Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

With large Democratic support, Senate expands bill that could deport immigrants without due process

The Senate on Wednesday voted 70-25 to adopt the first amendment to the Laken Riley Act, a bill that would would mandate that Immigration and Customs Enforcement detain and potentially deport undocumented migrants accused — but not yet convicted — of nonviolent crimes such as trespassing and theft. The amendment, proposed by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, would also require ICE to detain any undocumented migrant accused of assault on a law enforcement officer.

Twenty-one Democrats voted with every Republican who was present to adopt the amendment, with further debate scheduled for Thursday.

The legislation, named after a Georgia college student who was murdered by a Venezuelan migrant who was previously arrested and then paroled for shoplifting, had already passed two procedural hurdles with overwhelming Senate support.

Some Democrats, like co-sponsors Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., and Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., have said they would back the Laken Riley Act all the way to final passage. Others are hoping to use the debate process to fix a bill that critics say would allow authorities to disregard due process in order to effect mass deportations. Cornyn's amendment might elevate those concerns, as police officers have previously charged people (particularly arrestees) with assault only for evidence to later prove their claims were unfounded.

So far, Democratic efforts to change the bill have been in vain. An amendment proposed by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., would have cut out a section of the bill that gives state attorneys power to sue the federal government over detention policy, but it was voted down along party lines, 46-49.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has pledged to allow an open debate and amendment process in the next several days. “We’ll have debate, and we’ll aim to produce the strongest bill that we can pass into law. That’s our goal," he told reporters.

The South Dakota Republican has also said that he supports an amendment from Sen. Joni Ernst's, R-Iowa, that would expand the bill to include the detention of undocumented migrants accused of committing crimes that cause death and serious bodily harm.

The Laken Riley Act already passed the House with 48 Democratic votes, but once the Senate votes on the bill it will once again return to the House for another vote.

 

“A series of criminal efforts to retain power”: The stench of American politics overwhelms us all

Imagine living in a country dominated by two political parties. 

This imaginary country is ostensibly a representative democracy, though some call it a republic just to be obtuse.

Further, imagine the country’s political climate is horribly divided. Family members, friends and acquaintances live side by side and in a jurisdiction whose motto is “United We Stand. Divided We Fall.” However, in these so-called united territories, the citizens call each other enemies because of political differences. Imagine more than four dozen different provinces constitute the country. Some of these regions are run by one of the main parties while other territories are run by the other – though members of both parties live in each zone.

The two main parties seem to take turns leading the country, but the divisive national politics has taken its toll in the last five decades. There’s been little progress. Cultural stagnation is commonplace. Infrastructure, education, healthcare and common courtesy are all failing. Many of the elected representatives do not represent their districts, but rather the most vocal, well-heeled and easiest-bought members of the district. A great national malaise infects the rest, who rarely, if ever, pay attention to the political forces tearing them apart.

Now imagine a great tragedy befalls one province. Let’s call it an act of God. Millions are suffering, from both parties, but because one side dominates the politics in that region, the other will not give aid to those suffering even though members of its own party are among those in need. “They’re getting what they deserve,” the angry partisans shout. “We won’t help them because they think differently than we do,” they claim – although, again, many living in the affected area are members of the angry minority. 

Further, let’s imagine that party is so morally bankrupt as to place at its titular head a human being convicted of felonious crimes that include cheating, lying and worse. Also, imagine that leader had been rebuked by the legislative branch of the national government not once, but twice and has been charged with trying to undermine the very government that person, after winning a national election, represents.

And to go even further, what if the opposition party, so convinced of its own righteous indignation failed to displace the corrupt leader in a national general election because its own members failed to vote to do even though they outnumber the party whose titular head is a corrupt mountebank, grifter, charlatan and poltroon. 

Imagine a people so distracted by the pursuit of trivial matters and ridiculous entertainment, a nation of people so uneducated as to be unaware of their own form of government, that it accepts corruption in its education, politics, entertainment, media, journalism, business and religion. Imagine the two political parties act as if one has no heart while the other has no head. Citizens on both sides of the political divide wail and gnash their teeth at their collective plight though they are responsible for jumping into the stew in which they boil.

Who can communicate to the millions of stunted citizens who either cannot or do not want to understand that their long-term survival is being sacrificed for their short-term gain?

Finally, imagine the nation is one of extreme wealth and destitute poverty, surreptitiously run by a dozen billionaires who collectively control more wealth and capital than many other nations. Imagine that the ignorant of the nation continue to fight with each other over trivial matters of importance made to seem crucial by those billionaires who keep everyone fighting while they run away with more power and cash.

Outlandish, right? Sounds like a “Mad Max” dystopian movie starring Mel Gibson. Maybe that’s exactly what it is, for Mel Gibson has certainly added his own brand of lunacy to explaining our current political climate. Then again, perhaps it is a fever dream induced by LSD. At least that would explain why millions of people spout anti-science propaganda on cell phones made possible by advanced science. Maybe it also explains why some will declare they support free speech until you say something that pisses them off. But the truth remains that if you consider how uninformed the average person is, as George Carlin reminded us, half of them are worse than that. (Actually, that would be the median person, but I’m splitting hairs. Stupid is as stupid does.) 

I still don’t think that explains special counsel Jack Smith’s report on Donald Trump released this week. Smith and his team said they believed they could have secured a conviction against Trump over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election — describing Trump’s actions as “criminal efforts to retain power.”

First — no kidding. No prosecutor who filed charges would ever think they’re not going to win. They simply wouldn’t file the charges if they thought they couldn’t win. And while the Supreme Court quickly moved in a partisan fashion, giving Trump unlimited immunity for any “official act” that only they can determine to be official, the DOJ also dragged its feet in pursuing Trump. It’s almost like they underestimated Trump and thought they could take their sweet time prosecuting him.

We need your help to stay independent

The report itself is, in Trump parlance, a bit of a “nothing burger.”  Nothing in the 130-page report was a surprise. Hell, most everything, except for some of the nuance, was well-known and well-reported years ago. Smith did produce a nice narrative, however.

Finally, it only provided fuel for the fire. Trump came out and screamed more about “lawfare” and how everyone is out to get him, blah, blah blah. Trump called Smith “Desperate.” Trump eats it up. He can rail and blather about how somehow prosecuting him is actually prosecuting you and he’s going to stand up for you. It empowers his base. I must wonder at this point if Smith is as irretrievably stupid or simply a Trumper in disguise.

“Until Mr. Trump obstructed it, this democratic process had operated in a peaceful and orderly manner for more than 130 years,” Smith wrote, referring to Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results, under the Electoral Count Act of 1887.

Again, we know this. And yet one party of anti-vaxxers, miscreants, racists, climate change deniers, radical Christians of the “Six Flags Over Jesus” church of the holy finger pointing, and hypocrisy don’t care. While separately these strange minorities have little influence because they’ve been marginalized since the Age of Enlightenment, Trump has welded the MAGA party into some kind of mythical medieval sword that makes the Democrats look like they’re hunting with spears. 

The point of course is that here in the age of post-enlightenment, where we hunt with automatic weapons and nuclear weapons, and reason as if we’re still cavemen, both sides have failed us miserably. So, we seem to be caught up in a downward-spiraling series of angry viral social media posts; cartoonish, yes, but still potentially fatal.  

So, in the imaginary country, what would you do if your representatives failed to represent you in a representative democracy? Would you stop and look around and see that those who vehemently disagree with you share much more in common with you than your differences? Could you? 

In the imaginary country, what would happen if both sides just kept screaming at the top of their lungs that the other side was wrong? Both sides, equally convinced they were right and equally determined to survive and rule, could end up ruling over nothing but scorched earth — literally.


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


Donald Trump will take office in less than a week. For the second time, this dangerous grifter and polarizing cultural thief will be centerstage on the bully pulpit. He has demonstrated no ability to unite – only the ability to tear us asunder and millions of American voters from both sides of the aisle are riding along for the thrill of the carnage. 

Part of the problem in reading the report from Jack Smith was how many times he used the word “I” to describe his investigation and his choice to prosecute Trump. Sure, he wants to take responsibility – perhaps saving the dozens or hundreds of people who worked on the Trump investigation from being belittled, fired or prosecuted by Trump. But, it still plays into Trump’s hands. He can, has and will continue to paint Smith as part of some deep state effort as well as a rogue who had it in for Trump. Instead, the DOJ and the Democrats should show a little backbone and unity. It isn’t a small number of people who believe Trump to be corrupt; it’s millions. And the evidence has been in plain sight all along.

Nothing is more chilling than this statement from the report; “As set forth in the original and superseding indictments, when it became clear that Mr. Trump had lost the election and that lawful means of challenging the election results had failed, he resorted to a series of criminal efforts to retain power,” the report states.

In our imaginary country where logic might prevail, how best would the country proceed from this obvious revelation — even years after the self-evident truth was printed and distributed?

Who will counter the intellectual and political hustler who leads this imaginary country and cares nothing for anyone else? Who will step up to the leader who is aided and abetted by a ruling class of billionaires who wants to “come get some?” Who can communicate to the millions of stunted citizens who either cannot or do not want to understand that their long-term survival is being sacrificed for their short-term gain of being able to angrily shout, “We are right” while those in the know mumble “might doesn’t make right?”

President Joe Biden slouched off to Bethlehem in his best William Butler Yeats fashion Wednesday night, speaking to the American people for the last time as president. He spoke of the truth being smothered by lies while taking credit for the things he’d done as president. His closing address for America warned of the dangers of oligarchs and their potentially dangerous abuses of power being buried under “an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation.”

“Now it’s your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith,” he ended. 

Gloom, doom and hope. You laughed. You cried. It had everything.

For those reasons, while hope springs eternal and as James Baldwin noted “Love makes it all happen,” including every bit of our enduring civilization, I’d love to have a bit more hope than what Biden left us with. However, I am extremely disappointed in both political parties. The Democrats couldn’t even beat a convicted felon, and the Republicans couldn’t find a better candidate than a convicted felon.

The stench of American politics is overwhelming.

Bondi says she will rely “on the facts and the law” when deciding whether to prosecute Trump critics

In her first confirmation hearing Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, parroted conservative talking points, railing against the alleged politicization of the Justice Department under Preside Joe Biden while claiming ignorance of many key moments in Trump’s political career — and refusing to say who won the 2020 election.

If there was one theme returned to most frequently during Wednesday's confirmation hearing, it was the alleged "weaponization" of the department she has been picked to lead. Democrats, on the other hand, sought assurances that she wouldn’t engage in her own political prosecutions of Trump’s critics.

“If confirmed, I will work to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice — and each of its components,” Bondi said. “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.”

When asked about specific critics of Trump, including former special counsel Jack Smith and former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., Bondi refused to answer, saying only that she had not discussed the issue with Trump and that “every case will be done on a case-by-case basis.”

“No one will be prosecuted, investigated because they are a political opponent. That’s what we’ve seen for the last four years in this administration. It will be prosecuted based on the facts and the law and fairly,” Bondi said.

At the same time, Bondi’s answers appeared to be influenced by Trump's own brand of politics, especially when she was repeatedly asked about the 2020 election and whether Trump or President Joe Biden was the legitimate winner.

“To my knowledge, Donald Trump has never acknowledged the legal results of the 2020 election. Are you prepared to say today, under oath, without reservation, that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020?” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked.

Bondi, as she would respond to the same question when posed by other senators, refused to give a straight answer, saying that she saw “many things” during the 2020 election.

