In-depth news, politics, business, technology & culture
Florida’s new history course whitewashes the founders on slavery
A rival Advanced Placement curriculum is offering a dangerous view of the Constitution and America's founders
Florida has long been a laboratory for autocracy. Several of the Trump administration’s most extreme policies were piloted there, including aggressive immigration enforcement, the systematic rollback of civil rights and voter suppression. Now the Sunshine State is offering a new experiment: a high school history course offering a conservative interpretation of American history and a corrective to the official Advanced Placement U.S. History curriculum, which more than half a million students took last year, and that most historians and educators consider to be ideologically well-balanced. Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis and the state’s education department have attacked the AP course as “woke” and unpatriotic because it examines the complexities of American history including White on Black chattel slavery, the genocide of First Nations peoples and other realities that puncture sacred civic myths such as American exceptionalism and the fantasy that America is, and has always been, the greatest country in the world. The scope of Florida’s latest right-wing project is ambitious, and part of a three-year campaign, according to a recent report by Dana Goldstein of the New York Times. The course, she revealed, “focuses on the Protestant faith of the Founders, argues that the U.S. Constitution is an antislavery document and recommends a textbook written explicitly to build patriotism.” The story quotes Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, as praising the new curriculum’s use of primary sources. But even he acknowledged that the new course leans not on criticism but explicitly on how America is a “good, special place.” This is a polite way of saying that the curriculum is nothing more than right-wing propaganda. The American right has long targeted classrooms as political spaces where the country’s future can be won by socializing and indoctrinating young people into simplistic notions of “patriotism” and “nationalism,” rather than compelling them to ask hard questions about our history. The American right has long targeted classrooms as political spaces where the country’s future can be won by socializing and indoctrinating young people into simplistic notions of “patriotism” and “nationalism,” rather than compelling them to ask hard questions about our history, which can encourage them to be responsible citizens who are intellectually and psychologically equipped to challenge the powerful. This is not an accident. Would-be authoritarians like Donald Trump want and need a passive, compliant public that lacks the agency and tools for democratic governance, so they work very hard to create one. The impact of Florida’s changes will be felt far beyond its borders. As Goldstein reported, the state has often set the pace for Republican education policy in the Trump era. Other red states will likely administer the new course, along with others in the program of accelerated courses the state has dubbed FACT (Florida Advanced Courses and Tests), which will be, she wrote, “a sort of red-state competitor to the College Board,” which oversees the AP curricula. Most of the new history course reflects a boilerplate conservative view of American history and society, where cheerleading too frequently substitutes for rigor and accuracy. But it also claims that the Constitution is an antislavery document — and that the nation’s founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both owned enslaved people, were opposed to the institution. Such pronouncements are not merely wrong. They are insidious. Mainstream contemporary historians view the Constitution as a compromise between free and slaveholding states. But there is significant and respected scholarship that goes much further and holds that the Constitution is a pro-slavery, and pro-Southern, document which protected that vile institution. Related Why MAGA fears human teachers The scholarly consensus is clear: The Constitution is not an antislavery document, and America’s founders produced a document that protected the interests of the slaveholding class. But these facts are being buried to construct a narrative that valorizes the founders. Florida previewed this whitewashing of history in 2022 when it passed the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act,” which banned the teaching of so-called divisive subjects that might make white children uncomfortable because of their race. The discomfort of Black and brown children — who watch their communities’ histories, experiences and reality being systematically erased and distorted — was apparently of little concern. In 2021, both the National Coalition of History and the Organization of American Historians denounced these laws and the damage they do to democratic life and freedom of thought. “Our nation’s history is complex,” members of the organization’s wrote in a joint statement. “The study of it requires not just a celebration of our triumphs, but frank discussion of our shortcomings, indeed our divisions.” Ignoring those, they said, “stifles that debate and our ability to move forward as a nation,” and impedes healing. The color line, slavery and the long Black Freedom Struggle are not peripheral to the American story; they are central to it. Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Thirteen of the 39 signers of the Constitution were from the South, and it’s estimated that 25 delegates to the Constitutional Convention owned slaves. The document counted enslaved Black people as three-fifths of a person for purposes of congressional representation — which meant that slaveholding states were systematically overrepresented in both Congress and the Electoral College. The Constitution barred any federal prohibition on the importation of slaves until 1808, and it included a fugitive slave clause requiring that Black people who escaped slavery, even to free states, be returned to their owners. The federal government was given the responsibility for putting down rebellions, which in practice meant crushing slave uprisings and resistance. Black people were not citizens under this framework. They were anti-citizens, existing outside of the polity. America was a racialized democracy from its inception. It was only after the Civil War, through ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, that Black Americans were written into the Constitution as equal citizens — on paper, but rarely in daily American life. Florida’s whitewashing of the Constitution and the founders’ relationship to slavery is made more perfidious still by its timing. The Trump administration and its allies are working diligently to end multiracial democracy by gutting the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement and the Long Black Freedom struggle to build a contemporary version of Jim and Jane Crow. And the president is leading this project while hurling racist attacks at Barack and Michelle Obama and other Black leaders on social media. Real history is much more than just dates, facts and characters; it also encompasses how they are interpreted and contextualized. In many ways, the Florida course’s more conservative view of slavery and America’s past is history presented as just dueling opinions, instead of as the result of rigorous inquiry, research, theory building and advancing truth claims supported by evidence. Real history is much more than just dates, facts and characters; it also encompasses how they are interpreted and contextualized. As the historian E.H. Carr famously argued in his book “What is History?”: [History] is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past… The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger’s slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use — these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. Florida’s history education program is not an outlier. It is a smaller version of the Trump administration’s white racial authoritarian project masquerading as patriotism and American exceptionalism. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% As I watch the rapid collapse of American democracy in real time, I keep returning to “The Soiling of Old Glory,” the 1976 Pulitzer-winning photograph that depicts Ted Landsmark, a Black attorney and civil rights activist, being beaten by a white teenager wielding a flag pole. The image was captured during a violent protest against school desegregation in Boston, and as the assailant wields the pole against Landsmark, Old Glory streams from it mournfully. How would Florida’s new history course explain this photograph? Would it even be taught? And if the Trump administration’s Orwellian whitewashing of American history and public memory succeeds — what then? I know the answers. They fill me with dread. A people without history, without context, who lack the means to understand their predicament or the tools to resist it, are easy prey for authoritarians. This is why Florida’s new conservative history course exists. Read more about education The slow death of academic freedom Shock Democratic upset in Texas shows voters still hate book bans At Yale University, things are getting Orwellian The post Florida’s new history course whitewashes the founders on slavery appeared first on Salon.com.
Massie’s primary isn’t really a test of Trump’s power
A Massie victory, Republican strategists say, would speak more to the district than to Trump’s influence
The primary in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, between Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ed Gallrein, his Trump-backed challenger, is not the test of President Donald Trump’s sway over Republicans some are billing it as. While a Gallrein victory would serve as proof of the president’s influence over the GOP and its voters, a victory for Massie might not be the generalizable sign of MAGA’s crackup that Trump’s opponents are hoping for. On May 19, voters in Kentucky’s 4th District will choose between two conservative Republicans, Massie and Gallrein, who are, on the surface, not all that different. Both are supporters of the president, and both agree with the vast majority of the president’s agenda. The key difference between them is the president’s personal disposition towards them. Massie has been a thorn in Trump’s side for much of his second term, first over the release of files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and more recently over his criticism of the president’s decision to join Israel and launch a new war against Iran. The fight has escalated into becoming the most expensive House primary race in U.S. history, with national Trump-aligned groups dropping millions against Massie, who himself has been a distinguished fundraiser, spending some $5.6 million of his own campaign money on ads, with Massie-aligned committees spending roughly $5.5 million. Using bizarre AI videos in some cases, the campaign ads have largely featured the candidates attempting to one-up each other, proving their conservative bona fides, while questioning the other’s authenticity. Related Gerrymandering can’t fix the GOP’s voter problem At the core of the race, however, is the question of whether Trump gets voters to abandon their longtime congressman in favor of his hand-picked challenger. Notably, by backing a challenge to Massie, Trump is also highlighting two of his major 2024 campaign promises: releasing the Epstein files and not starting new wars abroad. Massie has framed his campaign as representing the half of MAGA still married to some of the ideology behind Trump’s 2024 win, while Trump has instead carried the support of his MAGA loyalists and insisted that MAGA is whatever he says it is. “MAGA is split right now,” Massie told Bloomberg News. “I have half of MAGA, and I think the president has the other half — not that I’m running against him.” “The 4th District is very much its own animal and the brand of Republican politics that has a much wider lane in that district that’s not the same as in other parts of Kentucky.” The breakdown, however, isn’t quite half and half, at least at the national level. According to recent AP polling, 9 in 10 self-identified MAGA Republicans support the president. The survey, however, wasn’t about the race in Kentucky, and didn’t ask about Massie. The primary race is asymmetrical because of the idiosyncrasies of Massie and the district he represents, according to T.J. Litafik, a seasoned Kentucky political strategist, which he characterized as the heart of Massie’s specific brand of conservative politics. “That part of Kentucky, particularly Kenton and Campbell County in the greater Cincinnati area, is sort of the heart of Thomas Massie’s brand of politics, the liberty movement, and he has close affiliates who have been able to defeat more establishment-aligned candidates in Republican primaries for quite a few state House and state Senate seats, and even some local government seats up there,” Litafik told Salon in an interview. Litafik explained that because of Massie’s loyal following, he expects a low turnout on the 19th to be a good sign for Massie, whereas a higher turnout would indicate that Trump has influenced more infrequent voters to turn out in favor of Gallrein. In addition to Kenton and Campbell counties, Litafik said he’ll be watching Lewis County, where Massie lives, and Boone and Shelby Counties as key parts of the district. Litafik explained that in this district, Republicans tend to lean more towards Massie’s ideology, at least when compared with those statewide. The decisive demographic, Litafik said, will be “Fox News” voters 65 years old and older who Litafik expects to break for Gallrein. If they show up in droves, Litafik said, that probably means that Massie is more likely to lose. He added that most Republicans aligned with retiring Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a dominant force in Kentucky politics, are likely going to support Gallrein. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% It’s this distinction between “liberty movement” Republicans and mainstream Republicans that serves as a confounding variable in interpreting the race as a referendum on Trump’s influence on the party in Litafik’s analysis. The district, in Litafik’s view, is distinct enough from Kentucky as a whole, let alone the entire country, that a loss for Gallrein shouldn’t be read as a repudiation of Trump’s brand of politics, whereas a victory for Gallrein is even more of an affirmation of Trump’s hold on the party than it would be in another district. “The 4th District is very much its own animal and the brand of Republican politics that has a much wider lane in that district that’s not the same as in other parts of Kentucky,” Litafik explained. “A Thomas Massie-style Republican would not be successful in other parts of Kentucky, where they have a less libertarian leaning and more populist leaning sentiment.” Mark Meckler, a conservative political activist and the president of the Convention of States, a conservative group that grew out of the Tea Party movement and calls for a convention to amend the Constitution, told Salon that he expects the election to measure whether there is any solid constituency in the GOP that will support someone who has invoked Trump’s ire. As recently as 2024, Massie won his Republican primary with more than 75% support, and a loss, or even a narrow victory for Massie, would indicate that there simply might not be a significant constituency for any Republican that breaks with Trump on any issue. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. “This is the first time that I’m aware of where he’s gone against a seated Republican incumbent, and doing it with an obviously serious war chest. So I think the first thing is, what’s Trump’s ceiling against a fortified incumbent?” Meckler said. “The follow-on to that is, you’re looking at probably over 10 million spent against Massie. The question I have about that is, well, does that override 14 years of personal voter shifts in a district where Massey’s won every single primary 75% plus?” Meckler added that some of the broader trends that have been chipping away at Trump’s 2024 coalition probably won’t be too much of a factor in this primary. For example, Trump has been shedding support among Hispanic and Latino voters, but the district is just 5% Hispanic. Likewise, Trump has lost support among young men, but in Meckler’s assessment, this demographic is unlikely to be decisive in this GOP primary. Ultimately, Meckler said that he’ll be closely watching the margin on election night, because if Gallrein comes close to winning, even a victory for Massie might end up being seen as a moral triumph for Trump. “If Massie gets under 55%, that’s a seriously wounded incumbent, and Trump can claim a moral victory. He won’t love it, but he’ll claim a moral victory there,” Meckler said. “If he drives [Massie] down to 55%, that’s bad. If [Massie] wins 60% or over, what you see is that his brand and his constituent service beat the presidential ballistic missile, and that’s a really big deal, right? The president and all this money coming at you, if he’s over 60% that really says something about Massie’s personal brand.” Read more about politics Supreme Court guts the Voting Rights Act in “Jim Crow 2.0” ruling A 40-year-old Iran tariff quietly built America’s pistachio empire DeSantis’ national security power grab The post Massie’s primary isn’t really a test of Trump’s power appeared first on Salon.com.
“After Neverland,” R. Kelly’s CBS meltdown, and the insidious patterns we refuse to see
The two specials hosted by Oprah and Gayle King are accidental companion pieces showing how abuse and abusers work
Minutes before the closing credits roll on “Oprah Winfrey Presents: After Neverland,” the host quotes Maureen Dowd’s recent New York Times piece concerning “Leaving Neverland,” the four-hour documentary detailing two men’s allegations of being sexually abused as children by Michael Jackson, which inspired Oprah’s special. “Celebrity supersedes criminality,” Dowd writes, and when Oprah repeats those words before an audience composed primarily of rape and sexual abuse survivors, a hushed “ooh” ripples the air in Manhattan’s Times Center auditorium. Oprah nods knowingly. “Mmm-hmm. If you love that line,” she adds, “You’ll love this one: ‘How can you see clearly when you’re looking into the sun? How can an icon be a con?'” Some may be asking themselves that very same question with regard to R. Kelly, in spite of the pile of testimony against him, much of it provided in the court of public opinion by way of Lifetime’s docuseries “Surviving R. Kelly.” On Wednesday Kelly’s unhinged explosion during an interview with Gayle King aired on “CBS This Morning,” revealed a man so out of touch with public perception and so in denial about his alleged behavior that one had to wonder what possessed him to go on national TV in the first place. (Then again, see: Jussie Smollett. Seems that yet-to-be-named “itis” going around these days.) King interviewed Kelly at his home in Chicago’s Trump Tower — where else could he live but Trump Tower? — where, at the time, he was free on bond and awaiting trial on 10 charges of aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving four victims, three of whom were minors at the time they allege that they had sex with him. Hours after the interview first aired Kelly was taken into police custody due to a failure to pay more than $161,000 in child support. King’s cool comportment during the interview has earned her high praise among her peers. As Kelly leaps out of his chair in a rage gesticulating wildly and cursing, King stares straight ahead throughout her subject’s tirade, unfazed and barely blinking. Not once does she raise her voice. “Robert,” King says evenly as he stabs the air above her with his forefinger, “we have to have a conversation. I don’t want you just ranting at the camera.” Rant he does, to the point that King and the production team pause for a moment while Kelly’s publicist calms him down. When he finally settles back into his seat, he declares, “I need help.” “What kind of help?” King asks, to which Kelly responds, “This is the kind of help I need…I need somebody to help me not have a big heart.” This is the stuff that makes late night hosts and the writing staffs of those series, along with “Saturday Night Live,” sharpen their verbal harpoons. But returning to Dowd’s quote, the lesson here is not to be blinded by the light but to see, with sharp-edged clarity, what we can learn about our culture’s relationship with and understanding of abuse. Winfrey’s “After Neverland” debuted on HBO and OWN after part two of Dan Reed’s documentary aired, and her special has been in the works at least since the end of February. There was no way to know back then that Oprah’s best friend would air an interview with another famous alleged abuser of minors within a day or two of “After Neverland.. But it’s a good thing that they are on the airwaves in close proximity, because they are coincidental companion pieces, educating the audience about the rolling effects of abuse and the common traits of abusers. The crossover is obvious with regard to subject matter, although Oprah cogently opines that the word “abuse” lacks accuracy and is confusing. She points out that survivors such as Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the central subjects of “Leaving Neverland,” didn’t realize they’d been abused until much later in life, which is typical of many survivors. Whether Kelly’s live-in girlfriends Azriel Clary and Joycelyn Savage will say the same one day is unknown. On Thursday CBS aired their interview with King, in which they defended the singer and accused their parents of trying to extort the star, with Clary going as far as to claim her parents encouraged her to take sexual videos with him to blackmail him. Clary’s and Savage’s parents appear in “Surviving R. Kelly,” which shows their attempts to extricate their daughters from the singer’s orbit. Their families describe them as “brainwashed.” To King, Kelly claims that Clary and Savage handed their daughters over to them: “What kind of father, what kind of mother, would sell they daughter to a man? How come it was it OK for me to see them until they wasn’t getting no money for it?” (After Wednesday’s interview aired, however, Savage connected with her family in a phone call after having been out of contact since 2017.) In “After Neverland,” Robson uses the term “training” to describe how Jackson allegedly molded their psyches. From night one, Robson says, Jackson told him he loved him, and what he was doing was an act of love, and that God brought them together. He was around seven years old at the time he alleges the abuse began. Jackson would have been 31. Robson observes that through this and subsequent encounters over the years, he was trained to protect Jackson. Robson also observes of Jackson, “the grooming had started long before we ever met him, you know? Because he was who he was. He was such a massive figure who represented himself as an angel.” Robson adds, “long before ever meeting him the first time, so much had been set up already that I was, and I think my mother, my whole family, was already surrendered before I met him.” “After Neverland,” Oprah explains, was conceived of after she saw Dan Reed’s documentary and realized he demonstrated in four hours what she says she could not do in the 25 years of “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” over the course of which she taped 217 episodes on sexual abuse. “I tried and tried and tried to get the message across to people that sexual abuse was not just abuse,” Oprah explains. “It was also sexual seduction.” She goes on to explain that seduction doesn’t merely refer to the victims themselves but, in Jackson’s case, their families. “The reason the idea of Michael Jackson or any major person committing sexual abuse against children challenges so many people is because in every family you have to face that some things are not the way they appear to be,” Oprah observes. “And what people have to accept in their own families is that people can do good things, they can be loving and helpful, and also be an abuser and a person who does bad things. Both can be true.” Jackson is not family, although to millions of people who have profoundly integrated their love for his music into their lives, he might as well be. The same can be said (albeit on a much smaller scale) of Kelly, whose reputation for seducing underage girls and allegedly keeping women as sex slaves received a deep exploration in “Surviving R. Kelly.” Kelly is known to the mainstream population as the creator of the inspirational single “I Believe I Can Fly,” but R&B fans also know him as the man behind such sexually suggestive hits as “Ignition” and “Bump n’ Grind.” Never has Kelly been expressly associated with innocence by a wider audience; in fact, unlike Jackson, I’d wager that before he was acquitted on child pornography charges in 2008, most pop music consumers didn’t think much about him at all. Afterward the case became comedic fodder for the likes of Dave Chappelle and the cartoon series “The Boondocks.” Never mind that the case concerned a film allegedly featuring Kelly having sex with a girl who may have been as young as 13 at the time. But if we have Kelly on the brain now, it’s because of the multiple claims of illegality have been dragged into the light so many times over the years that it became impossible for authorities to refrain from taking action. Kelly did not participate in “Surviving R. Kelly,” which is just as well. Like “Leaving Neverland,” that series was a means of giving his victims, including his ex-wife Andrea Kelly, a voice. King’s CBS News interview, on the other hand, shows America classic abusive behavior acted out by a star. Kelly claims that the more than 50 people in the Lifetime series, including a former tour manager who confirms he enabled Kelly’s controlling behavior, are “lying on him.” He yells, histrionically weeps and accuses the public and his former spouse of engaging in character assassination. Answering King’s query about his reputation for preferring young girls, Kelly says, “I don’t look at ‘much younger than me…I just look at ‘legal.'” He speaks to the camera, and to men specifically using “guys” and “man” as he rails at Americans who believe the allegations against him. “That’s stupid, guys! Is this camera on me?” he asks King, who replies, somewhat exhaustedly before he takes off, “Yes, it’s on.” “Use your common sense!” Kelly bellows, looking directly into the lens situated behind King. “Forget the blogs, forget how you feel about me. Hate me if you want to, love me if you want. But just use your common sense.” He follows his tearful declaration about having too big of a heart with, “My heart is so big, people betray me and —” he punches his palm for emphasis “— I keep forgiving them.” “You sound like you’re playing the victim here,” King says in response. “…When I listen to you, it sounds like you’re playing the victim card.” In summary, Kelly displays classic symptoms of abusers: gaslighting (“use your common sense!”), uncontrollable emotional displays, deflection and claiming victimhood. A number of people cited also noticed these traits last fall during another significant news event, Brett Kavanaugh‘s high-strung, tearful response to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, answering her detailed account of her claim that he attempted to rape her the 1980s, when they were both in high school, with spite-filled rage and tears at his reputation being forever besmirched. He was confirmed to the Supreme Court nevertheless, because those inclined to believe Kavanaugh (i.e. those with a vested interest in what he can do to support their political position) framed his aggressive behavior as passionate defense and a natural result of frustration. Kelly’s sphere of influence is minuscule in comparison, although he was once reportedly well-connected in the music community and, according to the docuseries about him, within local police departments. That level of pull doesn’t come close to the power afforded to a well-connected white Yale graduate who has steadily ascended in national politics. At any rate, even that appears to be amply diminished. But people who have some experience with abuse and abusers of any strain, whether physical, verbal, psychological, sexual — each adopts plays from the same book — may have recognized a few classic tactics in Kelly’s eruptive display. Wouldn’t it be interesting for CBS to call this out during the prime-time special devoted to Kelly’s case, scheduled to air Friday at 8 p.m. on the network? According to a CBS’s release about the special, it will include as-yet un-aired portions of King’s 80-minute interview with Kelly, adding “CBS News journalists will explore the allegations of abuse against Kelly, his denials and more.” It could provide one of those teachable moments that Oprah strives to pass along. Alas, there remains that matter of the blinding sun. Many are still dazzled by Kelly despite the legal weight pressing down on him. The reason King was able to interview Kelly in his home this week is because on Monday a 47-year-old woman posted the $100,0000 bond for the 52-year-old singer, identifying herself on the record as “a friend.” The meme-ability of Kelly’s eruption has already taken hold of social media, inevitably lampooning his showing-out for its entertainment value as opposed to examining it as a symptom of what Oprah refers to in “After Neverland” as “this insidious pattern that’s happening in our culture that we refuse to look at.” Millions are bound to be drawn to CBS’ coverage of Kelly’s evolving reckoning. But for a number of reasons, it’s highly doubtful that the larger audience will at last agree on what it is that we should be seeing. The post “After Neverland,” R. Kelly’s CBS meltdown, and the insidious patterns we refuse to see appeared first on Salon.com.
