Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

We wanted it darker, apparently: Leonard Cohen saw the second coming of Trump all along

Almost everything you could possibly say about Donald Trump’s return to the presidency has been said by now. The big problem with Trump as a symbol of America’s tragicomic decline is that he seems fictionally, improbably perfect for that role; the symbolism is painfully obvious, although that doesn’t deprive it of all resonance or meaning. 

Every inquisition into exactly who’s to blame for this unmitigated disaster has to begin by looking in the mirror. 

I covered Trump’s first presidential campaign back in 2016, which both feels like a lifetime ago and like the day before yesterday. (Time! It doesn’t seem to work the way it used to.) One of the songs in constant rotation at his endlessly delayed rallies that year was "You Can’t Always Get What You Want," until the lawyers for Mick Jagger and Keith Richards (or for whoever owned the rights to their songwriting catalog) made him stop. It struck me then, and strikes me now, as carrying a ham-fisted double meaning: Nearly nobody got what they wanted from Trump’s first presidency, but one could argue, at least for a while, that “we” — meaning both Americans and the people of the world — got a lesson we both needed and deserved.

So now what? With Trump reinstalled atop an administration of fully subservient toadies, apparently prepared to pursue a breathtaking range of unconstitutional, delusional or ill-advised policies, is it now clear that we need a different and harsher lesson, with potentially irreversible consequences? I don’t know; history will judge, and all that. But a different song suggests itself to me now: the final hit single from Leonard Cohen, the late Canadian Jewish prophet of doom and longtime observer of American folly, who never needed a weatherman to know which way the wind blew. 

"You Want It Darker" was released in October of 2016, less than three weeks before Cohen died, at age 82, on Nov. 7.  Donald Trump was elected president the next day. That coincidence was certainly noticed at the time; I hardly know what to say about it now. 

Like the best of Cohen’s songs, "You Want It Darker" carries an undercurrent of thrilling subversion, the sense of expressing forbidden but undeniable thoughts. It’s also a song that comments on itself, and establishes some ironic distance from its own lyrical ambition, another Cohen trademark. (Hence the nearly infinite number of mediocre covers of "Hallelujah," which somehow have not ruined it entirely.)

That certainly wasn’t the first time a Leonard Cohen song seemed to prefigure events that had not happened, or to capture a global state of mind before it fully coalesced. Most famously, there was "The Future," released in 1992 at the moment of liberal democracy’s supposed global triumph, which offered an eerie forecast of a rootless new century, struggling with the loss of existential meaning:

Give me back the Berlin Wall
Give me Stalin and St. Paul
Give me Christ
Or give me Hiroshima

Well, here we are. Donald Trump is surely not worthy of comparison with Jesus Christ or the atomic bomb — although he’d be delighted with either or both — but he just as surely represents the collective decision of just enough Americans: We want it darker. 

To resort to another Trump-era cliché, every inquisition into exactly who’s to blame for this unmitigated disaster has to begin by looking in the mirror. I’m willing to endorse, to varying degrees, indictments of the hapless Democratic Party, the self-torpedoing Kamala Harris campaign, the hubris of Joe Biden, the self-soothing mainstream media, the peaced-out “apolitical” nonvoters and the outmoded superstitions of Merrick Garland. (Especially those, in fact.) 

But it’s hard to avoid a more fatalistic conclusion: We — and by that unacceptable term of art, I really do mean all of us — were offered a crucial opportunity, with Trump’s first election, to reckon with some very big questions about the past and the future. We were asked to consider our history, and specifically the frustrating, never-to-be-finished project of American democracy, and to consider how we would use it to move forward. To put it in Cohen’s terms, exactly how much Stalin and St. Paul we wanted, or were willing to tolerate. We were asked, at very close to the last moment, to face what may be the greatest crisis in the history of human civilization, and to make choices that could yet redeem a livable planet for our descendants and the miraculous abundance of other living things.

Joe Biden gets about half a brownie point for trying to tell us those things, in his incomprehensible mumble. We could wear ourselves out listing our now-former president’s tragic flaws, but perhaps the saddest was that he believed we were big enough and wise enough and strong enough for the moment. We were not. There is no other conclusion to draw. 

Sure, I get it: If you’re reading this, then you and I could choose to congratulate ourselves for not actively desiring this outcome, and for doing whatever we did to prevent it. Let’s not bother, OK? We transparently did not do enough, and that goes a long way back; it wasn’t about holding more white-dude Zooms for Kamala or hectoring your neighbors about inflation not being real. 

With our boundless narcissism, Americans always tend to think that the whole world, and all of history, revolves around us as God’s favored nation or whatever. This time it’s at least a little bit true: Our national dance between Sex and Death, going back to the first Puritan refugees and the devil-haunted woods of New England, seems increasingly weighted toward self-destruction. Our former faith in manifest destiny always included another possibility; let’s call it a premonition of manifest doom. Even as it gnaws out its own innards, the United States of America remains the greatest economic and military power in world history, and its collapse will touch literally everyone in the world. 


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


I suppose there are people who actually buy into Donald Trump’s ludicrous rhetoric as substance, rather than pure performance. As his spiritual ancestor P.T. Barnum observed, there’s one born every minute. But I don’t think most Trump voters are stupid or entirely detached from reality. They don’t believe he can miraculously bring down the price of groceries, or that deporting a lot of custodians, dishwashers and agricultural workers, along with their entire families, will somehow improve their own lives. 

Our former faith in manifest destiny always included another possibility; let’s call it manifest doom.

They don’t know how much of Trump’s so-called agenda he and his minions can actually accomplish (since nobody knows that), and they don’t especially care. You’ve heard all this before: They feel excluded from America’s promise of universal prosperity, and they’re not entirely wrong. (News flash: They blame the wrong people for that.) They’re not interested in abstract concepts like democracy and fascism, and don’t believe we have much of a democracy anyway. They are one million percent not-wrong about that, and may indeed have a clearer grasp of that problem than the horrified Democrat-voting bourgeoisie who have convinced themselves that this isn’t who we are. As one tireless right-wing correspondent who emails Salon several times a day often puts it, “Yikes Lib/Dems! Ouch Lib/Dems!”

A large proportion of Trump supporters, I suspect, had no coherent program in mind and just wanted to f**k s**t up, in the immortal phrase previously used by anarchists. But whatever motives you want to impute to the tens of millions of Americans who voted for the guy — and the millions and millions more around the world who look at him and say, oh yes king — they have led us to this national inflection point. Such a dopey phrase! But accurate! We now face a re-reckoning, much dumber and more dangerous than the first one, with no guarantee we will pass the test this time. We wanted it darker, and we got it: The situation is both tragic and hilarious, and the only way through is through both doors. Leonard Cohen has been dead for eight years, and could not possibly have seen this coming, but of course he did.

“A brazen grift”: Trump turns his inauguration over to MAGA scams

Donald Trump won in November with a campaign built on "tough guy" posturing. Despite his inability to walk more than a few yards without calling for a golf cart, Trump supporters and his billionaire benefactors love to crow about how their leader is an icon of virility. Indeed, the masculinity braggadocio of the past year has been inescapable, from Trump's tedious "fight fight fight" slogan to Trump-loving Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg crowing that he wants more "masculine energy" at his company, where over 60% of employees are men

And yet, at Trump's supposedly triumphant moment of being sworn into his second term Monday, he and his billionaire bro crew of Zuckerberg, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos revealed themselves to be rather soft. Protecting delicate skin and elaborate makeup took precedence over the long-standing tradition of holding the inauguration outside. Instead, the soft-handed MAGA men of Silicon Valley stuck to the warmth of the Capitol Rotunda.

Owners’ box

[image or embed]

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff.bsky.social) January 20, 2025 at 12:47 PM

The setting was appropriate. It's where dead luminaries — most recently former President Jimmy Carter — lay in state. Despite all the forced smiles and cheers, the inauguration had strong funeral energy, right down to Melania Trump dressing like the widowed trophy wife she no doubt thought she'd already be by now. Trump was caked in "open casket" levels of make-up, and while alive, brought sleepy energy that only added to the funereal tone. 

Trump and Melania share a … kiss?

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 20, 2025 at 11:46 AM


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


Musk couldn't even get through the speech without a cringeworthy thumbs-up. 

Trump: "We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars." (Get a load of Elon's reaction)

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 20, 2025 at 12:38 PM

As Rebecca Shaw of the Guardian wrote last week, "I did not anticipate that the people in power would also be such huge losers." Economist Paul Krugman concurred, noting that many "rich men are extraordinarily insecure," and bitter upon finding out there are things "money can’t buy, like universal admiration." In the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie observed, "We have a clique of powerful middle-aged men who want nothing more than to be boys," following "a selfish, petulant and narcissistic man-child" of a president. Even during his speech, Trump couldn't muster the energy of a winner. He read his speech in the tired, bored voice of a junior high kid reciting a book report written off Cliff Notes.

The farcical nature of the inauguration was a fitting reminder that everything about the MAGA movement is a scam.

"We will move with purpose and speed to bring back hope, prosperity, safety and peace for citizens," he lied, with a weariness that made this preposterous statement even more laughable. Trump could not hide his annoyance that he had to go through these motions before commencing with the real task at hand: exploiting his position to suck up as much corrupt cash as humanly possible. 

The contrast between Trump's lifeless delivery and the text of the speech was uncanny. On paper, the speech is the same rhetoric of domination and violence Trump has vomited at us for nearly a decade. He fantasized about "the disastrous invasion of our country" by refugees and invoked imaginary rates of "devastating crime." His tone, however, belied the lassitude of a man who increasingly struggles to hide his age behind all that makeup. He only got a little energy when he returned to his natural state of whining, rolling out a bizarre grudge about alleged slights against President William McKinley (1897-1901) and regurgitating a 70s-era complaint about the Panama Canal. 

But hey, at least the sound system itself rebelled against Carrie Underwood singing "America the Beautiful." 

technical difficulties derail Carrie Underwood's performance

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) January 20, 2025 at 12:44 PM

Trump was so bored with the charade that he didn't bother putting his hand on the Bible during his swearing-in.

As he swore the oat of office, Trump did not place his hand on the Bible.

[image or embed]

— Michael Steele (@michaelsteele.bsky.social) January 20, 2025 at 12:35 PM

The farcical nature of the inauguration was a fitting reminder that everything about the MAGA movement is a scam. The weekend before the inauguration, Trump cashed in on his cultists' faith with a grift so obvious it would make Jim Bakker blush: releasing meme coins named after himself and his wife. Judd Legum of Popular Info summed up the move with, "Trump has turned the inauguration itself into a brazen grift, launching a meme coin hours before being sworn in."

Trump has turned the inauguration itself into a brazen grift, launching a meme coin hours before being sworn in. The Trump Organization owns 80% of the coins

[image or embed]

— Judd Legum (@juddlegum.bsky.social) January 18, 2025 at 8:19 AM

Big words like "oligarchy" are being thrown around in the face of the tech billionaire's row at the inauguration, but that may be giving them too much credit. What attracts these vultures is the stench of scam that exudes from Trump. There was once a time when Silicon Valley made money by creating useful products people wanted, but that time has passed. We're now in the era where the entire internet looks like an email to your grandmother from a purported Nigerian prince who will marry her in exchange for her Social Security checks.

As tech journalist Ed Zitron wrote in a recent newsletter, companies run by Zuckerberg, Musk, and Bezos have created "the Rot Economy," where "the paying customer" is "a nuisance to be mitigated far more than a participant in an exchange of value." To go on their websites is to be overwhelmed by shady characters trying to drain money from you in unsavory ways, from catfishing accounts to the systematic replacement of name-brand products with knockoffs with names like Jzzzacha or Meamoer. (I made those up, but they could just as easily prove to be real "brands" on Amazon.) Not only do these companies eagerly help con artists find their victims, but, as Zitron documents, these apps have become increasingly unusable "as a means of increasing engagement metrics and revenue." Search engines bury useful results. Social media feeds are full of junk. It's all meant to keep users scrolling, desperately hoping to find what they were looking for, and unable to seek alternatives, due to monopolization. 

President Joe Biden's administration was quietly waging war on corporate scammers, suing them for junk fees, forcing subscription services to let customers cancel, and going after Google's monopoly that has so degraded search engine functionality. Sadly, those efforts will be killed or canceled with Trump's return. Above all else, Trump is here to be the handmaiden for a whole new era of scamminess. However miserable your consumer experience was before, wait until these already wealthy vampires snake their hands further into your pockets. 

We need your help to stay independent

Trump, in his leaden inauguration speech, invoked an America of "explorers, builders, innovators, entrepreneurs and pioneers." As always, Trump is stealing the valor and hard work of others. He invoked a past prosperity, but his actual plans are to make a fortune by swindling the rest of us. Along with the meme coins, we can expect an escalation of the tactics Trump used in the office to make money in his first term, from forcing the government to pay his businesses for services to using his hotels as a funnel for bribery money from business and foreign leaders. In this, he shares a vision with his tech bro posse. This is not an economy built to last, but a bunch of rich men stealing everything they can on the way out the door. 