“All I can tell you, as a prosecutor, is from my first-hand experience, and I accept the results," she said. "I accept, of course, that Joe Biden is president of the United States. But what I can tell you is what I saw first-hand when I went to Pennsylvania as an advocate for the campaign."

In other exchanges, Bondi pleaded ignorance of some of Trump’s most infamous political moments. For example, she said that she was “not familiar” with Trump’s 2023 comments where he claimed that immigrants were “poisoning the blood” of the United States. She also claimed to be unfamiliar with Trump referring to convicted January 6 rioters as “hostages” and “patriots.”

When asked whether she would consider pardons for January 6 convicts, including those convicted of assaulting police, Bondi said she would evaluate them too on a case-by-case basis. She also claimed ignorance when asked about Trump’s infamous call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to change the results of the election there. 

We need your help to stay independent

When asked about Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, Bondi likewise said that she was not familiar with some of his prescriptions for the bureau. For instance, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Bondi whether she agreed with Patel that the FBI’s intelligence division should be “broken up.”

“I have not seen those comments from Mr Patel. I would review them, but we have to do everything we can to protect our country. Again, Mr. Patel would fall under me and the Department of Justice, and I will ensure that all laws are followed, and so will he,” Bondi responded.

In another exchange with Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., Bondi refused to defend the 14th Amendment right to "birthright citizenship," which Trump is seeking to eliminate, saying she would have to "study" the issue.

Bondi’s careful hewing to Trump’s preferred political line — while tiptoeing around some of the aspects that might be less expedient for confirmation — highlighted her close connection to Trump and his political operation.

Bondi’s connection to Trump dates back to the 2016 election, when a committee supporting Bondi received a $25,000 donation from Trump’s foundation. This was around the same time that she, as Florida attorney general, declined to investigate Trump University over allegations of fraud.

After Trump’s 2020 election loss, Bondi appeared as a campaign surrogate for Trump multiple times, telling Fox News on Nov. 5 of that year that “we do have evidence of cheating.” 

"We are not going anywhere until they declare that we won Pennsylvania," Bondi asserted.

As with other Trump loyalists who have toed Trump’s line on the 2020 election, Bondi never presented credible evidence for her claims, including the “many things” that purportedly went wrong in Pennsylvania.

Climate change is already changing how we eat. It could get much worse

Chetan Shetty is the executive chef at Passerine, a seasonal Indian restaurant in New York City’s fashionable Flatiron district. Before moving to the United States, however, Chef Shetty lived in Mahabaleshwar, a small town in India famous for its holy sites, majestic rivers and delicious strawberries.

Yet Shetty ruefully acknowledges that climate change has put a damper on that last part of his hometown’s legacy. Thanks to Earth’s rising temperatures, there has been a “reduction in the yield and quality of strawberries” in Mahabaleshwar. It is just one example of a trend noticed by not only this Michelin-starred chef, but countless others who work with food for a living: Humanity’s overreliance on fossil fuels is hurting the agricultural industry we all rely upon.

The trends of global heating makes people like Greg Hall nervous. The founder and owner of Virtue Cider, a Michigan-based creator of farmhouse cider only using locally sourced fruit, generates 61% of their electricity from 200 solar panels out of awareness of climate change. Hall is very aware of how climate change imperils his harvest. He says he’s lucky there aren’t issues with the quality of his apples, but yields have dropped as temperatures unexpectedly change.

"Climate change has made early spring much warmer,” Hall said. “In 2012, the apple trees in Michigan went to bloom in March too early. When an April freeze came, since the buds were already out, they froze and didn’t produce apples.” Michigan lost over 90% of the apple crop that year as a result of that bout of weird weather. “The trees rebounded, but that was our first crop year. It was a disaster.”

"While I can’t definitively say it’s all due to climate change, there’s no doubt that something is shifting."

Jason Perkins is similarly worried about the raw materials he needs for his livelihood. He is brewmaster at the Maine-based Allagash Brewing Company, which crafts Belgian-based beers, and like all brewmasters Perkins relies on a range of crops. Beers can be made using grains like wheat, barley and hops, all of which are threatened by climate change.

"We are finding challenges related to climate change in the reliability of being able to source raw ingredients,” Perkins said. “To both deal with that reality, and decrease our own footprint, we've been working closely with local farmers and maltsters to strengthen our food systems close to home."

In addition to impacting the ease with which farmers can cultivate crops like strawberries and apples, or make alcoholic products like beer, climate change is also negatively impacting the nutritiousness of the foods that we finally are able to consume. Chef Nekia Hattley, the Los Angeles-based owner of vegan products and meals company My Daddy’s Recipes, told Salon she has noticed changes in the quality and flavor of food.


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


“While I can’t definitively say it’s all due to climate change, there’s no doubt that something is shifting,” Hattley said. “Whether it’s the quality of our soil, the pesticides and chemicals we allow on our crops, or even food being grown in less natural conditions, the difference is undeniable.”

As one example, Hattley points to watermelons, a crop known for being sensitive to fluctuations in temperature such as those caused by climate change.

“What used to be a juicy, sweet reminder of summer now often tastes rubbery and bland,” Hattley said. Red bell peppers, which also suffer in quality and quantity because of climate change, “sometimes have an odd, dark discoloration inside and don’t seem as vibrant or crisp as they once were.”

There is more than Hattley’s hunch to let people know their food’s quality is dropping because of climate change. Scientists have confirmed that as carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere, staple crops like wheat and rice lose vitamins, proteins and micronutrients like zinc and iron that humans need to survive.

“It’s a really strong example of planetary health: Something that we’re doing to the environment is impacting health,” Dr. Samuel Myers, director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Planetary Health and a professor in Environmental Health and Engineering, said in a statement at the time. “As we change these complex systems, we’re seeing unintended consequences and unanticipated results.”

People who enjoy steak and burgers, as well as dairy products, will also feel the strain because of these nutrient deficiencies. Cattle eat grasses that provide them with essential proteins, and that protein content is dropping as grasses languish with rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Even when climate change is not making vital foods more scarce and less nutritious, it is literally knocking the raw materials around by causing extreme weather events.

"As a chef, I’ve come to realize that many vegetables now have increasingly shorter seasonal availability due to unpredictable weather,” Shetty said. “Flooding and drought significantly impact wild-foraged products, with damage that often takes years to stabilize. For example, the floods in North Carolina in September 2024 severely affected Appalachian truffle foragers.”

We need your help to stay independent

He also mentioned how climate change is driving coral ecosystems to extinction, which will hurt his bottom line by “disrupting the delicate balance of the food chain.”

If things continue to spiral out of control, what’s different on the menu might be the least of our problems. In some cases, there could be no menu at all. As the world gets hotter, famine too has risen. "In 2023, 281.6 million people faced high levels of acute food insecurity in 59 countries/territories, with numbers increasing every year since 2019," reads an introduction to a 2024 special issue on famine and food insecurity in the journal Disasters.

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity, particularly our overuse of fossil fuels. As humans dump carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases and water vapor into the atmosphere, the overheating planet causes droughts and heatwaves to become more frequent and more intense, sea levels to rise and hurricanes to become more extreme. As this happens, food experts like Hattley will find innovative ways to improve the quality of what they create, despite the fossil fuel-imposed obstacles.

"For me, the solution has been sourcing as much as I can from local farmers who prioritize soil health and traditional growing methods,” Hattley said. “The produce I buy from them feels closer to what I remember eating as a child — flavorful and nutrient-dense. If climate change continues to disrupt growing seasons and traditional farming methods, I fear that unless we’re proactive, food quality will only continue to decline, and we’ll lose more of the natural goodness we once took for granted."

Tech billionaires expose MAGA’s “populism” con job

The entirety of Donald Trump's con artist schtick to bamboozle his followers was perfectly illustrated in one recent photograph. In it, the president-elect sits grinning maniacally next to fellow rich white guy James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola. Clutched in Trump's famously short fingers is an expensive, specialty-made "commemorative" Diet Coke. 

Trump's Diet Coke addiction has long been used by the grifter-in-chief to sell his fans on the big lie of his career: that, beneath all the private jets and over-the-top gilded decor, he's a "regular" guy just like them. He, too, houses the sugar-free caffeinated beverages as a vague gesture towards "health" in between housing vegetable-free greasy meals of cheap hamburgers and sugary desserts. He must be an ordinary, salt-of-the-earth man! After all, he drinks a product found at every common supermarket. Never mind that Trump would never sully himself by entering a grocery store. He pays people to do that for him. 

In this ridiculous gift offered to Trump by a fellow man of unbelievable wealth, the truth is exposed. Ordinary people hand their money over to Coca-Cola. In return, they get kidney stones that they won't be able to treat should Trump take their health care away, as he has long hoped to do. Trump, in contrast, sits back in his Palm Beach mansion, accepting bribes and flattery in exchange for promises of tax cuts and deregulation for the wealthiest Americans. It's all bankrolled by the little guys, who pay for it at the grocery store and in losing basic government services. The illusion of "populism," purchased by the cheap prop of Trump's ubiquitous $2 Diet Coke can, is enough to distract MAGA from these realities and trick them into thinking the rich former reality TV star is one of them. 


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


On Tuesday, NBC News reported that tech billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg will all have prominent seats on the platform at Trump's inauguration. The symbolism is unmistakable. Those seats are usually reserved for family members, former presidents, and prominent politicians. Giving those seats to billionaires signals loudly that this is a new era of oligarchy, without even an attempt to feign allegiance to pre-Trump notions of government for and by the people. President Joe Biden was alarmed enough to make this issue the focal point of his final speech in office. 

"Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead," Biden said in his 17-minute farewell address from the Oval Office Wednesday night. 

Longtime Trump ally and host of the popular "War Room" podcast Steve Bannon is not happy about this. In a recent interview, he called Musk "a truly evil guy" and lambasted tech billionaires for being focused on "aggregation of wealth" at the expense of American workers. Nor is this a one-off. Bannon's been deriding the MAGA-come-lately men of Silicon Valley for being "techno-futilist" instead of "populist nationalist." Bannon makes up $5 words to make his ignoramus audience feel smart, but his point isn't that hard to suss: MAGA does better, politically, when it's perceived as a "populist" movement for the working class, not crony capitalism on steroids. 

There is little doubt that yelling slurs, like drinking Diet Coke, is how the wealthy leaders of MAGA make common cause with the hoi polloi who crowd the cheap seats at a Trump rally.

"Perceived" is the operative word here. Bannon's populism is as fake as Trump's, as evidenced by the way he makes money by swindling the working-class Republican voters he claims to champion. Bannon's recent stint in federal prison was over his role in Trump's attempted coup, but he still faces federal charges regarding his role in a "Build the Wall" scam. Prosecutors allege Bannon took money from MAGA donors, often elderly people on fixed incomes, with promises to build a border wall, but pocketed the cash instead. Not the act of a true champion of the little guy, to say the least. 

Still, in the reality TV distortion of politics that defines our current moment, Bannon's right that pretending to be a man of the people is good enough to pass muster with the disinformation-drunk MAGA masses. By all appearances, that's what Zuckerberg, Musk, and their rich boy ilk are trying to do. But not through actually humbling themselves by, say, giving away their billions and learning to live more simple lives. (That's what Bezos's ex-wife is doing, and therefore is likely viewed as inexcusably feminine behavior.) No, the preferred way to play-act "normal American man" is to be a massive jerk.

