoramuses — so long as they're white men — and their utter loathing for anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. It's a movement that treats podcaster Joe Rogan, a college dropout who appears to never research a topic before holding forth on it, as the nation's pre-eminent medical authority. Meanwhile, Dr. Anthony Fauci, a Cornell-educated doctor who ran the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 38 years, has become a favorite target for violent threats from Trump loyalists, due to his unwillingness to reject basic scientific truths.

That is but one example in an infinity of ways that Republicans reject real knowledge and skills, believing that authority and power should be doled out instead to white men whose only skill set is supporting a right-wing agenda. Decades of climate science are routinely dismissed by MAGA blowhards, who prefer to put their trust in Fox News pundits chuckling about how it still snows in the winter. Evolutionary biology has been repeatedly proven true for nearly two centuries, without which all the medical innovations on which even Republicans depend would not have been developed. But MAGA would prefer to believe self-styled preachers who claim that Noah's ark was real and that Adam and Eve had pet dinosaurs. Economics, law, environmental science, nutrition, sociology, psychology: No field is safe from having experts spat upon by MAGA, which prefers the opinions of white male know-nothings. 

As a 2023 McKinsey report shows, companies that embrace race and gender diversity in higher have 39% better financial performance than other companies. But really, this is also common sense. Women and minorities aren't underrepresented because they are inherently less talented but because they face both overt and systematic discrimination. When efforts are made to include more applicants in hiring, you will snag talented people who were overlooked in more discriminatory settings. 

This truth was almost comically on the nose during the presidential election, which pitted a smart, capable Black woman against a man who has almost certainly never read a book, not even the ones ghostwritten under his name. During the only debate Trump could even tolerate against Kamala Harris, she mopped the floor with him, showcasing her sharp mind and understanding of the issues, while he raved incoherently about conspiracy theories accusing Haitian immigrants of eating cats. But millions of voters handed Trump the election anyway, because, despite all their talk about "merit," their true belief is that the very dumbest white guy should get the job before the best Black woman. MAGA kept calling Harris a "DEI candidate," showing that the phrase is just a racial slur with no relationship to someone's actual skill or intelligence. 

Certainly, the pandemic was the ultimate demonstration that MAGA does not care about doing a good job or hiring the best and brightest. They want to put a bunch ideologues in charge, and if the result is widespread system failure, so be it. Trump and his minions literally allowed hundreds of thousands of people to die, rather than accepting that science is real or that leaders should have qualities other than being proudly ignorant white men. Now Republicans are lining up to confirm a clown car worth of dangerously unqualified candidates to run important federal offices. If anything, their lack of qualifications is what's securing them those positions, reflecting this deep-seated MAGA hostility to competence. The last thing Trump or anyone in his coalition wants is a system that actually rewards merit: In a genuine meritocracy, none of them would ever work again. 

How Trump’s anti-trans executive order “implicates” fetal personhood

On Monday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order claiming that the U.S. government will only recognize two sexes, male and female. The directive claimed that ideologues across the country are denying “the biological reality of sex” which has allowed men who identify as women to “gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”

In other words, the executive order was positioned as a move to “defend women” from “gender ideology extremism.” Amid the chaos, many reproductive rights advocates were quick to point out the proposed definitions of “male” and “female” in the order and the use of the word “conception.” 

“‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” the executive order stated. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

By referring to the moment of conception, some on social said this could be the start of a move to codify fetal personhood in federal law. Notably, it’s scientifically inaccurate to say sex can be determined at conception, to say nothing of the limitations of defining a person solely by gamete size. Chromosomal sex is determined at the moment of fertilization — a term often conflated with conception — the specific moment when a sperm and egg join together. But early embryos of both sexes begin with the same basic structures, that can later develop into either male or female organs. By default, the majority of embryos are female for the first five to six weeks, unless specific factors actively trigger male development.

However, if federal lawmakers gave fetuses or embryos, the legal rights of a person, that would lead to a national abortion ban, in addition to other wide-range consequences. As legal experts previously told Salon, the Republican Party released its 16-page “Make America Great Again” policy platform ahead of the national convention last year stating that it supported states establishing fetal personhood through the constitution’s 14th Amendment; language, they said, that was “hidden in plain sight.” Could something come out of this executive order that could result in fetal personhood, or was it merely a signal of what to to expect?

"One cannot separate rights for trans people from a broader set of reproductive rights and justice."

“It’s the least of my concerns,” David S. Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel Kline's School of Law, told Salon. “The Supreme Court and any other institutions are not going to find fetal personhood because of this one clause in this executive order. If there's going to be fetal personhood found as a national requirement, it's going to have nothing to do with this executive order.”

In the wake of the presidential election news, the Guttmacher Institute outlined 10 ways the Trump presidency could restrict access to reproductive rights. When it comes to blocking abortion access, it likely wouldn’t happen through an explicit nationwide abortion ban. Instead, the Trump-Vance administration could leverage the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law that bans obscene articles being used for abortion from being mailed. As explained by KFF, a literal interpretation of this could mean that material to produce all abortions would be prohibited from being mailed. This could affect other medical care, like miscarriage management, and stop medication abortion from being mailed as well. 

However, Seema Mohapatra, a law professor at the SMU Dedman School of Law, told Salon when she first read the executive order, what stood out to her the most was the use of the word conception. 


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


“Sex is not determined at conception until weeks into the process when the sexual cells differentiate and this is a much later stage of development so this is just scientifically wrong,” she said. “Then I think about why they put that language in, and that seems to be a part of a broader effort to insert fetal personhood into official records even when it's unrelated to abortion.”

Mohapatra said they have seen this in court opinions previously. 

“We've seen this attempted in different states in statutes and now we're seeing it in executive orders,” Mohapatra added. “One cannot separate rights for trans people from a broader set of reproductive rights and justice.”

This kind of language “flies under the radar,” she said, but is something to pay attention to now and in the future.

We need your help to stay independent

“People may not realize that this anti-trans executive order also implicates fetal personhood,” she said. “And I think we're gonna see this more and more in completely unrelated areas.”

Cohen told Salon it’s “absolutely concerning” that this executive order was one of the first things Trump signed. 

“He is going after vulnerable people and trying to say they're not who they are, threatening their documents that are necessary for travel, that are necessary for healthcare,” Cohen said. “It’s certainly very upsetting that this is one of the first things he did.” 

Cohen added it’s notable that none of the executive orders were directly related to abortion — but that could change any minute. 

“The story is yet to be written, as soon as we hang up the phone, there could be an executive order related to abortion,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

Trump ends diversity efforts in federal government. Is the private sector next?

The principles of diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace are a longtime target of President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Three new executive orders eliminate DEI from the federal government's hiring practices and encourage the private sector to follow suit.

On Monday, hours after he was sworn into office, Trump signed an order that rescinds DEI hiring practices enacted by President Joe Biden. Trump's order eliminates the roles of chief diversity officer and others overseeing anti-discrimination measures across the federal government. It instructs agencies to put the employees on paid leave, create plans to lay them off by the end of the month and remove DEI-related content from websites. 

On Tuesday, Trump issued an order that directed the Federal Aviation Administration to stop DEI hiring practices and encouraged the private sector to "end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences and comply with all federal civil-rights laws."