Bezos interferes with editorial at the Washington Post now, but somehow a story slipped through that highlights how much various levels of scumbag dominated the inauguration party scene this week. Highlights include "the Crypto Ball, where crypto bros ate petite Maine lobster rolls while caterers carried trays of McDonald’s" and "the Power 30 Awards, a sort of frat party for TikTok influencers," where people drank the "TokTail," which "tasted like gasoline. The reporters witnessed dirty GOP trickster Roger Stone, free to commit more crimes after being pardoned during the last Trump administration, have this totally normal conversation with Javier Milei, Argentina's wax-faced MAGA-esque president. 

“Capitalism works!” Stone shouted to Milei, whose sideburns are as thick as his populist rhetoric. Milei wore a tux. His hair was a defiant bramble.

As Stone wagged his finger at Milei, an aide tried to interpret the pronouncements into Spanish.

“Yes! It’s okay!” Milei said, referring, presumably, to capitalism. “It works … very well!”

There was once a time when the conservative argument behind "capitalism works" would be something about free markets and competition creating prosperity for all. Now the mask is fully off and we see what this slogan really means: rich people get all the money and the rest of us can suck eggs — if you can even find them anymore at the supermarket. 

Trump’s inauguration went so far beyond terrifying that it landed on hilariously absurd

The night before his Jan. 20 inauguration, Donald Trump took the stage at the latest of his seemingly 60,000 campaign rallies to tease how enjoyable his swearing-in ceremony would be. “You’re going to have a lot of fun watching television tomorrow,” he vowed. While I can think of quite a few adjectives to describe how it felt watching him take public office for the second time — “nauseating,” “repugnant,” “a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day” — “fun” would not be one of them. 

The clown with his pants falling down? Check. The scene where the villain is mean? Check. If those things are entertainment, Donald Trump’s second inauguration was right on the money.

Yet, sitting on my couch with a slight wine hangover from trying to drown out my anxieties before America hastened its decline, it was hard not to be moved by the true sense of spectacle. Moved to laughter, that is. The entire affair wasn’t flashy in the way that presidential inaugurations usually are, with grand displays of talent and showmanship from stars and politicians alike to make us believe in the boilerplate pledges for a bright future ahead. Rather, this inauguration was downright goofy, an ostentatious demonstration of absurdist pageantry and empty promises. Outfits ranged from terrible to hideous, hats almost took out spectators’ eyes, people were shoulder-checked by marines and everywhere you looked, there was a blonde woman whose makeup artist despises her, with lifeless eyes reflecting her morally bankrupt soul. But more on Carrie Underwood in a minute! 

The commencement was a top-to-bottom farce, more aligned with the definitions of entertainment in the classic Schwartz and Dietz song “That’s Entertainment!” than genuine amusement. The clown with his pants falling down? Check. The scene where the villain is mean? Check. If those things are entertainment, Donald Trump’s second inauguration was right on the money.

The drama kicked off early Monday morning with Melania Trump, ever dedicated to being a Christmas-hating cartoon villain, arriving at the customary inauguration day church ceremony dressed as the Hamburglar. Her ensemble featured a wide-brimmed hat and a long navy coat, which she kept on for the inauguration hours later. While being escorted into the ceremony in the Capitol, eyes hidden behind her hat and coat buttoned up, she was a dead-ringer for H.G. Wells’ Invisible Man. Fitting, given that anything more than one foot in front of her would be invisible beneath the shadow of her cockamamie chapeau. 

But a hat was ultimately appropriate, given the temperature outside. It was the coldest inauguration day in 45 years, meaning that the planned outdoor ceremony had to be scrapped and moved inside of the Capitol’s rotunda, which holds considerably fewer people. The parade that followed the inauguration was moved indoors too, teased earlier in the day by a whole host of guests dressed like band leaders and circus ringmasters. It was a carnival of outwear that could only be matched by typing “Rococo” into the Amazon search bar. Everywhere the camera pointed inside the rotunda, a new “most fugly jacket I’ve ever seen” appeared. This made for a fun sort of “I Spy” game to rattle my brain awake as the coffee hit. I spy with my little eye . . . generic brand Stevie Nicks! Oh, never mind, that’s just billionaire Miriam Adelson, dressed like John Lennon if he were the Ghost of Christmas Past. Elsewhere, a woman arrived in what I can only assume was her first communion dress, let out by her tailor so she could go to a fancy event for the second time in her life. 


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


Ivanka Trump opted for a Kelly green coat and hat combo to rival her mother-in-law, which immediately drew comparisons to Yvonne Strahovski’s character in “The Handmaid’s Tale.” I tend to think that we’ve run our course in likening the Trump administration to the dystopia depicted in Margaret Atwood’s story, so I will simply commend her for fashioning a glop of paint from an artist’s easel onto her dome. Outside the rotunda, Jake and Logan Paul — two former YouTubers pretending to be professional boxers — posed for a photo with New York’s mayor, Eric Adams. Standing nearby was a man whose hairline was desperately trying to escape his head, yet somehow, he was still rocking a ponytail, fighting for its life. It’s always comforting when people who look like they sell fake acid in the parking lot of a Grateful Dead show have a front-row seat to America’s peaceful transfer of power.

But my favorite outfit spoke to this particular inauguration day's loose, playful spirit. It was courtesy of Jeff Bezos’ fiancée Lauren Sánchez, who wore an all-white blazer and slacks ensemble, sporting only a lacy bra underneath her jacket. Nothing says “fresh start” like a little shoulder boulder cleavage, which Mark Zuckerberg seemed to agree with. Zuckerberg leered at Sánchez’s chest like a horny ghoul, which was the moment that signaled the biggest change on the horizon for America, given that Zuckerberg is normally just a garden-variety ghoul. Who knew there was so much nuance behind those beady eyes?

With so much disorganized majesty happening in the arrival portion of the ceremony, one might think that the actual swearing-in portion of the morning would be a nonevent in comparison. Wrong you’d be! Though the room was filled with children who made a wish to be an adult for one day, the proceedings weren’t even close to mature. Shots of the antsy crowd, interspersed with glimpses of Trump’s motorcade swerving between lanes on its way to the Capitol, portended an equally jumbled inauguration. Driving down the middle of the road is an unfortunate allegory for having a president who simply does whatever he likes. But, of course, Trump was not driving. He’s too old to do that safely, so it’s a good thing we’ve got him running a country.

When he finally did arrive, he was greeted by the dulcet sounds of Long Island’s finest tenor, Christopher D. Macchio, looking like he was still a little ruddy from the Sunday dinner gravy as he belted out “O, America!” Carrie Underwood was scheduled to follow Macchio, but the ceremony was running behind, so her slot had to be bumped back — tough for someone who basically risked their career longevity and status as a gay icon to preach unity for a big fat check. Residuals don’t last forever, and I guess now that everyone’s polyamorous and in open relationships, there’s not much need for the sweet catharsis of “Before He Cheats” anymore. 

No one in attendance was sporting s**t-eating grins or rubbing their palms together malevolently, they just looked dopey and uncool. This awful miscarriage of power, this dark day in American history, seemed utterly silly.

In all seriousness, it’s critical to acknowledge Underwood’s decision to sing at the inauguration, and it signals an important, if terrifying, turn in how celebrities are approaching Trump’s second term. And now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, we can go back to laughing at Underwood’s torrent of technical difficulties in what was supposed to be her big, unifying moment. Thank goodness, just when I was beginning to worry that famous people have become exempt from karma’s fickle wrath.

After Trump’s lengthy speech, in which he promised to do things both silly and scary, Underwood prepared for her moment in the sun. (Well, away from the sun, in the rotunda, forced to perform in a far less grand manner than Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé did at past inaugurations, but who’s keeping track?) Everyone held their breath, waiting for Underwood’s music to begin. Instead, the backing track squawked for a second and then dead air filled the room, with nary a patriotic chord to be heard. Minutes passed and things only became more awkward, leading Underwood to mouth, “I can just sing it.” She encouraged everyone in the room to participate as she sang “America the Beautiful” entirely a cappella. It was her “Mean Girls” holiday talent show moment, and what a fitting metaphor: A woman who was once thought to be good, forced to compete for attention from those in power as she gives into the conniving evils of the influential people around her. 

After what felt like hours, the ceremony finally, blessedly finished. Sitting there, having managed to endure the start to another four long years, I felt neither invigorated nor helpless. Rather, I felt numb, almost apathetic. When Trump approached the podium for his lengthy speech, he too seemed indifferent. He threw his arms up and shrugged, as if to say, “Well, here we go again!” The entire inauguration felt cyclical almost to the point of comedy. We’re back at square one, but the proceedings are even less serious than they were before. Instead of simply cowering with fear of the unknown, we have Trump’s promise to put the American flag on Mars — as if that matters to literally anyone — with the help of Elon Musk and his other billionaire backers like Bezos and Zuckerberg. The trio even witnessed the inanity of the inauguration firsthand, while ticketed supporters were left in the cold. (Some hero for the working class we’ve got here.) 

No one in attendance was sporting s**t-eating grins or rubbing their palms together malevolently, they just looked dopey and uncool. This awful miscarriage of power, this dark, dark day in American history, for which every Men’s Wearhouse and Talbots within 50 miles of Washington D.C. was bought out, just seemed . . . utterly silly. It’s like Donald Trump is Road Runner and the rest of us are Wile E. Coyote, trying again and again to rid this man from politics. At least, if the inauguration gave us one thing, it’s confirmation that the conservative party is completely aware that we’re all stuck in this episode of “Looney Tunes.” That does, however, make it all the more difficult to look at America and resist the temptation to give one last stammering cry of, “That’s all folks!”

How Merrick Garland stymied one of Donald Trump’s day one executive orders before leaving office

Among his flurry of day-one executive orders, President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department to help states obtain lethal injection drugs and launch a whole new round of capital prosecutions. But even if he succeeds in that endeavor, thanks to former Attorney General Merrick Garland, it will be harder for Trump to turn death sentences into executions than it was at the start of his first term.

As the White House describes it, the president ordered the Department of Justice to “seek the death penalty as the appropriate punishment for heinous crimes against humanity, including those who kill law enforcement officers and illegal migrants who maim and murder Americans.” This order is one step toward fulfilling promises he made during the campaign.

That is likely why, on January 15, five days before he left office, former Attorney General Merrick Garland rescinded the federal government’s death penalty protocol. 

He did so after a review by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy raised serious questions about the drug pentobarbital sodium, “a sedative that slows the activity of the brain and nervous system.” which was used in federal executions. That review comes at a time when states have turned to pentobarbital due to a shortage of other lethal injection drugs.

Garland’s decision is both a bold parting gift to abolitionists by an attorney general who was often the target of criticism for his seeming ambivalence about capital punishment and an example of the bureaucratic obstacles the new president will face as he tries to turn his executive orders into action.

What Garland did might seem futile, given President Trump's fervent embrace of capital punishment. In addition, as the Washington Post says, “The pentobarbital protocol was adopted by Bill Barr, attorney general during Trump’s first term, to replace a three-drug mix used in the 2000s….” It was used in the thirteen executions that Barr and his Justice Department carried out in 2020 and 2021. It is not clear where they obtained pentobarbital and whether they did so legally.

A Freedom of Information Act request filed by journalists at HBO’s “Last Week Tonight” identified Absolute Standards in Connecticut as the federal government’s supplier. It turns out that while Absolute Standards  “has been registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) since August 2018 to produce pentobarbital, (but) the drugs are not authorized” for human use. In July 2024, the company announced that it would no longer produce the drug for use in executions. 

In addition to questions about the supplier, the American Civil Liberties Union rightly notes that “Procedures for putting animals to death…are much stricter than those for executing humans.” So, the Trump Department of Justice will need to do some work if it wants to carry out lethal injection executions.

Moreover, in President Trump’s first term, as the Post says, “the Justice Department…sanitized the accounts of the executions carried out in 2020 and 2021. Government lawyers said the process of dying by lethal injection was like falling asleep, and they called…final breaths ‘snores.’”

What Garland did ended that cruel charade. It offered what one anti-death penalty lawyer calls “a damning condemnation of the use of pentobarbital to poison prisoners to death”

No matter their source and the procedures used to conduct them, many of the pentobarbital executions carried out by the federal and state governments have not gone smoothly. One study estimates that seven percent of them were botched.

Reporters who witnessed the pentobarbital executions carried out in Trump’s first term “described how prisoners’ stomachs rolled, shook and shuddered as the pentobarbital took effect.” Lawyers for the condemned argued that “pentobarbital caused flash pulmonary edema, in which fluid rushes through quickly disintegrating membranes into lungs and airways, causing pain akin to being suffocated or drowned.”

For example, in the case of Wesley Purkey, the second person put to death in the Trump/Barr execution spree,  his lawyers argued that Purkey “suffered ‘extreme pain’ as he received a dose of pentobarbital….” They claimed that he “felt a sensation akin to drowning while immobilized but conscious” during his execution. They pointed to an autopsy performed by a Michigan-based pathologist a week after Purkey was put to death. It found evidence of “severe bilateral acute pulmonary edema” and “frothy pulmonary edema in trachea and mainstem bronchi.” Dr. Gail Van Norman, a medical expert retained to interpret the autopsy, noted that the sensation caused by pulmonary edema is “among the most excruciating feelings known to man.” 