The trendy term for this is "vice-signaling," defined by The Bulwark's Tim Miller as "people who now gleefully portray themselves publicly as amoral or immoral in order to demonstrate some sort of strength or sophistication." Trump talking about his admiration for fictional serial killers is the most obnoxious version, but it's everywhere in MAGA. It's why Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth is so fiercely loved by GOP voters — not despite, but because of the sexual abuse allegations. It's also the primary way that rich, out-of-touch weirdoes try to appear as "just folks" to working-class Republican voters. 

In his newsletter, journalist Max Read lays out Zuckerberg's version of vice-signaling: 

Over the past eighteen months or so he grew out his hair; he replaced his hoodies with boxy tees; he got really into M.M.A. and wakeboarding. And, yes, he started wearing a gold chain. New Zuck is undeniably less off-putting than old, sweaty-hoodie, Caesar-cut Zuck. But he’s also unmistakably fratty, butch, and (to borrow an overused Twitter phrase) “right-coded,” partaking in the aesthetic and the hobbies of people you would expect to own crypto, listen to mindset podcasts, and vote for Trump (or, at least, refuse to vote for Biden).

The aesthetic change has been accompanied by a MAGA makeover of Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook. The fact-checking program has ended, with Zuckerberg pretending that the choice between fake and real news is merely about taste, like choosing between Miller Lite or a Cabernet. Inside the company, policies to promote racial diversity and LGBTQ equality were ended. Hate speech restrictions on Facebook were lifted

A telling article in the Financial Times showed how delusional and childish rich white guys going full MAGA really are. 

Even the way people on Wall Street talk and interact is changing. Bankers and financiers say Trump’s victory has emboldened those who chafed at “woke doctrine” and felt they had to self-censor or change their language to avoid offending younger colleagues, women, minorities or disabled people.

“I feel liberated,” said a top banker. “We can say ‘r*t*rd’ and ‘p*ssy’ without the fear of getting cancelled . . . it’s a new dawn.”

We need your help to stay independent

These man-children feel like they're "rebelling," but real rebellion is the oppressed rising against the more powerful. These are the richest, most privileged people in society bragging about how much they enjoy bullying people with lower social status. Sexual harassment is not storming the gates of the Bastille. Mocking disabled people isn't the Harper's Ferry revolt. These are cowards kicking people who can't fight back, because they're scared of picking on someone their own size. 

Still, there is little doubt that yelling slurs, like drinking Diet Coke, is how the wealthy leaders of MAGA make common cause with the hoi polloi who crowd the cheap seats at a Trump rally. Musk may be the richest man in the world, but he fools his fanboys into thinking he's one of them because he, too, can act like a total moron online. Zuckerberg can chat with fellow rich boy Joe Rogan on a podcast, and the listeners feel included, even though they would never be invited to either man's house for a party.  But the trick works because the two dress like they have never even spoken to a woman. 

It costs a lot of money to look that cheap. As Kevin Roose at the New York Times reported, Zuckerberg's dudebro look comes complete with a $900,000 watch. Yet he looks terrible so that appeals to the MAGA base of men who also find it emasculating the way women expect them to shower every day. 

All this vice-signaling and toxic masculinity theatrics may be sincerely felt by the billionaires or just a put-on (I suspect it's a mix), but it does serve the larger goal of concealing what the obscenely wealthy expect to get from Trump. Economist Paul Krugman recently laid it out on the "Daily Blast" podcast. "Working-class voters are going to face higher prices and upper income voters are going to benefit from tax cuts," he told host Greg Sargent. Trump has "an extremely regressive economic program in mind, one that really will effectively redistribute income away from working-class voters to the top."

Sure, you may never be able to retire or own a home, but it seems the r-word is coming back into fashion! I'd call that a bad trade-off. 

“This is a scheme to throw out legal votes”: North Carolina’s GOP accused of subverting democracy

Democrats are sounding the alarm over Republican efforts to overturn a key loss in North Carolina's close Supreme Court race, decrying state Appellate Court Judge Jefferson Griffin's legal challenge that seeks to have the state Board of Elections throw out enough votes to put him ahead. Those efforts, Democrats argue, ignore the will of North Carolina voters and pose a threat to democracy in the state — and nationwide.

"Our country is known as a beacon of democracy and Judge Jefferson Griffin, in our state, is on the front lines of dismantling that creed," North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton told reporters Monday. 

Griffin's challenge to his electoral defeat has garnered increased national attention since the state Supreme Court agreed to block certification of the election result last week. North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, led Griffin in the 2024 race by just 734 votes; two recounts at the end of last year confirmed her victory. The North Carolina Board of Elections last month also rejected Griffin's claims that tens of thousands of ineligible votes were counted in the November election, prompting Griffin to ask the state Supreme Court to toss out those ballots. 

Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, told reporters Monday that the implications of Republicans working to overturn "free and fair elections" are "devastating" for Riggs, the millions of North Carolinians who elected her and future elections. 

"If they are successful in this scheme, there will be copycat lawsuits across this country for races where they don't like the result," he warned.  

The case before the North Carolina Supreme Court is just one of a handful of election result protests in state and federal courts filed by Griffin or the Republican Party. Each case makes roughly the same ask: to temporarily pause election certification and, subsequently, throw out more than 60,000 votes counted in the 2024 election. Those votes, Griffin and the Republican National Committee argue, were cast by people who failed to fully complete their voter registrations by omitting their driver's license information or the last four digits of their social security numbers. 

On Monday night, the Wake County Superior Court rejected the RNC's request for a preliminary injunction forcing the state election board to cast aside alleged ineligible votes and toss those from voters who fail to provide adequate identification, following the Democratic National Committee's intervention in the suit last Friday. Griffin also has an additional case before the Wake County Superior Court seeking to have votes thrown out from the November count.

In the case before the Republican-majority North Carolina Supreme Court, which Riggs has recused herself from, the justices last week voted 4-2 to block certification of the election results to consider Griffin's petition. In the amended order, released last Wednesday, the justices offered an additional explanation for their decision. 

"I write separately to stress that the Court’s order granting Judge Griffin’s motion for temporary stay should not be taken to mean that Judge Griffin will ultimately prevail on the merits," Republican Justice Trey Allen wrote in the concurring opinion.

By ordering the stay, he added, the court "has merely ensured that it will have adequate time to consider" Griffin's arguments.

Two justices, Democrat Anita Earls and Republican Richard Dietz, dissented. Earls argued that Griffin's arguments had "no likelihood of success on the merits," while Dietz cited the Purcell principle, which prohibits judicial interventions in election laws and rules shortly before a vote to avoid confusion and casting doubt on the election's integrity. 

"The petition is, in effect, post-election litigation that seeks to remove the legal right to vote from people who lawfully voted under the laws and regulations that existed during the voting process," Dietz wrote. "The harm this type of post-election legal challenge could inflict on the integrity of our elections is precisely what the Purcell principle is designed to avoid."

Though dissenting, Dietz argued that two of Griffin's claims of voter ineligibility — regarding photo identification and residency in North Carolina — likely had merit had they been made well in advance of the election. 

We need your help to stay independent

In his lawsuit, Griffin argues that more than 60,000 votes cast in the 2024 election were unlawful. The voters who cast them, he claimed, had incomplete registrations — the alleged case for the overwhelming majority of the votes he's seeking to have thrown out — failed to include a photo ID with their overseas ballots or were never residents of North Carolina. In some instances, voters with incomplete registration neglected to or were never asked to provide driver's license information or the last four digits of their social security numbers. Discarding those thousands of votes would push Griffin into the lead.

Griffin filed another brief in the case Tuesday, highlighting the photo ID protest over the other two claims in his petition. That challenge affects just 5,509 overseas ballots that he said lacked necessary photo identification. The court, he said, could just decide the merits of that protest and return the matter to the North Carolina Board of Elections to recount the ballots since it could make the rest of the case moot. 

"Judge Griffin anticipates that, if these unlawful ballots are excluded, he will win the election," his lawyer said of the ballots lacking photo IDs. 

Action on the other protests of his petition, Griffin added, can be temporarily postponed pending a decision on the photo ID matter. 

Democrats say that, whatever the arguments, the intent is to overturn the will of the public.

Cooper called Griffin and Republicans' efforts to have these votes thrown out a "novel and egregious theory" and cautioned voters to take it seriously. 

"It's important for you to know that this is just not another step in the recount process. It's not another step in the post-election process. This is not even a run-of-the-mill contested election," Cooper said. "This is a scheme to throw out legal votes en masse by eligible voters who even showed their voter ID to be able to vote."

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison echoed those sentiments, admonishing what he described as Republicans' "rock-bottom maneuver to circumvent the will of North Carolina voters" and evoking with it the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

"January 6 was a grave test for our democracy, and we cannot leave the lessons of that day to the annals of history. In an age of disinformation and right-wing extremism, democracy is not something guaranteed to us," Harrison said. 

"The ability of Americans to vote — our most sacred right  — is now, once again, under attack by Republicans," he added. "The Ground Zero of this fight in early 2025 lies in the great state of North Carolina."

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear Griffin's petition later this month.

A supreme double standard: Samuel Alito stretches the ethical gulf between justices and judges

The first few weeks of 2025 have made the urgent need for ethics reform at the Supreme Court painfully clear. First there was the decision by the Judicial Conference to pass on investigating multiple questionable actions by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Then, Justice Samuel Alito made the curious decision to take a call from the president-elect as Donald Trump’s emergency appeal was barreling toward the court. 

As has been well-reported, there is a long list of apparent ethical failings by certain members of the court over the last two years — mostly Justice Thomas but also Justices Alito and Sonia Sotomayor. The reports have been shocking: luxury yacht vacations, salmon fishing in Alaska, private plane travel, a recreational vehicle, private school tuition, use of court staff to help sell books, and more. Not surprisingly, public respect for the courts is plunging. A recently published Gallup survey found that public confidence in America’s courts is down by 24% from 2020, to a historic low of 35%.

The New York City Bar Association recently issued a lengthy report calling for a mandatory and enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court, which we helped co-author. But one need look no further than the perversely disparate treatment of two federal judges to appreciate the urgent need for reform.

Justice Alito was either too tone deaf to see – or simply didn’t care – that he was being used. 

Aside from his call with Trump, according to published reports, Justice Alito may have violated both the laws governing the receipt of gifts and those governing recusal. He faces no risk of consequences, however, because the court’s ethics rules are neither mandatory nor enforceable. Senior United States District Court Judge Michael Ponsor, on the other hand, like all lower court judges, can be sanctioned for violating the mandatory Code of Conduct that applies to him –and he was –for simply calling attention to Justice Alito’s failures. Kafka could hardly fashion a system more in need of repair.

Decades ago, Congress passed ethics laws that apply explicitly to Supreme Court Justices.  Those laws are mandatory, not optional. They govern the receipt and disclosure of gifts and set standards for recusal. Yet, Justice Alito shrugs them off, asserting that “Congress did not create the Supreme Court” and “[n]o provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”  

Last year, what critics have called the Court’s “imperial” attitude was on display when Justice Alito refused to step aside from three cases involving the legality of President Trump’s actions surrounding the Jan. 6 insurrection. The justice had permitted an upside-down flag – a symbol of the Stop the Steal movement – to fly outside his home after the attack on the Capitol.  This symbol of apparent support for the insurrectionists might sensibly have prompted Justice Alito to recuse himself from the Jan. 6 appeals because federal law requires a justice to step aside whenever his impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” But when the flag-flying incident came to light in early 2024, Justice Alito rejected calls to step aside. In his view, the recusal statute does not bind the Justices, and he announced his decision to sit without citing or discussing governing federal law. Chief Justice Roberts was seemingly so alarmed by the appearance created by Justice Alito’s continued participation in the Jan. 6 cases that, according to news reports, he took the unprecedented step of taking back from Justice Alito the assignment to write the majority opinion in one of them.