And on Wednesday, he revoked a 60-year-old executive order banning discrimination in federal hiring practices that was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Trump's order ends references to DEI in federal contracting and spending, requires contractors to follow its interpretation of civil rights laws and directs the government to focus on "speed and efficiency" instead of DEI, The New York Times reported. 

The Trump administration threatened federal employees with "adverse consequences" if they fail to report co-workers attempting to defy the orders, The Times reported.

The measures illustrate Trump's pledge to gut a "government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life," as he stated in his inaugural speech.

"We will forge a society that is color blind and merit-based," he said.

Are private companies next?

Scholars and data suggest the private sector is far from color blind, and have raised concerns about the orders' implications beyond the federal workplace.  

"There's no such thing as a meritocracy — this is a capitalist society," said Yasmin Dunn, a former vice president for diversity at Paramount who has worked on DEI issues. "I can be the best and brightest, but if I don't have the money and the connections to get into the rooms I need to be in, I'm not going anywhere."

Major corporations began scaling back DEI programs after a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed affirmative action in college admissions. Walmart, John Deere, Harley-Davidson and others rolled back their DEI initiatives the following year. Amazon, Meta and McDonald's did the same after Trump's reelection.

Right-leaning activist groups have been pressuring Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase to abandon or reduce their DEI efforts, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. 

DEI opponents scored another win in December. A conservative-majority appeals court narrowly ruled that publicly traded companies don't have to comply with Nadaq’s diversity rule that says they must have women and minority directors on their boards or explain why they don't.

Beyond his executive orders, Trump's administration may launch investigations and sue over corporate DEI initiatives they suspect of violating anti-discrimination laws, USA Today reported.

We need your help to stay independent

The orders will likely produce a myriad of legal issues, said June Carbone, a law professor and author of "Fair Shake," a book that examines structural obstacles holding women back.

“What most people object to when it comes to DEI is an insistence that hiring produces a minimum number of diverse employees," Carbone said. 

But if employers hire "friends, children's in-laws, people who give you money and people from your businesses — all of whom happen to be like you — you have created the opposite of merit-based selection and potentially a prima case of discrimination," she said.

The rise and fall of DEI

DEI came into focus after the 2020 murder of George Floyd, when corporations announced they would enact policies to diversify their leadership, boards and offices.

"I see a fair amount of companies and institutions keeping their commitment to DEI because they understand that diversity is good for workers and good for business"

Dunn said some of these initiatives were politically motivated and not well thought out, prompting an eventual backlash.

"DEI is not just a Band-Aid," Dunn said. "You've got to be very thoughtful and intentional about what you're doing, because what we're saying is we want to really hire people through this lens of diversity, equity and inclusion. In order to do that, we have to take a hard look at what we have been doing previously, and we have to be ready to interrogate the structures of our hiring process, of our company culture, and then we can begin to address some of the disparities."

Some notable companies haven't followed Trump’s direction. Apple and Microsoft are standing by their DEI initiatives, and Costco recently recommended that shareholders reject anti-DEI proposals. On Monday, Pinterest CEO Wanji Walcott wrote on LinkedIn that the company's "investments in a diverse and inclusive workforce with equitable opportunities" create "Immense value for users and advertisers alike."

"I see a fair amount of companies and institutions keeping their commitment to DEI because they understand that diversity is good for workers and good for business," Dunn said. "There are plenty of leaders who will continue to reap the benefits of diversity and they will stand out as we move forward the next four years."

“I don’t need to apologize”: Bishop who angered Trump with sermon speaks out

Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde meant what she said.

The bishop led a prayer service at Washington National Cathedral with Donald Trump and J.D. Vance in attendance on Tuesday. During her sermon, she asked the new administration to "have mercy" on LGBTQ+ people and immigrants, inspiring no end of Republican agita.

Rev. Lorenzo Sewell, who led the prayer at Trump's inauguration, called Budde "a heretic." Trump said that Budde was a “radical left hard-line Trump hater" and "not compelling or smart" in a post to Truth Social. Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., suggested that the U.S.-born Budde should be "added to the deportation list." Even so, Budde showed no interest in backing away from her statements. 

In an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered," Budde said she wanted to "ask [Trump] as gently as I could to have mercy." She added that she felt it was "dangerous" for Trump to speak of immigrants and transgender children the way he had during his campaign.

"To be united as a country with so many riches of diversity, we need mercy. We need compassion. We need empathy," she said. "And rather than list that as a broad category, as you heard me say, I decided to make an appeal to the president." 

Budde added that she "won't apologize" for making her request.

"I don't hate the president, and I pray for him," Budde clarified. "I don't feel there's a need to apologize for a request for mercy."

“They don’t have the money”: Musk pokes holes in Trump’s AI investment plans

Elon Musk has been an insider in a sitting president's administration for less than three days and he's already disillusioned with politics.

The Tesla head took to social media to poke holes in a plan to invest up to $500 billion in infrastructure for artificial intelligence. The plan was announced by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, in a briefing that included OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son.

"We have to get this stuff built," Trump said of the infrastructure project, adding that the future of AI needs "a lot of electricity."

Responding to OpenAI's announcement of the project on X, Musk said the investment was so much smoke.

"They don’t actually have the money," Musk wrote. "SoftBank has well under $10B secured. I have that on good authority."

Altman countered Musk's claims and wondered if the man behind the AI chatbot Grok was feeling a little envious.

"Wrong, as you surely know," Altman wrote. "Want to come visit the first site already underway? This is great for the country. I realize what is great for the country isn't always what's optimal for your companies, but in your new role, I hope you'll mostly put [America] first."

Musk, who was once a board member at OpenAI, has been feuding with Altman for several years. He filed a lawsuit against the company last August, seeking to block its plans to become a for-profit company.

“He didn’t give himself a pardon”: Trump seems to hint at Biden prosecution on Fox News

President Donald Trump stopped by "Hannity" on Wednesday to gripe about former President Joe Biden's decision to pardon many of his family members and enemies of Trump during his final days in office. Trump took care to notice that there's one prominent name that wasn't on Biden's last-minute list: Joseph Robinette Biden himself. 

"This guy went around giving everybody pardons," said Trump, fresh off of issuing a mass pardon for 1,500 accused January 6 rioters. "The funny thing, maybe the sad thing, is he didn't give himself a pardon. And if you look at it, it all had to do with him."

In the closing weeks of his presidency, Biden loosed his pardoning pen. He began his spree signings by issuing a pardon to protect his son, Hunter. The former president's oldest living son had been a target of prosecution for years. In a statement about his decision to pardon Hunter, Joe Biden said he felt that his son was being unfairly prosecuted by right-wing forces.

"From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted," Biden wrote. "Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form… It is clear that Hunter was treated differently." 

Just before leaving office, Biden issued pardons to many members of his family, as well as Trump targets like Liz Cheney and Gen. Mark Milley.

"I cannot in good conscience do nothing,” Biden said in a statement. “Even when individuals have done nothing wrong — and in fact have done the right thing — and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.”

Biden did not pardon himself — and it's unclear if he could be prosecuted at all under the Supreme Court's recently created doctrine of presidential immunity — but Trump associates are still speaking of the "Biden crime family" in statements to the press. 