We need your help to stay independent

Purkey is by no means the only person to experience pulmonary edema or other problems during an execution using pentobarbital. In 2012, South Dakota put Eric Robert to death with that drug. “After he was injected, he gasped heavily, snored loudly with his eyes open, and his skin turned purple. An expert pharmacologist has described this reaction as consistent with contaminated drugs.”

A 2020 NPR review of more than 200 post-execution autopsies found signs of pulmonary edema in 84% of the cases. The findings were “similar across…different drug protocols used.” 

It was found in 49 of 58 (81%) executions involving pentobarbital. That is one reason why Garland’s decision is so important.

The Justice Department review he relied on was incredibly thorough. The department “consulted with experts, including academics, medical professionals, drug safety experts, and advocacy groups…. conducted a literature review, including legal materials and medical and scientific research specifically related to the use of pentobarbital, (and) reviewed all available documentation related to prior executions using pentobarbital, including autopsy reports and witness accounts.”

One of its key findings was that “the FDA has not reviewed or approved of the use of pentobarbital in high doses or for the purpose of causing death….As a result,” it explained, “states and the federal government have not purchased injectable pentobarbital from drug manufacturers, but instead have found chemical companies that provide powdered… pentobarbital in bulk and then used compounding pharmacies to create an injectable solution.” 

The FDA “does not verify their safety, effectiveness or quality before they are marketed.” 

Regarding the question of whether executions with pentobarbital are painful, the department’s review was less definitive in its conclusions than the lawyers and investigators cited above. As it explained, “Based on recent medical research evaluating autopsy data from executions that used pentobarbital, information collected from autopsies conducted on two individuals recently executed by the federal government, recent witness accounts from federal and state executions, and a review of medical expert testimony in litigation,…there remains significant uncertainty about whether pentobarbital can be used in a single-drug execution protocol without causing unnecessary pain and suffering.”

In the face of such uncertainty, it concluded that the Justice Department “should err on the side of humane treatment and avoidance of unnecessary pain and suffering and cease the use of pentobarbital unless and until that uncertainty is resolved.” 

To his credit, that is what Garland did. And more than that, Garland laid down a benchmark for future federal executions. 

As he put it, before proceeding with any other method of execution, “the Department should… connect the same kind of evaluation of that manner of execution as was done concerning pentobarbital, with the same consideration of the risks posed by the method.” 

All of that is a clear win for abolitionists in their struggles to keep Trump from getting the federal death penalty moving again.

But, beyond Garland’s recognition that no condemned person should be subject to a procedure that might not treat them “humanely,” as the AP suggests, “The government’s findings about the potential risks of unnecessary pain could have broader implications.” Legal challenges, it reports, “have been brought in several states where pentobarbital is the primary method of execution, potentially leading to reviews of execution protocols nationwide.” All Americans should hope that the AP is correct in this prediction. 

In the meantime, what Garland did is an example of how seemingly small acts by one administration can make life difficult for its successor. And all Americans should be grateful to Merrick Garland for affirming that where the death penalty is concerned, there is, and can be, no room for error.

“That says it all:” Big Tech takes prime seats at Trump inauguration

Scattered among President Donald J. Trump's family members, his vice president, his Cabinet appointments and a handful of his billionaire donors on Monday were a few key faces that sent a clear signal: Big Tech is in the president’s inner circle.

Behind Ivanka and Donald Jr., a pouf of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s strawberry-blonde curls could be seen. Second Lady Usha Vance and Barron Trump provided a similar framing for Elon Musk, the Tesla, X and SpaceX multibillionaire who spent a quarter-billion dollars on Trump’s reelection. Apple CEO Tim Cook, who donated $1 million to the inauguration, sat in front of billionaire entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, the former GOP presidential primary candidate and co-chair of DOGE who is leaving that position to run for Ohio governor.

Billionaire Jeff Bezos, head of Amazon, The Washington Post and rocket company Blue Origin, joined them. So did CEO Sundar Pichai and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, a day after Trump's pledge to help the China-based app remain in the U.S. (and four years after Trump tried to ban it in the final months of his first term).

To the millions of Americans watching, as well as to Congress, the scene sent a clear signal that the industry Trump once called "dividing and divisive" is now in his good graces.  "They have even better seats than Trump's own cabinet picks. That says it all," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., posted on X. 

How long the cozy relationship between tech’s most influential execs and the mercurial president will last is anyone's guess. But those in the industry are hoping it leads to the relaxing of regulations that stifled innovation, they say, particularly in the growing sector of AI. 

Chris Farmer, CEO of SignalFire, a venture capital and technology firm based in San Francisco, told the ABC affiliate there that antitrust laws, higher taxes and overregulation have held back progress. Trump has promised to dismantle AI guardrails that President Joe Biden put in place last year. 

We need your help to stay independent

Farmer says a clear governing framework is needed, such as "what can and can't be done with AI."

"That helps the whole ecosystem know where it's okay to play ball and where it's not," Farmer told the TV station.

Trump attacked Big Tech throughout much of his first term for what he perceived as online bias against conservatives. His attempts to reduce content moderation on social media stalled in late 2020 as GOP regulators questioned the legality of them.

After Facebook and Twitter (now X) banned him from their platforms following the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol attack, Trump called it "a horrible thing for our country." Last March, he deemed Facebook "an enemy of the people." Trump also took aim at Twitter, which has since been purchased by Musk and renamed X; the company scaled back its content moderation following the acquisition.

Still, it hasn’t all been rosy between Trump and Big Tech in recent months. After his reelection, Trump signaled he wouldn’t rule out antitrust enforcement — a particularly sore spot for Google. 

Trump has also named three critics of the growing power of tech giants to lead the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice’s antitrust division. But rather than lobbing criticisms at tech’s monolithic presence in Americans’ lives, they specifically take aim at tech companies' content moderation policies, framing their restrictions on certain forms of hate speech and harassment as free speech violations. 

Brendan Carr, selected as the FCC's leader, vowed to "dismantle the censorship cartel" in a post on X. Andrew Ferguson, chosen by Trump to lead the FTC, made a similar post: "At the FTC, we will end Big Tech’s vendetta against competition and free speech." 

"The more worrisome prospect is that these titans of new industry will be looked to as sources for governmental or political reform, the theory being that what works for Silicon Valley will work in Washington"

Such an approach would be a turnaround from the Biden administration, which regulated the industry but stayed away from debates over free speech, censorship and content.

To curry favor with the incoming administration, Zuckerberg and Bezos have both traveled to Mar-a-Lago and made Trump-friendly adjustments to their businesses.  

Meta gave $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, and Zuckerberg co-hosted a black-tie inauguration party on Monday. He ended fact-checking on Meta's Facebook and Instagram platforms earlier this month, rolling back restrictions "on topics like immigration, gender identity and gender."

Amazon gave $1 million to the inauguration and reportedly spent $40 million to secure the rights to produce and stream a documentary about Melania Trump. Bezos pulled the plug on his newspaper's drafted endorsement of Kamala Harris and said it would no longer endorse presidential candidates.

It's an "age-old practice" for powerful businesspeople to cozy up to an incoming president with expectations to benefit, either in terms of shaping governmental policies or advancing their own interests, said Russell Riley, co-chair of the University of Virginia's Miller Center's Presidential Oral History Program.

"The more worrisome prospect is that these titans of new industry will be looked to as sources for governmental or political reform, the theory being that what works for Silicon Valley will work in Washington," Riley said. "My fear as an American institutionalist is that the political adventurers are both untrained in the intricacies of our political order and insufficiently attentive to the structural damage they can do by seeking to hotwire the system to get a quick and efficient outcome they desire."

Listless, uninspired and robotic: Trump’s vision of a “golden age of America” rings hollow

The only thing he didn’t do was invoke Hannibal Lecter.  

The rest of the pieces of Donald Trump’s standard rally speech were there for his second inaugural address Monday: the meaningless lies, the empty chest-beating threats, the insane repetition of “as never before” braggadocio, a pandemic of pandering and self-promotion. 

Trump’s inaugural address omitted one of his greatest expectations, repeated time and again on the campaign trail, that he would end the war in Ukraine before he was inaugurated.

There were high points in the grotesquerie — he’s going to “take back” the Panama Canal because we have been “treated so badly” and somehow China owns it now, or something; he’s going to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, which means, we must assume, another map assaulted by a Trump sharpie, and by God, that will be that! 

Designating the cartels as terrorist organizations, as he pledged, is so empty a threat, it’s as if a piece of paper in Washington D.C. will scare guys wearing respirators in a fentanyl lab down in Zacatecas. Feeding red meat to the Christian Nationalist right that there will now be two “official” genders is not just a rhetorical bag of Flaming Hot Cheetos, it will have real effects on the lives of real transgender people — and in the Rotunda of the nation’s Capitol on Martin Luther King Remembrance Day, it got a rousing cheer.

If you were looking for a theme for the new Trump presidency, he gave us one: “A new golden age of America,” which for me, anyway, invoked images of the Trump Tower lobby’s mix of knick-knacks and 80’s “luxury” writ large. It’s all he can do, really — sell an alleged idea like real estate. It’s the biggest, it’s the tallest, it’s got more floors, it’s the most expensive, it’s got more gold leaf, and as we know from Donald Trump’s past, a likelihood of bankruptcy, therefore, looms. 

That’s the problem with bragging:  you set expectations so high, there is no possible way to meet them. Ten million deportations? Gone — poof! Drill, baby, drill? The oil companies have already drilled so much we’ve got more than enough oil, and he can’t add to U.S. fossil fuel production without significantly driving down the price of gas and oil and hitting his billionaire donors where it hurts: their wallets.

Trump’s inaugural address omitted one of his greatest expectations, repeated time and again on the campaign trail, that he would end the war in Ukraine before he was inaugurated. That one slipped down the memory hole without even a whisper.  It’s the “why” that’s interesting and will probably yield some surprises. I think someone whispered in Trump’s ear that Putin thinks he’s a patsy, that Putin’s grand expectation is that Trump will cave to whatever he wants without protest because they’re bro-ligarchs-in-arms, or something like that. But Trump’s ego won’t stand for being cast as the guy who “lost Ukraine,” so what can he do? Well, he gave us a hint today that his answer to a lot of intractable problems is going to be to do nothing at all.

The rest of it amounted to his same old Crayola contradictions — we are the strongest nation in the world with the greatest military in history that has somehow been neutered by equity and inclusion, so nobody respects us anymore?  His “America first” success is going to be measured by all the wars he doesn’t get us in, but we’re going to “expand” our territory because somebody told him we’re still “pioneers” and that means turning Greenland into the Louisiana Purchase, or something. 

We need your help to stay independent

Who knew, except in right-wing fever swamps, that Denali needed to be re-named Mt. McKinley because President McKinley was a great businessman who loved tariffs and paid for all the great stuff Teddy Roosevelt did? If you can make sense of this whole McKinley thing, good on ya, because I sure as hell can’t.

The whole thing stank of “you can’t make this up,” because of course it was all completely made up of lies and exaggerations and the grand Trumpian tradition of me me me me me. Someone on MSNBC said the speech stood out because inaugural addresses are supposed to be about the country and what the new president is going to do for its people, but this one was, of course, about one thing and one thing only, and that is Donald Trump.

Thank God he has Air Force One again. That means he’s going to fly off to play a lot of golf. Every day that man spends golfing is a good day for America. The guys he plays golf with need H-1B visas to hire low-cost engineers to run their companies and pad their pocketsful of billions, and the golf courses where he plays need H-2B visas so they can put the gloss of legality on all the undocumented immigrants who mow the fairways and trim the Azaleas and mix the whiskey sours and grill the steaks and swab out the toilets at clubs, many of which still have restrictions on membership of Jews and Blacks and women.

That is the America Donald Trump was talking about this afternoon, the one he wants to take us back to, the America where, like the audience in the Capitol Rotunda, is safely white, coiffed and well-behaved to the point of somnambulance. It's the America in which we will live for the next four years.  

Prepare yourself. It’s going to be a long and very dull slog.

Food and medicine that can change your skin color — sometimes permanently

When an 84-year-old man in Hong Kong went to hospital with an enlarged prostate, doctors were startled to see that his skin — and even the whites of his eyes — had turned silver-grey. A deeper investigation revealed silver deposits permeating his tissues, turning him a hue more often reserved for science fiction.

Far from a one-off oddity, in 2007 press reports described Paul Karason as a "blue man" after he attempted to cure sinus and skin problems by ingesting a homemade silver chloride solution — and there are many other examples.

These striking cases reveal a profound truth: our bodies can display the residue of what we consume. The adage "you are what you eat" usually refers to overall health and nutrition, but that phrase can be startlingly literal when our skin takes on unexpected colors.