Which brings us back to Judge Ponsor. A well-respected former Rhodes Scholar appointed by President Clinton, Judge Ponsor is an outspoken proponent of Supreme Court ethics reform. In response to the upside-down flag incident, Judge Ponsor wrote an opinion piece headlined, “How could Justice Alito have been so foolish?” His comments echoed the thinking of many Americans and were, in many ways, more valuable because they provided a judicial perspective on the incident. “To put it bluntly,” he wrote, “any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb.” As he put it, “Courts work because people trust judges. Taking sides in this way erodes that trust.”  

Judge Ponsor’s entirely sensible essay prompted allies of Justice Alito to object—not to the validity of Judge Ponsor’s criticisms, but to his voicing them at all. Their complaint was investigated by an appellate court judge, who concluded that Judge Ponsor had improperly “expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice.” Judge Ponsor was disciplined last month for making statements that “diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.” 

The irony of this episode is rich. Judge Ponsor was sanctioned for his speech, something ordinarily protected by the First Amendment, while Justice Alito’s actions remain immune even though they could well have been viewed as diminishing public confidence in the judiciary and could have subjected Justice Alito to discipline – if only there were an enforceable code of ethics for Supreme Court justices. But, again, there isn’t.   

We need your help to stay independent

The nine members of the Supreme Court are the only judges among more than 30,000 state and federal judges in the United States not bound by an enforceable code of ethics. The voluntary Code of Conduct the Supreme Court adopted in response to public outcry in 2023 is no answer. It ignores the ethical standards written into law by Congress and relies entirely on nonbinding admonitions about how the justices “should” behave, leaving the justices free to pick and choose among them. It was this toothless Code that Justice Alito cited in refusing to recuse himself from the Jan. 6 cases.  

Unlike Justice Alito, Judge Ponsor accepted the criticism of his commentary and offered an “unreserved apology.” The final lines of his apology underscore, perhaps intentionally, the gaping difference between the ethics standards governing the lower courts and the Supreme Court. “I am proud to participate in a judicial system that gives members of the public an avenue to identify potential violations of the Code and that gives me an opportunity to recognize any misstep, apologize, and amend.” Of course, the ethical system that makes Judge Ponsor proud governs only lower court federal judges.

After two years of steady criticism of apparent ethical lapses by some justices, it is more than distressing that Chief Justice Roberts’ annual report on the judiciary, issued at the end of December, contains not a word on the subject. Without action by the court, or Congress, this story has no end. Alito’s call with Trump was reportedly to reassure Trump that a former Alito clerk would indeed be a Trump loyalist if hired to the administration, notwithstanding his prior work for the now distrusted former Attorney General Barr. The request for a call should have raised red flags and its timing should reasonably have caused Justice Alito to recuse himself from Trump’s emergency application. But that was not to be.

Donald Trump is hardly known for personally checking the references of his nominees, let alone a nominee whose work for the justice was more than a decade ago and who had more recently and relevantly served in a senior role in Mr. Trump’s Department of Justice.  And setting aside the sentencing appeal, Trump can surely anticipate frequent appearances before the court in the coming years. His call can reasonably be seen as an excuse to maintain some form of personal relationship with one of his most loyal supporters on the ourt, and to be able to brag about that relationship with others. Justice Alito was either too tone deaf to see – or simply didn’t care – that he was being used. 

As Judge Ponsor might say about this latest act of questionable behavior – if only he were not muzzled – “You don’t just stay inside the lines; you stay well inside the lines. This is not a matter of politics or judicial philosophy. It is ethics in the trenches.” And so, on we go, seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Holiday spending hangover? How to recover, guilt-free

The holiday expenses of December and the fresh-start energy of January can combine to create a deep sense of financial guilt at the turn of a new year. You might be tempted to toggle from unfettered holiday spending to a restrictive mindset to punish or control yourself.

This splurge-and-restrict pattern in spending is similar to what we see with post-holiday dieting — and it’s not healthy or effective in either case.

Instead of responding to December’s extravagance with self-shaming and restriction, try these steps to recover from the holidays with a sense of peace and joy to carry you into the new year.

Reflect on your holiday spending

Start by thinking about how you used money this past holiday season. Don’t bring judgment to this reflection; just take note of where your money went.

Did you buy lots of presents or opt for a low or no-gift holiday? Did you DIY food and decor for holiday parties or order catering? Did you rack up travel costs or stay close to home?

Then note how you feel about the ways you spent (or saved) money. Does gift-giving feel like an undue burden that doesn’t give you any joy? Does opting for no gifts leave you feeling like you missed out on a vital tradition? Do you revel in the opportunity to get out of town, or is travel an expensive hassle for your family?

We need your help to stay independent

Noticing the impact of spending or not spending in certain ways can help you appreciate what money brings you instead of feeling guilty for the price tag. You can notice which kinds of spending didn’t serve you and adjust those for the future, but there’s no need to feel guilty now; this year’s experience gives you information to make more aligned decisions next year. This is how you learn!

Check in on your debt

One of the biggest impacts of holiday spending might be a big credit card bill that hits in January or February. This can derail your financial plans for months or more if you’re not expecting it.

So don’t ignore your debt — even if you’re worried about how you’ll handle it.

Before the surprise bill comes, log into your online credit card account(s) to check your balance. Note how much you owe in total on each, plus how much you’ll likely owe each month in minimum payments (which are typically around 2% of your total balance).

Just as with spending, don’t bring judgment to this task. Using debt and carrying a balance is a neutral financial choice, not a moral or ethical one. As much as our culture wants you to believe otherwise, your debt balance isn’t a reflection of your financial responsibility or your overall worthiness as a human being. Uncover your eyes, and take in this information without guilt.

Make a plan for your debt

Once you know where your debt stands, you can work through your options to deal with it.

Once you know where your debt stands, you can work through your options to deal with it

Maybe you don’t want that lingering burden and you have the resources to eliminate it — go ahead and pay off your balances in full before they start to accrue interest.

If that’s not an option, you’ll have to make a plan for how to deal with this debt in your life for the foreseeable future. Start by understanding the products you’re using.

What’s the interest rate on each of your credit cards? How close are you to reaching your credit limit? When are your payments due throughout the month? What is your minimum monthly payment? Under which circumstances will you be charged extra fees or penalties? Most of this information is required to be included on your monthly statement, per regulations from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

When you have all of the information about the financial products you’re using, you understand the consequences of carrying debt. That lets you make an informed plan that’s not driven solely by fear or shame about carrying debt. You don’t have to strive to pay it off as quickly as possible if you don’t want to; you can make the debt fit into your life instead of the other way around.

Plan for next year —now

Now look ahead to the next holiday season. Based on your reflections this year, what do you want to keep, and what do you want to let go?

Are there pricy holiday traditions you’d like to eschew in the future? Start talking to your family and friends about those changes now. Plan ahead for new traditions.

Are there pricy holiday traditions you can’t imagine living without? Create a spending fund to set aside money over the next 12 months, so you have what you need by the next holiday season. Or start looking for cheaper alternatives.

Knowing what you want and planning ahead can stop you getting swept up in the waves of obligation that come with holidays. Letting go of that obligation can help you create the holiday experience you want to have — and it can help you avoid suffering financial stress over traditions you don’t even want in your life.

Major oil ports are threatened by rising sea levels

According to a recent report by the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative (ICCI), a worldwide group of scientists who study Earth’s frozen regions, the rapidly accelerating melting of all our ice is raising sea levels. Ironically, this is threatening the very industry overwhelmingly responsible: the fossil fuel industry, which will definitely feel the strain of rising sea levels, which is already impacting coastal regions across the globe.

As a result, oil ports in cities like Houston and Galveston and in nations like China and Saudi Arabia are threatened with being overwhelmed, according to the report. As sea levels rise, coastal communities become increasingly vulnerable to flooding and other extreme weather events. When those events occur, their infrastructure and other valuable resources get compromised.

Much of the damage from rising sea levels is baked into humanity’s future, but these losses can be mitigated. As the authors write, costs and damages will be even more extreme, “with many regions experiencing sea-level rise or water resource loss well beyond adaptation limits in this century if our current level of emissions continues – leading towards a rise of 3º C or more.”

For the first time in human history, Earth had an average global temperature 1.5º C higher than pre-industrial levels in 2024. That was the threshold established by the 2015 Paris climate accord as a possible tipping point for containing damage to the planet. As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane are released into the atmosphere, they trap heat (hence "greenhouse"), warming the planet in ways that cause extreme weather from droughts and heat waves to hurricanes and rising sea levels.

“Refusing to turn off the oil taps means keeping the taps on for sea level rise,” James Kirkham, the chief science adviser at ICCI, said in a statement to The Guardian. “Accelerated ice melt and ocean expansion has already caused the rate of sea level rise to double in the last 30 years. Unless leaders double down on transitioning away from fossil fuels, the terrible impacts of sea level rise will only increase further – affecting every country with a coastline, including those who continue to obstruct increased decarbonisation efforts.”

“It threatens our entire democracy”: Biden takes aim at tech oligarchs like Musk in farewell address

President Joe Biden used his final speech to the American people to attack the oligarchy, paying particular attention to tech billionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg

In a farewell address delivered from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Biden warned that the "dangerous concentration of power" among the wealthy in the United States "threatens our entire democracy."

"There are dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked," Biden said. "An oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence… We see the consequences all across America and we've seen it before." 

Biden hearkened back to the era of trust-busting and hoped that future administrations would take up his fights against monopolies.

"The American people stood up to the robber barons back then," he said. "They didn't punish the wealthy, just made [them] play by the rules that everybody else had to… It helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class [and] the most prosperous century any nation in the world has ever seen." 

Later in the speech, Biden honed in on Silicon Valley. Speaking shortly after Meta announced the end of fact-checking and mere days before Musk will have the ear of a sitting president, Biden worried about the "concentration of technology, power and wealth" in the "tech-industrial complex."

"Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling, editors are disappearing," Biden said, before raising his voice and pointing toward the camera. "Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies, told for power and for profit."

Elsewhere in the speech, Biden addressed corruption in the halls of power. He called for a term limit of 18 years for Supreme Court justices, a ban on stock trading among members of Congress and reforms to the tax code that would target the ultra-wealthy. Before closing with an idyllic vision of the United States and its supposed fairness, Biden took a direct shot at Donald Trump

"We need to amend the Constitution to make it clear that no president… is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office," he said. "The president's power is not unlimited, it's not immune and it shouldn't be."

Watch the entire address below:

Certified Lawsuit Boy: Drake sues his own label for promoting Lamar diss

The capper to the feud between Kendrick Lamar and Drake doesn't involve the "GNX" rapper at all. 

Drake filed a defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group, the record company that distributes both the Canadian artist and Lamar, saying that the company "sought to make [him] a pariah" with the release and promotion of Lamar's smash-hit diss track "Not Like Us."