"To us, it probably proves the point. The suspicion that, you know, they call it the Biden crime family," House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday. "If they weren’t the crime family, why do they need pardons? Right?"

On the right-wing news channel Real America's Voice, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said Biden was "guilty of some of the worst crimes of any president… in our nation's history," adding that Biden's family members "do belong in prison."

Watch Trump's interview with Hannity below:

Chris Brown sues Warner Bros. Discovery for $500 million over sexual assault claims in documentary

Singer Chris Brown is suing Warner Bros. Discovery for $500 million over sexual assault allegations leveled against him in the documentary, "Chris Brown: A History of Violence."

According to the lawsuit filed Tuesday, Brown is accusing Warner Bros. Discovery and the production company Ample Entertainment of inflicting emotional distress through defamatory and libelous claims made in the documentary. 

The suit stated that the companies promoted and published "false information in their pursuit of likes, clicks, downloads and dollars” to the detriment of Brown, despite “knowing that it was full of lies and deception," violating basic journalistic principles. 

The documentary, which was released in October 2024, dove into the singer’s alleged violent past and history of legal woes, examining Brown's relationships with women who reported experiences of violence, sexual assault and physical abuse. It also included claims from a Jane Doe who had previously sued Brown in 2022 for allegedly drugging and assaulting her during a 2020 yacht party hosted by disgraced hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs.

“To put it simply, this case is about the media putting their own profits over the truth. They did so after being provided proof that their information was false, and their storytelling ‘Jane Doe’ had not only been discredited over and over but was in fact a perpetrator of intimate partners violence and aggressor herself,” the complaint claimed.

“Mr. Brown has never been found guilty of any sex-related crime . . . but this documentary states in every available fashion that he is a serial rapist and sexual abuser,” the suit read.

Brown's lawsuit also named the Jane Doe as a defendant, claiming that the sexual assault and battery allegations “were determined to be entirely fabricated, leading to the withdrawal of her attorneys and dismissal of the case.” The complaint accused the Jane Doe of “completely disregarding the facts in an attempt for fame and fortune."

Elsewhere in the lawsuit, Brown's legal team also brought to light Jane Doe's own relationship history. Brown's lawsuit said the Jane Doe had “history of violence and erratic behavior [that] should have raised red flags for any responsible journalist,” citing an image of an alleged restraining order against the woman from an ex-boyfriend four years ago. The lawsuit called the Jane Doe “a perpetrator of intimate partner violence and aggressor herself.”

We need your help to stay independent

Brown's attorneys are now accusing Warner Bros. and the documentary's producers of ignoring the incident so they could instead frame her as a "reliable source to bolster their sensationalized portrayal instead of the physical aggressor in a romantic relationship.”

Warner Bros. Discovery did not immediately respond to a request for comment, Rolling Stone reported.

However, the lawsuit also admitted that the singer has made mistakes in his past, like the highly publicized 2009 assault on then-girlfriend Rihanna, which has been “publicly acknowledged and addressed by him." Since then, Brown has “grown from those experiences, and his evolution speaks for itself.”

Last summer, Brown and his entourage were sued for $50 million for an alleged assault against concertgoers that was said to have taken place backstage at Brown's own concert in Texas. The concertgoers asked for a temporary restraining order against Brown, Variety reported. In 2017, Brown's ex-girlfriend Karreuche Tran received a five-year restraining order against him over alleged threats and stalking.

“Go f**k yourself”: Former D.C. cop blasts pardoned Jan. 6 rioter Stewart Rhodes on CNN

President Donald Trump's sweeping pardons of 1500 accused January 6 rioters sent a clear message to his most die-hard supporters. During a visit to CNN on Wednesday, former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone sent one right back. 

"This is what I would say to Stewart Rhodes: go f**k yourself," Fanone said live on air, shocking host Pamela Brown. "You're a liar."

The former cop was speaking directly to the recently pardoned founder of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia whose presence was notable during the Jan. 6 riots. Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the riot. He walked free earlier this week following Trump's pardons. 

Fanone has reason to be sore with Rhodes. He was tased and beaten unconscious during the Jan. 6 riots. He testified before the House Select Committee about his experience in 2021, noting that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and lives with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Fanone's testimony before lawmakers was sent up by Fox News host Sean Hannity shortly thereafter. Laura Ingraham accused Fanone of putting on a show to paint the riots as worse than they were. 

"The facts are the facts," Fanone responded at the time. "They were supported by hundreds of hours of videotape, evidence, eyewitness testimony, they're indisputable."

Fanone is far from alone in thinking the J6 pardons crossed a line. Earlier this month, U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger worried about the troubling precedent that pardons would set. 

“What message does that send? What message does that send to police officers across this nation, if someone doesn’t think that a conviction for an assault or worse against a police officer is something that should be upheld, given what we ask police officers to do every day?” Manger asked in an interview with the Washington Post.

Watch Fanone's heated response below:

The US wants to cut food waste in half. We’re not even close

The United States is nowhere near its goal of cutting food waste in half by 2030, according to new analysis from the University of California, Davis. 

In September 2015, the U.S. set an ambitious target of reducing its food loss and waste by 50%. The idea was to reduce the amount of food that ends up in landfills, where it emits greenhouse gases as it decomposes, a major factor contributing to climate change.

Researchers at UC Davis looked at state policies across the country and estimated how much food waste each state was likely reducing in 2022. They found that, without more work being done at the federal level, no state is on track to achieve the national waste reduction goal. 

Researchers calculated that, even when taking reduction measures into account, the U.S. still generates about 328 pounds of food waste per person annually — which is also how much waste was being generated per person in 2016, shortly after the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the waste-cutting goal. 

These figures indicate that even our best strategies for eliminating waste aren't enough to meet our goals, said Sarah Kakadellis, lead author of the study published in Nature this month.

In order to assess how the U.S. is doing to meet its food waste reduction goals, Kakadellis and her team used both publicly available data (from ReFED, a nonprofit that monitors food waste in the U.S.) and estimates based on the current policy landscape. 

The study's findings were "not surprising" given the absence of federal policy governing food waste, said Lori Leonard, chair of the Department of Global Development at Cornell University. "People are trying to do what they can at state and municipal levels," she said. "But we really need national leadership on this issue."

Kakadellis suggests that a path forward will also necessitate shifting the way consumers think about certain waste management strategies — like composting. 

Composting turns organic material, like food scraps, into a nutrient-rich mixture that can be used to fertilize new plants and crops. It can be considered a form of "recycling" food, although its end product technically cannot be eaten. This important detail means consumers must learn to view composting, despite its potential environmental benefits, as a form of food waste, says Kakadellis. 

"It's really thinking about the best use of food, which is to eat it," she said. 

Although it's been touted as a great alternative to chucking your moldy bananas in the trash, composting is indeed classified as a form of food waste by the United Nations and the European Union. In 2021, the EPA updated its definition of food waste to include composting and anaerobic digestion — both of which can take inputs like uneaten food and turn them into fertilizer or biogas, respectively.

In updating its guidance, the EPA published a food waste hierarchy — which shows the best way to reduce food waste is to prevent it. This includes things like adding accurate date-labels to food products, so consumers aren't confused about when something they've purchased has gone bad or is no longer safe to eat. It's also preferable to find another use for unsold or uneaten food — like donating it to food banks or integrating into animal feed, where it can be used to raise livestock (assuming that livestock will also eventually feed humans). 