The cases above illustrate dramatic instances of the condition known as argyria, in which silver particles accumulate in the body.

Silver was once a mainstay in medical treatments for its antimicrobial properties. But modern evidence shows that consuming or absorbing too much can transform one's skin in ways that seldom fade. In argyria, silver ions circulate through the bloodstream and become embedded in the dermis, a layer beneath the surface where the body cannot easily clear them. This is the layer that tattoo pigments reside in.

Sunlight compounds the effect by triggering a process called photoreduction, which turns silver ions into metallic silver or related compounds. As a result, affected lighter skins adopt a bluish or greyish tinge. And in brown and black skin, the discoloration may appear as a darker grey or slate-blue hue, effectively creating an inadvertent tattoo.

A similar phenomenon, albeit rarer, is chrysiasis, in which gold deposits infiltrate the skin. Historically, gold-based therapies were occasionally prescribed for inflammatory disorders, and in some cases, patients who received these treatments developed a distinctive slate-grey or grey-purple discolouration that, much like argyria, could not be easily undone.

Paul Karason suffered from argyria.

Pigments from the plate

Orange, yellow and red pigments exert the most influence over skin, and orange seems to reign supreme. This shade, often associated with carrots, sweet potatoes and pumpkins, comes from carotenoids, a class of pigments naturally found in plants.

Carotenoid pigments are fat soluble. When consumed, they are absorbed in the small intestine and transported via lipoproteins in the bloodstream to be stored primarily in fat-rich tissues, including the subcutaneous layer of the skin. This storage gives the skin a characteristic golden hue, most notably when carotenoid-rich foods are consumed in high quantities.

Of the many carotenoids found in nature, beta-carotene is the star player: a strong orange tint and high "bioavailability" — the term used to describe drug absorption — make it particularly influential.

Humans metabolize (break down) carotenoids in a selective way. Enzymes in the intestines and liver turn beta-carotene into vitamin A, which is crucial for vision, a healthy immune system and healthy skin.

However, not all ingested beta-carotene undergoes this transformation. Excess amounts remain in their pigment form and are deposited in the skin, particularly in areas like the palms of the hands and soles of the feet, where the thicker layer of skin highlights the pigment's presence.

The reason the skin turns orange lies in the chemical structure of carotenoids. Beta-carotene's molecular makeup absorbs light in the blue spectrum, reflecting orange light back to our eyes. Other carotenoids, such as lutein and zeaxanthin (found in leafy green vegetables), which lean toward yellow, are less conspicuous because they are either less abundant in the diet or not as prominently stored in the skin.

Research has shown that a carotenoid-rich diet, which can enhance a healthy golden glow, is often perceived as more attractive than sun-induced tanning. But moderation is key. The 90s juice brand Sunny Delight never really recovered from the controversy of orange-stained Sunny D kids.

Naturally occurring dietary pigments such as anthocyanins, betalains and chlorophyll offer many health benefits, but rarely leave a mark.

Anthocyanins, found in berries, red cabbage and purple carrots, provide the deep reds, purples and blues we associate with these foods. Known for their antioxidant properties, they are water-soluble, meaning they are quickly metabolized and therefore unlikely to leave a mark on the skin.

Similarly, betalains, the pigments responsible for rich reds and yellows, offer detoxifying and anti-inflammatory benefits but are excreted by the body without a visible effect on skin tone. Excess ingestion may, however, cause urinary and fecal color change.

These colorful tales carry more than an aesthetic message. They highlight the fine balance required in our relationship with the substances we ingest. From wholesome pigments to unintended consequences, they serve as a vivid reminder that while food may be medicine and may be transformative, we are, quite literally, what we eat.

Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

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

Hope is at the heart of “healthy mourning”: Finding positivity while grieving Donald Trump’s return

Donald Trump is now the 47th President of the United States.

Per his own words and policies, he will rule as a dictator on “day one.” Trump’s “presidency” will be a form of autocracy and personalist rule as shown by his Cabinet selections and the policies he and his allies have already outlined and are rapidly putting in place. The Democrats do not appear to be able to act as an effective opposition or resistance party. Moreover, to this point, Democrats have prematurely surrendered by announcing they will work with Trump and the MAGA Republicans on areas of common concern that ostensibly will help the American people, specifically the working class. The so-called Resistance that mobilized to confront Trump during his first presidency is, to this point, also silent. Both the Democrats and the resistance are still shellshocked and cowed by Trump’s easy victory in the election.  

Far from having overwhelming positive support, Donald Trump’s return to power is a function and result of an American democracy and society that is in deep crisis. Public opinion and other research show that the American people are generally unhappy, worried about the country’s future and overall direction and have low trust in government. In total, the 2024 election was a referendum on “the system.” The Democrats, as the incumbent party, were punished by a majority of American voters and the larger public who chose not to participate, even as they were told that the election was a referendum on democracy and Trump (and more importantly Trumpism) and supposedly an existential threat to the country.

In the end, Donald Trump and his MAGA movement were viewed as change — destructive change and “shaking things up.” Trump’s campaign and its allies were also smarter, bolder and more innovative than President Biden’s and then Harris’. In total, Trump and his campaign were, in many ways, a default option, a national protest vote and an authoritarian “populist” rejection of the status quo. Donald Trump won the same number of votes as he did in 2020. Kamala Harris and the Democrats experienced, by some estimates, more than a 10 million drop-off in the number of votes as compared to 2020. The Democratic Party was both defeated at the polls by Donald Trump and his MAGA movement and a victim of its own collapse

This rage at the elites is global and not isolated to the United States.

Trump’s victory and now second presidency has caused great emotional pain and collective grieving and mourning for those Americans who voted against and generally oppose him and the authoritarian populism of the MAGA movement. This pain and mourning and grieving are also intensely personal and immediate for those groups of Americans who will be targeted by the Trump administration and its enforcers as “the enemy within” and as the poison in “the blood” of the country to be purged. That Trump is being inaugurated on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Remembrance Day adds another level of pain and dismay. Dr. King was martyred for leading a movement to force America to become a multiracial democracy and a more humane and equal society. Trump is an enemy of that project and will reverse the won-in-blood gains of the long Black Freedom Struggle and civil rights movement.

Trump’s victory is a source of other forms of mourning. For those many (white) Americans who truly believed in American exceptionalism and that the American people “were better than this” so would never return someone like Trump, a proven aspiring dictator who has no respect for the Constitution and democracy, to the White House, this is all a great narcissistic injury. Today should be the death of those naïve beliefs and fictions.

Healthy healing and mourning allow a person to move forward in their life and to reconcile and learn from their loss in a productive and perhaps even cathartic way as they try to make themselves whole again. Unhealthy mourning and grieving are potentially destructive, whereby a person is not able to reconcile their loss and find proper meaning from it and engages in unhealthy coping behavior. They can be stuck in loss and pain — and in the worst instances direct that rage and anger outward to cause other people to have similar experiences. These dynamics are true of groups, societies and individuals.

"I am reminded that the journey for justice is a long and hard-fought one, but I believe that victory will be ours."

In an attempt to make better sense of the emotional dimension of Trump’s return to power and the collective feelings of mourning, grief, fear and overall distress that many tens of millions of Americans are likely experiencing, I recently spoke to Dr. Gail Christopher, an award-winning social change agent and author with expertise in the social determinants of health and well-being and related public policies.

A prolific writer and presenter, Dr. Christopher has contributed to 14 books, hundreds of articles, presentations, publications and more. She retired from her role as Senior Advisor and Vice President at the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, where she was the driving force behind the America Healing initiative and the Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation effort. In 2019, Dr. Christopher became a Senior Scholar with George Mason University’s Center for the Advancement of Well-Being and became the Executive Director of the National Collaborative for Health Equity.

This is the first of a two-part conversation.

Given the dire state of American democracy with Trump’s return to the White House, how are you feeling? What does it mean to be “healthy” in such a moment of extreme distress, anxiety and fear? 

Thank you for beginning with that question. Feeling and emotion are central to this challenge and era. Western conventional medicine did not understand, explore, or honor the power of feelings — psychologically and biologically, until the 1990’s. How we feel actually greatly determines how well we heal and ultimately how well we are.

I think it is critically important to learn to manage our emotions and feelings even during the most challenging times. I am feeling hopeful. I believe that hope can be viewed as a synonym for democracy. Democracy is about the hope that people can live their lives with freedom and to pursue happiness. Democracy is always forming; it is never complete. 

We need your help to stay independent

I often recommend the book, “The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition” by Manisha Sinha, because it documents the 100-year struggle to abolish slavery, but it does so in a nuanced yet comprehensive way, which helps us to understand the long view of forming a more perfect democracy in the United States. The aspirational ideas expressed by the Founders where just that – ideas.

The context in which they were introduced was a total contradiction to those ideas to the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that contradictory context was shaped by the belief system and mindset of the White male property owners of those times. They genuinely believed in a false hierarchy of human value that relegated people of color and women to have the least value in society. They lived with those contradictions for two and a half centuries.

It is important to note that the 100-year movement to end slavery was a broad-based multiracial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and gender-diverse coalition, but at its heart were the efforts of those most directly harmed. Enslaved and free Africans led the abolition movement. So, I am reminded that the journey for justice is a long and hard-fought one, but I believe that victory will be ours.

How are you processing these events in different ways and finding a balance — if at all? 

I am spending quality time with my family and experiencing the absolute joy that comes from welcoming a new grandchild into the world. I have the benefit of a totally contrasting emotional experience to the negativity and uncertainty of this moment, but I also feel that it is my responsibility to share the insights that I have gleaned over the many, many decades. The recent birth of my grandchild has reminded me of the nature of life itself. It is always forming and becoming. This is why I think our system of government – a constitutionally based democracy, aligns with the natural forces of life. Just as the human being emerges from the fertilized ovum, the creation of the possible is a natural gift and phenomenon we have been given as human beings. There are certain principles that must be understood.

Biological life like a democratic form of government is based on complexity, redundancy, modularity, robustness, resilience, communitarianism and agency. Unlike authoritarian systems, our democracy is grounded in these natural principles, and again, it is always a work in progress. I highly recommend the recent book, How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology by Philip Ball. As I read it, I kept thinking about our political and social struggles for justice.

This political season, the presidential campaign and election results offer lessons about the power of what I call the “three M’s” in American society and those are Money, Media and Mindset. If Trump as president demonstrates one power, it is the power of the mindset. One of the most generous and kind leaders I met in the 1980s was a union leader in Chicago, and he would always say, “You really can’t beat a made-up mind.” Trump embodies this: he inherited an understanding of the power of mental focus and having grown up with financial wealth that insulated him from the consequences of the vicissitudes of life. Trump learned to apply his mental power as a means of achieving his desired ends. With enough money and enough media access to amplify his intentions, he successfully bamboozled enough voters to win. There are many aspects of work and change required now. Campaign finance reform and media regulation are critical areas for intervention.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Remembrance Day. This is an abomination and a cruel coincidence of dates. The two men’s lives and missions are juxtaposed to one another. How are you reconciling these contradictions and the overlap of these days?

One of my favorite quotes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is “Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” This cruel coincidence gives us another focus. We should celebrate the legacy of Dr. King in our homes, with our families and with our communities, churches, schools and organizations. The King holiday should be our reason for getting up that morning. We might even avoid all media that distracts us from the power of Dr. King’s life’s work and legacy.

"In this moment of political loss, self-care in the ways I described above must be augmented with actual engagement in concrete activities that are working toward a better future."

This will be the ninth year of the annual National Day of Racial Healing. We deliberately set that for the day after the King holiday so that we can be reminded of the work that is required to overcome this nation’s legacy belief in a false hierarchy of human value. For the last nine years, tens of thousands of communities and groups have commemorated the National Day of Racial Healing and they will do so again on Tuesday, January 21, 2025. 

Many Americans are in a state of mourning because of Trump’s victory in the election and now his presidency and what it will mean for the future of American democracy. What exactly is being mourned?

I think it is important here to recognize that this nation has elected 47 presidents and only a small portion of them have stood for justice and fairness and yet our system of governance has enabled continued progress.

I can’t say what Trump’s victory will mean. I can imagine based on the tone of the campaign, the people that have been selected to lead federal agencies in the new administration, as well as the policy priorities that have been expressed that there will be efforts to shut the borders, deport undocumented immigrants, and reverse efforts for equity throughout the government agencies. These efforts or executive orders will be challenged through our legal system and met with state and local push-back. I think it is very important to remain hopeful and to be as organized as we possibly can to meet the challenges ahead.

What is healthy mourning for an individual? For a collective and/or society? What is unhealthy mourning and grieving?

Whenever we experience loss, either real or perceived, it can trigger negative emotions of fear and/or helplessness. There is considerable research that documents the harmful health effects of negative emotions. Chronic states of anxiety and stress are associated with many of the debilitating chronic diseases that disproportionately affect communities of color. Hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative conditions and inflammatory conditions are all associated with high-stress levels. An emerging and well-researched body of literature focuses on the health benefits of positive emotions. Healthy mourning includes a balance of positive thoughts to trigger positive emotions despite the temporary experience of loss. This requires meditation. Music can be helpful, and most importantly, positive social engagement with family or friends. In this moment of political loss, self-care in the ways I described above must be augmented with actual engagement in concrete activities that are working toward a better future. Community organizing, legal defense funds, voter registration, and activism of many types will help create a more positive mental and emotional state. These circle experiences may help to ease the sense of loss and replace it with hope and deeper more meaningful human connections.