A noncitizen says she was told she could vote. Then CBP detained her at the airport
The permanent resident told authorities that a DMV worker said she could vote
Estelle, who’s long held permanent resident status in the U.S., is a veteran at navigating the reentry process when she returns from visiting relatives in her native France. But on her most recent trip through customs in mid-March, officers detained the 57-year-old Lawrence, Kansas, resident for 30 hours, forced her to spend the night in a holding cell on a concrete slab and threatened her with deportation. Why? Because she acknowledged under questioning by customs officers that she’d once voted in a local election, despite not being a U.S. citizen. A small number of cities in the U.S. allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, but Lawrence is not one of them. Kansas and federal law both require U.S. citizenship to register to vote. Immigration and election experts say her case, which hasn’t previously been reported, marks a new escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to find and prosecute instances of noncitizen voting, despite voluminous evidence showing it is rare. (Estelle asked that her last name not be used because of safety concerns.) Historically, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has played no part in election-fraud investigations. But the transcript of Estelle’s interview, which was provided to ProPublica by her attorney, makes clear that the agency had flagged her for special scrutiny and that officers knew her voting history. Estelle told the officer during questioning that she thought she could vote in local elections because a state motor vehicles department employee had told her when she renewed her driver’s license that she was eligible. Kerry Doyle, a deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security in the Biden administration, said she’d never heard of someone being detained at a port of entry on suspicion of voting illegally. “It took them a whole lot of energy and effort to sift through all these things to find this needle in the haystack,” said Doyle, a longtime immigration attorney. “And it is a needle in the haystack.” A CBP spokesperson confirmed that officers detained a woman matching Estelle’s description at the Detroit airport, placing her in removal proceedings. The official didn’t answer questions about whether the agency is now routinely questioning noncitizen travelers about voting at ports of entry but emphasized that voting illegally is a deportable offense. “The Trump Administration will continue to enforce our nation’s laws,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Those who violate these laws will be processed, detained, and removed as required.” Estelle’s attorney, Matthew Hoppock, said she had no prior criminal history and hadn’t otherwise violated the terms of her green card. He said she registered to vote as part of renewing her driver’s license in 2023. Estelle voted in a November 2023 election that included races for city council and school boards, according to Douglas County records. She did not vote in any subsequent election, including the 2024 presidential election. An immigration judge granted a request from Estelle to cancel her removal proceedings, after Hoppock spoke with DHS officials about her case. It’s unclear whether she will face any future criminal charges. (CBP declined to comment about whether there are any pending.) Still, Hoppock said, CBP had overstepped in its aggressive handling of the matter, which he called “really something.” “It’s clear as day she wasn’t trying to break the law,” he said. Related ICE at the airport is just the beginning Though Trump has repeatedly claimed that millions of noncitizens vote, data shows there are few such cases and that, of these, most involve people like Estelle, who register in error, said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonprofit voting rights organization. “My concern is about the publicizing of these kinds of incidents as a tool to frighten people,” Weiser said. When these rare cases do happen, they are typically identified by local and state election officials who refer them to law enforcement. They often do not move forward, according to several election lawyers, because the voter often was registered by mistake by an elections clerk or voted without knowing it was illegal. Depending on the charges, prosecutors may have to prove that it was intentional. Trump has made it clear he wants the federal government to do more to prevent and punish election fraud, despite the paucity of evidence that it’s a widespread issue. He pushed unsuccessfully for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would have required Americans to provide documentary proof of citizenship when they registered to vote. In March 2025, he issued an executive order that, in part, directed federal agencies to use their resources to help find and prosecute noncitizen voters. His Justice Department began demanding that states hand over their voter-roll information, and DHS revamped a tool to allow states to check registered voters’ citizenship status en masse. As ProPublica has reported, the tool proved highly error-prone. But despite its flaws, it appears DHS is still using the tool to pursue noncitizen voting prosecutions. DHS said in a recent statement that a branch of the agency, Homeland Security Investigations, will look into more than 24,000 voters flagged by SAVE as potential noncitizens. A former CBP official, who spoke anonymously because their current job doesn’t permit them to comment publicly, said it is likely that potential noncitizen voters have been flagged in the system that customs officers use to check the records of international travelers, such as passports. If that’s the case, officers would see in the person’s file that they should be questioned further on their voting histories. Hoppock said Estelle was detained on a layover, as she traveled home from visiting her ailing father in France. According to the transcript of her interview with a customs officer, the official asked Estelle if she had ever registered to vote or voted, and she told him yes, she had voted once. The officer then asked if she had voted in the Nov. 7, 2023, local election, which she had. After questioning Estelle, officers put her in the cell with a thin mattress on top of the concrete slab and a blanket donated by an airline, Hoppock said. She heard officers talking about Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities, he said, and worried she might be moved there next. Instead, she was released after more than 30 hours in custody. Jamie Shew — the clerk for Douglas County, Kansas, where Estelle was registered — said in an interview that he found out about Estelle’s case on March 23, when he received an administrative subpoena from CBP asking for her voter registration application and voting records. Shew said he didn’t have the application, just data passed on by the secretary of state’s office showing she’d registered in September 2023 and wasn’t affiliated with a political party. Shew said he’s only supposed to be given registrations to process if the would-be voter attests they are a U.S. citizen, as federal law requires. Estelle insists she told the employee at the motor vehicles department she was not a citizen. Shew said Estelle reached out shortly after he received the CBP’s subpoena. She asked him to cancel her voter registration, he said, and he did on March 31. Hoppock worries that by moving straight to deportation proceedings, the federal government has found a way to skip prosecuting and convicting. “You’re going to get people like Estelle,” he said, “who haven’t meant to do anything wrong, getting detained in a jail cell in Michigan.” Read more about this topic As arrests at anti-ICE protests piled up, prosecutions crumbled Not just ICE: Do we need DHS? “Not ready for prime time”: A federal tool to check voter citizenship keeps making mistakes The post A noncitizen says she was told she could vote. Then CBP detained her at the airport appeared first on Salon.com.
How Keith Lee, a TikTok food critic for the new economy, guides us to eat well – and good
Lee has a critic's ethos, just like the late Roger Ebert and the misunderstood Anton Ego from "Ratatouille"
To hear some Atlantans talk about Keith Lee’s recent visit, you would think he burned the city’s restaurant scene to the ground. The TikTok creator embarked on a recent culinary tour of Georgia’s cultural mecca, hitting lesser-known joints along with higher profile places like Old Lady Gang, partly owned by “Real Housewives of Atlanta” star Kandi Burruss. Since Lee primarily focuses on small businesses, many of them Black-owned, he might not have visited Burruss’ place if not for the insistence of someone imploring him to swing by. That’s what Lee did, employing his usual secret shopper-style methods. Every few years . . . a prominent publication shares a deep-dive analysis of the critic’s role. Lee rarely dines in-person at the places he reviews because most of the places he highlights are independently owned takeout joints that are rarely, if ever, reviewed by major newspapers or magazines or epicurean-focused sites like Eater. Most don’t have a connection in the culinary world – i.e. they aren’t the so-called “secret” place where a notable chef, writer, or other celebrity eats. They’re spots opened by ordinary people who are confident cooks but lack a promotional budget and therefore, a steady clientele. Old Lady Gang doesn’t suffer from this problem, as Lee discovered when he sent his family into the restaurant while he waited curbside. Under normal circumstances, they would bring food to his car, where he films many of his “taste tests.” This time they were informed that the restaurant didn’t fill takeout orders on weekends and worse, there was an hour-plus wait to be seated. Upon hearing this, Lee walked into the place to see if he would be treated any differently – and lo and behold, suddenly a table was available in five minutes. “As always, I don’t want any special treatment. I want to be treated like everybody else,” he says in his video review, explaining why it didn’t feature the usual gustatory theater. “I pay for my food like everybody else. I’m a normal person. I’m a normal customer. Things like this is exactly why I do reviews the way I do.” Related “No one suspected me”: Women food critics dish on dining out for a living Old Lady Gang wasn’t the only place lightly charred by Lee’s surprise inspection. In his review of The Real Milk and Honey, Lee opens with his signature intro of, “I got it. Let’s try it, and rate it one through 10,” and immediately follows it with, “As you can see, I don’t have any bag in my hands.” Again, the takeout ordering experience was the problem . . . until he showed up inside. Atlanta Breakfast Club managed to get food into Lee’s hands but, as he termed it, “The customer service was interesting. While the people were nice, the rules they had set were interesting to me.” Among them? No takeout. No waiting area. And if anyone in a party is not seated when the waitstaff comes to take an order, nobody at the table gets water, coffee or anything. All that and, according to a family member’s report, the place charged a dollar for a dollop of butter to go on a biscuit served without jelly. @keith_lee125 Atlanta Food Tour Recap ? would you try it ? ? #foodcritic ♬ original sound – Keith Lee Every few years, and with increasing frequency over five or so, a prominent publication shares a deep-dive analysis of the critic’s role. Several of these pieces cite wisdom from two of the wisest voices in the field. One is the late Roger Ebert who, along with the late Gene Siskel, raised generations of film and TV reviewers with their popular weekly show “At the Movies.” Siskel and Ebert’s repartee on the latest movies helped consumers decide whether plunking down their hard-earned dollars at their neighborhood box office would be money well-spent. “We are all allotted an unknown but finite number of hours of consciousness,” Ebert observes in his famous 2008 essay “ ’Critic’ is a four-letter word” which, unsurprisingly, is considered some version of the critic’s scripture. “Maybe a critic can help you spend them more meaningfully.” If you’re wondering what a movie critic’s observation about criticism has to do with a TikToker, the answer is what inspired Ebert. He wrote this in appreciation of the Pixar classic “Ratatouille,” specifically its food critic Anton Ego, who earned the nickname of “the grim eater.” Director Brad Bird wrote Ego in a way that seems to reflect the fear and mild disdain artists hold toward professional critics until, at the film’s climax, he crafts a review that both speaks to the low esteem in which critics are held and explains their social and cultural utility. “In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment,” Ego writes. “But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.” Fan culture is often cited as the reason for criticism’s alleged die-off, especially in the movie and TV space where review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes can allegedly be gamed by studios soliciting positive reviews from fan sites. A positive review can result in what’s known as the Keith Lee Effect, with lines down the block in front of a restaurant that was struggling before his visit. The culinary critic’s supposed competition is vindictive Yelp reviewers and food influencers who post theatrical videos extolling a restaurant’s menu — some paid for by the people they’re supposedly reviewing, and others creating content at the establishment’s expense. Lee does not do that, although old-school journalists may balk at describing him as a critic since he’s also transparent about leaving hundreds of dollars in a single tip – something that most food writers are frankly not in a position to do. But then, most food writers aren’t being flown out to Los Angeles by Kevin Hart, who sought an honest evaluation of his vegan restaurant despite Lee warning him that if he didn’t like the food, he’d say so. Lee also assured his viewers that he was predisposed to detest vegan food before he took a bite of its faux chicken sandwich and appeared to have an out-of-body experience. “I don’t think I’m a food reviewer per se, or an influencer or a content creator. By definition that’s what I am,” Lee told Today in May when he was asked if he follows other food reviewers on social media. “I’m not in competition with anybody. I’m not in the same category with anybody. I’m in my own lane. There’s no traffic in my lane. There’s nobody over here but me.” Well, yes and no. Lee has a critic’s ethos, but he’s also filling the gap between the democratization of opinion on social media platforms like Instagram, Twitter and TikTok and the elitist world in which many critics operate. Moreover, Lee’s tastes reflect those of people who like to eat well and eat good. Those terms can mean the same thing, but Lee’s 14.4 million TikTok followers understand the difference. Eating well at a top restaurant can be transformative but also prohibitively expensive; eating good is a stroke of good fortune that lives in the meeting place of flavor, fulfillment and affordability. We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon’s progressive journalism And like most of us, many of those will only get as close to a Michelin-starred dining experience as watching an episode of “The Bear.” That’s fine, since Lee goes to places most professional culinary arbiters will never visit, hitting up sandwich joints and strip mall restaurants, listing how much things cost and talking about the accessibility and customer service experience of each location. His reviews are concise, his delivery is fast-paced and he’s honest and kind, reminding his followers that his experience is his alone. A positive review can result in what’s known as the Keith Lee Effect, with lines down the block in front of a restaurant that was struggling before his visit. Takes landing on the “not-so-good” side of the plate are accompanied by his passionate discouragement from leaving bad reviews based on his evaluations. “I mean no harm,” he often says, “No malicious intent.” Neither does any professional critic, believe it or not. Ego says something else that applies here: “Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.” The culinary world is dominated and defined by acclaimed chefs and the people who work under them; a handful of James Beard award-winning writers who studied cuisine, and a few star food experts like Padma Lakshmi. Lee is an MMA fighter who began posting videos on social media as a means of combating his social anxiety. When he’s not posting videos from his car, he conducts reviews at a low table in his Vegas home, where he sits in his child’s Paw Patrol-branded chair. His rating scale isn’t codified, but that doesn’t matter – the meat of each review is his reaction. Sure, he discusses the balance between acid and sweetness in a sauce and mouthfeel (without using the term), but the verity in his opinion is in how long he remains silent, a distant boom sound effect letting us know when the flavor hits, and the rare times his eyes roll back in his head. When he talks, it’s often with his mouth full, but he politely covers it with his hand as he talks about the flavors exploding on his tongue or notes where they should be but aren’t. That’s why Atlanta’s reaction to Lee’s highlights of “the good and not-so-good” about their dining scene made such a splash that even Cardi B had to weigh in and co-sign his findings about Atlanta restaurants’ aversion of easily accessible takeout. “I feel bad for Atlanta residents,” she said in a recent Instagram Live response to Lee’s week of reviews. “It is extremely bougie. Like, eating in Atlanta is extremely bougie. And I just thought it was me. But now that I see that other people feel that way? HAHAHA! I knew I wasn’t crazy. I knew it!” This, naturally, led Burruss to posting a TikTok about the lack of takeout at Old Lady Gang in a more diplomatic fashion than other restaurants, one of which tried to downplay Lee’s influence before posting an apology. @kandi Thanks for stopping by #OldLadyGang @Keith Lee ♬ original sound – kandi “It is very unfortunate that we couldn’t serve [Lee] and his family. We . . . would have loved to, OK? But he’s right, we don’t take to-go orders on the weekends. And the simple reason is because we do love and appreciate the people who come and support our restaurant. “So with that being said,” she continued, “We don’t want to overwhelm our kitchen by having to, you know, have such long times for the people who are actually at the restaurant, plus having to do to go orders, because obviously that will make the long the wait times even longer.” And now we know. Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course. “I believe a good critic is a teacher,” Ebert wrote in 2008. “He doesn’t have the answers, but he can be an example of the process of finding your own answers. He can notice things, explain them, place them in any number of contexts, ponder why some ‘work’ and others never could.” Ebert was talking about movies which, now more than then, people can take or leave or watch in a theater or at home regardless of what some critic has to say about them. Music and TV critics, given the onslaught of content available, are always missing some phenomenon the larger culture unearths or backing a show or a record that appeals only to other critics. A bad album or show risks wasting one’s spare time, whereas a bad dining experience represents money lost and tangible resources wasted, two things few of us have in abundance. We all have to eat, though, which means the lesson in Lee’s success might in some way inspire consumers to reconsider criticism’s utility, that it’s less about loving or dismissing an effort than finding someone whose informed evaluation aligns with yours. “I genuinely want to see what’s my favorite,” Lee says in his ranking of Chicago’s chicken joints before making that point in a voiceover. “Keyword: My favorite. Before you come in the comments and tell me I’m wrong, I can’t be wrong about my opinion. This is what I personally like. “And let’s be honest, there’s no right list here,” he adds. “No matter how I order, somebody’s gonna be upset.” Read more about this topic Critics are human, too Do audiences even trust movie critics anymore? The downfall of Rotten Tomatoes and media criticism Elitists can save our garbage fire world The post How Keith Lee, a TikTok food critic for the new economy, guides us to eat well – and good appeared first on Salon.com.
How “The View” could put an end to Trump’s war on the media
ABC is finally fighting back against censorship and pressure from the Federal Communications Commission
ABC’s entry into the media’s ongoing era of corporate capitulation under Donald Trump was not promising. In December 2024, just one day after a judge ordered both Trump and network anchor George Stephanopoulos to sit for depositions in a defamation suit legal observers widely considered frivolous, the network’s parent company Disney folded. ABC paid Trump $15 million for his presidential foundation, covered another million in his legal fees and published an editor’s note in which ABC News and Stephanopoulos declared they regretted past statements about the president-elect. Now the network may finally end Trump’s one-sided war against the media with a declaration that at least one major American media company has looked down the road of endless appeasement and understands where it leads: Nowhere that resembles a free press in a functioning democracy. The pattern that emerges from all of this submission is ugly and familiar. You pay once, and the demands come back. Blackmailers always come back for more. Brendan Carr, the co-author of Project 2025’s communications chapter who Trump installed as Federal Communications Commission chairman, has revived complaints against ABC, NBC and CBS that previous commissioners dismissed as obvious abuses of regulatory authority. He has threatened broadcasters over coverage Trump disliked. He investigated “60 Minutes” while Paramount was seeking merger approval, so Paramount settled Trump’s CBS lawsuit — centered on a routine edit of an October 2024 interview with Kamala Harris that TV networks perform every day — for $16 million, money that went to Trump’s presidential library. Rather than sign off on the deal, both the show’s executive producer and CBS News’ CEO resigned. Related Assassination conspiracy theories? Blame Trump In perhaps the clearest example yet of how Trumpism weaponizes the administrative state against political enemies, one day after ABC signaled in September 2025 it would not fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke that displeased the president, Carr launched a review of all eight of the local stations owned by ABC — years ahead of their scheduled renewal dates. But it appears the network has had enough. ABC has mounted the most aggressive defense from any television network since Trump launched his extended campaign to bring media organizations to heel. The unlikely vehicle is not some glamorous investigative exposé or Pulitzer-winning newsroom crusade. It is “The View,” the daytime talk show conservatives have spent years dismissing as unserious television. On Friday, ABC filed a 52-page petition with the FCC challenging the agency’s abrupt decision to limit the longstanding interpretation of the equal-time exemption for bona fide news programming — the provision that has shielded shows like “The View” and, by extension, the entire concept of editorial independence in broadcast news — for decades. Conveniently, this reinterpretation seems aimed almost entirely at programs Trump openly despises: daytime and late-night shows featuring his critics. Under federal “equal time” rules, broadcasters generally must provide comparable airtime to competing candidates. But for decades there has been a broad exemption for legitimate news programming. Without that exemption, political journalism would become nearly impossible. Booking one candidate could legally obligate a station to offer time to dozens more. The FCC formally recognized “The View” as qualifying for that exemption back in 2002. No serious challenge emerged for more than two decades until a complaint was filed against KTRK-TV in Houston for an appearance by Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico on the program, which the local station aired. Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. At the same time, conservative talk radio hosts interviewing Republican candidates faced no scrutiny whatsoever. “The Guy Benson Show” featured an interview with Texas Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican, on Feb. 11. Five days later, “The Mark Levin Show” ran a conversation with Dan Patrick, the state’s lieutenant governor. “The Glenn Beck Program” aired a chat with Roy on Feb. 18. The same rule, the same election cycle, the same conduct — and complete silence from Carr’s FCC, because those shows book conservatives. Even Beck called out the double standard. “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but ABC may actually be right that ‘The View’ should keep its equal-time rule exemption,” Beck said on his show Monday. “As I understand ‘The View,’ which I despise, that’s what they do. They see what’s in the news and they talk about it.” That even longtime right-wing media figures are beginning to recoil from Carr’s campaign reveals how far beyond normal regulatory disputes this fight has moved. ABC’s petition, signed by Paul Clement — the nation’s former solicitor general under George W. Bush and one of the most renowned conservative litigators in private practice — argues that the equal-time regime cannot survive First Amendment scrutiny in the modern media landscape with the likes of YouTube and TikTok. The FCC’s actions, the filing warns, “threaten to limit news coverage of political candidates and chill core First Amendment-protected speech for years and potentially decades to come.” ABC is threatening to take a wrecking ball to the legal architecture enabling Carr’s campaign by essentially inviting the Supreme Court to revisit Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the landmark 1969 decision upholding broad federal authority over broadcast fairness rules based on spectrum scarcity. Carr appears to have assumed broadcasters would continue behaving as they did earlier in Trump’s second term — by quietly complying. Instead, ABC is threatening to take a wrecking ball to the legal architecture enabling Carr’s campaign by essentially inviting the Supreme Court to revisit Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the landmark 1969 decision upholding broad federal authority over broadcast fairness rules based on spectrum scarcity. The thinking goes that if the FCC is going to weaponize equal-time rules against disfavored viewpoints, then perhaps the courts should reconsider whether those powers should exist at all. As FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on a three-person panel, said after the filing, “Disney is choosing courage over capitulation.” What the public will remember, she said, is who complied in advance and who fought back. In this case, you don’t hire Paul Clement to file a routine regulatory response. You hire him when you’ve decided to go to war, and prepare to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. For years, media companies treated Trump’s attacks as isolated nuisances to be managed with settled lawsuits. But authoritarian pressure campaigns work cumulatively. ABC spent $15 million learning that tribute invites more tribute. CBS News lost two of its most respected executives — and viewers — on the altar of a merger. The Washington Post’s editorial leadership bent under pressure. The lesson of the past 16 months is that retreat makes Trump’s aggression worse. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Meanwhile, the threat is metastasizing beyond the FCC. Trump has reportedly handed Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche a stack of news articles with a sticky note reading “treason,” and the Wall Street Journal has received grand jury subpoenas for its reporters’ records as part of a leak investigation. The home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson was searched and her phones seized after the Justice Department rescinded a Biden-era policy that restricted the use of subpoenas to email and phone providers seeking source information. (She later won a Pulitzer for her reporting as part of a team covering the Department of Government Efficiency and Trump’s efforts to cut the federal workforce.) These actions are not happening in isolation. They are part of a broader attempt to redefine journalism itself as a form of disloyalty. That’s why there is something clarifying about Glenn Beck defending “The View.” It strips away any pretense that this is a debate between liberal and conservative media bias, revealing that the dispute is between people who believe the government should be able to punish speech it dislikes, and people who understand that such a power, once established, does not stay pointed in one direction. ABC found its spine late in the game. The $15 million lesson was expensive, and the suspension of Kimmel was a stain that won’t wash out easily. But the Clement filing is genuinely consequential, and not just because it might disarm Carr’s primary regulatory weapon if it survives judicial review. It matters because of what it signals to every other newsroom watching — every executive calculating the cost of compliance versus resistance, every journalist wondering whether their employer will protect them. The ladies of “The View” finally decided that a free press is worth defending. Read more about the media Axios accused of “market manipulation” with Iran reporting Trump angers right-wing fans with censorship campaign Democrats’ Hasan Piker problem is a boon for Fox News The post How “The View” could put an end to Trump’s war on the media appeared first on Salon.com.