Composting will always have a role to play in diverting food waste from landfills — because those operations can accept spoiled or rotten food, which food banks, for example, cannot. "It's not an either/or. They have to go hand in hand," said Kakadellis. "But we're skipping all these other steps and we're going straight to the recycling too often."

Leonard agrees, pointing out the high costs associated with ensuring the nation's sprawling, complex food system runs smoothly: from the farm where crops are harvested to the trucks and cold storage that handle packaged goods. "There's a tremendous amount of energy that's gone into producing that food," she said. "We don't do that to create compost. You know, we do that to feed people."

Composting, of course, serves more than one purpose and has environmental benefits beyond lowering food loss and waste. For example, it replenishes soils. But Leonard notes that if more work were done on the prevention side — like, making sure farms aren't overproducing food — then soils wouldn't be so depleted in the first place and wouldn't need so much remediation.

Both Leonard and Kakadellis emphasize that no one tool for avoiding sending food to landfills should be off the table. Leonard, who previously worked with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, once did research on organics bans in other states. 

"I asked them if they were encouraging businesses or households to move up the EPA hierarchy and find other, better uses for their food scraps? And they said, no, no. What we're really trying to do is just get people to do anything on the hierarchy." That includes composting.

Until there are more options for both pre- and post-consumer food waste, composting may be the best, most accessible option for many people. "It is the easiest thing to do," said Leonard. "And it's probably the safest thing to do until we have better protocols in place." 

toolTips(‘.classtoolTips1′,’Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.’);

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/food-and-agriculture/the-us-wants-cut-food-waste-in-half-were-not-even-close/.

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

“Manufactured media stunts”: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni drama escalates with new leaked footage

The bitter legal drama with "It Ends With Us" co-stars Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively has taken a new turn. 

On Tuesday, Baldoni's attorney and his public relations team reportedly leaked to the Daily Mail behind-the-scenes footage of Baldoni and Lively shooting a scene together. According to his attorney, this footage allegedly disproves the allegations Lively leveled against Baldoni in her sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit last month.

The footage is a scene between Lily (Lively) and Ryle (Baldoni) — the central couple of the Colleen Hoover book-to-movie adaptation — slow dancing in a bar in the early stages of their relationship. In the short clip, the actors are heard speaking to each other about how to portray the romance between their characters. Lively suggests it's more "romantic" if they continue to talk instead of kissing.

During a moment in the clip, Baldoni is shown asking Lively, “Am I getting beard on you today?” Lively laughs and replies, “I’m probably getting spray tan on you,” to which Baldoni says, “It smells good.”

In Lively's lawsuit, she alleges that in this scene, Baldoni did not act in character as Ryle but "instead, he spoke to Ms. Lively out of character as himself." The suit claims "he leaned forward and slowly dragged his lips from her ear and down her neck as he said, ‘It smells so good.'"

This alleged improv moment led to Baldoni "caressing Ms. Lively with his mouth in a way that had nothing to do with their roles." When Lively rebuked his behavior, Baldoni allegedly said, "'I’m not even attracted to you.'”

But Baldoni's team said the footage “refutes Ms. Lively’s characterization” of Baldoni’s behavior.

Lively's attorney said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter, “Every frame of the released footage corroborates” Lively's allegations and that the videos are “manufactured media stunts” by the Baldoni camp.

Processed red meat isn’t just bad for your heart, it’s also associated with dementia

Less red meat is good for the planet and a growing number of people have started the new year resolving to pursue a meat-free diet.

Besides being good for the planet and kinder to animals, eating less red meat is also better for your health. Reducing consumption of red and processed meat could reduce your risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease. These diseases share risk factors with dementia, including the most common type, Alzheimer's disease.

Alzheimer's and other types of dementia are the UK's leading cause of death. With Alzheimer's, memory problems are often the first issue to become apparent and these are later followed by other cognitive impairments significantly affecting daily life and social interactions.

A large US-based study investigated different foods and their associated dementia risk in over 133,000 healthcare professionals who did not have dementia when the study started. They were tracked for over four decades. In that time, just over 11,000 developed dementia.

Eating processed red meat (such as sausages, bacon, hotdogs and salami) was linked to a 16% higher risk of dementia and a faster rate of cognitive aging. Eating about two servings of processed red meat a week raised the risk of dementia by 14% compared with those who ate less than about three servings a month. (A serving is a piece of meat roughly the size of a deck of playing cards – around 85g.)

If people substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts, tofu or beans, they could reduce their dementia risk by 19%, the study found. The rate of cognitive ageing was also reduced.

In this same sample, eating less red and processed meat was shown to substantially reduce the risk of death from cancer and heart disease. The researchers estimated that almost one in ten deaths could have been prevented if everyone had eaten less than 42g of red meat (less than half a serving) a day throughout the study.

Red or processed meat can result in high levels of "bad fats" in the blood because of its saturated fat and cholesterol content. This can result in fatty deposits building up in the blood vessels, explaining some of the association with heart disease deaths.

High blood pressure can result from the high salt content in processed meats. The fat around the tummy caused by these calorific foods combined with a sedentary lifestyle is also linked to high blood pressure, in addition to inflammation of the blood vessels and diabetes.

These factors are all also associated with Alzheimer's. "Good fats" found in nuts, fatty fish, olive oil and avocado could help reduce these mechanisms and may protect against dementia and memory decline.

Gut health

Scientists increasingly recognise the role of the gut in brain disorders.

Gut health can be improved with prebiotics, such as fibres in plants, and probiotics (the helpful bacteria that can be found in fermented foods such as tempe, sauerkraut, kefir, kombucha and yoghurt).

Plants and beans that contain lots of fibre were associated with less risk of dementia in the studies mentioned. Conversely, gut health can be negatively affected by ultra-processed food, such as crisps, fizzy drinks, breakfast cereals and ready meals.

 

A review of studies, published in 2023, found that people who ate lots of ultra-processed foods (of all kinds – not just processed meats) had a 44% higher risk of dementia. So, do we need to cut out all processed foods?

This is a difficult topic, and it is also very hard to implement. Much of what most of us eat is processed, from tinned vegetables to bread and milk. Many of these foods have health benefits. The above-mentioned review found that eating moderate amounts of ultra-processed food was not associated with an increased risk of dementia.

Moderation is key

As always, moderation is key in any diet. Any food or drink – even water – in the wrong dose can harm the body. So be wary of recent diet trends suggesting we need to eat loads of protein.

Too much protein can be tough on the kidneys, leading to their dysfunction. This is a problem as you need your kidneys to remove toxins from your body, get rid of excess fluids and waste. They help regulate blood pressure and support bone health, among other important functions. Not having good kidney function can lead to serious health problems.

Besides going meatless, many people want to lose weight in the new year. Keto diets with lots of protein and fat, while popular, have low adherence and the same weight loss as other diet programmes in the long term.

Eating a healthy, balanced diet that includes lots of plants, beans and good fats (such as those found in nuts and fish), and exercising regularly will help to reduce your risk of dementia and heart disease.