A tale of two Americas

A few weeks before his death in 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about the “other America” to a union group in New York. In his remarks, he condemned the structural nature of poverty, saying “this country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.” He was referring to the societal and systemic factors that contribute to the perpetuation of poverty, like economic inequity, discrimination and inadequate social safety nets.  It was this profound frustration that compelled him to call for a racially unified movement to fight against poverty in America, a country filled with so much “concentrated opulence.”

The idea of launching a multiracial coalition to demand economic opportunity for all in America has long been a threat to the wealthiest class. Yet now is precisely the time to resurrect that effort, especially given the exploitation of working-class whites for political gain in this past election cycle, and the structuralized poverty that has trapped millions of Americans of all races in generations of poverty.  

On the day we commemorate Dr. King’s life and legacy, we rarely confront and discuss his most stinging criticism of America’s grossest injustice: how could a country of such great wealth have so many of its citizens trapped in vicious cycles of poverty? In fact, he spoke unrelentingly about the interlocking systems of inequity: inadequate, substandard housing, inferior public schools, unsustainable low-wage jobs and lack of access to quality health care.

Dr. King’s steadfast commitment to economic justice prompted his pivotal relationship with President Lyndon B. Johnson and the subsequent passage of the most significant civil rights legislation of the 20th century, as part of Johnson’s newly declared War on Poverty. It also inspired contemporaries like Robert Sargent “Sarge” Shriver, a fellow servant leader and civil rights crusader, and the namesake of the Shriver Center on Poverty Law and the Sargent Shriver Peace Institute. 

Shriver played a pivotal role in the War on Poverty. He founded the National Clearinghouse for Legal Services, a national law firm for people with low income that eventually became the Shriver Center on Poverty Law.  As founder and director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, he also launched several ground-breaking anti-poverty programs including Community Action, Job Corps, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) and Head Start.  Shriver believed that as Americans, we must “be responsible for one another and responsible to one another.”  

Like Dr. King, Shriver was a true servant leader, someone whose leadership was focused on the growth and well-being of the communities to which he belonged.  He believed that “everybody can be great because everybody can serve,” and compelled people to serve others in whatever way they could.  He explained, “in the end, it will be the servants who save us all.”

We need your help to stay independent

Today, the War on Poverty has become a war on the poor. Instead of modeling servant leadership, President Trump seeks to relieve our country of its fundamental responsibility to guarantee the safety and welfare of all its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or political affiliation. He and his political allies continue to push the dangerously antiquated “bootstraps” narrative that anyone in America can succeed merely with hard work and grit, while ignoring the systemic barriers erected specifically to marginalize people of color.  

Most egregiously, they seek to conceal an incontrovertible truth: roughly 38 million Americans currently live at the poverty line, 11 million of whom are children. 49 million more people are living slightly above the poverty line but teeter on the brink of financial ruin. These statistics alone should be a disgrace for a country as wealthy as America. Yet many of the cuts proposed by the incoming Administration directly target our already fragile social safety net, including housing assistance, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  And sadly, the programs under attack are the ones that have bolstered many of the working-class people to whom he appealed most directly.  

If we are truly committed to eradicating poverty in America, we must carefully revisit the philosophy of Dr. King, Sarge Shriver and many other notable champions of economic justice. We must uplift the notion of a multiracial coalition, one that is neither constrained nor manipulated by partisan ideologues. Reverend Dr. William Barber II is a renowned anti-poverty crusader and co-chair of the new Poor People’s Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, which he relaunched in 2018. He has continued Dr. King’s legacy in building such a coalition that address the intersectionality of systemic racism, poverty, environmental degradation and religious nationalism. 

In a curious coincidence, the inauguration of President Trump falls on the day we honor the legacy of our country’s most beloved civil rights leader, but their ideologies could not be more opposed. Dr. King audaciously challenged the government to eradicate poverty by providing every American a guaranteed, middle-class income. Conversely, in his first term, President Trump proposed significantly deeper cuts to programs for low- and moderate-income people than any other president ever has, including Ronald Reagan. And he has already indicated that he will resume that course in his second term.

Ultimately, any effort to make this country “great” does not start by widening the chasm between rich and poor. It does not involve denigrating our most vulnerable citizens or using racial fearmongering to divide and manipulate poor people.  To the contrary, to make this country great is to transcend partisan dogma and focus directly on the dignity and well-being of those struggling most to make ends meet.  

As Dr. King reminds us, “a great nation is a compassionate nation.” At its core, poverty in America is a policy choice. As long as America has yet to meet its obligations and responsibilities to its most economically disadvantaged citizens, it’s our job to demand better choices be made and to insist that we erase the persistent wrong of having “two Americas.” 

Trump fails to place hand on Bible when being sworn into office

President Donald Trump swore his oath of office as president for the second time in the Capitol rotunda, one hand raised in the air, but declined to place his other hand on the two Bibles held before him by First Lady Melania Trump.

While there is no constitutional requirement to swear an oath by religious or secular text, to do so has become customary for nearly all U.S. officeholders.

According to Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress, state legislatures, and executive and judicial officers are bound "by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution.

It also states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

As such, some non-religious officials have sworn the oath empty-handed or with some other document, such as a copy of the Constitution itself. However, it not known why Trump, who has proclaimed his Christian faith and even supported the rollout of his own edition of the Bible, elected not to place his hand on the family Bible and so-called Lincoln Bible, the latter used by the 16th president in 1861 and former President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2013.

“Help me out here”: Carrie Underwood’s inauguration performance hit an awkward note

A little technical difficulty didn't stop Carrie Underwood from having her inauguration moment.

The country star was all set to perform "America the Beautiful" after Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th president on Monday — until the song's backing track cut out before the singer could even begin. 

For a brief moment that felt much longer, the inauguration audience suffered in awkward silence until Underwood mouthed to an audio technician that she was going to continue on without the music.

Underwood forged ahead, urging the crowd, "You know the words. Help me out here."

With the help of backing vocals from the Armed Forces Choir and the inauguration audience, Underwood sang "America the Beautiful" a cappella. When Underwood finished her performance, she was met with a congratulatory handshake from President Trump and former President Joe Biden.

However, even though the singer pivoted and belted her heart out, the internet began to flame Underwood for the uncomfortable, impromptu moment. 

One person on X said: "Shoutout to the gay who pulled the plug on the audio before Carrie Underwood sang."

Another said: "Carrie Underwood is a lot more entertaining if you mute the TV."

Others compared Underwood's performance to another inauguration performer, Beyoncé,  saying, "This is how you do it."

Biden issues clemency to family, Democratic politicians and Leonard Peltier

Outgoing President Joe Biden issued a last-minute set of grants for clemency, which included members of his family, Democratic politicians and Native American activist Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of killing two FBI agents in a 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota — a charge that he has steadfastly denied.

Preliminary pardons were given to James B. Biden, the outgoing president's brother; Sara Jones Biden, James' wife; Valerie Biden Owens, the outgoing president's sister; John T. Owens, Valerie's husband; and Francis W. Biden, the outgoing president's brother. None of them have been charged with an offense, but Biden had been concerned that newly sworn-in President Donald Trump and his allies would go after them in a quest for vengeance.

“I believe in the rule of law, and I am optimistic that the strength of our legal institutions will ultimately prevail over politics,” Biden wrote. “But baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated or prosecuted can irreparably damage their reputations and finances.”

Due to Biden's commutation of his life sentence, Peltier, the Native American activist, will now be allowed to spend his remaining years in home confinement. While Peltier had admitted to participating in the shootout, he maintains that he did not kill the FBI agents and has released a stream of defiant letters to supporters from jail. Human rights watchdogs and activists, as well as numerous international figures like Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa, had advocated for clemency since his imprisonment, with many of them alleging that he is being wrongfully held as a political prisoner.

In a statement, Biden officials acknowledged the calls for clemency and Peltier's "advanced age, illnesses, his close ties to and leadership in the Native American community and the substantial length of time he has already spent in prison.”

Two other individuals —  Gerald G. Lundergan and Ernest William Cromartie — were given an even greater prize: full pardons. Lundergan, a businessman and former Democratic state legislator in Kentucky, was convicted in 2019 of making illegal campaign contributions to his daughter's failed 2014 effort to unseat Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Cromartie, a former Democratic city council member in Columbia, South Carolina, was convicted of tax evasion.

 

Cecile Richards, prominent abortion rights advocate, dies at 67

Cecile Richards, a prominent advocate for abortion rights who served as president of Planned Parenthood for more than a decade, died on Monday. She was 67.

Richards was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a terminal brain cancer, in 2023. She died at home, "surrounded by family and her ever-loyal dog, Ollie," Richards’ family said in a statement. 

Her passing came hours before Donald Trump was inaugurated as president. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices who provided a conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending federal protections for abortion rights throughout the U.S. 

Richards was perhaps best known for leading Planned Parenthood; from 2006 to 2018, she was the organization’s president, the longest amount of time any individual led the organization. Her tenure started during the second administration of President George W. Bush and ended during Trump’s first administration. As the national fight over abortion access intensified in the mid 2010s, Richards often served as the public face for abortion rights.

During her time at the organization, Richards fought off attacks on abortion funding from Republican-led state legislatures; in 2022, she described the previous 20 years as “a turning point in the fight for access to abortion” in an essay for The New York Times. 

She was the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat who served from 1991 to 1995 and died in 2006. In 2013, Cecile Richards joined protesters in the state Capitol building “yelling at the top of their lungs” to try to block a restrictive abortion bill that eventually passed.

Richards left her post at Planned Parenthood in 2018 and spent her remaining years working to improve information and access around reproductive care. In November, former President Joe Biden presented Richards with the Medal of Freedom. In a private ceremony, Biden said that Richards had “led some of our nation’s most important civil rights causes — to lift up the dignity of workers, defend and advance women’s reproductive rights and equality, and mobilize Americans to exercise their power to vote.” 

Last summer, New York Magazine spoke with Richards about her continued fight for abortion access amid her own health battle. At the time, she’d recently launched Abortion in America, a website where individuals who have sought abortion care after Roe’s overturning can share their stories. She also worked to launch Charley, an AI chatbot that provides information on where people can access abortions. 

“So many people I’ve worked with and organized, nursing-home workers and hotel workers and janitors, they didn’t have any options,” Richards told the magazine. “But I have been one of the really privileged few that could do what I thought needed doing. And so whatever comes next, I have that.”

Alcohol may help you fall asleep faster, but it leads to a worse night’s rest overall — here’s why

Alcohol is often used as a sleep aid – with some people crediting a "nightcap" with helping them fall asleep more easily. But while it might be nice to unwind after a long day with a glass of wine or a beer, alcohol may not be as beneficial for sleep as some think. In fact, it may actually lead to a worse night's sleep overall.

If alcohol is consumed before bed, it can initially have a sedative effect — making you fall asleep more quickly. But while we may think a nightcap shortens the time it takes to fall asleep, recent research shows this sedative effect only really occurs after drinking higher doses of alcohol — between 3-6 standard glasses of wine, depending on the person — within three hours of bed.

And while this might seem beneficial, using alcohol to fall asleep is not recommended. This is not only because of the negative health effects of drinking alcohol, but also because alcohol disrupts sleep later in the night.

This disruption mainly affects REM (rapid eye movement) sleep. Alcohol delays the first episode of REM sleep — and reduces the subsequent amount of REM sleep you get throughout the night. It can also make you wake up more often or lead to lighter sleep in the latter part of the night. This is significant, as REM sleep – sometimes called "dreaming sleep" — is thought to be important for memory and regulating emotions.

These disruptions to REM sleep are even seen after drinking low doses of alcohol (around two standard drinks) within three hours of bedtime.

Sleep disruptions of any kind can make you feel more tired the following day. Disturbed REM sleep can also lead to impairments in the consolidation of memories, cognitive function and how you regulate your emotions.

It's worth noting that most research only focuses on the effect of alcohol on a single night of sleep. Generally, less is known about the effect that multiple nights of drinking has on sleep – with only a small number of studies (which had low numbers of participants) showing inconsistent results.

However, one study did indicate that after multiple nights of drinking, disruptions to sleep were still apparent during the first night without drinking. This suggests it may take time for sleep to recover after repeated nights of drinking.

Why alcohol affects sleep

While there's still more research to be done to understand exactly why alcohol affects different components of sleep — particularly in those who drink large amounts on a regular basis — we do know of a few mechanisms linking alcohol consumption to sleep.

First, alcohol increases the action of a chemical messenger in the brain called GABA. This has a sedative effect, thought to contribute to the sleepy feeling many people experience when drinking alcohol. Alcohol may also increase levels of adenosine, a chemical messenger that is important for sleepiness.