Assassination conspiracy theories? Blame Trump
False flag stories reveal a deeper truth about Trump’s failing presidency
Let’s be clear up front: There is no evidence that Donald Trump has staged any of the three high-profile attempts on his life in the past two years. I’ll likely get some angry reader feedback to that assertion because a lot of people believe at least one of the would-be assassinations — and quite possibly all three — were false flag operations. A new survey from NewsGuard shows that 54% of Americans are open to the theory that at least one of the attacks was staged, with only 38% saying definitively they believe all three were real. When asked about each separate assault — the 2024 shooting that grazed Trump’s ear at a Pennsylvania campaign stop, the arrest of the armed man at the president’s West Palm Beach golf course later that year and the recent incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner — fewer than half said these events were authentic. Once in a while, a conspiracy theory may be wrong but still manages to channel authentic frustrations. This particular one is false, but its underlying assumptions about the president — that he’s a liar, and that he’s manipulative, corrupt and politically desperate — are all too real. No one deserves more blame for this state of affairs than Trump himself, and not just because he’s spent a decade lying and sowing his own conspiracy theories, giving permission to both his allies and his opponents to take a looser approach to the truth. Once in a while, a conspiracy theory may be wrong but still manages to channel authentic frustrations. This particular one is false, but its underlying assumptions about the president — that he’s a liar, and that he’s manipulative, corrupt and politically desperate — are all too real. There’s an obvious explanation for why this conspiracy theory is so popular: Trump would fake such a thing if he thought he could get away with it. Anyone who doubts that has been asleep for the past decade, which have been marked by one Trump conspiracy after another. In 2019 he tried to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into lying about his political opponent, Joe Biden, which led to his first impeachment trial. A year later Trump was part of an elaborate scheme to steal the 2020 election, resulting in a second impeachment trial and multiple indictments at the federal level and in Georgia. He is currently embracing shadowy cryptocurrency schemes that are generating massive profits. He’s also openly bullying his Justice Department into not releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files, suggesting that what’s hidden implicates him even more than the eye-popping stuff that has already emerged about his longtime relationship with the deceased sexual predator. It’s not just that Trump is without morals. He seems to relish plotting and scheming. But while he might conceivably fake an assassination attempt for some perceived political gain, there’s strong reason to believe that he hasn’t done so. As the litany of his ruses shows, Trump lacks the talent for hiding his conspiracies from public view. If anything, he only gets away with them by being so brazen. It’s hard to imagine his administration being competent enough to fake such actions without at least one conspiracist letting the secret out, even by drunkenly bragging about it to a would-be mistress. Trump would even probably let the truth slip in one of his rambling diatribes to the press. Related What’s a bored Donald Trump to do? Apparently, target Cuba The conspiracy theories around the attempted assassinations don’t just speak to this larger truth about Trump’s corruption. They also channel the public’s rapidly growing frustration with a president who has broken every promise, while simultaneously focusing on self-aggrandizement, and it reflects an accurate sense that he would rather resort to cheating and lying than simply striving to do a better job in an effort to regain his lost political ground. While Trump didn’t fake an assassination attempt to interfere with the upcoming midterm elections, he and the GOP are cheating — again, right out in the open — by aggressively gerrymandering and relying on corrupt courts to get away with it. In the face of near-certain Democratic wins in November, Republicans are throwing all law and legal precedent out the door to redraw congressional maps, decimating the ability of Black voters in particular to choose their own congressional representatives. Conservative judges have been breathtakingly shameless in their efforts to tilt the election. The Virginia Supreme Court, which is controlled by right-wing judges, threw out redrawn maps approved directly by the voters in a statewide referendum by relying on technicality arguments so thin that even sober, respectable commentators, like Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times, are arguing that Virginia’s legislators should simply ignore the decision. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority isn’t even bothering to hide its bias, allowing states to redraw maps that favor Republicans at the last minute, while forbidding Democrats to do the same. Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. It’s no wonder that Republicans are so desperate. Trump won in 2024 based on his promise to lower prices for American consumers, but instead he ushered in the fastest-growing inflation rate in three years by mismanaging economic policy and starting an unnecessary, unauthorized war with Iran. His approval ratings have plummeted, but because he runs the GOP as a cult of personality, most Republican candidates have no leeway to distance themselves from him to appeal to swing voters. The situation will likely get worse for Trump if Democrats are able to retake the House in November. For one thing, the party will likely be able to release even more materials from the Epstein files, showing Americans what Trump seems eager to hide. What’s ironic about the false flag theory is that every indication shows that the attempted assassination at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner did not make Trump more popular. Even after wall-to-wall coverage of the attack, allegedly at the hands of a 31-year-old California man, the president’s approval ratings have continued to decline. His reaction to the event likely made his political situation worse. He immediately tried to exploit the shooting to tout the need for his garish White House ballroom, an indulgence Americans already disapprove by a two-to-one margin, according to a Washington Post poll. Trump’s self-indulgence will only look worse as gas and grocery prices continue to soar for everyday Americans. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Republican demands that Americans foot a $1 billion bill for Trump’s tacky ballroom have only made it easier for voters to channel their frustrations into this shooting conspiracy theory. What’s especially interesting is that the notion may be creating an off-ramp for Trump voters looking for a face-saving excuse to give up on the president. The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell conducted a focus group of nine disillusioned Trump voters shortly after the attempted shooting and found that six of them already believed the false flag conspiracy theory. “I feel like it was a ploy to get his ballroom that he wants, and that’s his reason,” one explained. Most Trump voters are stubbornly sticking by the president, unable to admit that liberals were right about him all along. But the focus group captured a small but important trend. While Democrats were most likely to endorse the false flag theory, 23% of independents and 13% of Republicans also believe the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting was staged. Trump’s addiction to conspiracy theories gave him a way to connect with voters who shared similar paranoia and hostility to the reality-based world. But the same mindset is now giving a small but significant number the story they need to turn their backs on the president. Read more about Donald Trump The dark purpose behind Trump’s Washington makeover Trump’s “affordability hoax” may doom him Trump’s war against wokeness is not new The post Assassination conspiracy theories? Blame Trump appeared first on Salon.com.
FDA exit could threaten abortion access nationwide
Marty Makary plans to resign from his post as FDA commissioner
Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary’s planned resignation creates a new opening for anti-abortion activists to push for national restrictions on the procedure — and in particular, limit the availability of a key abortion drug. The move comes as anti-abortion groups became angry over what they viewed as his agency’s failure to curb access to the drug. Makary’s planned resignation, which multiple outlets reported Tuesday, followed reports of Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with the commissioner. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump was frustrated by an FDA decision not to approve multiple flavored vape products, which Makary worried might particularly appeal to children. Trump pressed Makary to approve the products, calling flavored vape availability a key issue for younger supporters. After Trump’s intervention, those products received federal approval. But Makary had drawn ire from other corners of the conservative movement. Abortion opponents have been pressing the FDA for months to rescind a decision approving the drug mifepristone, which is used in most abortions, to be dispensed without an in-person visit. The Supreme Court is now reviewing a case concerning that same FDA approval, which was issued in 2023. The high court has said it will decide by 5 p.m. ET on Thursday how to handle a case seeking to block the drug’s telehealth approval immediately. Research shows that it is safe to dispense without an in-person visit. Abortion opponents say the federal agency should still act regardless of whether or how the court might intervene. Related RFK Jr. wants to completely remove the FDA’s food additive program as part of MAHA campaign Reports that Makary could be fired from his post emerged Friday, the day Trump was scheduled to meet with anti-abortion activists including Marjorie Dannenfelser, who heads SBA Pro-Life America. When asked to comment on Makary’s possible exit from the administration, Kelsey Pritchard, a spokesperson for the organization, responded by email, “Marjorie had a very constructive meeting at the White House today.” Last June, Makary wrote to Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican and strident abortion opponent, that the FDA was “committed to conducting a review of mifepristone,” per a copy of the letter Hawley shared on social media. The FDA approved a new generic form of mifepristone — chemically the same as the already-approved brand name drug — in October, sparking outcry among abortion opponents. And in December, Bloomberg Law reported that Makary had requested any review of mifepristone be postponed until after the midterm elections. SBA Pro-Life America called for Makary’s firing upon that report’s publication. The organization renewed those calls this month after another Wall Street Journal article suggested that any review of mifepristone might not be underway until the end of 2026 at the earliest. “Dr. Makary has failed to safeguard public health and safety. He has time to sign off on things like vaping and no awareness of chemical abortion pills that kill preborn babies in the hundreds and thousands,” Kristi Hamrick, the head of policy for the anti-abortion group Students for Life, wrote in a text message to The 19th. Anti-abortion organizations are now pushing for a successor who might be more amenable to their cause. Kyle Diamantas, a deputy within the agency, is expected to step in as acting commissioner, according to several news outlets. “I don’t want to name names. But whoever comes in needs to be ready to do the job when it comes to evaluating chemical abortion pills, including environmental risks,” Hamrick said. Mifepristone is one of two drugs used in medication abortions, the most common method of ending a pregnancy. It has become a top target for abortion opponents, who are particularly frustrated because the FDA’s telehealth approval has made abortions easier to attain, including in states with abortion bans. Medical providers in a handful of abortion-friendly states, relying on their home states’ laws protecting them, will prescribe mifepristone and misoprostol from their states and mail them to patients in states with abortion bans. About a quarter of all abortions are done through telehealth, and about half of those are for people in states with abortion bans, per data collected by the Society for Family Planning. “One sacrificial firing at the FDA does not mean victory for the pro-life movement,” Kristan Hawkins, the head of Students for Life, posted on the social media platform X, adding, “A win is the enforcement of the federal Comstock Act, which would end the shipping of abortion pills, and the banning of these pills from the marketplace.” A new commissioner — one willing to to move abortion restrictions forward — could be a major victory for the anti-abortion movement. But some opponents still expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the Trump administration, which many had hoped would take an aggressive stance in implementing national abortion restrictions, despite their unpopularity. “Social and religious conservatives have been really disappointed with how the FDA has slow-walked responding to their concerns, especially with regards to mifepristone, and it’s possible a new head could be more responsive,” Patrick Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank that opposes abortion, wrote in an email to The 19th. “But it’s also possible that whoever he or she might be, they’d be stuck facing the same political realities — serving in an administration that has so far been very reluctant to stake much political capital on the concerns that animate pro-lifers.” One of Makary’s personal priorities within the FDA was expanding access to hormone therapy for cisgender men and women — particularly for women going through menopause and perimenopause. He aggressively pursued this goal, hosting hour-long conversations on the agency’s podcast and seeking experts for panels to advocate for deregulating treatments. The push was successful: Last fall, the FDA removed safety warnings from menopause treatments containing estrogen. “I think sometimes there may be no other medication in the modern era besides, say, antibiotics or vaccines, that can improve the health outcomes of women at a population level more than hormone replacement therapy,” he said on the FDA podcast. The agency also sought to get testosterone therapy to more cis men in order to help boost their libido. Makary raised his national profile when he increasingly criticized the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and opposed vaccine mandates. The surgeon became a staple on Fox News before he was confirmed to the commissioner role in March 2025. Makary eventually aligned his tenure at the FDA with MAHA — the “Make America Healthy Again” movement — appearing alongside media personalities to talk about healthy eating. Among his department priorities became targeting food dyes and ultra-processed foods. Under Makary’s guidance, the FDA also turned its attention to revamping how vaccines are approved, a move that drew backlash from the medical community. Makary was among the people standing alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. when he announced last year that the federal government would stop recommending COVID-19 vaccines routinely to pregnant people and healthy children. There were other growing strains, even as Makary faced criticism for seeking to change how some drugs are reviewed. In February, Politico reported that Makary was forced to reverse course on a flu vaccine application that had been held up. It highlighted tension between Makary and the White House over how ongoing changes to vaccine access could impact support for Republicans in the upcoming midterm election. Orion Rummler contributed to this report. Read more about this topic RFK Jr. pushes “personal choice” over teen tanning bed ban Federal inaction on food additives pushes states to act Ex-FDA officials say RFK Jr. is mischaracterizing their work as he looks to reverse peptide ban The post FDA exit could threaten abortion access nationwide appeared first on Salon.com.
Suspending federal gas tax wouldn’t save drivers as much as they might hope
Here’s what goes into the price of a gallon of gas
With gasoline prices still high – averaging over US$4.50 a gallon in mid-May 2026 – President Donald Trump said he wanted Congress to suspend the federal gas tax, which is 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.3 cents a gallon for diesel. A bill has been introduced in the Senate, and one is expected to follow in the House, according to Politico, but their fate is unclear. States also charge their own taxes, ranging from 70.9 cents a gallon for gas in California to 8.95 cents in Alaska. Indiana, Georgia and Utah have suspended their gas taxes for at least some of 2026, and other states are considering similar measures. As an energy economist, I have seen how suspending those taxes does reduce prices, but not as much as politicians – or drivers – might hope. Research on past gas tax holidays has found that consumers get about 79% of the reduction in gas taxes. That means oil companies and fuel retailers keep about one-fifth of the tax cut for themselves rather than passing that savings to the public. Suspending the federal gas tax, which would require Congress to pass a law, wouldn’t help consumers much anyway. Even if oil companies passed on the whole savings to consumers, national average gas and diesel prices would drop only about 4%. The percentage reduction in high-cost states such as California would be even smaller. Gas taxes are just one part of what drives gas prices. Overall, the price of a retail gallon of gas is the sum of four things: the cost of crude oil, refining, distribution and marketing, and taxes. In nationwide figures from January 2026, crude oil accounted for about 51% of the pump price, refining roughly 20%, distribution and marketing about 11% and taxes about 18%. That mix shifts with conditions: When crude oil prices spike, that can drive more than 60% of the price; when the price drops, taxes and logistics are larger shares of the cost. Crude oil is the biggest ingredient Because the price of crude oil is the largest element, most of the price at the pump is derived from the global oil market. Usually, big swings in crude prices come mainly from shifts in global demand and expectations – not from supply disruptions, according to widely cited research in 2009 by the economist Lutz Kilian. But what is happening in early 2026 with the war in Iran is one of the exceptions: a classic supply shock. Severe disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Middle East oil infrastructure have taken millions of barrels a day off the global market. Most drivers generally can’t quickly reduce how much they drive or how much gas they use when prices rise, so gasoline demand doesn’t change much in the short run. That means a jump in crude costs tends to result in people paying more rather than driving less. Refining, regulations and the California puzzle Refining turns crude into gasoline at industrial scale. The U.S. doesn’t have a single gasoline market, though. Roughly a quarter of U.S. gasoline is a cleaner-burning blend of petroleum-derived chemicals called “reformulated gasoline,” which is required in urban areas across 17 states and the District of Columbia to reduce smog. California uses an even stricter formulation that few out-of-state refineries make. California is also geographically isolated: No pipelines bring gasoline in from other U.S. refining regions. California’s gasoline prices have long run above the national average, explained in part by higher state taxes and stricter environmental rules. But since a refinery fire in Torrance, California, in 2015 reduced production capacity, the state’s prices have been about 20 to 30 cents a gallon higher than what those factors would indicate. Energy economist and University of California, Berkeley, professor Severin Borenstein has called this the “mystery gasoline surcharge” and attributes it to the fact that there isn’t as much competition between refineries or gas stations in California as in other states. California’s own Division of Petroleum Market Oversight says the surcharge cost the state’s drivers about $59 billion from 2015 to 2024. It’s not exactly clear who is getting that money, but it could be gas stations themselves or refineries, through complex contracts with gas stations. Related Trump’s war may hasten the end of oil and gas dependence Getting the gas into your car The distribution and marketing category covers the costs of everything involved in getting the gasoline from the refinery gate to your tank. Gasoline moves by pipeline, ship, rail and truck to wholesale terminals, and then by local delivery truck to service stations. At the retailer’s end, the key factors are station rent and labor, the cost to buy gasoline in bulk to be able to sell it, credit card fees of as much as 6 to 10 cents a gallon at current prices, and franchise fees paid to the national brand, such as Sunoco or ExxonMobil, for permission to put their branding on the gas station. Most gas station operators net only a few cents per gallon on fuel itself – which is why many gas stations are really convenience stores with pumps out front. Borenstein and some of his collaborators have also documented that retail gas prices rise quickly when wholesale costs climb but fall slowly when wholesale costs drop. The question of gas tax holidays Gas tax holidays reduce funding for what the taxes are designed to pay for, typically roads and bridges. That pushes road and bridge upkeep costs onto future drivers and general taxpayers. There is an additional problem, too: Taxes on gasoline are supposed to charge drivers for some of the costs their driving imposes on everyone else – carbon emissions, local air pollution, congestion and crashes. But Borenstein has found that U.S. fuel tax levels are already far below the true cost to society. Removing the tax on drivers effectively raises the costs for everyone else. The Jones Act: A small number that adds up The 1920 Jones Act is a federal law that requires cargo moving between U.S. ports to travel on vessels built and registered in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Of the world’s 7,500 oil tankers, only 54 meet this requirement. Only 43 of these can transport refined fuels such as gasoline. So, despite significant refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, some U.S. gasoline is exported overseas even as the Northeast imports fuel, in part reflecting the relatively high cost of moving fuel between U.S. ports. Economists Ryan Kellogg and Rich Sweeney estimate that the law raises East Coast gasoline prices by about a penny and a half per gallon on average, costing drivers roughly $770 million a year. In light of the war’s effect on gas prices, the Trump administration has temporarily suspended the Jones Act requirements – an action more commonly taken when hurricanes knock out Gulf Coast refineries and pipeline networks. What moves the number The result of all these factors is that the price that drivers see at the pump mostly reflects the global price of crude, plus a stack of domestic costs, only some of which are inefficient. Tax holidays give a partial, short-lived rebate. Jones Act waivers trim pennies, though permanent repeal may cause more fundamental changes, such as reduced rail and truck transport of all goods, which could lower costs, emissions and infrastructure damage associated with cargo transportation. Harmonizing fuel blends across states and seasons may lower prices somewhat, but likely at the expense of increased emissions. Ultimately, the best protection against oil price shocks is a more efficient gas-burning vehicle, or one that doesn’t burn gasoline at all. In the meantime, the best I can offer as an economist is clarity about what that $4.50 actually buys. This article includes material previously published on May 1, 2026. ﻿ Robert I. Harris, Assistant Professor of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Read more about this topic Gas stations caused a $20 billion toxic mess — and it’s not going away The Iran war is about to hit small businesses — and your wallet Trump’s Venezuelan oil rush is doomed from the start The post Suspending federal gas tax wouldn’t save drivers as much as they might hope appeared first on Salon.com.
Paul McCartney’s “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” turns memory into melody
"This was a lot of memories of Liverpool for me," he remarked in a recent Abbey Road Studios listening session
“The Boys of Dungeon Lane,” Paul McCartney’s twenty-seventh post-Beatles studio album, is the portrait of an artist in his twilight, a rich assortment of storytelling and nostalgia befitting the world’s greatest living songwriter. “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” rests easily alongside McCartney’s finest twenty-first-century LPs, especially “Chaos and Creation in the Backyard” (2005) and “McCartney III” (2020). As with “McCartney III,” the former Beatle plays most of the instruments on the new album, a clear signal that his virtuosic musical talents remain in top form. Indeed, his playing is as supple and inventive as ever. But in an unusual twist, the real star of the show here is McCartney’s heartfelt lyrics. This is, to put it plainly, the stuff of well-considered emotional rawness, painstaking portraiture of our collective pasts. Related The risky reinvention of Paul McCartney Produced by Andrew Watt, whose credits include The Rolling Stones’ superb late-period “Hackney Diamonds” (2023), “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” takes listeners on an aural journey into the recesses of McCartney’s Liverpool childhood. The LP’s lead single, “Days We Left Behind,” pulls no punches when it comes to confronting time’s relentless forward momentum. “Looking back at white and black, reminders of my past,” McCartney sings. “Smoky bars and cheap guitars, but nothing built to last.” McCartney’s sober reflections about the awesome power of the past take many forms on “The Boys of Dungeon Lane.” “This was a lot of memories of Liverpool for me,” he remarked in a recent Abbey Road Studios listening session, “but also any days we’ve left behind. Everyone’s got them — school, old mates.” For McCartney, “Days We Left Behind” holds special significance. It’s “a bit of a favorite,” he admits, about “John, and George and Ringo too.” Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last. Sign up here While much of the album feels appropriately bittersweet, McCartney finds plenty of time for whimsical diversions. “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” begins with “As You Lie There,” his fond remembrances about a schoolboy crush. “Up in one of the windows, there was a girl I fancied called Jasmine,” he explained. “But I didn’t know how to approach her; I never spoke to her. The joke was, she did show up later that year and knocked on the door. I was indisposed — I was on the toilet — so I missed Jasmine!” While boyhood memories of John Lennon and George Harrison are much in evidence here, McCartney devotes equal time to the living members of his museum of recollections, including wife Nancy Shevell, who features in “Ripples on a Pond,” and Ringo Starr, with whom he shares an earnest duet, the first in their storied career, on “Home to Us.” Yet “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” doesn’t strictly limit its focus to the distant past. For “Mountain Top,” McCartney drew his inspiration from his recent headlining appearance at Glastonbury. Adorned with tape loops and colorful textures, the dream-pop track finds McCartney attempting to replicate the festival’s ambience with exuberance and innovation at every turn. And then there’s “Lost Horizon,” another upbeat track that lightens the mood, even while being mindful of the power of friendship and the fleeting nature of our existence. As with “When Winter Comes,” the 1990s-era track on “McCartney III,” “Lost Horizon” is a throwback of sorts — a truly “lost track” that was rediscovered by McCartney’s longtime engineer Eddie Klein and resuscitated, thankfully, for “The Boys of Dungeon Lane.” Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Meanwhile, songs like “Down South” brim with nostalgia for days gone by — in this instance, memories of a hitchhiking jaunt with Harrison. McCartney’s musical time machine eventually alights on “Salesman Saint,” a reference to his father, Jim Mac, who died in 1976. A music man in his own right, McCartney’s father exerted a prodigious influence on The Beatles’ knack for ranging far and wide when it came to generic considerations. “I was born in 1942, in the war,” McCartney explained during the listening session. “I was too young to appreciate that, but my parents weren’t. My dad was a fireman, putting out fires from the bombs. My mum was a nurse and midwife. But they carried on, because they had to. Like people in Ukraine, Gaza and elsewhere now.” It is precisely such instances — moments in which McCartney so deftly connects the past with the present — that make “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” something truly special. Music lovers will find plenty to adore on McCartney’s latest album. But they’ll soon discover, as his evocative lyrics wash over them, that the LP’s songs aren’t merely about the former Beatle’s past, but our own. Read more about this topic “Man on the Run” tracks Paul McCartney’s long road back after The Beatles Paul McCartney’s Wings spread again with new book and anthology The latest book on the romance of Beatles lore reassesses Lennon and McCartney’s bond The post Paul McCartney’s “The Boys of Dungeon Lane” turns memory into melody appeared first on Salon.com.
Keir Starmer looks doomed. But does anyone really want his job?
Britain’s PM can't contain the damage after disastrous election. But ousting him will create a huge mess
Britain’s embattled prime minister, Keir Starmer, faces a worsening political crisis that may force him from power, days after his ruling Labour Party suffered crushing losses in local and regional elections throughout England, Scotland and Wales. You could call this a startling reversal, given that Labour won an enormous parliamentary majority in the British general election less than two years ago. But Starmer’s popularity cratered almost as soon as he took office, and he has looked doomed, haunted and fatally indecisive for at least the past year. As I wrote a few days ago, the inevitable comparisons to Joe Biden are deeply unfair (to Biden). While there’s no way to match the worldwide chaos created by Donald Trump’s second presidency, Britain’s domestic political turmoil is, if anything, worse than America’s. If Starmer leaves office before the middle of July, the U.K. will have had seven prime ministers within the last 10 years. Related UK politics descends into chaos: Is there a lesson for Democrats? Late last week, it appeared likely that Starmer might survive in the medium term, not least because no plausible challenger seemed ready to tangle with Labour’s complicated rules for ousting a party leader. That remains true for the moment, but while pleasant spring weather has arrived in London (by all accounts), the political climate has grown increasingly stormy. At least 90 of Labour’s 400-odd members of Parliament have called for Starmer either to resign immediately or begin planning an “orderly transition,” and four junior members of his Cabinet have resigned. At this writing, at least 90 of Labour’s 400-odd members of Parliament have called for Starmer either to resign immediately or begin planning an “orderly transition” — the phrasing is politically significant — and four junior members of his Cabinet have resigned. More damaging still, several of his closest advisers have reportedly urged him to announce a timeline for his departure, including Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, the two most senior Cabinet ministers. If that makes the outcome seem like a foregone conclusion, it ain’t necessarily so, thanks to Labour’s laborious internal democratic process. (Weak pun intended.) Another 100-plus Labour MPs have reportedly rallied behind Starmer at least for the moment, signing a petition arguing that the immediate aftermath of a “devastatingly tough set of election results” was “no time for a leadership challenge.” We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon’s progressive journalism That appears to be Starmer’s line as well. He delivered a speech at a London community center on Monday, without a jacket or tie and with his shirtsleeves rolled up. If the business-casual look is par for the course in American politics, it’s less common across the pond, and was evidently intended to signal a tough-minded reset. The prime minister accepted responsibility for the dreadful election results but suggested that Labour would “never be forgiven” by voters if they returned to “the chaos of constantly changing leaders” seen under the 14 years of Conservative Party dominance before 2024. He also told the Observer newspaper that he hoped to serve two full terms as prime minister, a total of 10 years, and would fight any leadership challenge. Although 10 weeks sounds more realistic than 10 years, it’s not impossible that Starmer could delay, obstruct or defeat the various challengers who now seem to be preparing for combat. Under current rules, 80 MPs would have to nominate a specific opponent, which would then trigger a leadership election lasting weeks or months, conducted among the 350,000 or so registered Labour Party members. (Imagine a U.S. primary election, with only the members of local party committees eligible to vote.) Other candidates could get in on the action and, as Labour’s current leader, Starmer could run again by default. Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only by Amanda Marcotte, also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Furthermore, none of the supposed leading contenders comes without baggage. Current health secretary Wes Streeting is clearly raring to take Starmer down. He is young, ambitious and eager, and would become Britain’s first gay prime minister (or at least the first to be out). He’s also widely perceived as a centrist upstart likely to veer right on social issues, and in fact his evident willingness to throw trans people’s rights overboard for electoral advantage has made him hugely controversial within the LGBTQ community. Most on the Labour left would undoubtedly prefer Andy Burnham, the widely popular mayor of Manchester, but he can’t run for Labour leader at the moment because he’s not a member of Parliament. (So those calling for a gradual transition rather than immediate resignation are likely to be Burnham boosters.) The other “soft left” candidate would be former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, who was forced to resign from Starmer’s Cabinet last year over a property tax scandal. In other words, the Labour Party has blundered into the political equivalent of the Slough of Despond, and has no obvious pathway back to solid ground. It’s clear the party’s declining faithful don’t trust Keir Starmer to lead them, but not at all clear they’re willing to trust anyone else. Read more on the “special relationship” Epstein files rock UK — but the real rot runs much deeper Elon’s dubious British romance: He’s getting fleeced by a racist hustler A specter is haunting Europe — and it’s Joe Biden. What a drag! The post Keir Starmer looks doomed. But does anyone really want his job? appeared first on Salon.com.
