Mother Jones

If you want to understand U.S. politics, take the train.

The Trump administration’s federal budget request for the next fiscal year includes steep cuts to passenger rail. According to an analysis by the High Speed Rail Alliance, a pro-rail advocacy group, the budget proposal would slash Federal Railroad Administration funding by 81 percent. This includes a 69 percent funding cut to Amtrak.

But rural Republicans have historically relied on passenger rail. They also elected the same administration now cutting this service that they rely on. At this point, this paradox is nothing new: From cutting healthcare subsidies to immigration dragnets to costly and devastating wars, President Donald Trump’s assault on human rights and domestic programs has ensnared the very people whose support he has relied on.

So, how is this playing out with voters in real time, particularly ahead of the midterm elections?

I took the train to find out.

From Newark to D.C. to Pittsburgh, I met people across political lines. People who love Trump, and people who want to invoke the 25th Amendment. People who hope cuts to trains and other services will change conservative hearts and minds, and people who can imagine passenger rail funding going to things they view as more important.

Across these differences, one common theme emerged: Daily life in the U.S. right now costs way too much. To me, it underlined the way power has worked before Trump and will work after. If people who have been deprived of wealth and influence unite against the power players leveraging those things against us, then what could we achieve?

“Loitering is not permitted in this area,” an audio recording sternly warns, as uniformed National Guard troops patrol Washington’s iconic, algae-plagued reflecting pool. “Please proceed to a designated location.”

Journalist Amanda Moore’s dystopian video, shot last weekend just steps from the Lincoln Memorial, instantly went viral—a perfect 8-second encapsulation of American democracy under Donald Trump. Amanda has spent the past 18 months documenting the chaos and brutality of the administration’s militarized takeovers and immigration raids in cities across the country. Her footage has been shocking, often horrifying. But it’s never before been quite so absurd. (Well, maybe once.)

In her latest video report for Mother Jones, Amanda takes us on a tour of the Trumpified National Mall as the nation attempts to celebrate its 250th birthday. Not far from the reflecting pool’s nanobubblers and security theater, there’s a very different scene: Trump’s Great America State Fair. When Amanda visited this marquee anniversary event, she found a dearth of visitors, a shortage of napkins, and a decaying model of the triumphal arch the president wants to build across the Potomac.

The symbolism here is about as subtle as a Jon McNaughton painting. If I hadn’t seen Amanda’s reporting, I never would have believed it was real.

In the four months since the US and Israel initiated their ongoing joint military campaign against Iran, the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iranian leadership to end the war have been predictable in their unpredictability.

On Monday, President Trump said US officials would meet with Iran in Qatar the next day. Iran said that no negotiation meetings were scheduled. (They ultimately conducted low-level talks on Wednesday.) Both countries have launched strikes despite signing a memorandum of understanding on June 17 that included a ceasefire and was designed to help bring an end to the war. But—despite the US celebrating a security deal between Israel and Lebanon last week—Israel has continued strikes on southern Lebanon and Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, rejected the Israel-Lebanon deal, which it was not a party to. 

According to data from multiple Iranian government ministries, as of June 10, about 3,500 people have been killed in Iran since the war began. Lebanon’s health ministry reported on Wednesday that about 4,300 people have been killed in that country.

All to say, as I wrote shortly after the memorandum of understanding was signed, the Iran war doesn’t appear to be ending anytime soon.

“I think Iran was very open to a potential arrangement that was stronger than the JCPOA.”

Nate Swanson, a resident senior fellow at the nonpartisan Atlantic Council, spent nearly two decades as a State Department official, most recently as the Biden administration’s director for Iran at the National Security Council.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct, Swanson told me, took a wrecking ball to many of the US’ already tenuous relationships in the region, and made a region-spanning war with Iran much more likely even before 2026.

I spoke with Swanson last week about what could be next for US relations with Iran, Israel, and the Gulf states.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. 

Given how the second Trump administration has handled relations with Iran, I was curious what you think a different negotiator could have gotten out of this situation.