Eef Hogervorst, Professor of Biological Psychology, Loughborough University and Emma D'Donnell, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology, Loughborough University

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

“Golden sunshine and blue skies all the way”: The light of David Lynch will never go out

David Lynch, like many other filmmakers before him and many who will follow in his path, was drawn to Los Angeles because of the city's natural and near-constant light.

In the 2016 documentary, "David Lynch: The Art Life" — which features Lynch speaking at length about his early days as an artist, his transition from painting to film, and the surreal minutiae of adolescence that led to him developing his signature "Lynchian" style — the light of the city he made his home for 55 of his 78 years and the light of his own inner creativity are shown as two connected wires producing one big spark that will exist long after the sun itself explodes in the sky above us.

In the wake of Lynch's passing, we are lucky to be able to access his light anytime we want by revisiting the works he's left behind — they can be put to use in times of emotional deep freeze or to jumpstart our own creativity, should the darkness that looms threaten to snuff it out. Although his time here was short — factoring in the wish of many that his end time would never come — his imagination, which he had an endless supply of, comes with the reminder that darkness exists because of the knowledge of light and that the sun is always shining somewhere, you just need to turn towards it to feel it.

In the second episode of "Twin Peaks: The Return," which aired on Showtime in 2017 and would ultimately become Lynch's final released project since efforts to obtain financial backing or distribution for two films ("Antelope Don’t Run No More" and "Snootworld") went nowhere and Netflix tabled plans for a limited series called "Unrecorded Night" during the COVID pandemic — which I would bet they're kicking themselves for now — a scene featuring arguably his two most beloved characters, Special Agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) and Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee), is just one of many ways Lynch played with the concept of light as being an ocean of creativity containing a multitude of ideas to fish out — but it's a great one.

This light, to me, feels like it symbolizes the totality of every idea Lynch ever had and, now, every idea he ever will have.

In the scene, Cooper — trapped in an in-between space known as the Black Lodge for 25 years — talks to a long dead Palmer, questioning if it's really her.

"But Laura Palmer is dead," he says, trying to make sense where there's no sense to be made.

"I am dead. Yet I live," Palmer says back to him, slowly moving her hand in front of her face to remove it like a mask, revealing a bright white light that washes over Cooper.

This light, to me, feels like it symbolizes the totality of every idea Lynch ever had and, now, every idea he ever will have. And, like Palmer, he is dead. Yet he lives.

Because of that light.


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


This scene was jarring but, like most of Lynch's work, it was both jarring and beautiful. Throughout the bulk of his projects — and especially in "Twin Peaks" — the scariest scenes were often punctuated with brilliant flashes of light, and the color or temperature of that light was always intentional: Blue for melancholy, white for death, red for pain or murder and yellow for blind optimism.

From "Wild at Heart" to "Mulholland Drive" and everything before, after, or in-between, Lynch's light did some heavy lifting but, like the works themselves, if you go in and in and in to the center of it all, you will eventually arrive at the core — at the source of that light — which was Lynch himself.

In a resurfaced clip making the rounds on social media following his death, Lynch compares people to light bulbs that radiate energy, both good and bad. For anyone who grew to love him — either through knowing him personally, or via his work — you get the sense that he put a lot of work into what kind of "light bulb" he was, and much of that work was done via his years-long practice of transcendental meditation. 

"A human being's like a light bulb. And we enjoy that light inside, but we also radiate it. We affect our environment. Everybody knows that," he says in the clip. "You go into a room where there's been a bad argument, and the argument's over, but you can feel that thing. You go into a room filled with bliss, and the power of that is so beautiful to be in."

I have certainly felt Lynch's light in this way via his work. In fact, during an interview I was lucky to conduct with him many years ago, I told him about seeing "Lost Highway," in the movie theater when it came out in 1997 and being so rattled by it that, afterward, I found it difficult to drive and had to sit in the parking lot of the theater until I re-connected with the real world around me. For a good long while, and many times throughout the years, the energy that lived in him found its way directly into me in a profound way. And that won't stop, even now that he's gone. I can get that feeling back by experiencing what he's made and bask in it, just as easy as flicking a light switch. 

In the days since Lynch's death on January 15, 2025, many remembrances written about him by friends, family and stars that he worked with over the years made mention of light — both what it meant to him, and which he brought.

Like the works themselves, if you go in and in and in to the center of it all, you will eventually arrive at the core — at the source of that light — which was Lynch himself.

In one such remembrance posted to Instagram by Riley Sweeney Lynch, his son with third wife Mary Sweeney, he shared three photos of his father from throughout the years, and it's interesting to note which ones he selected. 

In the first, Lynch is shown sitting in his studio, illuminated by an overhead shop light. The second is of Riley as a young boy, standing next to his dad with sepia-toned daylight over their shoulders. And in the third, Lynch is shown walking away from the camera straight into the bright ball of the sun shining through the trees of Washington State, while filming "Twin Peaks: The Return." A life story told in light: Work, family, and a journey there's no coming back from.

Towards the end of Lynch's "Art Life" documentary, he talks about receiving the grant that would allow him to move from Philadelphia — where he lived at the time with his first wife Peggy and their daughter, Jennifer — to Los Angeles, and how that changed everything for him.

Describing seeing the light of Los Angeles for the first time, Lynch says, "So when we drove out, we went down Sunset and turned left on San Vicente — parked the big truck — and the next morning was the first morning I experienced California sunshine. Unreal. I just stood in the street and looked up at the sun. It was unbelievable. And it was a kind of a thing where it was pulling fear out of me."

Compared to that first morning spent in Los Angeles, when the light pulled every care in the world right out of him, that setting was lit considerably harsher on his last — forced to evacuate his home during wildfires that ravaged a vast portion of the city. 

But above that fire, and above that fear, was the light of everything beyond. And he headed that way. 

Marlee Matlin’s life in her own words: A Deaf trailblazer opens up

When Marlee Matlin became the first Deaf actor to win an Oscar for “Children of a Lesser God,” back in 1986, she didn’t want to be the last. However, it took 35 years for another Deaf actor, Troy Kotsur, to be nominated (and win) for “CODA,” a film Matlin costarred in. In the poignant documentary, “Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore,” premiering at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, the actress reflects back on her career as well as her personal life, which included episodes of addiction and being abused, but also the joy of having grandchildren. 

Matlin was 21 years old when her film debut in “Children of a Lesser God” catapulted her to stardom. She recounts being very inexperienced at the time, and, as the documentary shows, she did not have guidance or language about many things. She received praise from the Deaf community, advocated for closed captions, and helped Gallaudet University hire a Deaf president when a hearing woman was named, much to the anger of students. (Deaf advocate Nyle DiMarco codirected a documentary about this event which is also playing at this year’s Sundance Film Festival). But when Matlin spoke — rather than sign — the names of the nominees at the 1987 Oscars, she faced a backlash from the Deaf community. 

In addition, her off-screen relationship with “Children of a Lesser God” co-star, William Hurt, was troubled due to allegations that he physically abused her. Matlin also struggled to find work because there were few parts written for Deaf actors. She received help from her friend Henry Winkler — whom she met when he saw her perform in Chicago — and Matlin started to get her career and her life back on track. Matlin also has the distinction of being the first Deaf patient at the Betty Ford Center. She bemoans that she had to pay for her interpreter to manage treatment. 