Can rural-urban dialogue fix America’s broken democracy?
The U.S. seems hopelessly divided. These Americans think otherwise
America is a broken political family. On the ground, this means that Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, do not live in the same neighborhoods or belong to the same organizations. They do not pray or worship together. They do not date or marry each other. They are not friends. Technical terms like “negative partisanship” and “polarization” are just fancy ways of saying that the American people do not like each other very much right now. In America’s political imagination, Democrats live in big cities, are racially and ethnically diverse, and college-educated. Republicans live in rural America and are working class. Red State America has been fully MAGA-fied; big cities and blue states are dominated by “out of touch liberals,” “the radical left” and “wokeness.” But this is a flat, stereotypical picture of the country’s political and social life. Polls and other research consistently show that, from healthcare to the economy, rural and urban Americans actually agree on a wide range of public policy issues. Conflict entrepreneurs and extremists like Donald Trump have little incentive to unify the American people in service to the common good, which makes the task of healing the nation’s dysfunctional politics and successfully navigating its democracy crisis especially challenging. Conflict entrepreneurs and extremists like Donald Trump have little incentive to unify the American people in service to the common good, which makes the task of healing the nation’s dysfunctional politics and successfully navigating its democracy crisis especially challenging. It will require convincing urban and rural Americans alike that they have more in common than what divides them. The Washington Post’s Casey Parks recently profiled a small group of activists in Oregon doing this work by hosting informal town halls and small gatherings where they model respectful conversation, civility, shared problem-solving and a healthy civic life. The effort is led by Steve Radcliffe who, after being moved to action by the 2016 presidential election, signed up to volunteer for Braver Angels, a nonprofit advocating political civility, and became co-chair of the organization’s Oregon Rural-Urban Project, establishing a kind of exchange program where rural and urban residents visit each other’s communities. Radcliffe hoped they would formulate a set of bipartisan recommendations to the state legislature. At a recent meeting in rural Wasco, population 417, Radcliffe and the five volunteers joining him met with eight townspeople, including one woman who blamed the state’s “urban liberal supermajority in the legislature” for ignoring the will of rural voters. Democrats, she said, could “pass any bill [they] like without every garnering support from the other side.” “That’s why we don’t feel listened to,” she concluded, “because they don’t have to listen to us.” Radcliffe responded that “It shouldn’t be this hard.” More Americans need to “listen respectfully, speak politely. If we all did that, we might be able to get some place.” What Radcliffe described to the small group is what political scientists and philosophers call “deliberative” and “communicative” democracy — the notion that legitimate political outcomes and consensus can come from conversation and structures that facilitate the participation of more people in decision-making. Related Trump’s war on wokeness is not new Those sentiments are widely shared. Polls and other research show that the American people want the nation’s leaders to turn down the political temperature. Politicians on both sides of the partisan divide fight with each other too much, many believe, and have lost touch with “regular Americans” like them. The road to the Age of Trump and American fascism goes straight through the divide between rural and urban America. In 2024, Trump won 94% of rural counties. Republicans and the MAGA coalition have used gerrymandering, voter suppression and other tools to maintain de facto one-party rule over red states and rural America. This imperils American democracy because there is no check or moderating influence on right-wing extremism. The Constitution and other structural features of American politics amplify this dynamic by giving a disproportionate amount of power to rural states; with 39.6 million residents, California has the same representation in the Senate as Nebraska, which has just over two million people. For decades, the Republican Party and the right-wing have weaponized “culture war” issues such as “guns, god and abortion” in combination with racism and white racial resentment — and hostility to non-white immigrants — and economic anxiety. The result has been an “us versus them” narrative of “takers”, “welfare queens,” “invaders” and “out of control criminals” in racially diverse urban centers and Democratic-led states, while rural parts of the country, which are majority white, are portrayed as being filled with patriots and “hard-working real Americans.” Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. This is what Radcliffe and his group of volunteers are up against. On a practical level, organizing in rural red-state America is difficult and potentially dangerous. Democrats risk alienating their family and friends, or losing their jobs and other community support. There is also a fear of being harassed or targeted for violence. The need to come together across the political divide to find common solutions to shared concerns depends primarily on a sincere desire for real dialogue. But what if that mutual desire and respect — and the infrastructure to facilitate it — do not exist? Moreover, what if the political divides and echo chambers are so strong that loyalty to Trump, MAGA, White Christian Nationalism and the Republican Party are now such a core part of a person’s identity that they reject reality, facts and norms of basic civility toward their fellow Americans who are outside of their political tribe? There is hope that Trump’s MAGA followers and others who support today’s Republican Party will eventually survey the destruction and have an epiphany — a moment of revelation and moral reckoning that returns them to normal politics. But for a variety of psychological and emotional reasons, this is unlikely to happen on a large scale. In terms of realpolitik, the Democratic Party will need to do the work of going to rural America and presenting an alternative vision for the country. In terms of realpolitik, the Democratic Party will need to do the work of going to rural America and presenting an alternative vision for the country. They may not be able to convert MAGA diehards, but they can at least compete for fence sitters and other persuadable Republicans and independents — and sow a populist message that might one day yield an electoral harvest. Rural America was not always owned by the right-wing. From Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to Jimmy Carter’s winning campaign in 1976, Democratic Party built a durable coalition by making rural voters feel seen and heard with policies that responded to their needs and demands. As Howard Dean did with his 50-state strategy — which paid political dividends in 2008 when Barack Obama won more rural votes than any Democratic presidential candidate since Bill Clinton — the white rural vote needs to be contested and not just surrendered to Trump’s fake authoritarian populism. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% But just talking to each other in town halls and other more personal gatherings across the rural and urban divide will not be a panacea for the country’s democracy crisis in the Age of Trump. As seen on Jan. 6 and beyond, a significant portion of the current Republican base and the MAGA movement rejects the basic premise that their political opponents are fellow citizens worth respecting and talking to at all as equals. As America approaches its 250th anniversary of independence, the country feels more divided –– and more exhausted and broken — than at any point in recent memory. Worse, there are several generations of Americans who do not even know what a healthy civic and political life looks like in this country. Donald Trump’s two non-consecutive presidencies, and the years of dysfunction that preceded them, is the whole of their formative political experience. Steve Radcliffe and his associates have it right. America needs a national reunion to move forward, and it needs to begin locally. Read more about this topic Trump’s “affordability hoax” may doom him Trump is bleeding his 2024 voters, but not fast enough for the midterms They voted for MAGA. Now they want out The post Can rural-urban dialogue fix America’s broken democracy? appeared first on Salon.com.
What’s a bored Donald Trump to do? Apparently, target Cuba
As U.S. surveillance flights over the island increase, the president could be betting on action to regain his mojo
Donald Trump is “bored” with his war of choice in Iran. That’s according to the Atlantic’s Jonathan Lemire, who recently reported that after operations “proved far more difficult and lasted far longer than he expected,” the president wants to “move on.” Ending America’s war with the Islamic Republic has turned out to be beyond Trump’s skills as an allegedly brilliant negotiator, whose only strategy is to bully and sue if he doesn’t get his way, and his two “peace envoys,” Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, have also come up short. Trump wants quick “victories” and the Nobel Peace Prize, so he’s trying to manifest a victory by simply saying there is one. But Iran has Trump backed into a corner, and there’s no way out. The central problem is that Trump thought the Iranians would, in his words, “cry uncle” after he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the first air assault on Feb. 28, apparently not realizing that the Islamic Republican Guard Corps would double their resolve to fight back. To use another of Trump’s terms, they had no idea how many cards Iran had to play. Most analysts of the region did understand, which is why the U.S. never succumbed to the entreaties over the past 47 years by the likes of Netanyahu and war hawks in Congress, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to attack the country. They understood that Iran could strangle the global oil supply by closing the Strait of Hormuz, and it’s been clear for some time that Iran had the capability of endangering oil production facilities all over the region with their drones and missiles. This is one reason why American allies like Saudi Arabia are starting to panic that the U.S. is opening them up to even more destruction. Related Trump lost badly in Iran. How does he spin that as a win? Iran still has that card up its sleeve, but everyone knows it’s there because they showed it back on March 18, when Israel pushed the envelope and bombed one of Iran’s biggest gas fields and Iran retaliated by damaging the world’s largest natural gas export plant in Qatar that will take years to repair. After that Trump declared a ceasefire that required minimal concessions from Iran. That was pretty much when it was all over. Robert Kagan in the Atlantic pointed out that even if Trump were to follow through on his threat to end Iran’s civilization with a massive bombing campaign or hit them as a parting shot before leaving the region, the Islamic Republic has shown they have the willingness and capacity to go out in a blaze of glory — and catastrophically cripple the world’s energy supply. As Kagan put it, “if this isn’t checkmate, it’s close.” So what’s a bored, frustrated president to do? Trump knows by now he can’t bomb his way to victory, and it doesn’t look like his blockade is making any difference. He can just leave and say he won, but unless the strait is open even he can’t sell that lemon, not even to the MAGA faithful, and not with gas prices hitting a national average of $4.52 — and rising above five dollars in Nevada, Oregon, Washington state, Alaska and Hawaii, and more than six dollars in California. But Trump may have an audacious plan: yet another military operation, but one that would be much closer to home. That may sound barmy, what with all the ships being deployed in and around the Arabian Sea for weeks already, and reports that the military is running out of munitions. But CNN is reporting that there has been a steep increase in military intelligence-gathering flights over Cuba. Now, the thinking seems to go, an invasion of Cuba could be just the ticket to remind the world of his strength — and to distract from his failure in Iran. Trump has been talking about invading and occupying Cuba for months, but that prospect has seemed less likely as the quagmire in Iran has developed. His eagerness to take action against the island nation was more or less a holdover of the giddy days in January when the U.S. was kidnapping Venezuela’s president and taking over their oil fields with no resistance. Trump apparently thought that operation went so smoothly because everyone was awestruck by his manly power and strength, and that he’d been foolish to avoid war all this time. It was easy! Now, the thinking seems to go, an invasion of Cuba could be just the ticket to remind the world of his strength — and to distract from his failure in Iran. The president has said publicly that he would have “the honor of taking Cuba,” and with the U.S. running a blockade on the country for months, to all intents and purposes it has already taken military action there. On May 1 he said he was considering sending the USS Abraham Lincoln to Cuba to force an immediate surrender. It’s currently in the Arabian Sea, but he seems to think it could make “ a little excursion” to topple the government and take it over. Trump even said as much — that it could “come in, stop about 100 yards offshore, and they’ll say: ‘Thank you very much. We give up.’ Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. As Axios noted, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s “escalating rhetoric” is raising the possibility of an imminent military operation against Cuba. Then there are their actions. On May 5, Rubio attended a conference at the military’s Southern Command in Miami, where he and military leaders discussed “efforts to counter threats that undermine security, stability and democracy in our hemisphere.” Considering the dumpster fire that is U.S. foreign policy at the moment one would think Rubio would have more important things to do — that is, unless some kind of military operation is really on the table. Otherwise it would just be a major coincidence that Rubio and Marine Corps Gen. Francis L. Donovan, commander of Southern Command, posed for a photo in front of a map of Cuba. Two days later, Rubio announced a new round of sanctions against the island that targeted its military and a state-owned energy company. This accompanied the news that the State Department is bolstering a South Florida disaster-preparedness supply center. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% The administration no doubt believes the military can execute another Venezuela-style operation, and maybe it can. After suffering from years of economic hardship that has been made worse under the American blockade, Cuba is weak. It certainly wouldn’t be too hard to take the country. The real question is what happens then. “[Trump’s] done regime change in two nations, and hard-liners are still running things,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told MS NOW recently after another war powers resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to use military action, including in Cuba, was defeated in the Senate. “So it’s not like he has produced a Venezuela for Venezuelans or an Iran for Iranians. The U.S. has a very poor track record of successfully executing regime change, particularly in the Americas.” It’s unclear who would be running Cuba. There has been talk of making Rubio president, although Trump has said that he would actually be the “acting president” after they go in, a job he would no doubt relish. The general contractor in chief could really sink his teeth into rebuilding that little island country in his image. I’m sure they could use a big beautiful ballroom. Read more about American foreign policy Trump’s $1.5 trillion military budget may be a solution in search of a problem America’s global collapse is happening. Where is Marco Rubio? Trump’s war crime threat is a betrayal of American values The post What’s a bored Donald Trump to do? Apparently, target Cuba appeared first on Salon.com.
A no-spend week of pastina, shakshuka and pantry alchemy
I spend a lot of time thinking about how to tweak everyday foods until they feel like slightly better versions of themselves. To that end, we just wrapped our “Basics Made Better” series over on “The Bite,” which focused on exactly that: taking dishes that have quietly become part of many of our de facto repertoires and shifting them, ever so slightly, into new territory. Augmenting a humble cinnamon coffee cake with plush ricotta and floral cardamom. Coaxing extra fudginess out of brownies with coffee, without sacrificing the requisite crinkle top. Turning stovetop pasta into a spicy, creamy Cajun version that tastes like if the average Rainforest Cafe were suddenly staffed entirely by people with experience on the line at French bistros. And yes, sometimes that means recommending specialty ingredients genuinely worthy of a relative splurge: the good vanilla, candied citrus, Kewpie over the bottom-shelf mayonnaise. But that’s exactly what those are: little luxuries. Related 26 tiny ways to be a better cook in 2026 Most meals, though, are less decadent than that. Which is why I was thrilled when a handful of “Bite” readers landed in my inbox requesting a short-run series focused on budget-friendly recipes and cooking tips. Because unless you occupy a very specific income bracket — one I certainly don’t belong to — you’ve probably noticed things feeling tighter lately. Grocery prices remain stubbornly high. For millions of Americans, SNAP and WIC benefits have been throttled or remain under threat. Gas prices leave people feeling squeezed from another direction entirely. And somehow, impossibly, $20 at the supermarket feels like it buys less and less every month. Still, I believe there are ways to find indulgence in the space between scarcity and abundance. More than that, I believe it’s a teachable skill — one built on generations of ingenuity, adaptation and care. We have different names for it depending on the culture and era: Italy’s cucina povera, Depression-era “waste not, want not” cooking, the deeply practical art of stretching ingredients without making dinner feel bleak. Many dishes now elevated to restaurant darling status — barbacoa, ratatouille, pasta e fagioli — were born from exactly those constraints. And in the coming weeks, we’ll explore some of those shopping, planning and cooking techniques, along with the meals that deliciously embody them. Want more great food writing and recipes? Sign up for Salon’s free food newsletter, The Bite. But first, I want to start with a technique that doesn’t require spending a single additional dollar: “reverse- shopping” your own kitchen. For some context, I do a no-spend week in the kitchen with some regularity. My guiding rule is simple: “Buy new groceries only once I’ve meaningfully worked through what I already have. And whatever I do buy afterward? It has to play nicely with the odds and ends still lingering in the pantry.” It’s frugality, yes, but it’s also a tiny self-imposed puzzle, one I’ve grown strangely fond of. There’s the obvious benefit, of course: saving a little money during seasons that feel financially stretched. But there’s also a quieter side effect I’ve come to love. Cataloging what I have — and tossing anything expired, dubious or otherwise a little grim — feels like a miniature form of spring cleaning. It’s oddly grounding. If you’d like to read more about my broader philosophy around no-spend weeks, you can check out my full guide here. Here’s what I wrote then about “reverse-shopping”: The first place I start any no-spend cooking challenge is by “reverse shopping” my kitchen. Instead of adding items to a cart, I make a blank grocery list organized by category—meat and protein; fruits and vegetables; dairy; grains; pantry, plus a final catchall section for pantry extras. This is where the oils live, and the spices, and the half-forgotten jars of jam, olives, vinegars and other bits of kitchen ephemera that have been quietly waiting for their moment. Then I put on my headphones and start browsing. Not scrolling — browsing. Opening drawers, peering into the fridge, excavating the freezer. The kitchen becomes the store, and I’m its only customer. It helps to be specific. “Six slices of Swiss” tells you far more than “cheese.” “One sourdough heel” is a different proposition than “bread.” Writing things down this way gives you a clearer sense of what you actually have on hand—not what you think you have, or what you vaguely remember buying in a moment of optimism. This is also the moment for a little gentle reckoning. Anything expired, off, or unmistakably past its prime can go. The goal is that, by the end of this process, your list and your kitchen are in quiet agreement with each other. You should be able to look from pantry to paper—and back again—and trust that what you see is the truth. What I found in my kitchen And here’s what I had this week: Protein: Two grilled and chilled chicken breasts, a can of chickpeas, eight eggs, half a pack of applewood smoked bacon Dairy and dairy alts: A can of coconut milk, a tub of crumbled feta, half a stick of butter Fruits and vegetables: A bag of shredded carrots, a bag of frozen diced onions, part of a bag of frozen pearl onions, a bag of frozen peas, most of a very large sweet potato, a jar of roasted red peppers, a handful of cherry tomatoes, half a beefsteak tomato, green onions, two lemons, an avocado, a jar of artichoke hearts, a jar of salsa Bread and grains: Half a box of ditalini, most of a bag of rice, half a loaf of sourdough Extras: Soy sauce, miso paste, some green olives, yuzu jam, a deli tub of good chicken stock, chicken bouillon and many, many partially used jars and baggies of spices (we’ll talk more in the coming weeks about how to build a spice rack that actually aids in budget cooking!), a few glugs of olive oil, a few glugs of avocado oil, frozen ginger cubes What I made And here is what I made with it: Monday: Pastina-style ditalini with cubed chicken Today was a day composed almost entirely of tiny indignities: a sore throat that refused to fully materialize or disappear, cold drizzle slicking the windows, interview requests for the radio documentary I’m producing seemingly suspended in some fluorescent-lit corner of email purgatory. Nothing catastrophic. Just the sort of low-grade irritation that makes you want to be gently contained by dinner. So, inspired by my colleague Nicole Karlis’ recent exploration of “nonnamaxxing,” I decided the evening called for pastina. Or, at least, my own loose, slightly pantry-driven interpretation of it. Into my big Dutch oven went a knob of butter, followed by shredded carrots, frozen white onions, garlic powder, black pepper, thyme and enough salt to make the whole kitchen smell briefly like someone sensible was taking care of me. I let everything slump and soften before transferring the mixture to my mini blender for a quick blitz into a pale orange, velvet-like base. Back into the pot it went with chicken stock, the last of the ditalini and a lingering sprig of fresh thyme, simmering until the pasta softened into that perfect edge between soup and something more restorative than soup. Then came cubes of chicken breast, added near the end, and a little extra stove time because I like these sorts of meals to drift unapologetically toward stew territory. Cozy food should have a bit of gravity to it. Once ladled into low bowls, each serving got a single glossy egg yolk and a small drift of fresh lemon zest. Stirred into the steaming ditalini, the yolk turned silken and rich, cloaking the broth in the sort of luxurious texture that makes you briefly forget modern life altogether. Eaten with a hunk of sourdough, it made me feel — at least for twenty blessed minutes — like things were right with the world. Or, at minimum, potentially salvageable. Tuesday: Sweet potato, carrot and coconut curry with rice This one felt a little like playing pantry alchemist in the hour before dinner — the sort of meal that begins with “What needs using?” and somehow ends with something improbably lush. Into a cast-iron skillet went a tumble of shredded carrots, cubed sweet potatoes, roasted red peppers, frozen white onions and a few of those tiny frozen ginger cubes that make you feel like the sort of person who always has a plan. I slicked everything with olive oil and then went gleefully rogue in the spice cabinet: turmeric for warmth and color, cumin and coriander for earthiness, garlic powder, black pepper, red pepper flakes and a spoonful of powdered chicken bouillon for that deeply savory, slightly mysterious backbone that makes a vegetable-heavy dish taste bigger than the sum of its parts. After about 25 minutes in a 400-degree oven, the sweet potatoes had softened to the point where they collapsed easily beneath the back of a spoon, caramelized at the edges and smelling faintly sweet and spicy all at once. I scraped the whole mixture into my mini blender with a splash of water and blitzed it into a deep orange paste the color of late autumn leaves or a very expensive velvet couch. Back into the skillet it went, this time with half a can of coconut milk and a drizzle of soy sauce, which added just enough salty umami to keep the whole thing from drifting too far into sweetness. Then came the second of my pre-cooked chicken breasts, cubed and folded through the sauce until everything was glossy and steaming. I briefly considered adding peas or carrots for extra color, but decided against crowding the bowl. Instead, I finished things with a scatter of green onions, whose sharpness cut beautifully through the richness. Served with rice and warm bread for dragging through the sauce, it landed somewhere between curry, stew and strategic fridge clean-out — which, honestly, is one of my favorite genres of cooking. Better still: there was enough left for lunch the next day, which always makes dinner feel a little more luxurious somehow. Wednesday: Risi e bisi-ish I was immediately taken by Anna Theoktisto’s weeknight risi e bisi for Food & Wine after spotting it on Instagram last week. The dish — essentially Italian rice and peas — sits somewhere between risotto and stew, using both puréed and whole peas for texture and depth. Unsurprisingly, this deeply appealed to me, a woman who has apparently spent the week finding increasingly elaborate excuses to use her mini blender. I made a slightly scrappier version based on what I had around. An elderly box of Arborio rice — “best by 2023” elderly — stood in for the quicker-cooking Vialone Nano she recommends. And because I had already used my good stock earlier in the week for pastina, I improvised with bouillon cubes dissolved in hot water and zhushed up with a little white miso and garlic powder. Which is to say: budget cooking often rewards confidence nearly as much as ingredients. I was also parmesan-less, so I pivoted toward other salty pleasures instead: crushed bacon and a pan of toasted breadcrumbs made from the heel of a sourdough loaf. But the real addition was a can of chickpeas, aquafaba and all, simmered alongside the Arborio until the beans softened and thickened the pot into something deeply creamy and comforting. Finished with the vivid pea purée and crispy toppings, the whole thing tasted far more luxurious than its pantry origins would suggest. I’ll absolutely be making it again — budget week or otherwise. Thursday: Shakshuka with crumbled feta I’m a firm believer that any meal involving golden egg yolks, a skillet full of sauce and toasted bread meant for dragging through said sauce is already halfway to perfection. Which is precisely why shakshuka — or shakshouka, depending on who’s spelling it — remains one of my favorite “clean out the fridge without feeling deprived” dinners. For this version, I tossed chopped cherry tomatoes, the better part of a Beefsteak tomato, the last of a jar of roasted red peppers and half a red onion into a skillet with olive oil, plus a few rogue frozen pearl onions I was delighted to finally use up. Then came the spices: oregano, cumin, cayenne, garlic powder, onion powder, red pepper flakes and a spoonful of harissa for smoky heat. Once everything had collapsed into a jammy, fragrant base, I added a splash of water and a little bouillon to loosen the sauce into something stew-adjacent before cracking eggs directly into the skillet. Covered and gently poached, the whites turned tender while the yolks stayed gloriously runny — the entire point, frankly. Off heat, I finished everything with green onions and crumbled feta, whose salty brineiness melted slightly into the warm sauce. Served with toasted sourdough for dipping, it was exactly the sort of dinner that makes a nearly empty fridge feel abundant instead of bleak. Friday: Egg and avocado rice bowl I have sung its praises before, but this is one of those deceptively simple meals I could happily eat several times a week. And, truthfully, there have been periods where I more or less have. A bowl of hot white rice from the rice cooker topped with a single fried egg, its yolk still soft enough to collapse into the grains, plus a little shower of fresh lemon zest, which melts into the richness and creates something remarkably close to a lazy, low-effort hollandaise. Add a few cool slices of avocado and a drizzle of soy sauce and suddenly the whole thing feels improbably complete: creamy, salty, bright, rich. The kind of meal that costs very little, takes almost no time and yet manages to feel deeply, specifically satisfying — which, to me, is one of the highest forms of home cooking. This story originally appeared in The Bite, my weekly food newsletter for Salon. If you enjoyed it and would like more essays, recipes, technique explainers and interviews sent straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Read more about this topic How to be a neighbor, one dish at a time Creamy, Cajun-spiced stovetop pasta Triple-apple snack cake The post Five meals, one fridge clean-out appeared first on Salon.com.