The lawsuit alleges UMG of running a campaign to make a hit out of a song "intended to convey the specific, unmistakable and false factual allegation that Drake is a criminal pedophile, and to suggest that the public should resort to vigilante justice in response.”

Lamar's track calls Drake a pedophile in no uncertain terms and the single's artwork is an aerial view of Drake's home covered with pins in the style of sex offender registry maps. After the release of the song, several people were caught trespassing at Drake's home by the rapper's security team.

The lawsuit also alleges that UMG is engaging in an intentional tanking of Drake's star power to give themselves leverage in an upcoming renegotiation of his contract with the mega-label. 

“UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation,” the suit states.

UMG shared a statement with several outlets calling Drake's claims "illogical" and accusing the rapper of engaging in lawfare.

"We have invested massively in his music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success," they shared. "He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music."

The label promised to "vigorously defend this litigation." Though the lawsuit was clear that they were in no way suing Lamar or insinuating wrongdoing from the Compton rapper, UMG added that they will protect "any artist who might directly or indirectly become a frivolous litigation target for having done nothing more than write a song.”

“Is it like old Playboy?”: Justice Alito asks if anyone visits Pornhub for the articles

While Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is a downright scholar in obscure symbolism on the American right, he's less than hip on modern trends in pornography. 

The conservative justice and Donald Trump confidant heard oral arguments in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case challenging a spate of red-state laws that block internet users from pornographic websites without first verifying their age. Seeking to get a grasp on the overall content of some of the websites that were pushing back against the laws, Alito asked if anyone looked at websites like Pornhub for the articles.

Free Speech Coalition attorney Derek Shaffer noted that several of the websites feature non-pornographic content in their blogs and podcasts, leading Alito to ask if any public intellectuals are well-known for their work on the adult tube site.

"Is it like the old Playboy magazine, you have essays there by the modern-day equivalent of Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr.?" Alito asked.

Shaffer didn't want to stretch the truth, balking at both Alito's repeated guesses as to what percentage of Pornhub was pornographic and his hypothetical haven of internet-age literati among the smut.

"Not in that sense, but in the sense you have wellness posts about women recovering from hysterectomies and how they can enjoy sex," Shaffer offered.

Pornography has a history at the Supreme Court, frequently prodding and testing the edges of free speech laws. A good chunk of the middle of the last century was spent getting a handle on the famously hard-to-define idea of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart muddied the waters significantly in 1964 when he defended the right of theater manager Nico Jacobellis to show the Louis Malle film "The Lovers." Writing a concurrence with the majority opinion that found screening the film was protected by the Constitution, Stewart said of obscenity, "I know it when I see it." A stricter test was devised in 1973's Miller v. California, a three-pronged question to help define obscene materials under the law that's still in use today. 

Whether or not websites can be compelled to verify the ages of their users has been taken up by previous courts. In 2004, the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that the requirement was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment.

5 bombshell revelations from Brooke Shields’ new memoir — From Tom Cruise to fat-shaming

Brooke Shields spares no one in her new memoir.

In "Brooke Shields Is Not Allowed to Get Old: Thoughts on Aging as a Woman," Shields, 59, peels back the curtain to allow readers deep insight into her high-profile life, spanning from her years as a child star to those as a middle-aged woman in Hollywood. The actress and model even reveals a shocking experience where a doctor performed an unwanted vaginal rejuvenation surgery on her.

Shields' memoir highlights that women, especially when they age — cannot win. But Shields doesn't back down. In her writing, she openly discusses and encourages topics about womanhood and aging despite the stigmas around women's health, and emphasizes moments in her life where she held men accountable. 

Here are five shocking revelations from "Brooke Shields Is Not Allowed to Get Old: Thoughts on Aging as a Woman."

01
Shields experienced an "excruciatingly painful" miscarriage
In her memoir, Shields shares a deeply personal story about a miscarriage she had in her 30s where the mother of two experienced health complications in her reproductive organs.
 
During the procedure to remove abnormal tissue from her cervix, her doctors found additional cells which led to them removing most of her cervix. Shields writes that it felt like her "entire uterus had fallen onto the bathroom floor" and that the surgery led to scar tissue that made it difficult for her to conceive.
 
"I became pregnant — only to miscarry three months later. And what ensued was probably the worst twelve straight hours of my life," she writes of her experience with IVF.

 

"The miscarriage was so violent and excruciatingly painful that when it came time for a second IVF attempt I actually asked my doctor, 'Do you think it hurt so much because the scar tissue was getting stretched? Is that possible??"

 

Shields explains that her female fertility specialist told her it would be difficult to get pregnant after the procedure and her first doctor, a man, did not detail the risks.

 

"Had I been aware of the risks, I could have made other choices to support my fertility," Shields writes.

02
Tom Cruise apologized for his rant against Shields
 
In 2005, Tom Cruise went on the "Today Show" with Matt Lauer where he notoriously ranted about Scientology, psychology and antidepressants. During the conversation, Lauer brought up that Shields shared in her memoir that antidepressants helped her postpartum depression. A combative Cruise said Shields was spreading “misinformation” and falsely claimed, “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” 
 
The heated interview between Lauer and Cruise made headlines and currently has 13 million views on the "Today Show" YouTube channel.
 
Immediately after the incident, Shields addressed Cruise's comments in a New York Times op-ed titled, "War of Words," a direct reference to Cruise's 2005 film "War Of The Worlds."
 
In her new memoir, Shields reveals that she was "gobsmacked" by Cruise's comments, adding his perspective was “an interesting opinion, coming from someone without ovaries."
 

“Had Tom taken a public swing at me before I became a mother, I probably would have stayed quiet,” Shields writes. “I would have ignored his ridiculous rant. I might have been content to sit back while this very famous man hijacked my experience to advance his own (deluded) agenda.”

 

Shields continues, “Sitting quietly and letting myself be attacked might have been my approach a decade earlier — I might have even regretted sharing my story or felt insecure that maybe my career was stalling while a powerful male movie star was singling me out, sure that I’d never stand a chance in that fight — but now I was emboldened by life experience."

 
Cruise eventually apologized, which Shields comments on, writing, “Not publicly, which would have been the right thing to do, but he came to my house and said he was sorry and that he felt cornered by Matt Lauer and that he attacked me, basically, because he could."
 
“It wasn’t the world’s best apology, but it’s what he was capable of, and I accepted it,” Shields writes.

03
Shields is "glad" she never had children with her first husband, Andre Agassi
 
Shields holds nothing back when discussing her relationship and marriage with her first husband, Andre Agassi.
 
The pair met after a tennis match in 1993. Three years later, the couple were engaged and married in 1997. However, the tumultuous marriage did not last long, ending just two years later in 1999.
 

"I’m glad I never got pregnant with my first husband because it would have been a disaster," Shields writes. "When we got divorced he made that very clear. 'Be thankful we didn’t have children,' he said, 'because I would not have made this easy for you.'"

 

In response to his cold remarks, she writes, "Well, thank you for that tidbit, I thought. You just made this particular transition much easier!"

04
Shields claims Agassi body-shamed her during their marriage
Before their bitter split, Shields details that Agassi would make comments on her body which contributed to her looming body image issues.
 

“I was very specifically told I was not runway worthy because I wasn’t skinny enough,” she writes. “Being told you are ‘the face,’ you begin to believe that’s all you are—a face. From the neck up, I was Brooke Shields, but it was like my body existed in a different reality.”

 

The star reveals that she attempted to bring her concerns to her husband but “He would always say, ‘I wish you could see yourself the way I see you.’"

 

“However when I said, ‘Will you still love me if I’m big and fat?’ (I meant once I got pregnant—an unfair question for anybody to ask another person I know!) I could never have expected his response.”

 

Shields writes that his response to that was, “'I love you too much to let you get big and fat,'"

 

“I definitely did not see that coming and must admit I started to spin a bit. But we all know how that relationship turned out," she adds.

We need your help to stay independent

05
During her seizure, Shields reveals that she peed her pants while Bradley Cooper held her
 
In 2023, Shields experienced a seizure while dining in a New York City restaurant. Immediately, the star found fellow actor Bradley Cooper, who held her and rode with her in the ambulance to the hospital. 
 

“The next thing I remember, I’m being loaded into an ambulance. I have oxygen on. And Bradley f***ing Cooper is sitting next to me holding my hand,” she said to Glamour Magazine after the incident. 

 

“I couldn’t really get any words out. But I thought to myself, ‘This is what death must be like.’ You wake up and Bradley Cooper’s going, ‘I’m going to go to the hospital with you, Brooke,’ and he’s holding my hand. And I’m looking at my hand, I’m looking at Bradley Cooper’s hand in my hand, and I’m like, ‘This is odd and surreal.’”

 

In her memoir, Shields writes, “I was informed that not only did I have a grand mal seizure, but I also had peed my pants. (Fun fact: the only thing worse than peeing your pants is being told after the fact that you peed your pants while being held by Bradley Cooper.)"

Trump Cabinet pick Gabbard unclear on what head of US intelligence does: report

It's likely we've already seen the worst performance by a nominee to Donald Trump's Cabinet, but former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is giving Matt Gaetz a run for his money. 

Trump tapped Gabbard to serve as the Director of National Intelligence in his second term. In a new report from the Wall Street Journal, however, several insiders claimed Gabbard demonstrated little understanding of what the DNI actually does. 

The one-time contender for the presidential ticket in the Democratic Party flubbed at least one interview with Republican senators ahead of her confirmation hearing. While meeting with Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., Gabbard couldn't quite say what she would do if approved for the role.

"Gabbard couldn’t clearly articulate what the role of director of national intelligence entails," the report reads, citing several unnamed Republican aides and a member of the Trump transition team.

In another interview with Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., Gabbard "seemed confused about a key U.S. national-security surveillance power… conflating it with other issues."

The isolationist politician's nomination set off alarm bells in Washington, with conservative thinkers and former intelligence officials raising "serious qualms" about the strongman-supporting Republican convert. 

Gabbard supported Trump in the 2024 election, thereby displaying the most important asset in Trump's evaluations of would-be advisers: loyalty. It's unclear if Republican senators will fall in line with the MAGA makeover of the Cabinet, though no GOP lawmaker has shared their intention to vote against Gabbard's confirmation. 

Beyond that, the doubts about Gabbard's fitness for the role are far from universal. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., called Gabbard "very qualified" and threw his support behind the "reformer" in a post to X.

 

Donald Trump receives inaugural Diet Coke bottle from Coca-Cola CEO in anticipation of presidency

President-elect Donald Trump has received a personalized, inaugural Diet Coke bottle from Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey. The recent gift comes after the Coca-Cola Company slammed Trump and his supporters following the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021. At the time, the company said the riots were “an offense to the ideals of American democracy.”

Trump’s Deputy Director of Communications, Margo Martin, took to X on Tuesday to post a photo of Trump posing with his bottle of Coke, alongside Quincey. “Tonight, President Trump received the first ever Presidential Commemorative Inaugural Diet Coke bottle from the Chairman and CEO of Coca-Cola Company, James Quincey,” Martin wrote.

The Diet Coke bottle has a label with a drawing of the White House and the phrase “The Inauguration of the President of the United States” along with Trump’s name and the date of his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Coca-Cola told Newsweek that it “has a tradition of creating commemorative Coca-Cola bottles in celebration of U.S. presidential inaugurations, dating back to 2005.” The company added that Trump’s meeting with Quincey “reinforces our commitment to strengthening America's economic future.”