"As people who are Deaf, we are always patronized."

Directed by Deaf filmmaker Shoshannah Stern, this sensitive, illuminating documentary offers a candid profile of Matlin, chronicling her professional life, introducing her family — her siblings, husband, children, and a grandchild — while also explaining how she found her way in the world. She describes being rebellious as a teen but also being bored and isolated because she was frequently cut off, blocked off, dismissed and ignored. Now she feels more empowered, but acknowledges there is more she wants to do.

Matlin and Jack Jason, her business partner and sign language interpreter, spoke with Salon prior to the Sundance premiere of “Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore.”  

Author’s Note: Capital D Deaf is used when Deaf refers to people who are politically and culturally associated with the Deaf community. Little d deaf refers to people who have hearing impairments but see it as a medical, individual issue.

The comment that moved me most in this film is, “You are more than what people think you are.” Can you explain what prompted you to make this film now? 

All the years I have been in the entertainment business, or in the public eye, I have always felt like I was telling the story of the film, or play, or TV show that I was making. People would ask me questions about the project, and then I would talk about my life. In my [memoir], I am telling you my story in my words. This time, it was time to tell my story in my Marlee language, in my Marlee lens, with a person [director Shoshannah Stern] who occupies the same space. Knowing that you have to squeeze your entire life into 90 minutes isn’t as easy as you think it might be. Yet I was in good hands. I knew that Shoshannah would be able to put it in a neat and digestible package. There are so many different perspectives by so many different people on how [they see] me as a person who is Deaf, and they are not necessarily right. A lot of people thought they knew who I was. Some came with preconceived notions. I wanted to clear the air. It was time to lay all my cards on the table and let people watch and understand why I am who I am up to this point, today. 


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


I love the moment in the film when someone says that every Deaf actress plays Sarah in “Children of a Lesser God;” that it is a “rite of passage.” The comment suggests there are very few roles for Deaf actresses. There is also a remark that the film is “about them,” meaning the hearing world, “not us,” meaning Deaf people. Do you feel you have more control over your career now than back in your salad days? 

I didn’t know any better at the [start of my career]. Work is work. I had bills to pay. I thought I belonged in Hollywood, so whatever they offered me, I thought, “I’ll take it!” That was just the way it was. I was a working actor, and I felt lucky and grateful that I was getting work. And I can’t say I didn’t enjoy it. I did enjoy the work I did — don’t get me wrong — but I didn’t think much then about how it was written, or how I was portrayed. At the end of the day, every role I did was from the perspective of a hearing person, and not a Deaf person. It was almost as if I literally didn’t have a voice to say to the writer, or producer, or director, “Why don’t we take a time out?” I didn’t think about that until “CODA.” No one asked me. As people who are Deaf, we are always patronized. We have a Deaf actor; we check that box. Things are different now, as you can see. 

I like that you explain in the film that you would not work on “CODA” if the other actors were not Deaf. Can you talk about inclusivity in your career and if you were often the only Deaf person on set? You are now making concerted efforts to change that. 

Absolutely. I have always been the one working as a Deaf person. Deaf actors said to me, "How do you get agency? How do you get this, and we don’t get this? Can you help me get an agent, or write, or act?" Why am I the only person? I was the one getting everything but no one else was getting anything. Why is no one else being included? I was always the only Deaf person, and people started to resent that I was the only one. My desire today is to spread the wealth and to help other Deaf actors get the screen roles that I do to act, or write, and direct. With “CODA,” and the fact that they were thinking of putting a hearing actor in a Deaf role — because box office — it clicked for me to say, “You can’t do this, or go backward and do what’s been done and accepted as “normal.’ It wouldn’t work, period.” It was a matter of me just getting tired. I surprised myself when I said I would walk away [from “CODA” if they hired a hearing actor]. 

The documentary addresses your family life, and I was touched by your relationship with your parents as well as your siblings. But I was struck by your alienation and your frustration  you were often bored and admirably, quite stubborn. I also love that you have the words “perseverance” and “warrior” tattooed on your body. What inspired me in your film — though I am sure it was frustrating for you — was your being left alone to solve things for yourself. Can you describe how you developed your sense of self before and after you were thrust into the national spotlight in such a major way?

I had to figure it out for myself! I had to navigate and find ways to serve me, unfortunately. I had to answer questions no one answered for me. Why am I doing this? Why am I stubborn? Why am I doing drugs? I managed to get through it all. 

I can say I had a great childhood. I didn’t come from a broken home, and I had the best of everything, but, yet, I didn’t have what I would have liked to have had, which is full communication. Maybe I expected more, but I am the kind of person who wants more than just what everyone else gets. I don’t want “just enough.” That’s who I am.

I appreciate your activism and advocacy for the Deaf community and the pressure you had representing the community. You certainly inspired many folks, but you also upset them at the Oscars when you read the nominee's names but did not sign them. What can you say about community acceptance, your advocacy, and how it has changed over the years?  

I can’t say I’m fully accepted by everybody yet. I still have a few detractors. I still have an apprehension of the Deaf community. For the most part, I have the utmost respect for the most powerful members of the [Deaf] community. I continue to feel pressure and be responsible for the community that rejected me outright and didn’t afford the respect that I thought I was going to get. There were people I looked up to. It is all a matter of how and what kind of upbringing we had. Different people who are Deaf have different kinds of ways of looking at the community, depending on how they were brought up — in deaf households, or in hearing households. As I spoke at the Oscars, I was completely thrown for a loop. No one told me why it was not right to just speak, even though I took the time to explain this is what I was doing, this is how I was raised, and this is what I was used to doing. It wasn’t until 10 years ago that I found out the reason why. People still come up to me and say, “I used to really hate you, but you’re OK.” Whatever.

There was a comment on social media recently — and I almost never look at social media comments — I put out a social media post about how I evacuated because of the fires, and someone said, “I never liked Marlee Matlin or her movies.” I thought, what does one have to do with the other — evacuation and my movies? I was this close to saying, “You don’t have to like me, or my movies, but why don’t you go and diss someone else who is in the process of trying to evacuate their home, instead of having to attach your dislike for me to something I am talking about on a personal level?” That really got to me. That stung. There are still haters out there. I hope my film at least clears the air, and it shows people that I am sensitive about what people say about me. To those detractors who don’t want to try to understand where I came from, I’m not asking them to like me, but I would like to ask them to take 90 minutes to watch the film and understand me better and learn.

I don’t want to trigger more painful memories, but I found your comments about your relationship with William Hurt and not having the resources  and having a language deprivation  when addressing the abuse quite powerful. How do you process all this trauma all these years later?

It’s cathartic for me to talk about it. It helps me to be able to talk about it. I think about other women and men who might be in similar situations — particularly Deaf women and men — who don’t necessarily have the resources to get help. Back then, I didn’t even know that I could ask for help. The film only shows this much [holds up fingers to indicate an inch] of what I went through. It’s mind-blowing to think about the fact that at the time, I lived in an apartment with William Hurt, and I would scream almost every day and night and not one single neighbor called the cops. To this day, I still don’t get it. 

I was tickled that you stayed at Henry Winkler’s home for two years and even had your wedding in his backyard. Can you talk about your friendship with him? He seemed to have a pivotal and positive role in your life. 