AI can lead to false arrests and wrongful convictions
AI algorithms such as facial recognition systems produce probabilities, not facts
In Baltimore on Oct. 20, 2025, a 17-year-old student named Taki Allen was sitting outside his high school after football practice when an artificial intelligence-enhanced surveillance camera falsely identified the Doritos bag in his pocket as a gun. Within moments police cars arrived, officers drew their weapons and Allen was forced to his knees and handcuffed while they searched him. All they found was a crumpled bag of chips. The AI’s misidentification and the human decisions that followed turned a normal evening into a traumatic confrontation. On Dec. 24, 2025, Angela Lipps, a Tennessee grandmother, was released after spending five months in jail because facial recognition software had incorrectly connected her to fraud crimes in North Dakota, a state she had never visited. Police had arrested her at gunpoint while she was babysitting her four grandchildren. These are unfortunate examples of how AI can lead to mistreatment of people because of technical flaws as well as misplaced human faith in the technology’s supposed objectivity. These cases involve different tools, but the underlying issue is the same. AI systems produce probabilities, and people treat them as certainties. We are researchers who study the intersection of technology, law and public administration. In researching how police departments use AI and how digital technologies operate in a democratic society, we have seen how quickly the shift from probabilistic prediction to operational certainty happens in practice. AI policing tools are used in dozens of U.S. cities, although no public registry tracks the full footprint. The tools ingest historical crime data and score neighborhoods on predicted risk so officers can be routed toward the resulting hot spots. The mechanism is straightforward, but its consequence is not. Once a system signals a possible threat, the question is no longer how certain the prediction is but what to do about it. A statistical output turns into a deployment decision, and the uncertainty that produced it gets lost on the way. A matter of probabilities When generative AI models such as ChatGPT or Claude respond to human requests, they are not searching a database and pulling out facts. They are predicting the most likely answer based on patterns in data they have been trained on. When asked, “Who invented the light bulb?” the models do not go to a source or fact-check a finding. They generate a statistically probable answer which is “Thomas Edison.” The reply might be right, but it might not capture the full story – such as Joseph Swan’s parallel invention at the same time as Edison’s. The danger arises when people believe that the model is retrieving truth rather than generating likelihoods. This distinction matters. The most probable response is not the same as a factually verified answer, complete with context. This reality can be highly problematic for policing and law. For example, when law enforcement agencies use AI systems trained on geographical data to estimate where criminal activity is likely to occur, the algorithms analyze historical crime data and geographic patterns. These systems generate statistical risk scores or heat maps for locations based on prior incidents. But such predictions may have little bearing on who was involved in a new crime in the area, even if an algorithm generates information that sounds authoritative. Some researchers have argued that predictive policing systems do not increase the likelihood that racial minorities will be arrested more often relative to traditional policing practices. The broader concern, however, is not limited to measurable disparities in arrest outcomes alone. It is about how probabilistic predictions can become standardized operational decisions absent further verification. Artificial intelligence researchers caution against using these models in isolation for crime and legal proceedings or decision-making. Research at the University of Virginia’s Digital Technology for Democracy Lab with police chiefs shows that some law enforcement groups follow strict policies that dictate when technology is used in tandem with, or in place of, human discretion, while others have no such policy. What most users do not realize is that AI systems rarely produce binary answers: yes or no, a positive identification or a negative one. They generate probabilities. Some systems assign scores that assess the system’s confidence in a prediction. In those cases, engineers set a confidence threshold, a level of certainty that determines when the system should trigger an alert about a possible threat. You can think of this threshold as settings on a control knob. A 95% confidence level, for example, indicates that the model considers its interpretation to be highly likely. A low threshold catches more potential threats but increases false alarms. A high threshold reduces mistakes but risks missing real dangers. Either way, these algorithmic thresholds are often invisible to the public and are set quietly by vendors or agencies, even though they shape when police action begins. Related US government ramps up mass surveillance with help of AI tech, your apps Where to draw the line In medicine, these kinds of trade-offs are explicit. Diagnostic tools are calibrated on the relative harm of different errors. In infectious disease settings, for instance, systems that detect infections are often designed to accept more false positives to avoid missing contagious individuals. Then medical professionals look into the human cases. And the algorithm-based decisions are subject to professional standards, ethics reviews and regulatory oversight. In policing, an AI system must balance false positives, where the system flags a threat that does not exist, and false negatives, where it fails to detect a real danger. The trade-off carries significant consequences. A lower threshold may generate more alerts and allow officers to intervene earlier, but it also increases the risk of mistaken identifications, which happened to Angela Lipps, or escalated encounters like the one Taki Allen experienced. A higher threshold may reduce wrongful interventions but could allow legitimate threats to go undetected. Some law enforcement agencies argue that acting on imperfect signals is preferable to missing serious risks. But lowering the bar for algorithmic alerts based on probabilistic estimates effectively expands the number of people subjected to police attention. It is important to realize that these thresholds are not neutral features of the technology; they are choices embedded by the creators in the model’s code. Decisions about where to draw the line determine when an algorithmic suspicion becomes a real-world police action, even though the public rarely sees or debates how those thresholds are set. Limits of optimization Developers often use several methods to determine where to set a confidence threshold. Techniques such as “receiver operating characteristic curve analysis” examine how changing the threshold for an alert alters the balance between correctly identifying real events and mistakenly flagging harmless ones. Precision–recall analysis examines a similar trade-off, asking how accurate the system’s alerts are relative to the number of incidents it successfully detects. These approaches could help calibrate systems more responsibly by testing how often an algorithm wrongly flags people or locations. Fine-tuning can improve system performance. But the techniques cannot resolve the underlying question of how much algorithmic uncertainty society is willing to tolerate. In law, legal standards of proof determine how convincing evidence must be before a judge or jury can rule in favor of a plaintiff or defendant. Courts use formal standards of proof depending on the stakes, such as probable cause, preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. These standards reflect a societal judgment about how much uncertainty is acceptable before exercising legal authority. A court does not accept a guess or a prediction; it follows a process to weigh evidence. Unlike humans, an AI model does not usually say, “I’m not sure.” A model typically has confidence in its reply, even when the answer is incorrect. Stakes are rising as AI enters the courtroom, law enforcement, the classroom, the doctor’s office and the public sector. It is important for people to understand that AI does not know things the way many assume it does. It does not distinguish between “maybe” and “definitely.” That is up to us. We believe that technologists should design systems that admit uncertainty and need to educate users about how to interpret AI outputs responsibly. ﻿ Maria Lungu, Postdoctoral Researcher of Law and Public Administration, University of Virginia and Steven L. Johnson, Associate Professor of Commerce, University of Virginia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Read more about this topic Thiel-backed AI project to block bad press looks like a bust Why MAGA fears human teachers AI chatbots are getting more political The post AI can lead to false arrests and wrongful convictions appeared first on Salon.com.
Bob Dylan’s baffling social media experiment
Dylan's cryptic content has turned his Instagram and Patreon into a captivating puzzle, fueling endless speculation
Bob Dylan’s Instagram account used to feature the type of bland, standard content you’d expect from a legacy artist: “On this date” historical posts, tour announcements, box set advertisements. That was how things were until January 25, 2025, when the account uploaded a grainy video of Les Paul and Eddie Van Halen, taken from a 1988 special called “Les Paul & Friends.” But to know that, you’d have to know that, do a web search, or read the comments, because there was no caption on the post. Was this an error on the part of whoever manages Dylan’s social media? Was it a hint? Some kind of clue? No idea, but shortly thereafter another post appeared: A clip of Ricky Nelson singing and playing guitar, taken from an episode of “Ozzie & Harriet.” Eagle-eyed observers would note that the great James Burton, probably best known for his work with Elvis Presley, Emmylou Harris, and as part of the Wrecking Crew, was in the band. Once again, the clip appeared with no context or caption, and it was left to the commentariat to provide the details. Related Bob Dylan can do whatever he wants Two more clips would be posted to the account that day: An excerpt of the 1952 film “Clash By Night,” which features Marilyn Monroe, and film footage of legendary jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt and his band performing a tune called “J’attendrai.” Once again, the details were supplied by random commenters, who were beginning to work themselves into a fever pitch: Were these clues? Was Dylan hinting at future work? Was he making a statement about influences? WHAT DID IT ALL MEAN???!! You could write a dissertation exploring all of the possibilities of why Dylan posted each item, and some people probably did. This seemed like it could have been an interesting experiment, or Dylan trying to direct people in a certain direction, but when you break it down into its component parts, one by one, it isn’t any more complex than your uncle or your older sister who likes to send you interesting things they find on the internet. A few days later, there were more posts: Guitarist Tony Rice, taken from an instructional DVD. A clip from the classic John Wayne Western, “The Searchers.” A clip of The Band in their configuration without Robbie Robertson, taken from a broadcast in Japan. A song clip from Native American author and poet John Trudell. Mae West in 1933’s “She Done Him Wrong.” The classic “Twilight Zone” episode “To Serve Man” (“It’s . . . it’s a cookbook!”). These were the first 10 posts, and there was nothing here that was particularly obscure, nor was there any kind of thread of continuity that seemed obvious. Of course, Dylan’s Instagram posts instantly became fodder for the various flavors of Dylan appreciators (guilty as charged), whether newsletters or podcasts or just folks holding it down in their particular corner of the internet. The comment sections became a maze of people trying to be helpful by identifying the subject of the post, while other folks offered their theories as to why Dylan was posting this particular content. Of course, you also had people saying “Hi” to Bob (“You are exceptionally thought-provoking and sexy. All My love to you, Robert <3”) and even the occasional whackjob who is sure Bob Dylan is communicating in code with them directly, as well as multiple folks asking various versions of: “Is this Bob posting???!” Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last. Sign up here It’s absolutely fascinating, because no one is exempt from the siren song of responding to the Bob Dylan account just in case it might be Bob — or, similarly, because there’s no way that it’s Dylan. Dave Davies of The Kinks was a regular commenter! And then there’s a group of folks on the outskirts that are just hanging out because their pals are there, and so someone’s going to come in with an in-joke or a snappy line. Just another normal day on the social internet, hanging out on Bob Dylan’s Insta! It’s worth noting that none of this Content with a capital “C” was obscure. If you were to execute a basic web search using the name of anyone in a clip and any modifier (e.g., “Mae West & Cary Grant movie”), the segment that was uploaded to Instagram would be one of the first search results. This seemed like it could have been an interesting experiment, or Dylan trying to direct people in a certain direction, but when you break it down into its component parts, one by one, it isn’t any more complex than your uncle or your older sister who likes to send you interesting things they find on the internet. I put it all into a spreadsheet, one by one, and then waited to see if there would be some kind of grand, larger message. But sometimes a movie clip is just a movie clip. Everyone’s right, except that at the end of all of this, we still don’t know and probably never will. The discovery — or rediscovery — of these cultural artifacts isn’t trivial. Someone is going to learn about Lowell George, the Osborne Brothers, or Hoagy Carmichael through these posts. In some ways, you can look at this method as a more direct version of an artist doing interviews with the music press and talking about what they’re listening to these days, or what inspires them, or what they just think is cool. Social media means that there’s no intermediary, and there are positives and negatives to that scenario. However, in an interview, the journalist could push back and ask what about each of these items particularly inspires or interests Dylan, as opposed to Dylan just walking into a room and putting a song on the stereo, which is the equivalent of what this is. The account (I’m avoiding saying “Dylan” because — as countless commenters feel the need to point out — it is true that we do not 100% know that this is actually Dylan pushing the button or providing the content, but it would be odd and weird if he didn’t have some kind of input, even if it was deputizing someone else to do it all for him) is throwing things out into the void and it’s hard to argue with that strategy because each post gets tens of thousands of likes and hundreds of comments. That is, of course, assuming there is some kind of larger strategy in play here and this isn’t some kind of performance art. Further into February 2025, the Dylan Instagram account introduced a new flavor of Bob Post: an Instagram Reel, featuring an audio recording labelled “Last Testament of Frank James” overlaid on top of historical, black-and-white images of Jesse James’ house and a portrait of Frank, who was the outlaw’s older brother. No one has yet found the source of the text of the recording, read in a British accent, and it could be AI, but it also might not be. A week or so later, and there was “Andrew Jackson Giving One of His Final Speeches,” followed by “Stephen Foster speaks from the grave,” “Edgar Allen Poe speaks from the grave,” a three-part series of “Al Capone in his own words,” and the most recent historical reels, “Aaron Burr On the Art of Survival.” What they all share: The strange accents voicing the recordings, the inability for any Dylanologist to find the sources, the loud declaration that this is all AI, and the equally loud clamoring insisting that it is not. People are carefully trying to connect the dots, trying to point to places within Dylan’s work where he’s mentioned gangsters or specific moments in American history. Everyone’s right, except that at the end of all of this, we still don’t know and probably never will. And now, Patreon, or “BobGPT” At the end of March, Dylan launched a Patreon. That’s right, for $5 a month, you can subscribe to the Bob Dylan Patreon, just like any of the other artists or creators who are sending out graphic novels or newsletters or videos or songs. Like his Instagram account, there are contextless videos and spoken-word recitations. The membership benefit is described as: “A living archive of lectures from the grave, letters never sent, and original short stories curated by Bob Dylan.” Please notice that nowhere does it say that Bob Dylan is the author of any of this content, and “curated by” is one of the vaguest descriptions of the last few decades. Being Bob Dylan must be exhausting, and the fanbase kind of deserves what it gets from that standpoint. And then came the short stories. You know they are short stories because they appear as “Bull Rider (short story)” or “Frozen Pizza (short story),” and the most infuriating thing about them is that they require you to download a PDF. It is the most Boomer thing in the world to subscribe to something only to have to download a document instead of it simply being posted within the page you paid for. This is the case even if you have the Patreon app, which I downloaded in hopes it would get around the PDF, but alas. Unlike the other artifacts with no traceable provenance, these short stories are bad. They are terrible. And the comments that follow each one lack the humor and irreverence that highlight the Instagram posts. While the Instagram feed seems random and you wish he’d give the devotees something to hang onto that might explain or illuminate the purpose of this exercise, on Patreon, people are paying for the right to download a double-spaced PDF of the most basic and bland stories. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% It does not matter if we learn in a week that Bob Dylan himself is writing these. In fact, learning that would make things worse. Dylan would have to probably work hard to write such bland and pointless garbage. Greeting cards have more substance to them, and are more useful. The good news — and we’re really scraping bottom here calling it that — is that the $5 limits the audience. The likes on each post barely scrape 100, and the comment numbers are similar. On the other hand, there is zero self-awareness in these comment sections, and definitely no humor. It is full of people who think this is actually Bob Dylan (or the closest they are going to get) and so what they are purchasing is what they believe is an opportunity to commune with The Bard. As with Instagram, there is the camp of individuals absolutely certain that all the “original content” is AI-generated, and there is another group of folks who think it’s just bad. You could say that it’s great that Dylan has prompted these larger public discussions about artificial intelligence and large language models, or you could think that Bob is trolling people simply because he can. On the one hand, being Bob Dylan must be exhausting, and the fanbase kind of deserves what it gets from that standpoint. On the other hand, it feels kinda scammy and manipulative, but there is nothing more American than that, especially right now. In any event, nothing shared in either of these Dylan outlets has proved itself to be anything more monumental than a footnote in this man’s career and body of work. You could say something like, “I wish he’d devote this time to writing new material,” but the man is 84 and is still on the road and still releasing new music, paintings, and wrought ironwork, along with the occasional whiskey. There is something to be said for Bob Dylan’s ability to consistently do things that keep people thinking and talking about him, just as long as I don’t have to download a PDF to do it. Read more from music columnist Caryn Rose “Pretty Ugly” resurrects the Lunachicks as Punk Rock’s most underrated revolutionaries Alice Coltrane and No Wave’s overlooked women step out of the margins Melissa Auf der Maur’s memoir captures the beauty and brutality of ’90s rock The post Bob Dylan’s baffling social media experiment appeared first on Salon.com.
Trump’s $12B farm aid was meant as relief. The Iran war is wiping it out
With rising costs of fuel and fertilizer, and tariffs still in place, the outlook for 2026 is bleak
An agricultural relief package meant to counterattack President Donald Trump‘s tariffs on the nation’s farmers and producers met with mixed success and has been offset by rising costs from Trump’s Iran war, farmers and advocates say. The Trump administration announced a $12 billion relief package last December, following months of trade wars and hardline tariff policies by the president, including a crippling economic stare down with China over buying American-grown soybeans. The United States Department of Agriculture said the one-time bridge payments were in response to “temporary trade market disruptions” and policies under President Joe Biden. “President Trump will not let our farmers be left behind, so he directed our team to build a bridge program to see quick relief while the president’s dozens of new trade deals and new market access take effect,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a December statement, adding that the plan “ensures American farmers can continue to plan for the next crop year.” The relief package allocated $11 billion to row-crop farmers who produce crops such as corn, rice and wheat. The remaining $1 billion was set to go to specialty growers who produce fruits, vegetables, tree nuts and sugar, among other products, and are in a separate federal program from row-crop farms. A report released Wednesday by the American Farm Bureau Federation found that roughly $9.6 billion has already been distributed, with corn, wheat, and soybean producers accounting for 80% of payments. The report notes that the payments provided “some much-needed financial support to row crop farmers,” but that significant financial stressors remain. At the same time, it stressed the need to help specialty producers, who “continue to face significant uncovered losses.” Related Why the Iran war could make everything, not just oil, more expensive Those growers are still waiting to receive their payments, with the final filing day pushed back to April 24, and no clear framework in place for how the payments will be doled out. Rollins promised “tweaks” to the program, though she has not clarified what that entails. Sarah Carden, the research and policy director for the farmer-led watchdog organization Farm Action, said that the disproportionate aid payments and murky framework are “fairly typical,” but called the rollout “problematic.” She noted that producers are especially upset this year, as the bulk of the aid continues to skew toward larger, wealthier operations. “There’s been a lot of that money that still has not been dispersed, and there has been quite an active pushback from smaller growers on how that money is being spent,” Carden told Salon. “I don’t think anyone thinks it’s enough money in any respect.” Dennis McKinney, a farmer and cattle producer in Greensburg, Kansas, found the relief to be only temporary. “I think it’s been a big benefit. Not that it would be enough,” McKinney told Salon. “Producers are still facing extremely tight cash flow.” “It was helpful … but it was by no means a bailout.” Patrick Janssen, a fellow farmer and rancher in Kinsley, Kansas, shared the sentiment, saying that the relief added a 3% increase in his gross revenue, just covering his losses for the year. “It was helpful,” he said, “but it was by no means a bailout.” These would be problems enough for the nation’s farmers: stubborn tariffs, an uneven payment scheme, to say nothing of the national decline in farmhands due to Trump’s deportation policies, and an increasingly hot and volatile climate due to burning fossil fuels. Then, Trump joined Israel and went to war with Iran in February. Global commodity and resource prices skyrocketed, and trade remains snarled in the Strait of Hormuz. For farmers, the war offers yet another brutal complication to an already uncertain situation. Fertilizer prices have increased dramatically since the start of the war, as the nitrogen and phosphorus needed to produce fertilizer passing through the strait has become scarce. A March study from Purdue University’s Center for Commercial Agriculture found that the Iran War has caused a 46% national rise in diesel fuel costs, combined with a spike in fertilizer costs, creating “a severe shock arriving at the worst possible time for spring planting.” McKinney said that just prior to the war, the cost of a ton of fertilizer was $790. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. “As the war got started, it went to $960, then it went to $980, and now it’s over $1000 dollars a ton,” he said, adding that tariffed countries like Morocco “would supply us with a considerable amount of phosphorus.” “It seemed logical that we now reduce those tariffs to help bring those prices down. That has not happened,” McKinney said. “We’re looking at extremely high fertilizer prices, and that’s made it much worse.” Janssen explained that 200 units of nitrogen are used per acre of irrigated corn. With a roughly $0.40 increase per unit of nitrogen, the cost adds up quickly. “You’re looking at about $80 an acre additional crop expense right there,” he estimated. McKinney called the estimation “fairly conservative.” “Our corn demand is still strong,” McKinney said, recalling 2025’s “record” crop. “We still have a lot of it on hand. Now, rising input costs mean that the hope we had to see prices significantly higher is gone.” These rising operating costs have moneylenders worried about lending to farmers, according to McKinney and Janssen. “I talked to bankers in the area,” McKinney said. “They’re talking about a lot more foreclosures and a lot of loan restructuring.” “I’ve been hearing a lot of the same thing, as far as the loan restructuring goes,” Janssen said. McKinney said that the benefits of Trump’s farm aid have been offset by the costs incurred through the Iran war. “Those $12 billion payments went out. A lot of producers were applying that as principle on their loans. Now that money has to be rediverted to financing higher production costs as they put this crop out,” he said. Roughly 70% of American farmers cannot afford all the fertilizer they need for the coming year’s crops, according to a report from The American Farm Bureau Federation in April. This had led to 94% of farmers reporting that their financial condition was either the same as the volatile year of 2025 or worse. “So the situation, it’s really not getting any better,” McKinney said. This state of affairs is not without solutions. The Purdue study suggests that using less fertilizer and switching to less nitrogen-dependent soybeans could bring some relief to farmers. It even posits that “a prolonged strait closure” could drive grain prices so high as to actually turn a profit for farmers. For its part, the Trump administration appears to be proactive in remedying the situation. Rollins says the administration will tap into the hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff revenue to stimulate domestic fertilizer production. “We’ve got to reshore fertilizer back to America,” Rollins said at a meeting with fertilizer company executives last week. We need your help to stay independent Subscribe today to support Salon’s progressive journalism Trump is reportedly seeking congressional approval to roll back restrictions on E15 gasoline, a biofuel consisting of 15% ethanol, for year-round use. E15 is less expensive than regular diesel, but is restricted due to the smog it creates. In March, the Environmental Protection Agency waived those restrictions for the summer due to rising fuel prices caused by the Iran war. McKinney and Janssen think the E15 plan would help this year, and have their own ideas. “Repealing the tariffs on fertilizer imports would be a good first step,” McKinney said, suggesting that farmers should have “a marketplace that’s not distorted by tariffs.” Janssen thinks that at least more payments from the Trump administration are needed. “It’s probably going to take double that $12 billion to help keep ratios in place, keep lenders happy,” he said. Still, the Iran war shows no signs of ending. Tariffs are still in place. Financial relief may help in the short term, but the reasons necessitating it aren’t yet going away. The situation for the nation’s farmers and producers is precarious, with a bleak outlook raising grim questions. “How do we get through the next year if these conditions don’t change?” McKinney asked. “There’ll have to be changes of some kind.” The USDA did not respond to Salon’s request for comment. Read more about the effects of the Iran War The Iran War is about to hit small business- and your wallet Trump’s Iran war price tag just keeps rising The Iran War’s second front is at home The post Trump’s $12B farm aid was meant as relief. The Iran war is wiping it out appeared first on Salon.com.