It’s no secret that Trump himself is a fan of Diet Coke. Amid his previous presidential term, Trump infamously had his so-called “Diet Coke button,” which he used in the Oval Office to request cold sodas. Trump reportedly drank close to a dozen Diet Cokes each day during his first year as president, The New York Times reported in 2017.  

As per Margaret Hartmann with New York Magazine's Intelligencer, the gift is "peak spineless groveling."

Fertile land for growing vegetables is at risk — but a scientific discovery could turn the tide

A large proportion of the vegetables consumed in Québec are grown in the Montérégie region in what are known as organic soils. Highly fertile and rich in organic matter, these soils are particularly well suited to vegetable production.

Yet many farmers are now raising concerns about the rapid degradation of these soils over the last few years. This is happening so quickly they could potentially disappear in a period of 50 years.

This situation, which is unfolding worldwide, is alarming. Organic soils are among the pillars of food self-sufficiency in Québec, as elsewhere, and are essential to producing the vegetables that we eat every day. So it is crucial to stop their degradation.

Fortunately, our research work at Laval University's Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, carried out in partnership with 14 vegetable farms, offers a glimmer of hope for ensuring the sustainability of these soils.

Degradation by the forces of nature

Organic soils are characterized by their high content of organic matter, which ranges from 30% to almost 100%. They consist mainly of plant residues, similar to compost, and are formed in peatlands, where the soil is gorged with water. High water content prevents oxygen from entering the soil and slowing down the decomposition of hydrophilic plant residues that accumulate over time.

The first essential step in cultivating these soils is drainage, i.e. removing the water from the soil. At this point, oxygen is introduced, an essential element for plant growth. However, the entry of oxygen accelerates the activity of soil microorganisms, which in turn, breaks down the accumulated organic matter. Organic soil carbon, the main constituent of organic matter, is then transformed into CO2 (carbon dioxide), which is dissipated into the air. The accumulated organic matter gradually disappears as a result. This microbial decomposition leads to the loss of around one centimetre of organic soil per year.

In addition to soil loss, decomposition by microbes also alters the quality of soil. Soil that is initially composed of plant fibers is gradually transformed into fine, ash-like particles. This finer material causes the soil to become more compact and less aerated, which slows down water and air exchange essential to the growth of agricultural plants. These fine particles are also easily carried away by the wind, accelerating soil loss.

At the present time almost 16% of the land area of cultivated organic soil in Québec's Montérégie region is already considered thin and highly degraded due to heavy decomposition. This is an alarming finding for the future of vegetable production, especially if this proportion increases.

The region's farmers, the first to witness this degradation, are looking for solutions to protect their land.

A nature-based solution

In the past, the main method recommended for conserving organic soils was applying copper to slow down the decomposition by microbes. Copper can inhibit the activity of enzymes produced by microorganisms, which is like slowing down their digestive system.

However, our work revealed that this approach was not very effective. The method also poses a risk of environmental contamination due to the potential dispersion of copper in natural environments.

The new approach we propose is based on the natural principle of photosynthesis. Through this process, plants use energy from the sun and CO2 from the air to produce plant tissue. Plants then transform the CO2 in the air into organic carbon, the main constituent of organic matter. This process is, therefore, the opposite of decomposition.

Straw and wood are particularly rich in organic matter and organic carbon. That's why we've decided to concentrate on using these materials, which are produced on land of low fertility, harvested and then applied to organic soils to add carbon.

Straw and wood to the rescue

Our research has shown that applying straw or wood chips to organic soils can compensate for the carbon and soil losses caused by microbial decomposition. What's more, when mixed with soil in appropriate doses, straw and wood chips have the potential to restore the soil aeration and drainage that are essential for good vegetable growth.

However, as the addition of new organic matter to the soil stimulates microbial activity, doses must be adjusted to avoid creating too much competition between plants and soil microbes for certain essential elements, such as nitrogen. So it is important to apply the appropriate doses to maintain a balance between the needs of the soil microbes and of the plants.

As a result, this practice holds the potential to regenerate cultivated organic soils and improve the climatic footprint of vegetables in Québec and elsewhere.

In parallel, we have also explored the use of polyphenols in slowing down decomposition. These molecules, produced by plants, are known to slow down the activity of degradative enzymes in natural organic soils, but their use for cultivated organic soils had not been studied. This approach has shown promising potential but requires further study before it can be applied on a large scale. For the time being, our studies have been limited to a small number of soils, which does not allow us to generalize the conclusions on a large scale.

Our team is also carrying out work on wind erosion and drainage to enable the conservation and restoration of these central soils in vegetable production.

Mobilizing the farming community

Aware of the urgent need to take action to save their soils, farmers have already begun applying straw and wood chips to their land to preserve this limited and fragile resource for future generations. They have also joined together to take part in another research program, from 2024 to 2029, which will work to optimize this solution.

This initiative has gained the attention of international farmers and researchers who have come from England, Belgium, Finland and Sweden to visit the Québec farms where this new practice has been adopted.

The degradation of cultivated organic soils is a worldwide phenomenon that threatens to wipe out many highly fertile agricultural production areas. So it is important to take an interest and act quickly.

Karolane Bourdon, Doctorante en sols et environnement, Département des sols et de génie agroalimentaire, Université Laval; Jacynthe Dessureault-Rompré, Professeure, Faculté des sciences de l'agriculture et l'alimentation, Département des sols et de génie agroalimentaire, Université Laval; Jean Caron, Professeur titulaire en physique des sols agricoles, Université Laval, and Josée Fortin, Professeur en chimie des sols, Département des sols et de génie agroalimentaire, Université Laval

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

“Is that a joke?”: Biden bristles at Trump receiving credit for Israel-Hamas ceasefire

Sussing out who gets the credit for a diplomatic win is far from easy.

By its very definition, any deal made on the global stage has a minimum of two parties attached. Unlike a signed bill or a freshly inked executive order, there's rarely one name at which observers can launch their hosannas and brickbats. Add in the nebulosity of the last days of a presidential administration and you can see where giving flowers gets murky.

Still, President Joe Biden doesn't approve of the rapidly forming consensus that a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas is the work of incoming President-elect Donald Trump. In a press conference announcing the ceasefire on Wednesday, Biden credited his administration's continued material and military support of Israel with bringing the deal to the table. 

"The elements of this deal are what I laid out in detail this past May," Biden said. "The road to this deal has not been easy. I've worked in foreign policy for decades. This is one of the toughest negotiations I've ever experienced."

To that end, Trump sent his own Middle East envoy to ceasefire talks in Doha. Biden said that his administration has been working hand-in-hand with the incoming Trump representatives to ensure a smooth transition and a tenuous peace.

"For the past few days, we've been speaking as one team," Biden assured reporters. 

Insiders, analysts and Trump himself failed to see the negotiations that way. The president-elect claimed sole credit in a post to his social media platform, Truth Social. 

"This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies," he wrote. "We have achieved so much without even being in the White House. Just imagine all of the wonderful things that will happen when I return to the White House, and my Administration is fully confirmed."

A diplomat who spoke anonymously to the Washington Post said that the advent of the Trump administration brought a newfound urgency to broker a deal, calling recent talks "the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side" to reach an agreement.

Chaim Levinson, a senior diplomatic correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote on X that Trump was almost singularly responsible for a deal getting done. 

"The great and huge Donald Trump took [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's hand [and] bent it behind his back," Levinson shared, noting that it was threats from Trump that ultimately forced Israel to agree to the ceasefire. "It's a shame Biden didn't realize this a long time ago."

Several other analysts have called the ceasefire deal a ruse, meant to rob Hamas of their leverage via a hostage release while providing a boost to Israel's allies in the Trump administration. 

Haaretz's Zvi Bar'el wrote on Wednesday that Israeli leaders have no intention of moving through the phases of the three-part cessation of hostilities. 

"One should not be deceived by illusions. The aspiration to establish and entrench themselves in Gaza and the dream of settlement there have not disappeared, they have only been postponed for a few weeks," Barel wrote. "Prepare for a scenario in which, after the release of 33 hostages, the war of extermination in Gaza will continue." 

British geopolitical analyst H.A. Hellyer agreed in a series of posts to X, saying that Netanyahu is unlikely to follow through on the promised stages of the ceasefire following a hostage exchange, noting that Trump is unlikely to pressure the prime minister to do so.

"This deal is only a ceasefire deal if there is a commitment to actually fulfill all three phases of it. Withdrawal and cessation of hostilities happens post phase 1," he wrote. 

Whether or not the ceasefire deal will hold once he leaves office, Biden still bristled at the suggestion that he was on the sidelines while Trump and Netanyahu's teams hammered out the deal. Right before leaving his Wednesday press conference, a reporter asked the president whether or not Trump was the man to credit with a long-sought ceasefire.

"Is that a joke?" he asked, before turning to leave.

Voters backed abortion rights but state judges have final say

In November, Montana voters safeguarded the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. They also elected a new chief justice to the Montana Supreme Court who was endorsed by anti-abortion advocates.

That seeming contradiction is slated to come to a head this year. People on polar sides of the abortion debate are preparing to fight over how far the protection for abortion extends, and the final say will likely come from the seven-person state Supreme Court. With the arrival of new Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who ran as a judicial conservative for the nonpartisan seat and was sworn in Jan. 6, the court now leans more conservative than before the election.

A similar dynamic is at play elsewhere. Abortion rights supporters prevailed on ballot measures in seven of the 10 states where abortion was up for a vote in November. But even with new voter-approved constitutional protections, courts will have to untangle a web of existing state laws on abortion and square them with any new ones legislators approve. The new makeup of supreme courts in several states indicates that the results of the legal fights to come aren’t clear-cut.

Activists have been working to reshape high courts, which in recent years have become the final arbiters of a patchwork of laws regulating abortions. That’s because the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned federal abortion protections, leaving rulemaking to the states.

Since then, the politics of state supreme court elections have been “supercharged” as fights around abortion shifted to states’ top courts, according to Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice.

“Because we’re human, you can’t scrub these races of any political connotations at all,” said former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson. “But it’s getting worse.”

"Because we’re human, you can’t scrub these races of any political connotations at all."

The wave of abortion litigation in state courts has spawned some of the most expensive state supreme court races in history, including more than $42 million spent on the nonpartisan 2023 Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, where abortion access was among the issues facing the court. Janet Protasiewicz won the seat, flipping the balance of the court to a liberal majority.

In many states, judicial elections are nonpartisan but political parties and ideological groups still lobby for candidates. In 2024, abortion surfaced as a top issue in these races.

In Michigan, spending by non-candidate groups alone topped $7.6 million for the two open seats on the state Supreme Court. The Michigan races are officially labeled as nonpartisan, although candidates are nominated by political parties.

An ad for the two candidates backed by Democrats cautioned that “the Michigan state Supreme Court can still take abortion rights away” even after voters added abortion protections to the state constitution in 2022. The ad continued, “Kyra Harris Bolden and Kimberly Thomas are the only Supreme Court candidates who will protect access to abortion.” Both won their races.

Abortion opponent Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, decried the influence of abortion politics on state court elections. “Pro-abortion activists know they cannot win through the legislatures, so they have turned to state courts to override state laws,” Pritchard said.

Some abortion opponents now support changes to the way state supreme courts are selected.

In Missouri, where voters passed a constitutional amendment in November to protect abortion access, the new leader of the state Senate, Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, has proposed switching to nonpartisan elections from the state’s current model, in which the governor appoints a judge from a list of three finalists selected by a nonpartisan commission. Although Republicans have held the governor’s mansion since 2017, she pointed to the Missouri Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in September that allowed the abortion amendment to remain on the ballot and said courts “have undermined legislative efforts to protect life.”