When I heard that he was coming to the Center for Deafness when I was performing, I was ready to grab his attention. I made a plan in my mind. I remember standing behind the curtain peeking out to see him there. When he tapped me on the shoulder [after the show] and said I was great, I wanted to talk with him. My mother told him not to encourage me too much. In reality, what could a deaf girl in Hollywood expect? Executives wouldn’t know what to do with her. She put that out to Henry, and he said, “You got the wrong person.” We stayed in touch. I wrote letters to him when I was 14 and 15. I still have his letters. When I did my first professional theater [performance] at 19, he sent me a bouquet of flowers. We were in touch from when I was 12 to when I was 19. Then I got the role in “Children of a Lesser God.” I remember asking Henry if I could stay at his home for the weekend, and it ended up being two years. When I decided I needed to grow up and move out, I remember I said, “I think I need to move out,” and his wife Stacey said, “What did we do wrong?”

Typical Jewish mother!

[Laughs] Exactly a Jewish mother! Then I met Kevin, my husband, and I told him we needed to go to the Winker house. Henry and Stacey were in bed reading the newspaper and I went like this [gestures showing off an engagement ring] and Stacey said, “You’re getting married here!” The dance floor was built on top of their swimming pool — because they needed the same dance floor for their daughter’s Bat Mitzvah, so it was 2 for the price of 1.

In the documentary, we see you directing an episode of “Accused,” and you have produced some projects. Do you think you will do more work behind the camera, or perhaps write a film to create more opportunities for you and other Deaf actors?

If only they would call me to do a role! I am waiting, but I am also being proactive. I don’t like playing the waiting game. Everyone says that in the entertainment business. I’m not trying to start a pity party here, but the thing is you need to know people in the industry to get work. I do have friends. But I have more acquaintances  people who say, “Hi, we love you. You’re great. Kiss Kiss.” But I’d like to work more as a director or as a producer. 

[Jack adds: She’s producing a lot of projects.] 

I’m impatient. Hopefully, this documentary will kickstart things and people know what I can offer. It’s working at a different level. What I can do, and what Deaf people can do, and how we communicate and lend ourselves for the betterment of a project. 

I loved seeing you sing to Billy Joel’s “My Life,” during the documentary’s end credits. What is something folks might be surprised to learn about you?

That was my purpose to sing that song. No one, except very close friends, knew that I do that when I drive my car. No one knows that I sang that song to Billy Joel at his house when he was married to Christie Brinkley. They videotaped it. I have to get ahold of her to get it. If you can get a hold of that tape, that would be great. Go, Gary, go!

"Marlee Matlin: Not Alone Anymore” screens at the Sundance Film Festival Jan 23-25 and January 29 in person and is available online January 30-February 3.  

Riggs asks North Carolina Supreme Court to reject “unlawful” GOP bid to throw out thousands of votes

A North Carolina judge's effort to overturn his electoral defeat by tossing out thousands of votes is "fatally flawed," "unlawful and unwarranted" as it threatens to disenfranchise scores of North Carolina voters, state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs argued.

The Democratic justice's late Tuesday rebuke refutes the election protests of her opponent, Appellate Court Judge Jefferson Griffin, who trails Riggs in the state's Supreme Court race by just 734 votes. Griffin, a Republican, has asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to force the state Board of Elections to throw out more than 60,000 votes that he claims, in part, are invalid because voters' registration applications were incomplete.

In her reply brief, Riggs, who has recused herself from the case and intervened as a defendant, urged the state Supreme Court to reject Griffin's petition. She argued that ruling in his favor would set the stage for future candidates to retroactively challenge election rules when they lose a race while upending North Carolinians' faith in their electoral process. 

"Never again will North Carolina voters walk out of the voting booths knowing that their votes will count, and the court system will be flooded with lawsuits after every election seeking to challenge votes all over the State," Riggs said. "That result is untenable and should be rejected by this Court not only for the sake of this race, but to avoid undermining the public’s confidence in every election going forward."

Riggs' win was confirmed late last year by two recounts, one by machine and another partially by hand. The Democratic-led North Carolina Board of Elections rejected Griffin's electoral protests in mid-December, prompting his suit.

Griffin claims that the state Election Board erroneously and unlawfully counted more than 60,000 votes he alleges are invalid because voters' did not fully complete their registration applications, omitting driver's license information or social security numbers. In some cases, voter registration applications are incomplete because voters weren't asked to provide that identification information. 

The Republican judge last week urged the Republican-majority state Supreme Court to first consider tossing 5,509 votes cast by overseas voters, which he says are invalid because they do not include accompanying photo identification. He also asked that the court postpone consideration of the other issues he raised pending a determination. Tossing out those votes alone will hand him the victory. 

But Riggs sounded the alarm about Griffin's suggestion. Should the court oblige, she argued, they would disenfranchise U.S. service members, their families and other overseas voters who voted absentee using a standard federal form or secure portal specially created to aid military members in voting. 

Plus, Griffin only flagged absentee votes of North Carolinians registered in four heavily Democratic counties — rather than from all 96 counties in the state, Riggs added. She said that expanding the photo ID rule retroactively to absentee ballots from every county would balloon the number of North Carolinians affected by Griffin's protest to more than 30,000. 

"This Court could not order the removal of votes in four counties, while leaving votes from similarly situated voters in all other counties untouched," she said, arguing that it  "should not open that Pandora's box."

While Riggs acknowledged how unusual it was to ask her colleagues on the court to reject Griffin's requests, she emphasized the importance of their decision in upholding the rule of law and reviving public confidence.

"In a State where we openly celebrate that all power derives from the people, the best way to achieve these things is to leave this matter in the hands of the voters who followed the rules in place at the time of the election," she said. 

Earlier this month, the North Carolina Supreme Court granted Griffin's request to temporarily block certification of the election to consider his claims. Two justices dissented, one Republican and one Democrat, with the Republican justice warning of the harm to the state's election integrity in effectively stripping North Carolinians' right to vote after the election has occurred. 

In a separate brief filed Tuesday, Riggs also asked the state Supreme Court to hold oral argument in the case, arguing that doing so will aid the court and the parties in better understanding Griffin's requests and bolster "public confidence in the fairness and integrity of our judicial system."

Griffin's election challenge is currently before both the North Carolina Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considering Riggs' appeal for the matter to be handled in federal court.

The state Supreme Court is reviewing briefs from the parties. The Fourth Circuit will hear oral argument on Jan. 27. 

Prince Harry gets apology from Rupert Murdoch’s UK papers for “serious intrusion” on his life

Prince Harry snagged a historic win in his lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s U.K. tabloids, receiving an unprecedented apology from the company for the intrusion and breach of privacy of the royal's life.

In court on Wednesday, News Group Newspapers issued a “full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life."

For years, Prince Harry stated he wanted to see the privacy invasion lawsuit head to trial. The royal stressed in his Netflix documentary "Harry & Meghan" that Murdoch’s tabloids should be held accountable for their actions. After six years of fighting against tabloids like The Sun, alleging that his phone was hacked and he was spied on, News Group Newspapers has ultimately admitted fault, The Associated Press reported.

The apology acknowledged “phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators” that targeted Harry. NGN had denied those allegations prior to the settlement.