Trump’s latest science purge could bring major risks, experts say
The abrupt firing of the board comes at a time of climate crisis and international competition
The Trump administration’s recent firing of the entire 22-person board of the National Science Foundation has drawn condemnation from lawmakers, scientists and their advocates across the country, who say the decision is irresponsible and based on political control. Members of the National Science Board, made up mostly of scientists, reportedly received emails last Friday informing them that they would be removed from their positions effective immediately. “No reason was given,” former board member, Yolanda Gill, an employee at the Information ‌Sciences ⁠Institute of the University of Southern California, told Reuters. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a ranking member of the House Science Committee, blasted the decision as “a real Bozo the Clown move” by President Donald Trump. “The NSB is apolitical. It advises the president on the future of NSF,” Lofgren said in a statement on Saturday. “It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation.” “I am deeply disappointed, though I cannot say I am entirely surprised,” former board member Willie May, vice president of research and economic development at Morgan State University, told Inside Higher Ed. He called the NSB “the latest casualty” in what said is the “systemic dismantling of science advisory” under the Trump administration. Related Trump admin’s fertility plan prioritizes ideology over science The White House later clarified its rationale behind the firing, citing a 2021 Supreme Court case. “The Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.S. v. Arthrex in 2021 raised constitutional questions about whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board,” a White House official told Salon in an email. “We look forward to working with the Hill to update the statute and ensure the NSB can perform its duties as Congress intended. The National Science Foundation’s work continues uninterrupted.” The court found that administrative patent judges, who hold inferior office, should be subject to appointment by both the president and the Senate, unless their relevant director appoints them. NSB members are only appointed by the president. Daniel Jacobs, the communication director for The Science Coalition, said the board’s wipeout actually hurts the country, and puts it on the back foot. “Abruptly removing this layer of expert counsel puts our nation’s scientific enterprise and technological dominance at risk.” “The reported dismantling of the advisory board that helps guide the nation’s basic research funding and ensures alignment with national priorities puts the United States at a significant disadvantage,” Jacobs said in a statement to Salon, calling the NSF’s research investments “fundamental” American achievements in science, tech, and economic growth. “Abruptly removing this layer of expert counsel puts our nation’s scientific enterprise and technological dominance at risk,” Jacobs said. Others have made similar warnings. In 2024, scientists warned that U.S. investments in science and technology would soon be eclipsed by initiatives in China, which was already filing roughly 10,000 more patents a year than the U.S. Added to this was an $568 million European Union initiative announced in 2025 to attract and fund scientific specialists in the region. It also called for its member states to allocate 3% of their GDP to research and development, at a time when the U.S. was and continues to slash scientific funding. “We cannot afford moves that weaken the integrity of our research ecosystem or erode scientific independence,” Jacobs said. Adding to the uncertainty and seismic scientific shakeup is Trump’s nominee to lead the NSF, tech investor and previous U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jim O’Neill. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. O’Neill, who was also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, worked at Health and Human Services during the George W. Bush administration before entering into business endeavors alongside influential tech billionaire and Trump ally Peter Thiel. He served as managing director at Thiel-run hedge funds and venture capital firms. As deputy secretary at the HHS, he authored a January memo which called for changes to the agency’s vaccine recommendations. The move was slammed by national health advocates, who claimed it was made to “confuse” the public. If confirmed, O’Neill would be the first non-scientist and non-engineer to lead the NSF. Julian Reyes, chief of staff for the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the Trump administration gutting of the board, along with its drastic cuts to national science funding, a “politicization” of science. “We know that the NSF provides a public good,” Reyes told Salon. “We know that science is a public good, and getting rid of the entire National Science Board essentially removes that layer of transparency and oversight between the White House and the work that the National Science Foundation does.” Trump has long targeted scientific endeavors and programs he views as being “too woke” or that run contrary to his policies, such as ending what he calls “the green new scam.” The proposal calls for ending funding for electrical vehicle battery makers, along with climate science and renewable energy initiative funding. Reyes pointed to the NSF’s history of funding scientific research endeavors for researchers, advocates and students, including having provided funding for his own graduate studies. He says the board, in its advisory role, is acting as a “barrier” to future plans of the Trump administration to control scientific research and advocacy. Since taking office, Trump has sought to influence government agencies that are meant to be independent of the executive branch. Trump has fired and then appointed his own handpicked board at the Kennedy Center, and has tried to wrest control of the Federal Reserve, launching federal probes into outgoing Chair Jerome Powell. “If the administration sees it as a challenge to what they want to do or have plans for, then this is their way of controlling the narrative, but also the science that is done at the National Science Foundation,” Reyes said. He pointed to two examples of cuts made by the administration that could have lasting consequences for the country. One of those is the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading research center for studying weather and climate since 1960. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, one of the architects of Project 2025, announced in December that the administration will be “breaking up” NCAR, which he called “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.” Scientists at Johns Hopkins University said in March that NCAR is “the single-most vital resource” for studying the climate and atmosphere, and called the decision to dismantle it “terrible.” Reyes also noted the administration’s plans to “reorganize” the Forest Service to “strengthen local leadership, streamline operations, and improve mission delivery.” This reorganization will include shuttering 56 of 77 research stations studying climatological and ecological changes across the country. The closures come as the significant portions of the nation brace for a busy fire season. He argued that the $9 billion spent on the service’s research and development priorities, just 0.6% of Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion defense spending budget for 2027, is “a drop in the bucket” by comparison. “The Forest Service is not only the world’s largest forest research organization, but it’s also the world’s largest wildland fire research organization,” Reyes said. “So, you’re essentially removing the staff and facilities that are closest to the locations of which they’re helping and supporting, and you’re also cutting off this critical research capability.” Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Still, some science remains relatively safe under the administration. NASA is still on good terms with Trump following their successful Artemis II moon mission. Trump, who approved the Artemis moon program back in 2019, called for funding to be directed toward efforts to achieve American technological and geopolitical “dominance” on the moon, though NASA’s budget is still slated to lose tens of billions of dollars in next year’s budget. “NASA’s priorities remain unchanged by this decision,” a NASA spokesperson said of the NSB purge in a statement to Salon. “We will continue to advance America’s leadership in space, including enabling scientific discovery that supports the nation’s long-term science and technology goals.” The same cannot be said for the NSF. Reyes said they “got hit hard” in the 2027 budget proposal. Indeed, the Trump administration is calling for a 54% reduction in its budget, from $8.8 billion in 2026 to $4 billion in 2027. The cuts would slash funding for mathematical and physical sciences, including chemistry and biology, as well as engineering and geosciences initiatives. “It does call into question,” Reyes posits, “what are their plans for the National Science Foundation given the period that we’re entering?” The NSF declined to comment on this story, directing all questions to the White House. CORRECTION: A previous version of this article stated the $9 billion spent on the service’s research and development priorities was just 6% of Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion defense spending budget for 2027. It is 0.6%. The article has been updated. Read more about science under Trump Scientists resist Trump’s war on climate data Should we give Musk control of the sun? “People are choosing this fate”: Measles will get worse before it gets better The post Trump’s latest science purge could bring major risks, experts say appeared first on Salon.com.
The rising toll of Florida’s abortion ban
The number of Florida residents who traveled out of state nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024
Nearly two years ago, Florida’s six-week abortion ban went into effect, forcing most people to travel out of state if they need an abortion. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion and essentially made access a state issue, Florida became one of the top three states to see a rise in out-of-state abortions. In other words, it became an unlikely surge state. The new law made it a penalty to perform or actively participate in an abortion six weeks after gestation, with limited exceptions. Before the new law went into effect, the state allowed for abortions up to 15 weeks of gestation. Not only has the law been severely restrictive to Floridians needing to access abortion care, but it has been devastating to people in the South who live in states that have similarly strict laws. New data from Guttmacher’s Monthly Abortion Provision Study shows just how dramatically restricting access in Florida has affected reproductive care in the state and throughout the Southeast region, forcing thousands of people to travel long distances for out-of-state care. Related Healthy Florida First’s toxic baby formula dilemma “In the nearly two years since Florida’s six-week ban took effect, the number of abortions provided in the state has dropped significantly,” Candace Gibson, director of state policy at the Guttmacher Institute, said in a statement. “However, the need for care has not decreased.” According to the new data, in 2023, the year before the six-week ban took place, there were close to 88,000 abortions provided in the state of Florida. In 2025, a year after the ban, this decreased by 25% to 65,800. This data includes in-clinic care before six weeks and telehealth care from providers living in shield law states. “A major driver of the decline was a drop in the number of people traveling from out of state into Florida to access care,” Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, told Salon. Technically, Florida’s six-week ban has exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking, up to 15 weeks gestation, and to save a woman’s life or prevent “substantial and irreversible” impairment. However, as Salon has previously reported, these exceptions are designed to be difficult to use and frequently act as another burden for patients at a time of crisis. For example, according to the law, to leverage one of the exceptions for rape, incest or human trafficking, a woman “must provide a copy of a restraining order, police report, medical record or other court order or documentation providing evidence that she is obtaining the termination of pregnancy because she is a victim of rape, incest or human trafficking.” “No one should be forced to leave their home state to access the abortion care they need.” In 2023, before the ban, over 9,000 people were estimated to have traveled to Florida for abortion care, primarily coming from Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama and Texas — surrounding states with stricter abortion bans at the time. But in 2024, that number dropped to 4,000 people. Then, in 2025, it dropped to 2,500. The number of Florida residents who traveled out of state nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024, from 2,800 to 8,200. Preliminary data suggests that the number of Floridians traveling out of state continued to increase in 2025. “When people are forced to travel out of state for essential healthcare, there are inevitably others that cannot overcome the immense financial and logistical obstacles,” Maddow-Zimet said. “No one should be forced to leave their home state to access the abortion care they need.” In May 2025, the Chicago Abortion Fund reported that they had supported over 360 Floridians since the ban went into effect; a 267% increase compared to the year before the ban, when CAF supported only 98 Floridians. In the year after the ban, the abortion fund provided Floridians with more than $180,000 in direct assistance to access care. “Data show that many Floridians are being forced to travel hundreds or even thousands of miles, as far as New York and Virginia, to get care,” Gibson said. In November 2024, the abortion ballot measure, Amendment 4, could have amended the Florida state constitution to prohibit government interference with the right to abortion before around 23 and 24 weeks. Fifty-eight percent of Florida voters wanted it to pass, but the measure required a 60 percent supermajority to pass — a threshold higher than all other abortion amendments on the ballot that year. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. “Florida’s deadly abortion ban is out of line with the values of our state,” Lauren Brenzel, campaign manager of Yes on 4 Florida, said at the time. “Florida voters sent that message loud and clear today, and despite the fact that only a minority of voters voted to retain the abortion ban, our extremist government will exploit the situation to deny its own constituents the right to decide on our bodily autonomy.” For many reasons, even those seeking an abortion before six weeks of gestation can be difficult. Most recently, this year, policymakers in Florida introduced several bills that would increase a culture of surveillance around pregnancy and abortion care. Advocates for ending the abortion ban say it’s not only a health issue, but also a human rights one. “Florida’s near-total abortion ban undermines our health, freedoms and rights as Floridians,” Cheyenne Drews, the reproductive freedom program director for Progress Florida, said in a statement. “Patients are facing delays and denials of abortions and emergency management of pregnancy complications, and now, providers are leaving the state.” Drews added that the situation is “not sustainable.” Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% “Advocates and abortion funds are doing everything possible to share resources and cover costs, including out-of-state travel,” Drews said. “Political interference in our personal lives is unacceptable and Floridians remain fully committed to the urgent fight for reproductive freedom.” Research in the U.S. and across the globe has shown that abortion rates don’t drop once abortion access is restricted — but it does make abortion far less safe. In fact, updated data in March found that despite the bans and restrictions, the number of abortions in America have remained the same. But Maddow-Zimet, at Guttmacher Institute, says number of abortions provided nationally in the past few years have “masked serious fluctuations at the state level.” Read more about Florida Why Republicans are so eager to create a Charlie Kirk holiday DeSantis’ national security power grab In Florida, there are still doctors who believe in vaccines The post The rising toll of Florida’s abortion ban appeared first on Salon.com.
A 40-year-old Iran tariff quietly built America’s pistachio empire
Benefiting off viral trends, like Dubai chocolate, has been actually decades in the making
From Dubai chocolate to lattes, pistachios are having a moment. Of course, the nut itself has been cultivated for thousands of years in Persia, modern day Iran, where pistachios are still the country’s number one commodity crop. But the United States has only grown them commercially for 50 years. The U.S. now produces the lion’s share of pistachios globally — despite their relative newness for American farmers. The tagline on a bag of salt and pepper pistachios in my cabinet reads, “300-year-old recipe — reborn in California.” That short phrase aptly describes how one U.S. state overtook hundreds of years of Iranian market power in a matter of decades. Pistachio’s ubiquity is also new as the nut trickles down from TikTok virality to mass market explosion. What was once an occasional snack and ice cream flavor choice became a typical presence in coffee shops, bakeries and grocery stores all over the world. Pistachio cold foam now perches atop iced coffees from nationwide chains, Dubai chocolate knock-offs sit at every grocery checkout stand and boutique patisseries fill croissants with pistachio butters and creams. Mentions of pistachios on non-alcoholic drink menus has increased 189% in the last four years and further growth is expected over the next four years, according to Andrew Chen a senior marketing manager at Dataessential, a food and beverage market insights firm. Related Trump’s $12B farm aid was meant as relief. The Iran war is wiping it out It’s hardly a coincidence that the nut is blowing up just as the U.S. hit its stride in global pistachio dominance. Though the pistachio filling and flavor craze has just taken off in the past few years, “viral” food trends like these are really decades in the making. Within those decades, there wasn’t just deft marketing campaigns and organic interest growth that raised American pistachio’s profile — there was punitive foreign policy on the world’s then-top pistachio producer. The first commercial crop of pistachios in the U.S. was harvested in 1976, just a few years before the Iranian Revolution. By 1980, a sanction on Iran halted nearly all trade, and over 93% of pistachio consumption in the U.S. that year came from within the country. But as trading relationships began opening back up through the first half of the decade, fledgling pistachio growers in the U.S. took issue with the volume and low price of Iranian pistachio imports. By targeting Iran instead of all pistachio exporting countries, it shows the policy was mainly punitive, rather than intentionally protectionist. Complaints to the International Trade Commission led to an investigation, which Andrew Muhammad, an agriculture policy professor at the University of Tennessee says “usually happens when domestic producers feel threatened in some way.” The investigation found that Iran was selling below market value, which materially injured the American pistachio industry. “In a lot of these investigations, very much like the ones we’re doing now, there’s a political bent to them, and so in that sense, the punitive side of it is both politically as well as based on what commerce has found in terms of their unfair practices in the global arena,” Muhammad told Salon. Ten years after American growers began investing in pistachios, a prohibitive anti-dumping tariff on Iranian raw in-shell pistachios was announced. A staggering 241% tariff was instated in 1986 and remains in effect to this day, being most recently renewed on May 30, 2025. Overall trade with Iran has generally remained volatile in the decades since, with outright bans on pistachio imports lasting years at a time. Other tariffs on roasted pistachios too have been put in place, and though not permanent, the duty also peaked in the triple digits in 1986. Muhammad said tariffs like these, especially a 40-year-long triple-digit duty, likely played a significant role in the U.S.’s speedy overtake of the global pistachio market, though he noted one tariff usually isn’t the sole growth driver of a domestic industry. By targeting Iran instead of all pistachio exporting countries, it shows the policy was mainly punitive, rather than intentionally protectionist. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. Though it may have still had some protectionist-like impacts on the industry, as the U.S. did not just switch importing from Iran to Turkey — the third largest pistachio producer — but reduced imports all together as the investments at home began to pay off. Further, American growers have not just decreased imports and increased their exports over the years, they’ve also innovated on the plant itself. Practically all pistachios grown in the country come from California, which it lists as a top ten agriculture commodity in the state worth over $2.2 billion. Pistachio trees account for more than 22% of tree nut bearing acres in California — only beaten by the state’s $5.66 billion almond industry. Globally, the only commodity crop that the U.S. produces a larger share of than pistachios is almonds, which account for nearly 80% of almonds grown across the world. But in some ways, almonds are old news, considering American almond farmers planted their first commercial crop in 1843. The U.S. has established multiple new varieties of pistachios in the past few decades with its most popular, the Golden Hills cultivar, likely aiding the huge jump in production. Kerman, the most commonly-planted pistachio variety, originates from Iran and is named after a famous carpet-making city near Rafsanjan. It’s the industry “workhorse” according to Stephen Vasquez, the executive director of the Administrative Committee on Pistachios (ACP), but is subject to problems. Mostly that pistachios have on and off years, producing significantly less every other year, and need sufficient cooling periods in the winter, which is becoming more challenging in California due to the warming climate. Year over year, growers are choosing to plant new pistachio trees, likely eating into almond orchards’ domination of California’s central valley, Vasquez told Salon. This is likely because of the newer variety Golden Hills’ potential to boast higher off-year yields and perform better in less-than-ideal weather conditions. Growers planted more than 37,000 new acres of pistachios in 2016, the most recorded by the ACP, and remained in the five-digit acre range until 2024, when new plantings leveled off, dropping below 2011 levels. While all new plantings aren’t solely Golden Hills, the release of the variety around the 2012 accounts for much of the jump and it now makes up about half of the acreage, Vasquez said. Other reasons why the U.S. outpaces Iran in pistachio production is that growers in the agribusiness capital of America use machinery and technology to their advantage, while Iranian growers often rely on hand picking and their fields aren’t often irrigated. Many high-end chocolatiers and bakeries insist that Iranian and Turkish pistachios are higher quality and better suited for baking because of their oil content. American pistachios are cultivated for maximum output and size, which is a desired quality for traders, but can also undermine the taste and complexities of the nut, some argue. However, the ongoing U.S.-Israel war against Iran and multiple bad crop years from Turkey are making that desire for quality and exclusivity even more difficult. The loss of these countries is the United States’ gain, as demand for pistachio continues and California remains the only consistent grower for the foreseeable future. And interest in the green nut doesn’t seem to be waning in the near future either. “Dubai chocolate lit the fuse, but pistachio has since outgrown its origin story and is now being pulled forward by a different set of consumer behaviors entirely,” Miriam Aniel Oved, the head of integrated marketing at food research firm Tastewise, told Salon. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Dubai chocolate, a chocolate bar filled with pistachio cream and shredded phyllo dough called kataifi, emerged in 2023 from United Arab Emirates-based shop, FIX Dessert Chocolatier. It became a viral sensation, spurring countless inspired products from Crumbl Cookies to Shake Shack desserts as well as major chocolate brands like Lindt and Godiva taking their own stab at the pistachio-filled confection. The chocolate itself is now often reduced to a meme about TikTok-trend overconsumption often lumped into the category of Labubu dolls, matcha and Crumbl Cookies. While the hype for this trendy sweet has started to die down, as well as interest in Middle Eastern cuisine more generally, pistachios themselves are as popular as ever and expanding its reach outside of the Middle Eastern niche, Oved explained. “The viral entry point is fading, which is exactly what you’d expect from a hype-driven signal,” Oved said. “And here’s the part worth sitting with: pistachio is growing while the cuisine that made it famous is not.” As pistachio becomes a menu mainstay for matcha and coffee, pistachio-dairy emerges as the next “in” nut milk, and traditional savory snacks see bigger interest in grocery stores, it’s becoming clear that the nut is here to stay divorced from both its cultural roots and TikTok virality. “That tells you the ingredient has crossed over into the broader American flavor vocabulary, which is the moment trends stop being trends and start being staples,” Oved said. This may be the ultimate victory for the American pistachio industry, not just being the top global producer but also the cultural owner of the nut with such deep ties to Middle Eastern, and specifically Iranian cuisine. Pistachios aren’t just grown the most in America or exported the most — in many ways, now they are American. Read more about agriculture Trump’s immigration plans will hurt for farm workers and consumers alike, mass deportation or not Climate change is already changing how we eat. It could get much worse Beef and America’s cattle ranchers are no longer on MAGA’s menu The post A 40-year-old Iran tariff quietly built America’s pistachio empire appeared first on Salon.com.