In a case widely expected to reach the Missouri Supreme Court, the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics are trying to use the passage of the new amendment to strike down Missouri’s abortion restrictions, including a near-total ban. O’Laughlin said her proposal, which would need approval from the legislature and voters, was unlikely to influence that current litigation but would affect future cases.

“A judiciary accountable to the people would provide a fairer venue for addressing legal challenges to pro-life laws,” she said.

Nonpartisan judicial elections can buck broader electoral trends. In Michigan, for example, voters elected both Supreme Court candidates nominated by Democrats last year even as Donald Trump won the state and Republicans regained control of the state House.

In Kentucky’s nonpartisan race, Judge Pamela Goodwine, who was endorsed by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, outperformed her opponent even in counties that went for Trump, who won the state. She’ll be serving on the bench as a woman’s challenge to the state’s two abortion bans makes its way through state courts.

Partisan judicial elections, however, tend to track with other partisan election results, according to Keith of the Brennan Center. So some state legislatures have sought to turn nonpartisan state supreme court elections into fully partisan affairs.

In Ohio, Republicans have won every state Supreme Court seat since lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 requiring party affiliation to appear on the ballot for those races. That includes three seats up for grabs in November that solidified the Republican majority on the court from 4-3 to 6-1.

“These justices who got elected in 2024 have been pretty open about being anti-abortion,” said Jessie Hill, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, who has been litigating a challenge to Ohio’s abortion restrictions since voters added protections to the state constitution in 2023.

Until the recent ballot measure vote in Montana, the only obstacle blocking Republican-passed abortion restrictions from taking effect had been a 25-year-old decision that determined Montana’s right to privacy extends to abortion.

Nelson, the former justice who was the lead author of the decision, said the court has since gradually leaned more conservative. He noted the state’s other incoming justice, Katherine Bidegaray, was backed by abortion rights advocates.

“The dynamic of the court is going to change,” Nelson said after the election. “But the chief justice has one vote, just like everybody else.”

Swanson, Montana’s new chief justice, had said throughout his campaign that he’ll make decisions case by case. He also rebuked his opponent, Jerry Lynch, for saying he’d respect the court’s ruling that protected abortion. Swanson called such statements a signal to liberal groups.

At least eight cases are pending in Montana courts challenging state laws to restrict abortion access. Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, said that the new constitutional language, which takes effect in July, could further strengthen those cases but that the court’s election outcome leaves room for uncertainty.

The state’s two outgoing justices had past ties to the Democratic Party. Fuller said they also consistently supported abortion as a right to privacy. “One of those folks is replaced by somebody who we don’t know will uphold that,” she said. “There will be this period where we’re trying to see where the different justices fall on these issues.”

Those cases likely won’t end the abortion debate in Montana.

As of the legislative session’s start in early January, Republican lawmakers, who have for years called the state Supreme Court liberal, had already proposed eight bills regarding abortion and dozens of others aimed at reshaping judicial power. Among them is a bill to make judicial elections partisan.

Montana Sen. Daniel Emrich, a Republican who requested a bill titled “Prohibit dismembering of person and provide definition of human,” said it’s too early to know which restrictions anti-abortion lawmakers will push hardest.

Ultimately, he said, any new proposed restrictions and the implications of the constitutional amendment will likely land in front of the state Supreme Court.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

After much back-and-forth, the FDA officially bans usage of Red Dye No. 3 in food and drugs

Announced earlier today, the FDA is "revoking the authorization for the use of FD&C Red No. 3 as a matter of law, based on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)."

The topic has been discussed extensively in recent years, especially after a 2022 "color additive petition," in regards to "two studies that showed cancer in laboratory male rats exposed to high levels of FD&C Red No. 3." The FDA note does state "the way that FD&C Red No. 3 causes cancer in male rats does not occur in humans." The new authorization will apply to food and ingested drugs; the dye had already been banned in cosmetics years ago.

The change states the Delaney Clause, which "prohibits FDA authorization of a food additive or color additive if it has been found to induce cancer in humans or animals." FD&C Red No. 3 is primarily used to give a bright, vibrant red color to various foods, drinks and drugs, ranging in everything from "candy, cakes and cupcakes, cookies, frozen desserts, and frostings and icings, as well as certain ingested drugs," as per the note.

Any manufacturer who still uses FD&C Red No. 3 will have until either two or three years from today (depending on if the product is food or medication) to "reformulate their products." The FDA note also states that while some other countries may allow for FD&C Red No. 3 in their products, all "foods imported to the U.S. must comply with U.S. requirements."

Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal reached, US, Israeli and Hamas officials say

A deal has been reached between Israel and Hamas to establish a ceasefire and release the remaining hostages held in Gaza, U.S., Israeli and Hamas officials told multiple news outlets.

The agreement, brokered during talks held in Doha with involvement from U.S. officials, appears to represent a breakthrough after several aborted attempts for which each side blamed the other. It offers the possibility of long-term relief from a sustained Israeli assault that has killed at least 45,000 Palestinians — and perhaps more than 70,000 — destroyed much of Gaza and been characterized as a genocide by several human rights watchdogs.

Hamas leadership has already consented to the deal, one of the group's senior officials told CNN, while the Israeli security cabinet will convene on Thursday to vote on it, with a majority of ministers expected to be supportive. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly shut down previous deals but is under both U.S. and domestic pressure for a resolution, said Wednesday that he hopes a few remaining details "will be finalized tonight."

Under the first phase of the expected agreement, a ceasefire will be implemented while Hamas initially releases 33 hostages seized from Israel during its Oct. 7, 2023 attack and Israeli forces gradually withdraw to a buffer zone in Gaza adjacent to the border. Once Hamas confirms how many of the hostages are still alive, Israel will begin releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners it has held both before and after Oct. 7.

Palestinian civilians will be allowed to return to northern Gaza during this time, though Israeli officials stressed that "security arrangements" would be in place to ensure that no weapons or militants are moved.

Both President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump sent envoys to Doha to facilitate negotiations, with the latter claiming most of the credit in a Truth Social post.

While the deal would put an end to the mass bloodshed, at least temporarily, there are still questions over how to manage the influx of humanitarian aid, provide Gaza a semblance of habitability after more than a year of bombardment, ensure that the ceasefire continues to hold and resolve underlying issues that provoked the conflict, such as Israeli policies that critics say amounts to apartheid against Palestinians.

The deal does not impact the International Criminal Court indictments of Netanyahu, former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant and several Hamas leaders charged with war crimes. Because it has also not taken effect yet, Palestinian Civil Defense has warned residents to remain in place, with Gaza's health ministry reporting that another 62 people were killed by Israel just on Tuesday.

Why a daily glass of milk really could reduce bowel cancer risk — an oncologist explains

A glass of milk a day could help keep bowel cancer away — or so finds a study by Oxford University and Cancer Research UK. The research suggests that increasing daily milk intake by as little as one glass could have a significant impact on lowering the likelihood of developing bowel cancer.

There are nearly 45,000 cases of bowel cancer every year in the UK, making it the nation's fourth most common cancer — and third worldwide — but many of these are preventable. According to Cancer Research UK data, 54% of all bowel cancers could be prevented by having a healthier lifestyle. Smoking, lack of exercise, alcohol, eating processed meat, and poor diet are all significant factors in the development of bowel cancer.

As an oncologist, I advise my patients about how diet and lifestyle can influence health, including the risk of developing cancer. But this research — one of the largest studies into diet and disease so far — has shed new light on how easy, cheap diet changes can help everyone to reduce their cancer risk.

For example, as well as drinking an extra glass of milk per day, reducing consumption of alcohol and red and processed meat could also help protect against cancer. The study found that drinking an additional 20g of alcohol a day, equivalent to a large glass of wine, increased bowel cancer risk by 15%. Consuming more than 30g of red and processed meat daily was linked to an 8% increase in bowel cancer risk.

Researchers took a novel, two-pronged approach to examine the association between milk consumption and bowel cancer risk. First, they analyzed genetic data from over 542,000 women and focused on variants — tiny changes in DNA — associated with lactase persistence, the ability to digest lactose in adulthood.

Second, the team collected detailed dietary information from participants, including their daily milk intake. By combining these two data sets, the researchers were able to better estimate the causal effect of milk consumption on bowel cancer risk.

Striking results

The analysis revealed that participants who consumed an additional 244g of milk per day — roughly equivalent to one large glass containing 300mg of calcium — had a 17% lower risk of developing bowel cancer. This reduction in risk applied to various types of milk, including whole, semi-skimmed and skimmed.

Researchers found that the protective effect of milk consumption was independent of other dietary factors and lifestyle habits. This suggests that the benefits of milk in reducing bowel cancer risk are not because milk replaces unhealthy food choices or is consumed as part of an overall healthier lifestyle.

The reasons why milk consumption may reduce bowel cancer risk are not fully understood, but the researchers propose several potential explanations. First, milk is a rich source of calcium, which has been linked previously to a reduced risk of bowel cancer. Calcium may help protect against cancer by binding to potentially harmful substances in the gut and promoting the death of abnormal cells.

Next, many milk products are fortified with vitamin D, which has been shown to have anti-cancer properties and may help regulate cell growth and division. Also, the lactose in milk can promote the growth of beneficial gut bacteria that produce butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid with anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer effects. Finally, milk contains conjugated linoleic acid, a fatty acid found in meat and dairy products, which, according to a 2021 labratory study, could also have anti-cancer properties.

Crucially, milk consumption may not be suitable or beneficial for everyone. Those with lactose intolerance, milk allergies, or other dietary restrictions should consult with healthcare professionals before making significant changes to their dairy intake.

Overall, this groundbreaking research provides compelling evidence for the potential role of milk consumption in reducing bowel cancer risk. The finding that a relatively modest increase in daily milk consumption could lead to a significant reduction in bowel cancer risk is particularly encouraging. It suggests that small, achievable changes in diet could have meaningful impacts on public health.

As we continue to unravel the complex relationships between diet and disease, studies like this one provide valuable insights that can inform both individual health choices and broader public health strategies. The potential for a simple dietary change to have such a significant impact on cancer risk underscores the importance of continued research in this field and highlights the power of nutrition in shaping our health.

 

Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

 

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

House Republicans are looking to cut SNAP benefits in an attempt to reduce federal spending

House Republicans have proposed more than $5 trillion in cuts to social programs in an effort to “bankroll President-elect Donald Trump’s top priorities this year, including tax cuts and border security,” according to a new report from Politico.

The list of spending reform options, first obtained by the outlet, proposes cuts to benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — which provided food assistance to over 40 million people in 22 million U.S. households in 2023, according to the Pew Research Center.    

The proposed cuts were outlined under a section titled “Ending Cradle-to-Grave Dependence,” which aims to save $347 billion in total. Cuts to SNAP benefits aims to save up to $22 billion.

HuffPost’s Arthur Delaney explained that the list “may be less an indication of what Republicans will actually do than an illustration of how difficult it will be for them to achieve the dramatic spending cuts envisioned by billionaire Elon Musk and the far-right lawmakers who are most vocal about cutting spending.” House GOP are also looking to make changes to Medicare, reform the Thrifty Food Plan, reverse climate policies under the Biden administration, reimagine the Affordable Care Act and more.