But the increase in these chemicals when drinking is short-lived. Once the body has metabolized the alcohol, there's often a "rebound effect" in which the body tries to compensate for the alcohol-induced changes in physiological functions and sleep. This causes the light and disrupted sleep that people experience during the latter part of the night after drinking.

Alcohol also affects circadian rhythms — the 24-hour body clock that responds to environmental light cues in order to synchronize our sleep-wake cycle. One of the ways our circadian rhythm does this is through the release of specific hormones at certain times of the day. For instance, our body will release melatonin during the hours of darkness to help us feel tired — and stay asleep throughout the night.

But alcohol affects the production of melatonin and alters our body temperature. The timing and amount of melatonin that's released and a decrease in core body temperature are important for sleep. Changes in these will result in changes in sleep.

Further, alcohol relaxes the muscles in the airways, which can exacerbate snoring — potentially disrupting the sleep of your partner too.

Finally, due to its diuretic effect, drinking alcohol before bed may mean more bathroom visits during the night — further disrupting sleep.

How to get a better night's sleep

If you sometimes use alcohol to help you fall asleep, here are some things you can do instead to get a better night's sleep:

  • Keep a regular schedule. Going to bed and waking at the same time each day helps regulate the body's circadian rhythms and improve sleep.
  • Create a peaceful sleep environment. A cool, quiet and dark room is ideal for getting a good night's sleep.
  • Create a consistent bedtime routine. Do some relaxing activities before bed to help the brain wind down — such as reading or taking a bath.
  • Limit your afternoon caffeine intake. Caffeine is a stimulant — and its effects can last many hours, with half of it remaining in our bodies four-to-six hours after consuming it, on average. Only consume caffeinated foods and drinks earlier in the day.
  • Get active. Physical activity can be beneficial for regulating circadian rhythms and helping us feel tired at the end of the day. Even better if you can do your workout in the natural morning light, as morning light exposure regulates circadian rhythm and improves sleep quality.

The good news for people who enjoy a nightcap or the odd night out is that many of the negative effects of alcohol on sleep are relatively short-lived, and can be reversed by avoiding alcohol or reducing intake. While it may take longer for sleep and circadian rhythms to return to normal in people who drink more often in higher amounts, quitting alcohol can help.

Better sleep will not only leave you feeling more refreshed, it will also benefit your overall health and wellbeing.

Emma Sweeney, Principal Lecturer in Sport Science, Nottingham Trent University and Fran Pilkington-Cheney, Lecturer in Psychology and Sleep, Nottingham Trent University

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

“We’re taking it back”: Trump threatens war over Panama Canal in inaugural speech

President Donald Trump used his inaugural speech on Monday to attack a U.S. ally, falsely claiming that China now controls the Panama Canal — it is in fact managed by an independent agency of the Panamanian government — and appearing to threaten war to seize it back.

Citing the U.S. role in building the canal, Trump reiterated right-wing grievances against the 1978 treaty that resulted in it being transferred from American to Panamanian control, describing it as a "foolish gift that should never have been made." He went on to baselessly assert that Panama had reneged on its end of the bargain and that its "promise to us has been broken."

"The purpose of our deal and the spirit of our treaty has been totally violated," Trump said. "American ships are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape or form, and that includes the United States Navy."

"Above all," he continued, "China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn't give it to China, we gave it to Panama — and we're taking it back."

Trump's false claim and threat of war was greeted with a standing ovation.

Panamanian officials have rebutted Trump's lies about China, noting that while a Hong Kong company won a 1997 bid to operate some ports along the canal it does not control it. Speaking to the Associated Press, Ricaurte Vásquez, head of the agency that manages the canal, noted that other ports are controlled by U.S. and Taiwanese companies; of suggestions the U.S. could take it back, he said only that there is "no foundation for that sort of hope."

While some have dismissed Trump's rhetoric as bluster, or a mere negotiation tactic, others are taking his remarks at face value.

"Trump has just declared war on Panama, a US ally, in an inaugural address," Edward Luce, a columnist for the Financial Times, wrote on Bluesky. "A first."

Melania Trump launches meme coin, joining Donald Trump’s crypto token

Two days after Donald Trump launched a meme coin that soared to $6.5 billion overnight, Melania Trump announced her own meme coin, adding to concerns the pro-crypto president is crossing ethical boundaries in an industry his administration will regulate.

On Sunday, the incoming First Lady posted on X that investors "can buy $MELANIA now." Her husband reposted it on his Truth Social platform.

A disclaimer on the meme coin’s official website says the coins “are digital collectibles intended to function as an expression of support for and engagement with the values embodied by the symbol MELANIA. and the associated artwork, and are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type.”

On Friday, Trump announced his meme coin. It includes an image of him raising his fist in the air and the words “fight, fight, fight” — a reference to what he said after an assassination attempt last July. The token is marketed as “a piece of history,” with Trump described as "the crypto president."  

“My NEW Official Trump Meme is HERE!” Trump wrote on X. “It’s time to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING! Join my very special Trump Community. GET YOUR $TRUMP NOW. Go to http://gettrumpmemes.com — Have Fun!”

Trump's coin fell to $40 after Melania announced hers, CNN reported. It has since recovered somewhat and was trading around $60 early Monday, per CNN. $MELANIA was trading just over $12 early Monday, according to CoinGecko.

CIC Digital and its affiliates own 80% of the supply of the new Trump tokens, which will be released gradually over three years, according to a disclosure on the tokens' website, The New York Times reports. “Trading revenue” will be paid as the tokens are sold, the website says.

Some in the crypto industry were critical, per The Times. “Trump owning 80 percent and timing launch hours before inauguration is predatory and many will likely get hurt by it,” Nick Tomaino, a crypto venture capitalist and former executive at Coinbase, posted on social media.

Meme coins are a highly volatile cryptocurrency inspired by popular internet or cultural trends and carrying no intristic value, CNN reports. 

Dogecoin, a meme coin with a dog mascot, briefly surged last November after Trump announced a nongovernmental advisory group nicknamed DOGE. Trump named Elon Musk, a dogecoin fan, as co-chair of the group.

Trump was a crypto skeptic in his first administration. "I am not a fan of Bitcoin and other Cryptocurrencies, which are not money, and whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air," he posted on X. "Unregulated Crypto Assets can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity."

He embraced the industry while campaigning last year, pledging to turn the U.S. into the crypto capital of the world and selling a series of NFTs.

Crypto donors poured tens of millions of dollars into electing Trump and other candidates. Trump has tapped Paul Atkins, a former Securities and Exchange Commission commissioner and crypto advocate, to lead the agency. Bitcoin surged above $100,000 for the first time following the announcement.

Last fall, Trump and his sons launched crypto trading platform World Liberty Financial with Steve Witkoff, a co-chair of his inaugural committee who has been named Middle East envoy. The Trumps are not owners or employees of the business, but promote it and can receive revenues from it.

In mid-November, the Financial Times reported another potential crypto deal. Trump Media — the parent company of Trump's social media platform, Truth Social — was in talks to buy Bakkt, a crypto trading firm previously led by Kelly Loeffler, another co-chair of his inauguration committee.

Last week, Bloomberg reported Trump plans to issue an executive order making cryptocurrency a national priority, guiding government agencies to work with the industry and possibly pausing crypto-related litigation. Trump also plans a crypto advisory council to advocate for the industry's policies, per Bloomberg, and has suggested creating a national bitcoin stockpile.

“I believe it is very dangerous to have the people who are supposed to oversee regulating financial instruments investing in them at the same time,” Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told CNN. “There’s no precedent for a head of state to launch a personal cryptocurrency.”

Painter told CNN the launch of the meme coins hours before Trump's inauguration raises “serious ethical questions about conflicts of interest.”

“The coin’s value could be influenced by his actions or policies once in office, particularly as Trump has said he will be more crypto-friendly, which will likely further inflate the coin’s value at least temporarily,” Painter told CNN.

Presidents are not subject to conflict of interest criminal statutes that prevent executive branch staffers from participating in matters that impact their own financial interests, CNN reports.

Elon Musk’s DOGE immediately sued for allegedly violating federal transparency rules

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Elon Musk's project to dismantle federal programs and regulations to his liking, has been hit with a lawsuit alleging that it violates federal transparency rules just moments after President Donald Trump was sworn into office.

The 30-page complaint, obtained by The Washington Post, alleges that DOGE — envisioned as a non-governmental organization that can carry out an austerity agenda through the advice it provides to the White House — is breaking a 1972 law that requires advisory committees to abide by rules concerning disclosure, hiring and other practices. According to the lawsuit, DOGE qualifies as a “federal advisory committee" (FACAs), a class of legal entity required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act to have "fairly balanced" representation, keep meeting records, file a charter with Congress and more to ensure that its advice is transparent, ethical and free of prejudice.

The lawsuit demands that DOGE abide by FACA requirements, arguing that its reports do bit presently "reflect the views of a lawfully constituted advisory committee" and should not be implemented by the White House.

DOGE, which has already hired dozens of staffers and deployed emissaries across U.S. agencies to compile reports on what to cut, does not appear to have followed any of those requirements. And it's still unclear how it will be funded, though Trump's advisors have floated ideas such as soliciting private donations from the president's chief money men or asking Congress for $30 to $50 million in earmarks.

“DOGE is not exempted from FACA’s requirements,” states the lawsuit, written by Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors. “All meetings of DOGE, including those conducted through an electronic medium, must be open to the public.”

The lawsuit also maintains that DOGE is violating the balanced representation rule by not hiring anyone to represent federal workers. Two of the plaintiffs had applied to DOGE for the stated purpose of speaking on their behalf, but were ignored.

National Security Counselors can expect a fight in court. DOGE also has some historical precedent on its side.

Courts have at times shielded entities from having to obey FACA guidelines, citing practical and routine needs from the White House, as the Supreme Court did in 1987 when it ruled that the American Bar Association was exempt even though the president consulted them for judicial nominations. In 2002, however, the court applied FACA rules on advisory panels on nuclear waste and cleanup, among others.

 

What can Trump inauguration donors expect in return? 2017 offers a look

Much of Donald Trump's political era is unprecedented, but at least one element is familiar: an inauguration with record-setting fundraising and deep-pocketed donors.

Trump raised a record $107 million from corporations and wealthy individuals in 2017 and has reportedly hauled in an estimated $170 million for Monday's festivities. And while donors often argue they're merely doing their civic duty, a report suggests what they might get in return for some very expensive patriotism. 

More than half of the 63 federal contractors that donated to Trump's first inauguration won multimillion-dollar government bids in 2017; six of those had received none in 2016. Other donors employed executives who became Trump's political appointees, and still others "earned an unprecedented level of access to the new administration," according to the report from OpenSecrets, the watchdog arm of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Even if no hard deals are made with the president-elect, donors might figure it's better to be safe than sorry. 

“It's no secret that if Trump holds a grudge, it's going to be very public,” Brendan Glavin, director of insights at OpenSecrets, told Salon. “Nobody wants to start out on his bad side.”

Cashing in on contacts

Government contractors, who are barred from contributing to candidates' campaigns, are allowed to donate to inaugurations. They gave a collective $16.3 million to Trump's 2017 inaugural fund from their corporate pocketbooks as well as through anonymous LLCs, the report said.

A handful of companies in the private prison industry saw a shift in their government business after. CoreCivic, which owns and operates private prisons across the U.S., won 935% more federal contracts in 2017 than it did in 2016, according to the report. Union Supply Group, which runs prison commissary services, was awarded 18% more federal contracts in 2017 compared to 2016. 

We need your help to stay independent

Private prison businesses also benefited from Trump’s then-attorney general, Jeff Sessions, revoking a policy that aimed to phase them out, the report noted. The Obama-era policy was the result of a federal report that found CoreCivic’s management practices were partially responsible for a 2012 prison riot in Mississippi that left one prison guard dead. 

Another inauguration donor, Robert Murray, chief executive of the now-bankrupt coal mining company Murray Energy, gave $300,000. He later sent a memo to Vice President Mike Pence titled "Action Plan for the Administration of President Donald J. Trump." It listed 16 specific policy requests for the new administration. 

"Nearly a year later, the White House and federal agencies have completed or are on track to fulfill most of the 16 detailed requests," The New York Times reported in early 2018. Among Murray’s requests were slashing the Environmental Protection Agency’s staff "at least in half" and ending regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, ozone and mine safety, The Times reported. 

Dow Chemical, which gave $1 million to Trump’s first inauguration, had its controversial $130 billion merger with DuPont approved in 2017 after being delayed for years over antitrust concerns. 

Trump appointed a former executive from the American Chemistry Council — a trade organization that represents chemical companies like Dow — to a top position in the EPA’s toxic chemicals division.

The EPA later rejected a recommended ban on a Dow pesticide that “studies suggest has adverse effects on humans,” the OpenSecrets report found.

Few regulations on inaugurations

Inaugurations represent a less regulated opportunity to curry favor with a president. There’s no limit on how much individuals or companies can give unless a president sets one. Nor are there restrictions on how the money is ultimately spent. 