Hantavirus is a warning. The Trump admin isn’t listening
The Dutch cruise ship incident probably isn’t the next pandemic. That doesn’t mean we’re risk-free from outbreaks
A week ago, most people had probably never heard of hantavirus. Now, millions of people are likely wishing they hadn’t. Judging from a slew of panicked social media posts and endless versions of the same explainers on “how worried should you be?” there is a genuine fear that we could be in for another pandemic. It’s not hard to understand why people freaking out. Even the virus name sounds scary, haunting. An outbreak aboard a cruise ship in the Atlantic Ocean has so far infected eight people, killing three of them: a German woman and a Dutch couple. They were traveling via the Dutch-flagged MV Hondius, a cruise ship sailing from Argentina to Cape Verde when passengers became ill with high fever and gastrointestinal symptoms. The boat was anchored off the African coast as the World Health Organization stepped in to investigate and passengers were slowly screened and sent home. Of the 17 Americans returning home, two tested positive — one “mildly” and the other with light symptoms. The culprit, known as hantavirus, causes a severe and deadly disease that can result in heart and kidney failure. A recent autopsy report found that hantavirus (in an unrelated 2025 case) is what killed Betsy Arakawa, the concert pianist and wife of late actor Gene Hackman. Indeed, approximately 35% of people who catch it end up dying, depending on the region. The strain on the cruise ship is mostly spread by long-tailed pygmy rice rats via their saliva, feces or urine. It is presumed that the cruise ship patients encountered rodents in Argentina. Related Masks off: The lessons we didn’t learn from COVID The fact that the outbreak was on a cruise ship, one of the first places COVID-19 started to spread back in early 2020, is giving tons of people déjà vu. But besides both being viruses, the similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and hantavirus actually aren’t close. They infect in different ways and are classed in entirely different phylums, meaning they are not remotely related. Furthermore, hantavirus has been around for decades, it is not spread quickly or easily between people and those who catch it display symptoms, unlike COVID, which can spread between folks unknowingly. The WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention both report that the current risk to the global population from this event is low. That doesn’t mean people’s concern is exactly misguided. Although the COVID pandemic is essentially over, it doesn’t mean we aren’t still coping with lingering trauma from global shutdowns and the deaths of an estimated 7 million people worldwide. Yes, SARS-2 is still spreading and maiming people today, but widespread immunity from past infections and vaccines has made the virus much less deadly. There’s always the possibility that SARS-2 could mutate into a new strain that causes a huge surge of cases, something that happened countless times over the last six years, but for now, things are relatively calm. It’s still not great that we let it rip, especially given how long COVID disables so many, but for better or worse, we added it to the list of preventable diseases like flu and HIV that we let kill some people every year and just shrug it off as a society. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-895478" src="https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/hantavirus-GettyImages-2274350961-1024x691.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="691" class="size-large wp-image-895478" srcset="https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/hantavirus-GettyImages-2274350961-1024x691.jpg 1024w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/hantavirus-GettyImages-2274350961-300x202.jpg 300w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/hantavirus-GettyImages-2274350961-768x518.jpg 768w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/hantavirus-GettyImages-2274350961-1536x1037.jpg 1536w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/hantavirus-GettyImages-2274350961.jpg 1692w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /> (Photo by Arman Onal/Anadolu via Getty Images) Hantavirus samples are seen in Ankara, Turkiye on May 06,, 2026. While most experts are predicting this hantavirus outbreak will peter out, it’s not the kind of prediction you want to be wrong about either. While most experts are predicting this hantavirus outbreak will peter out, it’s not the kind of prediction you want to be wrong about either. Since everyone is so into amoral betting these days, thanks to insidious apps like Polymarket and Kalshi, here’s a wager you’re sure to win: the U.S. will almost certainly experience another pandemic from some highly infectious pathogen in the next 10 years or less. The reason for this isn’t complicated. Pandemics happen with regularity due to little things like the susceptibility of the human body to illness and international trade and travel. Plus, the destruction of the environment causes viruses to spill over from animal hosts into us. Hey, everyone’s gotta live somewhere, even viruses, and if we burn down a rainforest to plunk down some cows or palm oil farms — a widespread practice across the globe — those jungle-dwelling pathogens will move to the next best thing, even if it’s us. There are a lot of viruses we should be looking out for, to make sure they won’t cause another pandemic. The WHO tries to keep tabs on these things, listing things like bird flu, Ebola, Nipah, Lassa and yes, hantavirus, as top-ranking threats to global health. That’s one thing all of us humans should be able to agree on: more widespread illness and death is bad for the economy and uh, our mental health. So it’s in our best interest to study and monitor anything that can spread quickly and sicken or kill folks. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. Though hantavirus isn’t near the threshold for a pandemic yet — we’d need a lot more infections for that — the grifting has already started. On May 6, former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene boosted a post claiming that the antiparasitic drug ivermectin can treat hantavirus. It can’t. More importantly, couldn’t the “Make America Healthy Again” mob pick a new drug this time around? Many will recall ivermectin from the COVID days, when it was commonly pushed as a “cure” for the disease, which it also does not help. Nothing against ivermectin — if you have roundworms, it’s a fantastic drug and its discoverers won a Nobel Prize in medicine for a reason. But it’s not an antiviral and the evidence just doesn’t support it helping for such infections. Worse than the off-label prescribing is the fearmongering. Look no further than former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who tweeted “Don’t comply. This time, just don’t.” It really showcases her talent for the English language by fitting so much cruelty and stupidity into just six words. Hemingway, move over. Her revisionist history of the stay-at-home orders and social distancing in COVID’s early days has become about dystopian government overreach (remind me who was president in 2020?) instead of what it really was: a mostly successful attempt to “flatten the curve” so the country’s medical system didn’t collapse. It was about compassion for the most vulnerable — now it’s been twisted into an authoritarian tactic, ignoring the real Gestapo-like actions of immigration enforcement, while telling people at risk of disease to get screwed. Let’s also not forget that detention centers run by the Department of Homeland Security are cesspools for medical neglect and disease, including measles, mumps and hepatitis A outbreaks. It’s Palin’s attitude, pervasive on the right and to some degree the left, that might be more deadly than any virus nature could throw at us. It’s the idea that we don’t need vaccines if we just exercise and eat our vegetables. It’s the idea that we don’t need government to monitor for diseases or provide functional healthcare, we can give the finger to the WHO and leave it behind and nothing will happen to us. It’s the idea that there is no public in public health. While acting CDC director Jay Bhattacharya has said hantavirus is not COVID — and he’s probably right — the general response from the agency is not instilling much confidence we’re prepared for bigger, more serious pathogens. “It’s very much, we hope, under control,” President Donald Trumps said on Thursday when asked about hantavirus. But for many in public health, hope isn’t enough. Experts have expressed concern that many Trump admin officials who are tasked with ensuring there isn’t another COVID — like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services — are missing from the public eye while the WHO picks up the slack. “We have seen large-scale funding and workforce cuts made in the last year, not just to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but to global health. Our withdrawal from WHO, our decimation of USAID and also cuts to scientific research,” Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s CEO, said on May 7. “So all of these things are having really profound ripple effects. This is a situation where you really are seeing crystallized the need for bio preparedness.” Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Just because another pandemic is predictable, like hurricane season or Trump ranting about the Strait of Hormuz, doesn’t mean that a major outbreak has to be another COVID. Most people barely remember the swine flu H1N1 pandemic that happened under President Barack Obama because that one was handled with prompt severity, allowing it to be contained. Even President George W. Bush made great strides against HIV, made sure SARS-1 didn’t become a disaster in 2003, and prepped the country for a potential bird flu crisis, which remains a major threat. In contrast, during Trump’s first term, he fired many people responsible for monitoring pandemics, downplayed the virus as it began to spread in America, suggested it would just go away if we stopped paying attention, hoarded medical supplies and essentially did everything possible to let the situation balloon out control, which is exactly what happened. So people like Palin didn’t like having to stay home for a bit? Does she wonder how the people hospitalized on ventilators or who lost loved ones feel? While hantavirus isn’t a huge concern to me right now — and many public health experts seem to agree — I am worried about what comes down the line. I wouldn’t be surprised if people didn’t take basic precautions during the next pandemic. No flattening the curve, no masking in crowds, just letting some brutal disease rip through us, as if arrogance and resentment can stop infectious disease — a strategy somehow even less effective than ivermectin! There is already a lack of solidarity in this country, a major crisis would undoubtedly unravel what’s left of it. Every time there’s a weird outbreak of something, it’s a warning that we might not get so lucky on the next one. It’s an open question if anyone is listening. Read more about public health More than a plague: How colonialism, class and incarceration feed disease outbreaks America isn’t prepared for what comes after the measles crisis Trump’s cruel calculus on public health is slashing lifelines for the most vulnerable The post Hantavirus is a warning. The Trump admin isn’t listening appeared first on Salon.com.
Gerrymandering can’t fix the GOP’s voter problem
Legal wins won’t matter if Republicans can’t get people to vote for them
In the past two weeks, Republicans have racked up major legal wins that stand to benefit the party in its quest to insulate itself from a midterm cycle that’s expected to wipe out their House majority. The problem for Republicans is that, even in favorably drawn districts, they still need to convince people to vote for them — and that task is getting harder by the day. In late April, the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais ushered in the worst-case scenario for Democrats in the midterms, as well as for minority voters in the South, who could see their representation wiped out in 2026. The decision paved the way for states like Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina to redraw their congressional districts to be more favorable for Republicans, potentially wiping out every Democratic leaning seat in these states and delivering Republicans as many as six new seats before the midterms. Related Trump is bleeding his 2024 voters, but not fast enough for the midterms On April 21, Virginia voters approved a proposed redistricting plan. But last Friday, a decision from the Virginia Supreme Court overrode voters and wiped that decision out, siding four to three with Republicans who sued to block the maps, making the scenario even worse for Democrats. The combination of the Callais decision and the Virginia Supreme Court ruling have, in the course of a few weeks, dramatically darkened the midterm picture for Democrats, who are aiming to retake the House and Senate in November. Prior to these two decisions, Democrats had more or less fought Republicans to a draw in the mid-decade redistricting battle, which was kicked off by President Donald Trump last August after his numbers began to slip in the polls near the beginning of his term. Between last August and the beginning of May, Republicans have already delivered gerrymanders in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Florida. Republicans in Louisiana and Alabama have already suspended their ongoing primary elections, so they can redraw the maps in their favor. Tennessee and South Carolina are expected to follow. In response, Democrats have redrawn maps in California, and likely gained a seat in Utah, after the state redrew its maps following a court ruling that its previous map was unlawfully gerrymandered. Virginia was set to deliver Democrats as many as four seats before the court order. To delay primaries “even when early voting has begun in some places — or even the idea of redoing primaries because you change the lines — is something that there’s not really any recent precedent for.” While there is still a long-shot scheme to redraw the maps in Virginia despite the court order, election analysts largely expect the current maps — except for those states in the Deep South taking advantage of looser racial gerrymandering laws — to be the maps that the midterms play out on. That’s because in many states, elections are already underway, and most state governments aren’t as ready to suspend elections as the governments in Louisiana and Alabama. Geoffrey Skelley, the chief elections analyst at Decision Desk HQ, told Salon that under more normal circumstances, it would’ve been too late to redraw maps, even when the Callais decision came down at the end of April. “There have been situations where states have delayed their primaries after initially starting them,” Skelley said. “But to do it so close, and even when early voting has begun in some places — or even the idea of redoing primaries because you change the lines — is something that there’s not really any recent precedent for.” Even considering the new maps, however, Skelley said that in his estimation, Democrats are still favored to retake control of the House in November. What Republicans have managed to do with their redistricting push was to raise their baseline of seats they can be expected to control, which will likely chip away at any incoming Democratic majority, but isn’t likely to prevent it, at least if current trends continue. “I do think Republicans, in the wake of all this, are in a better position to potentially hold on, but because the national environment is just pretty bad for the GOP,” Skelley said. “But in midterm years, in conditions like this, we would tend to see a sort of swing toward Democrats that’s large enough to overcome this.” Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% For reference, DecisionDesk HQ’s polling average for the generic congressional ballot, which measures whether voters prefer one party or the other for congressional races without attaching a specific candidate’s name, has Democrats up 5.9 points over Republicans, more than enough to usher in a Democratic House. This average has also improved by about 0.6 points over the past month. Logan Phillips, the founder of Race to the WH, told Salon in an interview that he estimates that Democrats need to maintain, at the very least, about a 3.5 point advantage to stand a good chance of winning the House. He credits this relatively low requisite advantage to a candidate recruitment advantage for Democrats, and points to 2024 as an example of Democrats overperforming generic ballot preference in actual election results. In 2024, Phillips explained, Democrats lost the popular vote in the House by about 2.6 points, but were only five seats away from a House majority, with five seats making up about 1.1% of all House seats. This was due to overperformance in specific races and in Phillips’s estimation, this could happen again in 2026. “They’ve been getting people that are more experienced at winning elections, that are doing a better job at fundraising, and that don’t have to pass the loyalty test to Trump to be able to get that nomination,” Phillips said. “This isn’t true for all races, but on average, more Democrat primary voters are focusing a little bit more on which candidate can win, and so I think as a result, they’re probably going to overperform whatever their performance is nationally.” Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. This means that Democrats could win the House in 2026, which would buy them time to redraw district maps in other states ahead of the 2028 election. This would mean that Democrats could respond in kind to GOP gerrymandering in states like Virginia, Illinois, New York and potentially California again. Miles Coleman, the associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said that this is the sort of scenario he expects to see play out ahead of 2028, but that this could also basically be the end of the line for partisan gerrymandering, if only because there are no states left for parties to squeeze favorable seats from. “One of the things the Callais decision basically did is it guaranteed that this redistricting arms race is going to continue into 2028. Democrats have some states, like Colorado, where they could probably gain three or four seats, but they just didn’t,” Coleman explained. In states like Colorado, where the government has empowered an independent commission to redraw the state’s maps, leaders in state government didn’t move fast enough to redraw lines ahead of the 2026 cycle. But as the race to the bottom in redistricting continues, Coleman expects them to revisit their state’s lines. With that being said, there’s not an obvious avenue for Democrats to respond to the Republican redistricting wave ahead of the midterms. Coleman advised against ruling anything out just yet, especially when looking ahead to the 2028 maps. “Where there’s a political will, there’s frequently a way. At the start of this, it looked like Indiana could redraw its lines, but that Virginia and California would not be able to respond the way that they did,” Coleman said. Read more about politics Trump’s looming downballot disaster Inside Trump’s effort to “take over” the midterms Trump’s ballroom ploy might work, security experts say The post Gerrymandering can’t fix the GOP’s voter problem appeared first on Salon.com.
Medical epidemiologist breaks down cruise ship hantavirus outbreak
The worry on the cruise ship is human-to-human transmission
The MV Hondius, a Dutch cruise ship with a deadly outbreak of hantavirus, was on its way to the Canary Islands on May 7, 2026, after evacuating three ill passengers for treatment. The World Health Organization confirmed the outbreak on May 4, noting a total of seven infections, with three deaths since the outbreak began in early April. An eighth case was confirmed on May 6. Because of the illness’s one- to eight-week incubation period, additional cases may still be identified. Health officials around the world are monitoring passengers who disembarked from the ship in the early days of the outbreak in late April. Health officials emphasize, however, that the risk to the public from the outbreak is low. I’m a medical epidemiologist – here’s what you need to know about the virus and how the outbreak is playing out. What is hantavirus? Hantavirus isn’t just one virus but a group of closely related viruses found throughout the world. Their natural reservoir is rodents, such as wild mice, rats and moles. Infected rodents don’t get symptoms, but the virus replicates in their cells. It sometimes spills over into other animals, including humans, and can cause severe disease and even death. There are two general types of hantaviruses. Old World hantaviruses, typically found in Europe and Asia, generally affect the kidneys. Their mortality rate in people is 15% or less. New World hantaviruses, such as the one causing the outbreak on the Hondius, occur in North and South America. The best-known strains of this type are the Andes virus, the strain that was confirmed in the cruise ship outbreak, and the Sin Nombre virus, which likely caused the death of Betsy Arakawa, Gene Hackman’s wife, in March 2025. These viruses generally affect the lungs and are fatal in about 40% of cases. Symptoms start with a flu-like illness and can progress quickly to intense inflammation in the lungs that leads to lung and heart failure. A person with a hantavirus infection may experience symptoms anywhere from a week to eight weeks after exposure. There is no treatment; doctors can offer only supportive care, such as hydration, artificial respiration or dialysis. How do these viruses spread? Cases of hantavirus infection are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 890 cases in the U.S. from 1993, when surveillance began, through the end of 2023. The vast majority of cases occur in China, with thousands of cases caused by Old World hantavirus strains occurring annually. Most often, people become infected with these viruses by inhaling aerosolized urine or droppings from infected rodents. Imagine a cabin infested with mice infected by the virus – sweeping the cabin would shake up dust from the mouse urine and droppings, distributing it through the air and enabling people to inhale the viral particles. There’s a smaller risk of getting ill through direct contact, such as by being bitten by an infected rodent or by touching its saliva. Health officials are tracking people who left the ship before the outbreak was identified. The worry on the cruise ship is human-to-human transmission. Epidemiologists had previously found hints that the Andes virus may be transmitted from one person to another under certain circumstances, such as close, sustained contact in close quarters, like a small cruise ship. What do investigators think happened on the cruise ship? The Hondius, now carrying close to 150 passengers, started out in Argentina on April 1 and was sailing north on a 33-day journey. There were no reports of rodents on the ship, so it’s unlikely the illness started there. According to news reports, the people who first got sick had been touring Argentina and Chile for months beforehand. Researchers speculate they likely got infected during an activity in which they were exposed to a rodent carrying the disease or its excrement. Given these viruses’ weekslong incubation period, these people may have been feeling fine when they boarded the ship, before eventually falling ill. They may have then spread Andes virus to others through breathing shared air or other close contact in close quarters. What happens now? The ship is now traveling to Spain, and multiple patients are being evacuated along the way. Also, researchers are tracking 29 people who disembarked from the ship on April 24, before the outbreak was identified. People who had significant exposure will likely be quarantined to watch for symptoms and be isolated if symptoms develop. Residents of three U.S. states are being monitored. Dutch officials announced on May 7 that a flight attendant who was not a passenger but briefly interacted with a passenger was hospitalized with possible hantavirus symptoms. Is the situation dangerous? Health officials can’t rule out that additional hantavirus cases may emerge in the cruise ship outbreak, but beyond the ship the risk remains low. That’s because most cases of hantavirus, including Andes virus, are acquired directly from rodents or their excrement and not from other humans. It’s important to note, however, that even on vacation, people should pay attention to risks for infection – particularly as they may be very different from the ones they’re used to at home. ﻿ Daniel Pastula, Professor of Neurology, Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Medical epidemiologist breaks down cruise ship hantavirus outbreak appeared first on Salon.com.
Trump’s pick for science director: a Silicon Valley investor with no science background
Jim O'Neill, a longevity enthusiast and vaccine skeptic, is Trump's pick to head the National Science Foundation
President Donald Trump‘s nominee for director of the National Science Foundation is Jim O’Neill, a polarizing Silicon Valley tech investor with prior roles in the Trump administration and a proponent of ideas and practices that live on the fringes of modern science. His nomination has drawn praise from contemporaries and withering criticism from scientists and advocates alike. The position of NSF Director has been vacant since April 2025, when former director Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned amid orders from the Trump administration to drastically cut the NSF’s budget and personnel. O’Neill was selected by Trump for the role in late February. A date for his senatorial confirmation hearing has not been set. Previously, O’Neill was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, as well as the acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from August 2025. During his double tenure, he contended with the worst measles outbreak in decades, with over 1,800 cases so far this year, with outbreaks still ongoing across the country. Related Trump’s latest science purge could bring major risks, experts say O’Neill also authored a memo from HHS that called for a highly controversial change to childhood vaccination recommendations, sparking outrage in the scientific community. The move was in line with Kennedy’s long-time stance against vaccines, including running an anti-vaccine non-profit and earning money from vaccine injury lawsuits. For his part, O’Neill has expressed skepticism about vaccines and has publicly opposed vaccine mandates. At the same time, he has insisted that he is “strongly pro-vaccine” and previously advised Rational Vaccines, a controversial organization dedicated to combating the herpes virus. Kennedy called him “a critical piece” in HHS and highlighted O’Neill’s time spent as a Silicon Valley investor. “It will allow us to transform HHS into a superpower of technological innovation,” Kennedy said in June. The White House, too, is behind O’Neill. “Jim O’Neill spent over a decade in the private sector helping identify and finance cutting-edge technologies of the future,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement to Salon. “This experience and track record of success will help Jim do a phenomenal job as the next director of the National Science Foundation.” Prior to joining the Trump administration, O’Neill spent more than a decade in leadership roles at hedge funds and venture capital firms led by Peter Thiel, the billionaire conservative megadonor. He was managing director at Thiel’s Clarium Capital and CEO of the Thiel Foundation, and co-founder of the Thiel Fellowship, which offers university students $250,000 to drop out and pursue entrepreneurial interests. “You can be very smart and be very good in the financial world … But science has a different level of evidence, and it has a different interest in long-term benefits.” O’Neill was also managing director of Mithril Capital, which provides funds to Thiel’s surveillance giant Palantir Technologies. He referred to Thiel as “my friend and patron” and the inspiration for his 2011 speech on tracking human rights abuses. If confirmed for the director position, O’Neill will be the first head of the NSF that is not a scientist or engineer. Past directors have included physicists, chemists and computer scientists. That has drawn a wave of concern among science advocacy groups and researchers alike. Diana Zuckerman, the founder and president of the National Center for Health Research, has worked in health policy research and advocacy in Washington, D.C., for more than forty years. She is concerned by O’Neill’s nomination and says that his lack of scientific credentials is “problematic” and that O’Neill’s work at HHS and CDC is not exactly comparable to what he would be doing at NSF. She pointed out that several HHS Secretaries had previously been governors: “They’ve been people who know how to run programs, but not necessarily experts in the work of the agency,” Zuckerman explained. “NSF directors have been scientists, real scientists, and that’s important, because the integrity of NSF is the key to the agency.” Zuckerman is also concerned about O’Neill’s ties to the financial world, which she sees as a potentially massive conflict of interest because of “the people he knows and the friends he has.” “You can be very smart and be very good in the financial world,” she said. “But science has a different level of evidence, and it has a different interest in long-term benefits and not the sort of short-term, ‘get the price of a stock up and then sell it.'” Dr. Zoey Thill, a volunteer for the watchdog group the People’s CDC, was blunt in her criticism of O’Neill, calling for him to be “exposed.” Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. “We expect basic research done at NSF under his (or any Trump appointee’s) leadership would focus on commercialization prospects — what can make his buddies the most money — rather than what would be good for the rest of us,” Thill said in a statement to Salon. Indeed, O’Neill’s past in the Silicon Valley tech scene converges with his chief scientific interest: extending human lifespan. From 2019 to 2021, O’Neill served as CEO of SENS Research Foundation, a Silicon Valley-based nonprofit that conducts research into regenerative medicines. He was also a board member of ADvantage Therapeutics, a company that researches therapeutic treatments for patients suffering from neurodegenerative disorders, like Alzheimer’s. O’Neill is an outspoken supporter of research into the controversial field of anti-aging medicine, with some promising therapies and proposed treatments that are nonetheless plagued by pseudoscience and misleading claims. In a 2014 speech on reducing Food and Drug Administration regulations, O’Neill proposed that “immortality” in humans could be achieved in 40 years. “If we invest wisely in life extension technologies, in 40 years, we’ll all be able to annoy our friends with complaints like ‘immortality almost never works,'” he said. In that same speech, O’Neill also called for the FDA to institute “progressive approval,” in which a new medicine or treatment is released after only proving its safety, not its efficacy. “We should reform FDA so that it’s approving drugs after their sponsors have demonstrated safety and let people start using them at their own risk, but not much risk of safety. But let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized,” he said. “This is someone who only thinks in terms of maximizing industry profits, not what’s best for the public he’s supposed to work for.” Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care’s Public Health Project, slammed O’Neill for this position, saying he would not make “competent decisions” at the NSF. She also called his claims on longevity “unfounded.” “This is someone who only thinks in terms of maximizing industry profits, not what’s best for the public he’s supposed to work for,” Hancock said in a statement to Salon. Eric Verdin, CEO of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, sees things differently. He knows O’Neill personally and shares his passion for combating age-related diseases. Verdin thinks he’s right for the role of leading the NSF, despite not being a scientist. “It doesn’t bother me,” Verdin told Salon, “as long as you’re willing to respect the trade and its principle.” Verdin recounts his interactions with O’Neill as very positive and is surprised by the criticism directed at him. “He listens to scientists. He’s a very far-seeing type of individual, but he’s also rooted in science,” Verdin said. “He believes in the principles that make science move, which is evidence, and going one step at a time.” For him, O’Neill is not overly dogmatic or politically compromised, and could be an effective director with the best intentions, who understands the necessity of trusting the scientific process. “I always thought that he was listening to us as scientists, with respect and with understanding of the value of what we provide,” Verdin said. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% Still, O’Neill’s future as director of the NSF has prominent scientific figures concerned, especially since the recent purging of its board members by the Trump administration and the slashing of its budget for 2027. “The proposed appointment of Jim O’Neill as NSF Director — along with the president’s drastic proposed cuts to the NSF budget that supports U.S. fundamental research and his dismissal of the entire National Science Board — will severely weaken the U.S. in our competition with other nations,” Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a statement to Salon. Alberts, an award-winning chemist, worries that the administration will not properly fund scientific endeavors, leading to economic setbacks with fewer advancements made. He also sees O’Neill as a political appointee. “To insert political considerations into these processes not only wastes taxpayer money; it is the equivalent of throwing a monkey wrench into a well-operating machine,” Alberts said. “Debilitating the NSF, as proposed, makes zero sense; it will only benefit our competitors.” The NSF declined Salon’s request for comment. Read more about science under Trump RFK Jr.’s medical racism is to be expected Maybe it’s time to give Elon Musk control of the sun “People are choosing this fate”: Measles will get worse before it gets better The post Trump’s pick for science director: a Silicon Valley investor with no science background appeared first on Salon.com.