“They plan to cut the SNAP program, which not only means taking food from hungry children, but also less demand for the food our farmers produce, manufacturers package, truckers haul and grocery store clerks stock on the shelves,” Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said in a press statement.

How being child-free became a provocative part of comedian Rose Matafeo’s stand-up act

"No one needs to care whether I have children or not," says Rose Matafeo. Yet when the 33-year-old actor, director, writer and comic was tapped last year to host the child-sized spinoff of the U.K. competition show "Taskmaster," at least one member of the British press immediately made assumptions about her own maternal aspirations. After all, if a woman is working with children, surely she must feel a pull toward bearing and raising them.

As she explains in her new Max stand-up special "On and On and On," Matafeo does not, in fact, have an inner mother yearning to burst out of her. During our "Salon Talks" conversation, the creator and star of the cherished Max rom-com series "Starstruck" got serious as she discussed "that expectation that's bestowed upon you when you're born into a body that can have children" and the surrealness of living in a moment when "So many of these things are going backward in terms of actual rights, of being able to have access to birth care or abortion." As she says frankly, "That is so scary to me."

But like most comics, Matafeo uses her fears as her creative fuel. Her stand-up show takes its name from a 16,000-word Notes document — or as she describes it to us — an "unhinged manifesto" she created to document her thoughts and anxieties on dating, millennial angst and why she says she's "very bad at endings."

But after wrapping up "Starstruck" in 2023, the New Zealand native launched herself into a series of new projects — taking the wheel as host of "Junior Taskmaster," returning to her roots in stand-up, and entering the Disney canon as a character in "Moana 2." "I need elderly health care from my nieces and nephew," she says drily, "so I need that cultural cachet."

Watch our "Salon Talks" here, or read it below to hear more about Matafeo's love for the rom-com genre, grappling with stage fright, and why she's unapologetic about being child-free. "Make that money," she says. "And spend it on yourself."

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Your comedy special takes its title "On and On and On" from the most vulnerable and liminal of spaces, the Notes app.

Who would've thought when they invented that simple application, that it would be the format in which we read so many harrowing, harrowing things written at 2 a.m., going through a tumultuous time?

And list the books we want to read. 

Exactly, and New Year's resolutions, to-do lists that I never do. I still have the long Note that this whole show is based on in my phone. 

You call it a manifesto. 16,000 words. 

An unhinged manifesto. It's an essay. It's the longest thing I've ever written in my life. It really is. I was terrible at university. I could never write essays, and I'm like, "16,000 words? It's bizarre." 

Tell me about the pivotal moment that made you begin this document and then say, "Now, this is a thing I can turn into content." 

I think all comedians rely on the Notes app, or a notebook, or some form of writing down ideas. With the Notes app on your phone, you're always with it. I was finishing up on the third series of "Starstruck" and editing it, and I started doing a lot more stand-up because that year had been quite a full-on year. Lots of things were ending, that's what I talk about in the show.

"I've always had to gear myself up for being on stage because I find it quite uncomfortable, quite scary and basically, awful. I get quite bad stage fright."

I'm very bad at endings because many things in my life were coming to an end, doing this massive show that I'd done for three series and relationships that were ending.

People were passing away. A whole kind of interesting portion of one's life was coming to a close, which is your mid-20s going into your early 30s where everything quite abruptly starts changing, probably quicker than I had the capability to deal with. It's just interesting and very weird. It's a very small two or three-year period of life, where everything changes a little bit. 

The third series of "Starstruck," I put it into the future, so it was happening when I was turning 33. I'm turning 33 next month, and all of the things that happen in the show are happening now. My friends are having babies. They're getting married, and it's very spooky. 

Recently someone said to me that time isn't linear and sometimes events run up ahead of you. You just have to catch up with them. 

That is the exact type of thing I would've written down in a Notes app and not read for another three months. "Yep, jot that down. I need that one day." 

You describe yourself as an introvert. Also, your life is your brand. There are autobiographical elements in this and everything you do. How do you separate the two, as someone who also needs privacy and solitude?

Have you heard of "The Substance"? [Laughter.] No, I'm just kidding.

It's horrific. It's weird. It's so strange. It's something that I didn't realize was going to be the cost of doing this as a job as much as I do now. I started stand-up so young. It's only until now I've realized that the more people get to know you or watch your stuff, the more strange parts of your privacy are compromised. I take a little bit more care with stand-up to keep a little bit of your actual self to yourself. 

My friends find it bizarre when they see my shows because they're like, "You are so energetic. You are the most sloth, lazy, depressive, miserable person in real life, and in your shows you're manic." That's probably where the shift happens. I've always had to gear myself up for being on stage because I find it quite uncomfortable, quite scary and basically, awful. I get quite bad stage fright. I think a different version of yourself comes out a bit, but everyone's like that. Everyone has different aspects of their personality that come out in different contexts. 

Not all of us do it on a stage. 

I make money from it. I manage to monetize my compartmentalization. 

You talk about personal things in the show. You are upfront about not wanting to have children, which, as you say, should not be controversial. I want to know the response you get from other people who are also wrestling with these things. 

It was interesting doing it live, when I would be able to catch up with anyone or see anyone who came to the show after it. That bit resonated with them in the same way that it resonates with me when I see other people speak about that. It's kind of no one's business, and no one needs to care whether I have children or not, because ultimately, it's my decision. 

For me, being able to see people talk about it in media, or their work, and having people who are doing it and are quite unapologetic about it [shows] it has come a long way. That expectation that's bestowed upon you when you're born into a body that can have children is changing, and it changes more with how more people publicly speak about it and what their choices are. 

"I love turning on terrestrial television in any country that I'm in. It really gives you the lay of the land."

In a weird way, even though it's 2025, so many of these things are going backward in terms of actual rights, of being able to have access to birth care or abortion. That is so scary to me because growing up you're like, "Oh, we're on an upper trajectory where things are getting far less scary, far less dangerous for women." Then things are going backward, and you're like, "How is this happening?" I do think that the backlash to a woman or a person saying that they don't want to have kids is just one end of the spectrum of that. 

The more people can get used to talking about that openly and being okay with it is great. But also, sometimes it feels like I'm a real "old man yells at cloud" vibe because it's like, "No one cares you don't want kids. Shut up." 

But if you can make content out of it, why not? 

Exactly. Make that money. And spend it on yourself. 

You recently became the host for "Junior Taskmaster." You started at the same age that these kids you're working with are now. What is it like working with kids?

It was so fun to be in the position where you're meeting these kids who were just so funny, so talented. As soon as I heard the idea for the show, as a "Taskmaster" fan, you're like, "I would love to watch that." To be able to work on it was an absolute joy. It's a funny thing, speaking about how you don't want kids doesn't mean you don't like kids. It was so much fun, I think you can enjoy kids even more when you know that you don't have to take care of them. These kids were so well cast, so wonderful.

I got to work with Mike Wozniak on it, and it was scary though because "Taskmaster" fans, they're tough. If you don't do well, if you don't live up to their expectations, you can get killed. 

They don't mess around. So much of U.K. content is some sort of a quiz show. If you're in Britain working as a comedian, you are on every show. What is it about that country that has such respect for employing its comedians in a way that you just don't see anywhere else in the world? 

I don't know. I think it's a real question of TV culture, isn't it? I mean, I love turning on terrestrial television in any country that I'm in. It really gives you the lay of the land. It makes you understand a country. I had this experience in America the other day where I was like, "I feel like I'm in a different universe." Even watching the Thanksgiving parade, I was like, "I don't know what is going on here."

When I moved to the U.K., so much stuff on telly, I was like, "What the hell's going on here?" But when I first moved there, I got so many opportunities to do lots of comedy panel shows, which I used to illegally download in New Zealand on the internet because that was my way of seeing my favorite comedians on telly. But it rarely works here with American comedians. 

I'm going to ask you about "Moana 2," because you get to be part of this franchise. Does it change your life that you are now a Disney character?

I'm in the Disney canon. It all happened quite weirdly because "Moana 2" was originally a television series, and then it got turned into a movie. I didn't realize that until I saw it on Instagram. I think that email got lost. It all happened incrementally. I would've done it in whatever iteration because it was an awesome team, great directors. I got to go to Abbey Road to record the songs, just months and months going back into recording booths in London, never ever meeting anyone else in the film, and pretending to see a giant clam and scream and run about.

I've said this before: I need elderly healthcare from my nieces and nephew, so I need that cultural cachet. I need it. 

I've read a lot of the commentary online that's like, "We're so proud of her as a New Zealander." What does it mean to be that person who is, in some way, representing this culture? 

"I am the one who has been on a single-handed campaign to get Bridget Jones into the Criterion Collection."

It feels bizarre to me. I forget that a lot because I've lived in the U.K. for nearly ten years now. I still feel like a New Zealander. I have people like Flight of the Conchords and Taika Waititi and these other New Zealanders who [I think], "They're super-duper big overseas." Then I'd forget that I'm from there as well and I'm on the same TV shows that I would've watched them on. It is a weird, surreal experience, but it is the New Zealand way to downplay it and say, "I know. No, no one knows me. It's fine." I'm going to wear a name tag for people to know who I am. 

I want to ask a "Starstruck" question because you have spoken before about the ambivalent and tense relationship we all have with the rom-com. It's a little fraught. 

It is fraught. I've been through so many ups and downs with it and talking about it, because in promoting the show over so many years, so many feelings have changed as I've gotten a bit older and gone through making one. I've got so much love for the genre, and I am the one who has been on a single-handed campaign to get "Bridget Jones" into the Criterion Collection. It's just one of the best films ever. I will not have anyone argue with me on that. It's just incredible.

Making a TV show that sort of lives in that genre but also doesn't, you're always pulling from different things. There are rom-com purists who potentially hated lots of things that were in the third series because it wasn't happy ending rom-com vibes, which I loved. I do think that there is so much room to stretch the genre there. 

So what's your favorite? Is it "Bridget"? 

I think so. "When Harry Met Sally…" is one of my favorite movies ever. It's annoying because I think sometimes to describe that film as a rom-com feels like it minimizes it too, like, "It's just a rom-com." But then I think about that and go, "Why does that feel like I'm minimizing it?" That's a gendered thing as well, because you're going, "Oh, because rom-com is for women." That's not something to be minimized. That's something to celebrate. 

There are just romantic movies that are funny, and there are romantic elements in action films. There are romantic elements in crime. That's my big defense of rom-coms. It's that there's always romantic storylines in all of these other ones. There doesn't have to be action or thriller storylines in rom-coms, because it's enough.

“Not familiar”: Pam Bondi claims ignorance of Trump’s remarks on January 6 rioters

Throughout her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Justice Department, Pam Bondi, claimed that she is “not familiar” with some of Trump’s defining political moments.

During a line of questioning from Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Hirono asked Bondi whether she agreed with Trump in his characterization of convicted January 6 rioters as “hostages” and "patriots.”

Bondi responded that she is “not familiar” with that statement. After Hirono said that she had just familiarized Bondi with Trump’s statement, Bondi again insisted that she was not aware of the remarks and had no further comment.

Bondi gave the same response when Hirono asked her whether she agreed with Trump when he said, in December 2023, that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the United States.

Earlier in the hearing, Bondi likewise said that she had not listened to Trump’s infamous 2020 call with the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who Trump asked to “find” the votes necessary to make him the election winner. Bondi insisted that she couldn’t answer questions about Trump’s demands, and had only ever heard a clip of the call.