"Now people know what to expect, and that is driving them to participate. They say, ‘OK, this will mean something, and this will help us start off on a good foot with the new administration'"

Inaugural committees must disclose the names of donors who give $200 or more, but aren’t required to produce records showing how the funds were spent. 

Some would-be Trump donors sat on the sidelines in 2017 because they "didn't necessarily know what to expect from the first Trump administration," said Glavin of OpenSecrets.

But donors are likely hoping to get something in exchange for their gift, even if that’s simply staying on Trump's good side. 

"This is the second time around," Glavin said. "Now people know what to expect, and that is driving them to participate. They say, ‘OK, this will mean something, and this will help us start off on a good foot with the new administration.'"

Some Democrats are pushing for more transparency from inaugural committees. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nevada, has reintroduced legislation that would require them to disclose the purpose of each expenditure and donate unspent funds to a charity. Committees would be prohibited from converting donations to personal use or letting donors contribute on behalf of someone else, per CNBC

“The inauguration of a president from any party should not be used as an opportunity for personal enrichment or cronyism,” said Cortez Masto, who has introduced the bill in every Congress since 2017.

Limits, or not so much?

To varying degrees, presidents have embraced the longstanding tradition of inauguration donations. Several have put limits in the past on gifts from corporations, lobbyists or individuals.

Eight years ago, Trump set no dollar limit and banned contributions from lobbyists. He accepted massive checks from individuals, including $5 million from Republican megadonor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. 

Trump placed no restrictions on the sources or amounts of donations to his 2025 inaugural committee, according to ethics watchdog Public Citizen. Corporations like Ford, Toyota, Intuit, AT&T and General Motors have contributed, despite previous vows to rethink donations following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Some of the world’s biggest tech companies are also on the donor list: Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Meta have each pledged at least $1 million. Bank of America and Goldman Sachs planned donations. OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Apple's Tim Cook said they would give $1 million each. Cryptocurrency firms seeking a clear governing framework and a friendlier watchdog are also in the mix.

Joe Biden limited individual donors to $500,000 and corporations to $1 million and banned donations from lobbyists and the fossil fuel industry. He raised $62 million, with large contributions from Pfizer Inc., the maker of one of the COVID-19 vaccines, as well as from AT&T, Bank of America, Boeing, Uber, Lockheed Martin, Qualcomm and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, a major labor union.

Barack Obama banned corporate gifts as he raised $53 million for his 2009 inauguration but accepted them four years later, when he raised $10 million less. That led to large donations from Southern Company, which lobbied his office to loosen environmental regulations, and from AT&T, which asked for more tax credits and lobbied unsuccessfully for a merger with rival T-Mobile, according to The Center for Public Integrity. Another big donor, Microsoft, wanted stronger online piracy and intellectual property regulations.

George W. Bush's $40 million inauguration in 2001 “received disproportionate backing from drug and oil companies,” The Guardian reported. Oil companies' donations reflected “excitement at the prospect” of Bush opening up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. Bush pushed to expand drilling there but was unsuccessful. 

Drug companies wanted looser regulations on the cost of patented prescription drugs, as well as a more aggressive fight against generic drugs produced abroad, per The Guardian. In 2003, Bush announced new rules making it easier for U.S. companies to roll out generic prescription drugs.  

Bill Clinton collected $33 million in 1993, according to The Washington Post. Insurance companies, including Aetna, MetLife and Blue Cross Blue Shield “were particularly well represented” among the donors. Clinton, who campaigned on health care reform, proposed a rule as president that would have required employers to cover health care insurance for all workers. 

Occidental Petroleum, which had been ordered to pay roughly $935 million for allegedly violating federal price-control laws, loaned Clinton's inaugural committee $100,000. Federal regulators reversed the order during his first term, and an Occidental attorney who handled the case was appointed to a senior Justice Department position.

John Huang, an executive at Indonesian banking giant Lippo, issued a joint loan of $100,000 to Clinton’s inauguration fund, alongside another Lippo executive. Huang was later appointed to a position in the Commerce Department, per The Associated Press.

Big Tech, billionaire donors at Trump’s inauguration

Donald Trump’s return to the White House, once seen as nearly impossible in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, was boosted by ultra-wealthy political donors, tech titans and business moguls who opened their deep pockets — many of whom are expected to attend his second inauguration

Some, such as Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, are hopeful Trump will treat them more favorably than he has previously indicated. Donations from sports team owners and industry heirs also signal the billionaire class aligning with the incoming administration. 

Here are a handful of the billionaires expected at the swearing-in. 

Tech titans line up behind Trump

A day after TikTok’s short-lived ban, CEO Shou Zi Chew is expected to be seated on the dais at the ceremony, a position of honor typically reserved for former presidents or other highly distinguished guests. 

A trio of Big Tech bosses — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Apple CEO Tim Cook —also have prime seats. Amazon and Meta each gave $1 million to Trump’s second inauguration; Cook personally gifted $1 million. Zuckerberg, who is co-hosting an inaugural party tonight, ended fact-checking on Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms earlier this month, while Amazon reportedly spent $40 million to secure the rights to produce and stream a documentary about Melania Trump.

All three were seen seated next to each other at the Inauguration Day church service at St. John’s Cathedral early Monday, CNN reported. 

Elon Musk, who spent an estimated $277 million backing Trump and other Republican candidates, will be there. Musk since been named co-chair of Trump’s Department of Governmental Efficiency, a nongovernmental outside group advising him on how to slash the federal budget.

Altman, who personally gave Trump $1 million for his inauguration, is scheduled to attend alongside two other company executives.

Uber’s CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is expected to be there. Both Uber and Khosrowshahi each made a $1 million donation to Trump’s inauguration, according to Reuters

Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is scheduled to attend. Google donated $1 million to the festivities. 

Billionaires on guest list

Miriam Adelson, widow of billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who gave $5 million to Trump's first inauguration, is expected to attend the ceremonies. Last year, she created a pro-Trump PAC, funding it entirely through a $100 million donation of her personal funds. 

Tilman Fertitta, owner of the Houston Rockets basketball team, is expected to attend. Fertitta is a Houston-area businessman and head of Landry’s, the restaurant group that owns brands like Morton’s steakhouse, McCormick and Schmick’s and Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. Trump recently nominated Fertitta to be ambassador to Italy. Fertitta donated at least $1 million to state and national Republican fundraising committees during the 2024 election. 

Todd Ricketts, co-owner of the Chicago Cubs, is expected to attend. Ricketts served as finance chair of Trump's reelection committee and was the Republican National Committee’s finance chair from 2018 through 2021.  

The three are slated to co-host an inaugural ball reception later this evening alongside Zuckerberg.

Trump landed support from other billionaires whose attendance hasn’t been confirmed:

  • Timothy Mellon gave $76.5 million to Trump political fundraising groups during the election. Mellon is the heir to the Mellon banking fortune and was one of Trump’s largest individual donors during the election. The family is worth an estimated $14.1 billion, per Forbes. 
  • Linda McMahon, married to World Wrestling Entertainment’s disgraced founder and CEO Vince McMahon, donated $16 million to Trump fundraising groups. Trump recently nominated her to serve as secretary of the Department of Education; under his first term, McMahon was the administrator of the Small Business Administration. Linda McMahon’s net worth is roughly $3.1 billion, according to Forbes.
  • Robert “Woody” Johnson, owner of the New York Jets, gifted $2.7 million to pro-Trump groups during the 2024 election. Johnson is an heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune and served as the ambassador to the United Kingdom under Trump’s first administration. Johnson's net worth is estimated at $3.3 billion, per Forbes. 
  • Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein each gave $5 million to pro-Trump groups. Richard Uihlein is heir to the Schlitz beer fortune; the couple is worth roughly $6 billion. 
  • Diane Hendricks gifted $6.3 million to pro-Trump reelection efforts during the campaign. Hendricks, a former Playboy bunny, co-founded ABC Supply Co. with her late husband in 1982; the company most recently reported more than $20.4 billion in annual sales earnings. Forbes estimates her net worth at $20.9 billion. 
  • Kelcy Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners — the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline — donated $5.8 million to Trump groups during the 2024 campaign. Warren’s net worth is estimated at $6.2 billion. 

Snoop Dogg faces push back for Crypto Ball performance before Donald Trump’s inauguration

Snoop Dogg is feeling the heat after performing at the Crypto Ball, an event leading up to Donald Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration.

On Sunday, the hip-hop star performed at the event hosted by former PayPal COO and incoming AI and crypto czar, David Sacks. Snoop Dogg's industry peers, Rick Ross, Soulja Boy, and Nelly, also appeared at the Trump celebration. But the hip-hop stars are now facing the music from their outraged fans online.

"Watching Rick Ross, Soulja Boy, Nelly, and Snoop Dogg all perform at Trump’s inaugural event adds an extreme amount of validation to what Malcolm X said about some black celebrities being puppets," one person said on X.

Another person said: "It's time to throw @SnoopDogg in the dumpster with the rest of Trump's white supremacist, insurrectionist allies."

The rapper's support of Trump is a turn to the right from his past public beef with the president-elect. In 2016, Snoop Dogg was a vocal opponent of Trump's campaign, posting a video on Instagram smoking marijuana to YG and Nipsey Hussle’s anti-Trump protest song, “FDT.” In the video, Snoop stated, “We ain’t voting for your punk a**.” The rapper even released his own Trump diss song, “M.A.C.A. (Make America Crip Again)" in 2017.

In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Snoop Dogg even said, “If y’all do vote for him, y’all some stupid motherf**kers."

But the rapper's tune shifted when he started working with the former president to grant clemency for his friend and Death Row Records co-founder Michael "Harry-O" Harris. After Trump agreed to Harris' pardon and Harris was released from prison, Snoop publically thanked the president, stating, “That’s great work for the president and his team on the way out."

Last year he told the Sunday Times of London, “I have nothing but love and respect for Donald Trump.”

Contagious peeing discovered in chimpanzees

“Monkey see, monkey do” isn’t just a playground aphorism, it’s a pretty apt way of describing the behavior of us primates. Some of our contagious behaviors are involuntary; for example, if someone yawns in our vicinity, we might find ourselves also trying to suppress a yawn. Other primates, including chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), experience similar phenomena such as contagious yawning, scratching, grooming and playing. Now there is research which reveals chimps even pee contagiously.

"Urination, a seemingly simple physiological act, can also spread socially within a group."

A recent study in the journal Current Biology led by scientists at Kyoto University's Wildlife Research Center found that if one individual chimp starts to urinate, others that see it will feel compelled to do so. While this may seem odd to humans, who are far more inclined to seek privacy rather than intimacy when urinating, the chimps’ behavior in fact directly relates to our own. This behavior may help with territorial markings, but also group bonding or even preparing to travel — essentially the ape version of going pee before heading on a road trip.

“Humans and non-human animals share many social phenomena linked to group living — we’re all influenced by the presence of others, even in everyday activities,” lead author Ena Onishi, a Kyoto University primate researcher, told Salon. “For instance, behaviors like yawning, walking, rhythmic tapping, and even changes in pupil size are contagious in both humans and chimpanzees. Our study fits into this framework by showing that urination, a seemingly simple physiological act, can also spread socially within a group.”

To learn this, the scientists recorded 20 captive chimpanzees over a period of more than 600 hours. They compared the animals’ synchronization rate (proportion of urinations within 60 seconds of another) to 1,000 sessions of randomized computer simulations of urination, finding that the former showed more evidence of urination acts deliberately coinciding rather than occurring arbitrarily. Then they studied whether urinators and potential followers were more likely to pee simultaneously when standing closer to each other, which proved to be the case. Finally, they examined whether individuals higher in the chimpanzees’ social hierarchies were more influential in inspiring urination acts than low-status individuals, and found that that did indeed happen often.

“These results support the notion of socially contagious urination,” the authors conclude. Co-author Shinya Yamamoto, an associate professor of primatology at Kyoto University, told Salon that this finding is significant because it is the first to ever study contagious urination in any animal, including humans. Now that they have found all of this new data, more questions have been raised.

“We need to investigate this further from a broader comparative perspective,” Yamamoto said. “Apes have a wide variety of social structures and dynamics.” As one example, chimpanzees and bonobos do not have strict hierarchies based on individuals being male or female, as seen among other primate species. Similarly “chimpanzee society is more competitive in nature, but may be better at group cooperation, such as cooperative hunting and border patrolling, than bonobos that have a more peaceful society characterised by high inter-individual tolerance. Gorillas form a family-like society, typically with a single adult male and several females and offspring, whereas orangutans are basically solitary.”


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


“Exploring this connection… offers valuable insights into how social animals have evolved systems to maintain group cohesion.”

All of these differences, Yamamoto explained, could determine how contagiously each species of primate urinates. Right now, the researchers aren’t entirely sure why this happens, proposing that “experimental work targeting the potential sensory cues and social triggers will be necessary to examine underlying mechanisms.”

When most people encounter each other in a public bathroom, the last thing they want to do is pay attention to another person’s business. Humans treat our waste excretion as an intensely private experience. Animals, not so much.