RFK Jr. pushes “personal choice” over teen tanning bed ban
Public health officials warn the decision fits a growing pattern of deregulation across youth health policy
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing renewed criticism after withdrawing a proposed federal rule that would have banned minors from using tanning beds, a move public health experts say comes amid a broader pattern of weakening regulatory safeguards in youth health policy. Kennedy halted the FDA-backed proposal that would have restricted sunlamp products to users 18 and older and required warning acknowledgments about cancer risks. In a statement cited by multiple outlets, Kennedy framed the decision around “personal choice” and parental decision-making, even as regulators continue to warn that ultraviolet exposure from tanning beds significantly increases melanoma risk, particularly for teens. The move was confirmed alongside updates from federal health communications that the FDA is continuing to review policy options, but is no longer pursuing an outright youth ban at this time. Public health advocates say the decision fits into a broader ideological approach that prioritizes skepticism of regulatory health interventions over precautionary guidance — a pattern they argue is increasingly visible across Kennedy’s health agenda. Kennedy has long promoted views that challenge mainstream public health consensus, including support for expanded access to raw milk. The Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly warned that unpasteurized dairy products can carry dangerous bacteria such as salmonella, listeria, and E. coli. Despite this, Kennedy has previously been associated with the “health freedom” movement that frames such restrictions as government overreach. A Wall Street Journal report noted that Kennedy “hasn’t taken steps to expand raw-milk access” since taking office, but also described a noticeable retreat from earlier public advocacy for the product amid ongoing regulatory scrutiny. Kennedy has also drawn sustained criticism for vaccine-related positions that have alarmed public health officials. He has previously questioned whether vaccines have been sufficiently tested and has called for revisiting long-standing scientific conclusions about vaccine safety, moves critics say risk undermining decades of public health consensus. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. More recently, reports from HHS-linked policy shifts show the agency removing or revising longstanding public health warnings, including content related to unproven medical treatments, further intensifying concerns among health experts about institutional credibility. The tanning bed decision now adds another flashpoint to that broader debate, with critics arguing that policies framed around “choice” increasingly intersect with preventable health risks for young people. Taken together, Kennedy’s approach reflects a widening divide in American health policy — between traditional regulatory frameworks designed to reduce risk and an emerging wellness-driven political ideology that increasingly questions the legitimacy of those safeguards altogether. Read more about this topic Kennedy’s attacks on HPV vaccines could cause cancer to rise A judge shot down RFK Jr.’s vaccine overhaul. The fight is far from over RFK Jr. redefines “moderate drinking” in federal guidelines The post RFK Jr. pushes “personal choice” over teen tanning bed ban appeared first on Salon.com.
“Much smaller shots”: Trump thinks vaccines are too “big” for babies
The president thinks "smaller shots" will tamp down anti-vax paranoia and offer "much better results with autism"
Donald Trump defended childhood vaccinations during a stop by “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson” on Sunday, saying only that he wished vaccines for infants and toddlers were smaller. Operating on the same principle as a Cuties ad campaign, the president argued that babies are small and their shots should be, too. “I look at these beautiful little babies and they get a vat, I mean, like a big glass of stuff pumped into their bodies. And I think it’s a very negative thing to do,” he said. “I would love to see much smaller shots, like four visits to the doctor. And I think you would have a much better result with the autism.” Trump did say that he “believe[s] in vaccines” but worried that young children are receiving too many. “The polio vaccine’s amazing. It’s, you know, wiped it out,” he said. Related America isn’t prepared for what comes after the measles crisis Vaccines are not administered all at once or in large quantities to infants. There is no known link between childhood vaccines and autism. It was one of several exaggerations throughout the wide-ranging interview. In another, he claimed that the NFL was charging viewers $1000 per game to view games that were previously broadcast on network television. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. “There’s something very sad when they take football away from many, many people. Very sad. I don’t like it,” he said. “They’re making a lot of money. They could make a little bit less. They could let the people see… All of a sudden they’re going to have to pay a thousand dollars a game. It’s crazy.” Watch the interview below via YouTube: Read more about this topic A judge shot down RFK Jr.’s vaccine overhaul. The fight is far from over “People are choosing this fate”: Measles will get worse before it gets better Babies are bleeding to death as parents reject vitamin shot given at birth The post “Much smaller shots”: Trump thinks vaccines are too “big” for babies appeared first on Salon.com.
When Canvas crashed, colleges had no backup plan
The nationwide cybersecurity incident exposed how fragile our increasingly digital campuses are during finals week
The nationwide Canvas outage that disrupted colleges and universities during finals week forced campuses across the country to improvise as faculty and students suddenly lost access to exams, assignments, grades and other course materials. Canvas is the online learning platform used by over 8,000 schools districts and universities, including all eight “Ivy League” schools. It is the central hub for each course, connecting teachers and students through course materials like discussion groups, assignments, grades, class files and an internal email system. Canvas parent company Instructure confirmed this week that it was responding to a “security incident” affecting the platform, which is used by thousands of schools and universities nationwide. On its public status page, the company acknowledged that “Canvas is currently unavailable for some users” while teams worked to investigate and restore service. The outage affected major institutions including Columbia University, Princeton University, Rutgers University and the University of California network, according to reporting from multiple university statements. At The University of Tampa, administrators told faculty the outage was disrupting “final exams, paper submissions, and grading at a critical point in the semester,” while encouraging professors to consider alternatives including email submissions, in-person testing and assignment extensions. Faculty were instructed to “exercise flexibility and good judgment” as the university worked through the disruption. In some cases, professors were told they could adjust grading approaches if students could no longer adequately prepare for exams without access to Canvas materials. <img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-895545" src="https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-09-at-10.40.51 AM-300x162.png" alt="" width="682" height="368" class=" wp-image-895545" srcset="https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-09-at-10.40.51 AM-300x162.png 300w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-09-at-10.40.51 AM-1024x552.png 1024w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-09-at-10.40.51 AM-768x414.png 768w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-09-at-10.40.51 AM-1536x828.png 1536w, https://www.salon.com/app/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-09-at-10.40.51 AM-2048x1104.png 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 682px) 100vw, 682px" /> (Screenshot / Outlook) An email obtained by Salon with direction to faculty on how to handle the Canvas outage during and up to finals week. Meanwhile, The New School urged students and faculty to back up Canvas content while warning that the “global cybersecurity-related incident” was affecting schools worldwide. Rutgers similarly warned users to remain alert for phishing attempts following the breach, while student reporting from Princeton described mounting anxiety during the university’s finals period. Start your day with essential news from Salon. Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course. A ransomware company and cybercriminal group called ShinyHunters claimed responsibility for the attack. The disruption underscored how dependent higher education has become on centralized digital platforms that now manage nearly every aspect of academic life, from assignments and testing to communication and grading. What once functioned as supplemental classroom software has effectively become critical educational infrastructure. Universities spent years building digital campuses. This week, many were forced to confront what happens when those campuses suddenly go offline. Read more about this topic How to teach kids about cybersecurity Elmo’s X account shares “disgusting” messages after hack “Gay furry hackers” claim credit for Heritage Foundation cyberattack The post When Canvas crashed, colleges had no backup plan appeared first on Salon.com.
Influencers are turning baby bumps into business models
They've transformed motherhood into lucrative professions, but what happens to the kids who grow up online?
This story was originally reported by Jasmine Mithani of The 19th. Meet Jasmine and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy. There’s only one career where having a baby can boost a woman’s career: influencing. Other women in the workforce have to contend with the motherhood penalty, but moms-to-be making a living on social media can rake in cash with sponsorships that continue well past their due dates. Individual brand deals can go for $25,000, while the most popular family vlogging YouTube channels earn an estimated $200,000 a month. It’s no wonder young mothers are clamoring toward the profession. “Influencerdom is the new American dream,” journalist Fortesa Latifi proclaimed earlier this month at the launch of her book “Like, Follow, Subscribe: Influencer Kids and the Cost of a Childhood Online.” Latifi’s book delves into the world of family vlogging, the vein of internet fame centered around the daily lives of parents and their kids. The most popular accounts post videos of their kids on platforms like YouTube that can pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars a month. She interviews kids whose parents cut brand deals tied to their first menstrual period, asking them about what it is like growing up in front of an audience of millions. But there’s no way to examine this ecosystem without exploring the impossible standards mothers are held to — and forces like religion that shape those expectations. The influencer economy is booming to a tune of $250 billion, and it’s dominated by women. Latifi says social media algorithms favor momfluencers because audiences love watching young, beautiful people online, especially if they are mothers with impossibly cherubic children. But these influencers are often dismissed as frivolous, Latifi says — and the gender breakdown has a lot to do with it. “Misogyny leaks into every conversation that we have about mom influencers and family bloggers,” Latifi said. She pointed out the relative scarcity of dad bloggers, which she contrasts with the relative ease of being a working dad — a situation employers tend to reward. While Latifi leaves readers to make their own conclusions about the ethics of family vlogging, she takes a hard stance on the seriousness of her subject: “It’s not silly, and it is work.” Latifi, who gestated the book alongside her firstborn, argues that becoming an influencer is the modern pitch to mothers that they can raise a family without sacrificing their careers. “I love my daughter, I would do anything for her. I would give up my job for her, but she was not a positive in my career,” Latifi said in an interview with The 19th. “She didn’t make my career better or make it easier to do my job. But if I were a family blogger or a mom influencer, not only would I not really need child care for her in the same way, because she would be part of my job, but I would get basically a bonus for having her.” According to Latifi’s book, if a momfluencer hits the “viral lottery,” she can make an income generally matched only by C-Suite executives. The families she interviewed make money from ad revenue on YouTube or Creator Reward Program from TikTok, in addition to brand partnerships. The latter can range depending on the size of the influencer, from $10,000 to $100,000. Experts Latifi interviewed estimated millions of dollars in brand deals for the top influencers. Bethanie Johnson of The Garcia Diaries told Latifi she makes $500,000 a year, which she says is incredible for a mom of five without a college degree. Her main platform is Instagram, with 308,000 followers as of April. But a lot of times, the image of motherhood these influencers are hawking isn’t exactly the full story. “The most popular mom influencers and family vloggers are White,” Latifi said. “Many of them are Mormon or Christian in some way and so there really is this lack of diversity.” Despite only making up 2 percent of the population, Mormons have a large presence on social media. The most popular trad wives, like Hannah “BallerinaFarm” Neeleman, are members. It makes sense that proselytizing religions would see the potential of the algorithm. Latifi charts out how Mormon doctrine perfectly aligns with the influencerdom: a focus on record-keeping, emphasis on beauty as an expression of divinity and a belief in material wealth as a reward for faith. Making money through the accounting of daily life fits perfectly within these pillars, she writes. One of the biggest scoops Latifi reports is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — widely known as the Mormon church — financially backs influencers. A few weeks before the tome hit shelves, Latifi didn’t think enough people were paying attention to that news. But that was before production of the fifth season of the wildly popular reality show “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” was put on hold and #MomTok star Taylor Frankie Paul’s “Bachelorette” season was canceled due to new domestic violence allegations. Latifi shared her reporting on social media shortly after the news broke, and quickly received pushback. She has been accused of bearing false witness with her assertion that one of the wealthiest religious organizations in the world is savvy enough to literally invest in influencers. It makes business sense, she argued, and the Mormon influencer she interviewed agrees. Family vloggers have more reach on TikTok and Instagram than missionaries will ever get knocking on doors or handing out pamphlets on street corners. Of course, Mormons aren’t alone in selling this “ideal of perfect White motherhood.” Top momfluencers don’t necessarily show the reality of domestic labor. The fantasy is propped up by nannies — often women of color — who exist only behind the scenes. Latifi interviewed the former weekend nanny of a prominent influencing family who never saw her work acknowledged online. Any mention of hiring help was actively avoided as influencers gushed about how they balanced kids and content creation, selling a false dream of having it all. That’s part of the reason the visible success of family vloggers isn’t always replicable. Plenty of parents are grinding on social media with little cash to show for their efforts. The hope persists, though: Latifi interviewed several teen moms who are trying to make it big to provide for their young families. “In the reporting of this book, I talked to so many women who were in these incredibly vulnerable situations,” Latifi said. “There are so few options for women in this country, and there are even fewer options for mothers in this country.” It’s for this reason that Latifi has concluded that on the internet, women just can’t win. People want her to come down hard on one side or the other about family vloggers — with many snarkers wanting to be vindicated for their hatred — but she has resisted. “I just think it’s so dishonest for people to be like, ‘there’s nothing that could ever be offered to me for me to do that,’” she said. “And I’m like, ‘Well, what if you had to choose between waitressing 60 hours a week and taking home $200 a month after daycare costs, and becoming a mom influencer?’” The post Influencers are turning baby bumps into business models appeared first on Salon.com.
As moms are driving the growth in America's labor market, it's time for major investments in early childcare
This year, for only the third time in American history, employed women outnumbered employed men. That shift has been beneficial for women, especially — and surprisingly — for mothers of young children. To maintain that momentum, it’s more important than ever to ensure quality childcare is readily available and accessibly priced. Women with young kids are more likely to be in the workforce than ever before, a shift due in part to the country’s cost-of-living crisis. This phenomenon of having more employed women than men also reflects a gradual shift in the labor market: The industry composition is moving away from traditionally male-dominated blue-collar occupations and more toward healthcare work. Many experts are also pointing to childcare access and telework options as important factors for women’s labor force participation. But despite what some may suggest, I don’t think telework plays a significant factor in the current labor market story. As a labor economist who spends most of my time crunching numbers about how gender interacts with the labor market, I think the data suggests that women are charging ahead in part thanks to childcare support that became more readily available during the Covid-19 pandemic. Related Candidates win when they run on affordable family care We have to look at this trend in rising female employment through the lens of that time and experience. Mothers were hit hard by the pandemic shutdown, and their participation in the labor force plummeted in the spring of 2020. Many moms didn’t recover until nearly two years later, and their maternal scream still echoed across the media landscape long after the world first ground to a halt. School closures put parents — mostly women — in a bind. Moms were more likely than dads and non-parents to leave the workforce to care for their kids who were stuck at home studying remotely. But pandemic-era stimulus packages that funded childcare helped ensure early educators kept their roles, and that thousands of programs could keep running. The federal support also helped reduce attrition, a problem that has long plagued the notoriously underpaid childcare sector. Attrition continues to be an issue, particularly now that those pandemic-era funds have been exhausted. Moms recovered relatively quickly from the shutdown, and then their labor force participation went on to hit some of the highest percentages on record, with prime-aged (25 to 54) mothers of young children surpassing the 70% mark in recent months. That’s still lower than mothers of teens, who have frequently exceeded an 80% labor force participation rate since 2023. However, this all pales in comparison to prime-aged fathers who have participation rates that frequently approach and surpass 95%, irrespective of their child’s age. When the majority of the pandemic stimulus package funds ran out in September 2023, the consequences began to show up in the labor force participation data, with participation rates for moms with young children taking a dip. When the majority of the pandemic stimulus package funds ran out in September 2023, the consequences began to show up in the labor force participation data, with participation rates for moms with young children taking a dip. However, despite that slight downward trend, their numbers have remained elevated compared to before the pandemic. How are they doing it — especially with nearly half of all kids under six living in a childcare desert as of 2025? The option of teleworking seems the logical answer. But with return-to-office mandates taking effect starting around 2023 and today’s renewed push for 5 days in-office per week — while major media outlets plaster the drawbacks of telework across their headlines — it’s not clear how permanent this option may be. Other prominent voices seem bent on convincing us that telework plays a significant negative factor in women’s career advancement. In her new memoir, business executive Emma Grede, cofounder of the shapewear and loungewear company SKIMS, promotes the idea of being a “three-hour mom” in which she quite literally describes spending three hours on “high impact” time with her children before her team takes over. She also calls remote work “career suicide,” arguing that women need in-person visibility to get ahead. Grede provocatively highlights the cultural shift that’s happening here: Moms are participating in and prioritizing work in a way that holds a stigma for them that doesn’t apply to dads. (Grede, though, argues her point from a perch of financial abundance that causes the sentiment to fall flat.) I recently took a closer look at the question of how telework may be impacting mothers’ labor force participation. Specifically, are return-to-office mandates having any major effect on maternal labor force participation? I discovered that while telework may have had some small benefit, helping keep moms with with kids under five in the labor force, it’s still not a very big piece of the puzzle. Nearly seven in 10 working moms with young kids aren’t teleworking at all. And among parents of school-aged children, I didn’t find very significant discrepancies in telework rates between mothers and fathers. Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Bottom line: Most parents don’t telework. This is not to say that telework doesn’t have downsides that uniquely affect women (for the small share that do have access to remote work). Grede’s point about needing to be visibly at the table to advance their careers may hold some weight, according to research that shows remote work makes women less likely to be promoted or have a sponsor in the workplace, particularly as compared to men, who don’t face the same double standard for working remotely. But there is also evidence that gender-based discrimination is lower in remote settings. There is also evidence that remote work helps women stay in the labor force, especially those with young children. There are few things more detrimental to women’s advancement in the workforce than leaving it altogether. So, the career-killing telework phenomenon Grede warned us about in her memoir doesn’t seem to have as much of a negative labor market impact for moms as the media would have us believe. The real career killer for most mothers in the U.S. is insufficient access to high-quality, affordable childcare. Lack of action on childcare is already costing the American economy $172 billion per year, according to data from the business-leader group ReadyNation. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% The connection is clear: After the Covid-era stimulus funds that funded childcare expired, we saw a simultaneous decline in mothers with younger kids holding down jobs. Now, the rising cost of living means many moms have had to figure out ways to make do. Imagine what could have been if policymakers had continued to make investments in childcare at a national level. How many more moms would be in the labor force? While states and cities have picked up the slack for the federal government to some extent, the nation is way past due for major investments in early childcare. This Mother’s Day, I want to remind us that it’s moms who have been driving U.S. labor market growth since the pandemic. But very little has been done to help maintain this growth. And while very few are privileged enough to have a team of caregivers enable them to live the so-called “three-hour mom” life, there’s something to be said for reexamining gendered expectations of time spent caring for children when 45% of moms are now the primary breadwinners for their families while prices — including for childcare — continue to rise. It’s time for federal investments in childcare to ensure we don’t take steps backward. The employed are now majority female. Forget about manpower. Today’s workforce is a matriarchy. Read more about affordability Trump’s “affordability hoax” may doom him Trump’s reality TV tricks can’t hide the affordability crisis Jon Ossoff bets his 2026 race on protecting ACA subsidies The post The American workforce is a matriarchy appeared first on Salon.com.
Neil Gorsuch’s right-wing book tour blows up in his face
Supreme Court justice’s interviews with friendly media get a cold reception from conservatives
Neil Gorsuch is on a book tour, and his itinerary reads less like a publicity schedule than a pilgrimage route through the modern right-wing media ecosystem. The conservative Supreme Court justice’s rollout for his new children’s book, “Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration,” includes “Fox & Friends,” Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Megyn Kelly’s podcast, National Review and stops at the presidential libraries of Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. But Gorsuch’s interviews have not been confined to “the stories of ordinary people willing to do extraordinary things,” as the book jacket reads. Throughout the tour, he has repeatedly insisted the Supreme Court is not a partisan institution. So there is something almost darkly ironic about watching Gorsuch embark on one of the friendliest media tours imaginable — one carefully routed through the movement that elevated him and celebrated his confirmation to the Supreme Court as one of the signal achievements of the modern conservative project — only to discover that even this is no longer enough for today’s right. Although Gorsuch’s insistence that disagreements on the Court stem merely from differing “interpretive methodologies” rather than ideology landed especially awkwardly just days after the Court further weakened the Voting Rights Act, the backlash currently consuming Gorsuch is not primarily coming from the left. It’s coming from the same right-wing world his book tour was designed to court. Related My citizenship, up for debate It all stems from Gorsuch’s third book and his first for children, which was co-written with a former law clerk and released in early May ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday. In interview after interview, he has described the United States as a “creedal nation” rooted not on race, ancestry or religion but on the ideals laid out in the Declaration of Independence: equality, natural rights and self-government. “Our nation is not founded on a religion,” Gorsuch told Reason. “It’s not based on a common culture, even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas.” The response from his intended audience was instructive. Steve Cortes, a former adviser to Donald Trump and JD Vance, proclaimed on X that it is “amazing how wrong” Gorsuch is and that America is “clearly a Christian nation founded on the principles of Western Civilization, with the culture and mores of Europe.” Fox News’ Will Cain challenged the justice to a debate on the topic. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation — an institution that has spent decades positioning itself as the intellectual backbone of American conservatism and birthed Project 2025 — wrote that Gorsuch’s view was “completely divorced from our founding.” Curtis Yarvin, the monarchist pro-Trump blogger — and vice presidential friend — whose ideas have traveled with alarming speed from dissident blog posts to White House adjacency, declared that Gorsuch’s comments gave off “cuck energy.” Jeremy Carl, the conservative commentator who had to withdraw from a State Department position this year after scrutiny over remarks about protecting “white identity,” called it “the broad intellectual failure of the conservative legal movement.” Here was a Republican-appointed justice appearing almost exclusively before sympathetic conservative audiences, promoting a children’s civics book steeped in reverence for the Founding Fathers, defending originalism — and still getting denounced as insufficiently nationalist by the movement he was effectively marketing himself to. Here was a Republican-appointed justice appearing almost exclusively before sympathetic conservative audiences, promoting a children’s civics book steeped in reverence for the Founding Fathers, defending originalism — and still getting denounced as insufficiently nationalist by the movement he was effectively marketing himself to. “Give us the precise creed, and let us know the consequences citizenship-wise for rejecting it,” Sean Davis of The Federalist wrote on X. The Washington Examiner’s Timothy HJ Nerozzie concurred: “If we’re a creedal nation, show me the required creed and explain to me the consequences for someone who refuses to follow it.” Under Donald Trump, delivering an utterly conventional articulation of American civic nationalism is apparently akin to surrender. Historically, this would not have been controversial within mainstream conservatism. Reagan said essentially the same thing for decades. George W. Bush framed American identity in similarly civic terms. Even many immigration hawks traditionally argued that newcomers could become fully American through assimilation into constitutional values and institutions. But a growing reality inside Trump-era conservatism is that for an increasingly vocal faction of the right, even traditional conservative constitutionalism is now too liberal. The timing of all this is not incidental. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, the administration’s long-shot attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order. Every federal court that had previously weighed in struck the order down, and after oral arguments in April, a majority of justices appeared likely to rule against the administration. Even the right-wing media apparatus understands the case is probably lost. And so when Gorsuch showed up on their favorite podcasts talking about America as a creedal nation, they heard it as a preview of the judicial betrayal they have been dreading — a justice warming up the audience for a ruling they won’t like. “Seems like he’s ‘prepping’ us for an absurd Birthright Citizenship ruling,” Cortes wrote on X. Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Birthright citizenship is rooted in the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens. For generations, mainstream conservatives accepted this framework, even while arguing over immigration policy itself. But as the Republican Party has become increasingly consumed by demographic panic, constitutional arguments once considered fringe have moved toward the center of MAGA politics. That’s why Gorsuch’s remarks felt so threatening to these figures. His language implicitly reaffirmed a vision of citizenship based on civic membership rather than ethnic inheritance. During oral arguments, Gorsuch pointed out that the word “domicile” — the legal concept at the heart of the Trump administration”s entire theory — appears nowhere in the congressional debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. “The absence” of that word, he said, “is striking.” The response to all of this on the right has been to conclude not that the Trump administration’s legal theory is bad — which it is, and which even many conservative legal scholars have acknowledged — but that Gorsuch, who was appointed to the Court by Trump in 2018, is a traitor. The president has said publicly that he regrets listening to the Federalist Society when making his first-term appointments, calling them “weak, stupid and bad” and “an embarrassment to their families.” And that makes Gorsuch’s media strategy even more ironic. The entire structure of the tour appears designed to reinforce conservative trust in the Court and in Gorsuch himself. He repeatedly emphasized civic literacy, institutional legitimacy, judicial independence and America’s founding ideals. He promoted himself as a steward of constitutional continuity. He wrapped the project in nostalgia for the Founding era ahead of the country’s 250th anniversary. Spring savings are here! Support Salon’s bold journalism. Annual members save 58% But the conservative movement he is addressing increasingly does not trust institutions, constitutional restraints or even the Founders themselves — unless they can be weaponized toward present-day populist goals. That’s why the backlash escalated so quickly from disagreement into accusations of betrayal. To much of the right, the problem is not that Gorsuch misread the Constitution but that he still appears to believe in liberal democracy at all. Gorsuch made a bet that he could maintain credibility with the institutions and media properties of mainstream conservatism while the ground shifted beneath him. He went to the right outlets. He appeared before the right crowds. He spoke in the careful, optimistic language of civic nationalism that has animated American conservatism from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush — the shining city on a hill, the proposition nation, the idea that anyone who believes in the American creed can become an American. And he discovered, probably not for the first time, how far the modern right has drifted to a vision of America defined by blood and soil. Read more about the Supreme Court SCOTUS just unleashed a gerrymandering dragon Clarence Thomas’ attack on progressivism should alarm you Supreme Court could create a whole new class of noncitizens The post Neil Gorsuch’s right-wing book tour blows up in his face appeared first on Salon.com.