The statement even addressed the boundaries crossed with Harry's mother, the late Princess Diana, and the traumatic impact her death had on the royal family.

“We acknowledge and apologize for the distress caused to the duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages,” the settlement statement said.

In response to the settlement, Prince Harry's attorney said, “This represents a vindication for the hundreds of other claimants who were strong-armed into settling without being able to get to the truth of what was done to them."

13 Democratic senators tell the GOP they are ready to collaborate on “fair immigration enforcement”

A group of 13 Democratic senators sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., saying they were willing to provide votes for legislation to address “pressing border security and immigration needs."

The letter’s signers, led by Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said they “see a need for strong, commonsense, and fair immigration enforcement accompanied by the necessary resources to effectively secure our borders.”

Co-signers include Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Mark Warner, D-Va., all of whom may face challenging re-elections in 2026, as well as freshmen Sens. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. Gallego co-sponsored the Laken Riley Act that passed the Senate earlier this week, which would require federal officials to detain and potentially deport undocumented migrants accused — but not necessarily convicted — of various nonviolent and violent offenses. The other Democratic co-sponsor, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., did not sign the letter sent Wednesday.

The 13 votes, combined with most or all of 53 Republican votes, would be enough to reach the Senate's 60-vote threshold for overcoming a filibuster. Congressional Republicans are already preparing a slew of legislation to enable President Donald Trump's immigration agenda, which includes promises of sending federal agents into major cities to begin mass deportations, and an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants.

The letter, which hinted at Democratic priorities to protect farm workers and children brought illegally into the U.S. as minors, argued that a bipartisan approach would be most effective after the issues have “gone unaddressed for far too long under both Democratic- and Republican-controlled government."

“He cannot rewrite the Constitution”: 22 states sue Trump over birthright citizenship order

Attorneys general from 22 states and two cities sued President Donald Trump in two district courts Tuesday to challenge an executive order instructing U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born to immigrant parents who are not themselves citizens, an effort to unilaterally eliminate the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

The order, which asserts that such children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and thus aren't protected by the 14th Amendment, also includes the children of some mothers in the country legally but under temporary status, such as foreign students and tourists. Without citizenship, they would be blocked from working, voting and accessing federal programs like Medicaid.

Eighteen states and two cities, San Francisco and Washington D.C., filed their lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, arguing that birthright citizenship as defined by the 14th Amendment is "automatic" for all people born in the U.S. and that Trump had violated the Constitution. Another four states filed their lawsuit in federal court in Washington.

“Presidents are powerful,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin told the New York Times, “but he is not a king. He cannot rewrite the Constitution with a stroke of the pen.”

The lawsuits target a central part of Trump's plan to crack down on immigration and deport potentially millions of people. If allowed to stand, Trump's order could deny citizenship to over 150,000 children born annually in the United States, according to the the office of Washington Attorney General Andrea Nick Brown, who warned that it might render them "citizens to no country at all."

Trump's order contradicts more than 100 years of legal precedent established by courts and federal officials interpreting the 14th Amendment as a guarantee of citizenship to every child born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' legal status, with few exceptions — like children of foreign diplomats.

 

“Violence will be rewarded”: Legal experts say Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons send a clear signal

With President Donald Trump’s pardoning and commuting the sentences of some 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants, former Justice Department officials are warning that he's sending the signal that he will pardon just about anyone who acts in his name.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order pardoning supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol just over four years ago, including those convicted of violent crimes and attacks against police officers that day. The pardon paves the way for the release of both violent offenders and the leaders of far-right groups, like Enrique Tarrio, a Proud Boys leader who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and released from prison Monday evening.

“This is a big one," Trump said while signing the pardons. "We hope they come out tonight, frankly."

In addition to the pardons, Trump also appointed a longtime GOP operative and "Stop the Steal" activist, Ed Martin, as the new interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., and instructed the Justice Department to drop its 470 ongoing criminal cases against Jan. 6 defendants, raising serious questions about prosecutorial independence going forward.

Dennis Fan, a former Justice Department official who now teaches at Columbia University, told Salon that the sweeping pardon is most comparable to when President Andrew Johnson pardoned thousands of Confederate officials in 1866.

“The pardon power just as a historical power has often been exercised in political ways. When you pardon someone, you are inherently sending a message that some federal prosecution or that some crime was not so bad,” Fan said.

Fan noted that the Jan. 6 pardons are distinguished from other pardons because the Jan. 6 convicts were storming the Capitol with the goal of keeping Trump in power and overturning the results of the 2020 election. Fan said that Trump’s pardons send the signal that anyone working in pursuit of his political goals will be shielded from legal consequences.

“I don't think anything off the table. If you say, ‘I’m willing to push police officers and potentially hit them for my preferred political candidate to take office,’ even if that’s not what the outcome would be if the political process went through, you are sending the message that we don’t care about the consequences as long as we win,” Fan said. 

We need your help to stay independent

Fan went on to say that the pardons were a symptom of a shift among Republican officials with respect to their view of the Justice Department’s independence from the president.

“Big picture-wise, I think modern Republicans have a very different view of whether independence is a virtue," he said. “It’s one of these things that you would’ve asked maybe 20 years ago and they would have said, ‘Of course we want it to be independent.'"

Now, though, Fan added: “A lot of modern Republicans think that everything should be controlled by the president.” Fan noted that Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, had questioned the legality of Special Counsel Jack Smith. 

Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, told Salon that “these particular pardons are very concerning because of the nature of the offenses.

“A pardon is a show of mercy or forgiveness. People who used brute force to block Congress from certifying an election is political violence. The pardons send a message that as long as you are acting in the interests of the leader, political violence will be rewarded,” McQuade said.

McQuade said that the pardons were a “signal that Trump will not respect the criminal justice process” and that she “wonders whether DOJ will be willing to take positions that are not favored by Trump for fear that he will simply pardon the defendants anyway.”

“I think Biden's pardons of family members contribute to the perception that anything goes when it comes to pardons,” McQuade said. “While Biden's pardons may be troubling, they lack the wholesale disregard for political violence.”

Trump’s pardon will also have the most immediate material effects for those convicted of more serious crimes. While around half of those sentenced for a crime received prison time, many had either already served their time or were never sentenced. The pardons will have the biggest effect on those convicted of attacking Capitol police officers on Jan. 6, or militia members convicted of seditious conspiracy for their actions during or leading up to the attack on the Capitol.

Police union that endorsed Trump condemns Jan. 6 pardons

President Donald Trump's mass pardon of Jan. 6 rioters, many of whom assaulted police officers defending the U.S. Capitol, has provoked a furious response from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) on Tuesday.

The FOP, the nation's largest police union, endorsed Trump in 2024 and in his previous two campaigns, declaring even after the 2021 insurrection that it was "clear he supported law enforcement and border security."

But on Tuesday, the FOP signed on to a a joint statement denouncing both Trump and former President Joe Biden's pardons of individuals convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers, saying that "allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement officers and their families."

"When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence," the statement continued.

While the statement did not refer to any specific pardons, the only pardons Trump has issued since entering office for his second term was an executive order granting a "full, complete and unconditional pardon" to around 1,500 participants of the insurrection, including leaders of far-right extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers convicted with seditious conspiracy.