“Exploring this connection between physiological responses and social living offers valuable insights into how social animals have evolved systems to maintain group cohesion,” Onishi said.

Studying chimpanzees has taught us a huge amount about our own evolution. A 2023 study in the journal Nature Communications revealed that chimpanzees have specific sounds associated with warning their peers about the presence of snakes. They did this by pranking the chimpanzees with fake snakes, then recording their responses.

"We propose the 'alarm-huu + waa-bark' represents a compositional syntactic-like structure, where the meaning of the call combination is derived from the meaning of its parts," the authors explained in their study. University of Zurich professor Simon Townsend, a study co-author, told Salon at the time that “humans and chimpanzees last shared a common ancestor approximately 6 million years ago. Our data therefore indicate that the capacity to combine meaningful vocalizations is potentially at least 6 million years old, if not older."

Similarly, a 2022 study in the journal Communications Biology learned that a group of 46 chimpanzees at Taï National Park in the African country of Côte d'Ivoire can produce 390 distinct vocalizations. Catherine Crockford of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who co-authored the paper, told Salon by email at the time, "What is astonishing in the chimpanzee vocal repertoire, compared to other non-human animals, is the extreme flexibility in which they can combine their limited number of signals.”

While urinating may seem wildly different than speaking, both acts can form bonds between individuals and thereby strengthen social cohesion. Indeed, that was Onishi’s ultimate conclusion about the relevance of their research.

“When one chimpanzee urinates, others nearby are more likely to urinate within a short time frame,” Onishi said. “It’s not like they intentionally gather to urinate together — since they urinate wherever they are. Perhaps it might be easy to imagine contagious yawning.”

Trump to begin second term with assault on the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship

President-elect Donald Trump will begin his second term in office with an effort to eliminate the constitutional right to citizenship, a member of his staff said Monday.

"The federal government will not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the United States," a Trump official said at a briefing, Reuters reported. Trump's effort to unilaterally eliminate a constitutional right will come as part of a flurry of executive orders targeting immigrants, including those who seek to come to the U.S. legally, the new administration also seeking to suspend refugee resettlement for a minimum of four months.

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. It reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Legal experts generally agree that Trump has no legal ability to eliminate a constitutional right. Michael LeRoy, a law professor at the University of Illinois, said such an action would itself be "blatantly unconstitutional."

"The U.S. Supreme Court took up this issue in 1898 in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, involving a young man born in the U.S. to Chinese immigrant parents who had no American citizenship and were subjects of the Chinese emperor," LeRoy noted. When Wong's citizenship was challenged on the basis that his parents were not legal immigrants, his lawyers fought back and took the case to the Supreme Court, where they prevailed.

"So, no, birthright citizenship isn't a loophole. It's a fundamental right to all people born in the U.S.," LeRoy said.

“Paddington” is 10 years old, but the bear’s lessons of kindness and curiosity are timeless

Ten years ago (give or take a few odd days), a curious, marmalade-loving bear named Paddington tumbled his way into theaters, and in turn, our hearts. 

Eight years ago, an incurious, discord-loving boar named Trump tumbled his way into office, and in turn, the rot of our collective consciousness. 

Paddington’s unstoppable force meets Trump’s immovable object, and I’m being flattened in the middle as they duke it out.

In a way, these historic events are fitting for the year's first month. January is a time for new beginnings. We write down our resolutions, stretch our bodies, catch up on work and get off caffeine for as long as possible before the sweet, sweet lure of hot coffee pulls us back in on a cold winter morning. Even if one can’t keep up with all the intentions they set, we allow ourselves grace, remembering that, no matter how old we get, change isn’t always easy. It’s that kindness and good nature that Paddington, the London-dwelling bear by way of Darkest Peru, has always led with. Whether he’s adventuring in creator Michael Bond’s children’s books, making the jump to animated TV series or most recently, the big screen, Paddington always sees the best in people. He understands the capacity for human goodness, and even if his adversaries don’t see that virtue within themselves, Paddington’s follies have a way of drawing it out of them.

Call me pessimistic, but Donald Trump is far past that point. Whatever grace there was at the start of his tenure in the Oval Office — the pleas of, “Well, just wait and see, give him a chance to prove himself” — quickly dissipated within his first weeks in office. Over the four years that followed, Trump went on to sow discord and division among Americans. His policies and personality turned over America’s wretched underbelly, allowing it to breathe and strengthen itself. There was no shortage of contentious presidencies before Trump’s first years in office, but his disseminated rage for the digital age, leaving the country fractured in ways once thought unimaginable. 

Fractured is, coincidentally, exactly how I feel today. I am at once celebrating the tenth anniversary of “Paddington” releasing in theaters stateside and dreading the inauguration ceremony for Trump’s second term. Paddington’s unstoppable force meets Trump’s immovable object, and I’m being flattened in the middle as they duke it out. 

But the funny thing is that these two events can coexist, and they have to. They represent the clash between lawful good and chaotic evil, and how there cannot be one without the other. It may very well sound naive and a bit insipid, but Paddington and Trump are the perfect, easily digestible images of moral balance. These are two larger-than-life characters whose antics allow for an elementary-level understanding of good and evil. Sometimes it’s perfectly fine to abandon nuance (at least for a bit) to look at the world in rudimentary ways. There’s comfort in reminding ourselves of the sweet, friendly, palatable values that the good bear extols, and there has never been a better time to do that than today.

We need your help to stay independent

If you’re somehow unfamiliar with Paddington Bear, voiced by Ben Whishaw in the series, “Paddington” kicks off with a delightful crash course in his history. Well, delightful in the way that the opening of “Up” is sweet. There are a few tears to shed right at the top of the film when an earthquake hits the jungles of Darkest Peru, and Paddington’s beloved Uncle Pastuzo (Michael Gambon) is a casualty of the disaster. Happily, Paddington’s Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) is alright. Their sprawling jungle home, however, is not so lucky. The bears lived in a treehouse surrounded by innovative systems of rigs and pulleys. Lucy and Pastuzo picked up engineering — and human speech — from the great English explorer Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie) decades prior. They also developed a love of marmalade after raiding Montgomery’s rations, and have carried on the tradition of making bright orange marmalade sandwiches ever since.

After losing both Pastuzo and her home, Lucy decides that it’s time to make good on Montgomery's promise that, if the bears should ever find themselves in London, they’ll be greeted with a warm welcome and a place to call home. She arranges for Paddington to stow away on a cargo ship to England and tells him to write to her at the Home for Retired Bears. “They will not have forgotten how to treat a stranger,” Lucy tells her nephew before bidding him farewell.

On Inauguration Day, this line feels like a knife to the stomach. It does any other day, too, but with such a close-minded political figure entering back into public office, Aunt Lucy’s words are particularly cutting. I remember the fear felt amid the initial days of Trump's first term when his travel ban foreshadowed the relentless pursuit and degradation of anyone non-white that would come to define his political ethos. Years into his incumbency, Trump’s approach to the COVID-19 pandemic was more of a shrug than a response and innumerable people suffered and died because his action was so leisurely. 

There was a distinct lack of compassion for strangers in Trump’s first term, and yet care and connection with our fellow humans — especially those we don’t know personally — define life. Whether by giving a person directions or helping someone reach an item on a tall shelf in the grocery store, our lives are buoyed by fleeting interactions with people we don’t know. Yet with expansive digital worlds at our fingertips, it’s so simple to surround ourselves with a bubble. We lap up what algorithms feed us and spend so much time connecting with loved ones only through our screens. We “meet” new people by following them. I’m keenly aware that, at 30 years old, I already sound like I’m yelling at a cloud. But is it any wonder that so many people have forgotten how to treat strangers when our world is designed to keep these interactions from us in the first place?

Like Trump’s attempt at being a legitimate politician, Nicole Kidman's Millicent is simply wearing the costume of a scientist. She’s neither inquisitive nor adept; rather, she’s violent and utterly hateful.

The primary, overarching lesson in the first “Paddington” film is that keeping your mind and heart open is critical for a happy, fulfilled life. When Paddington gets to London and first meets the Brown family — Mr. Henry Brown (Hugh Bonneville), Mrs. Mary Brown (Sally Hawkins) and their children Judy (Madeleine Harris) and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin) — their brood has a hard time staying receptive to the joys of the world as it is. Henry is overprotective while Mary is overbearing and suffering from artist’s block. Then there's Jonathan, whose curious nature is stifled by his parents’ caution, and Judy, who is entering her defiant adolescence and unwilling to talk much to her parents at all. But when they pass a sweet bear in the train station, Mary can’t help but stop in her tracks. After some nudging, Henry allows her to bring Paddington home for one night, after which they’ll either find him a willing home or, if Henry has his way, drop the bear at an orphanage.

Of course, neither of those things ever happen. Paddington convinces Mary that they can track down the great explorer who knew his aunt and uncle, and their adventure begins. Along the way, a maniacal museum taxidermist named Millicent (a delightfully wicked Nicole Kidman) hears word of a talking bear running around London and sets out to hunt Paddington down. Millicent isn’t concerned about anyone other than herself and her legacy, and she knows that a rare species of talking bear will be the perfect fit to round out the museum’s collection of exotic animals. 

If Paddington is the personification (or, bearification) of the capacity for human kindness, Millicent is his foil. Instead of looking at the bigger picture by studying and celebrating an endangered species she knows little of, she intends to quash it and stuff it. Like Trump’s attempt at being a legitimate politician, Millicent is simply wearing the costume of a scientist. She’s neither inquisitive nor adept; rather, she’s violent and utterly hateful — even if she looks a lot more stylish in her crusade against our hero than Trump does in his poorly tailored suits. Millicent doesn’t really care about what she does for work, only that she’s perceived as the best at it; she sounds a lot like someone who responds to every criticism of his policies and personality with resounding certainty that he’s the greatest to ever live.

Should this be your first time seeing “Paddington,” I won’t spoil all the fun. But one of the most joyous parts of watching and rewatching Paul King’s wonderful movie is that it’s happily running on the last vestiges of Obama-era twee. The production design is colorful and cozy, livening the film with its own cheerful visual throughline. Some parts of it feel so quirky that it’s as if they were intentionally designed to become viral gifsets on Tumblr while the platform was bowing out of its own Obama-era heyday. Just watching and enjoying the movie — and certainly, my directly comparing Paddington to Donald freaking Trump — can feel a lot like “libbing out,” a phrase that uses irony to brush off how good it can feel to be hopeful in a dire political climate. 

Detachment is what the enemies of a hopeful, affectionate future want, and Paddington would never stand for such a thing!

But is there anything so wrong with that? Have we let ourselves be so beaten down by four years of the Trump administration and the festering decay it wrought that our desire to feel good has to be couched by doing it ironically? The “Paddington” movies are universally beloved for their upbeat outlook and sentimentality, yet they oppose the world they exist in. That’s what makes them so special! These films don’t ignore our harsh realities, they stare bitterness down in defiance. Paddington even shoots Mr. Brown unyielding eye contact when his guardian responds rudely to an earnest thought. “It’s called a hard stare,” Paddington says. “My aunt taught me to do them when people have forgotten their manners.”

So, no, there’s nothing wrong with a little libbing out if it means practicing good manners and keeping a generally friendly disposition. Wearing rose-colored glasses sparingly won’t affect our vision. By reminding ourselves of the virtues that this sweet little bear embraces — even if they come in the form of brightly colored cinematic candy, like “Paddington” — we’ll be more likely to notice opportunities to bring those values into our daily lives. The alternative to practicing kindness is to sit in the dread and fear of Inauguration Day, isolating ourselves. That isolation only makes us cold, cruel, unfriendly, unloving and incurious when we venture into the world and cross paths with all of the incredible people who inhabit it. Detachment is what the enemies of a hopeful, affectionate future want, and Paddington would never stand for such a thing! He would want us to be analytical and good-natured, maybe even a little nosy; not just tolerant, but actively welcoming.

Though both the bear and the bore are competing for my attention today, I am choosing to spend some time with Paddington. If you find yourself similarly filled with terror over Trump’s second term, desperate to remember all the good that still exists in the world, I’d suggest you do the same. It will be the reassurance you need, one cartoon figure over the other. Even on the darkest of days, Paddington’s sticky orange marmalade still catches the light.

“These are exceptional circumstances”: Biden pardons Fauci, Milley and Janaury 6 committee members

As one of his final acts in office, President Joe Biden on Monday issued pardons to people he suggested might otherwise be targets of "politically motivated prosecutions" under his successor.

“These are exceptional circumstances, and 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.”

Those pardoned include Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former head of he National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 insurrection; and police officers who testified before the committee.

“These public servants have served our nation with honor and distinction and do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions,” Biden said.

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly pledged to prosecute his political enemies. Trump has since nominated MAGA loyalists to key law enforcement positions, with Kash Patel, his pick to lead the FBI, having drafted a list of "deep state" actors that could be targets in the coming months. Pam Bondi, his nominee for attorney general, last week insisted that she would rely solely "on the facts and the law" when deciding who to pursue charges against.