I don’t want to say the US-Iran relationship has ever been good in my time working on this، for almost 20 years, but I think Trump walked into a situation in 2025 where Iran was in a historically bad spot.

They just had these two direct exchanges with Israel. They had no air defense. Their proxies at the time seemed like they were much weaker. Domestically, they had very acute economic and environmental crises. They had also come off massive protests in 2023. So I think Iran was very interested in the deal right there. 

I think they approached negotiations not sure what Trump wanted to do. I was there—and I wasn’t quite sure what Trump wanted to do—but I think up until the June 2025 war, the US had a great hand in terms of leverage. And I think Iran was very open to a potential arrangement that was stronger [in restrictions] than the JCPOA. After the 12-day war though, it’s been a declining chance for a real deal and certainly US leverage. Iran knew that more war was coming and that was where their focus was.

“The US doesn’t seem interested in complicated deals, and [now] I’m not sure Iran is willing.”

I’m curious if you think the Biden administration would ever have launched strikes against Iran like those last June and this February—or how you think they would have handled the aftermath.

Yeah, there’s no way those strikes would have happened.

To some extent, you had a path that was drawn with October 7, 2023. For Israel, that was a game-changing event. They went after Hamas and Hezbollah, and both of those, from their military perspective, were relatively successful. You had conflicts with Israel and Iran directly for the first time in October 2024, right before the election.

I think the priorities in the Biden perspective was one, to make sure that Israel and our Gulf allies were protected. Second is to, wherever possible, deter escalation. We were very clear that we were not going to support larger escalation, while Israel definitely was considering a larger war at multiple points across 2024.

[The June] 2025 and 2026 [wars] would not have happened at nearly the same level if it had not been Trump. Netanyahu has been pushing some form of an Iran war forever. He’s Mister Iran. And the major difference between Trump and any other administration before him—including Bush, Obama, and Biden—was that [the Israelis] were always told no, and that we weren’t going to support [a war]. Trump said yes, and that is fundamentally the difference.

How has the US’ ongoing role with the war in Gaza changed its relationships with the Gulf states?

[The US had] a pretty strong relationship with all the GCC members [Gulf Cooperation Council, constituting Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates].

Prior to [October 7], there was a movement to normalize relations between Israel and the rest of the Gulf. It has been a long-standing goal across multiple administrations, and Trump [partly] did it with the Abraham Accords.

But it was happening without a solution to the Palestinian issue. We were able to do it with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, and Biden spent a lot of time trying to facilitate Saudi-Israel normalization. 

It went out the window on October 7, especially from the Saudi perspective. Bibi was willing to prioritize his number one objective to have this military conquest in Gaza.

But the relationship [with the Gulf states] has been shifting significantly forever. A significant moment in our history was when the US pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018. Iran responded by attacking the Gulf, which was a harbinger of what happened in this war. So the US pulled out of the JCPOA, put maximum pressure on Iran, [which] attacked oil tankers [in UAE waters] and Saudi energy infrastructure. This was the [2026] playbook, at a much smaller scale.

For the first time, you saw [Gulf states] try to de-escalate with Iran. There was a recognition that we weren’t going to be there for them in the way they hoped. The relationship has been slowly evolving through then, and then we put on turbo burners during this war, where the US relationship with the Gulf became a liability. If [a Gulf state] had a real US base, not only did it not protect, it encouraged attacks.

Recent reporting suggests that the US may effectively be returning to aspects of the JCPOA—such as JD Vance saying last week that Iran agreed to nuclear inspections. If the current negotiations come through, do you see the JCPOA-era relationship as partially restored?

Yes, in the best-case scenario; but ultimately, no. I don’t think we’re going to get the bigger phase two deal that the MOU outlines. The US doesn’t seem to be interested in complicated deals, and I’m not sure Iran is willing to do a big deal with Trump—just and uniquely him. 

I also think you can’t recapture what we did in 2015 with the JCPOA. The JCPOA was done to stall out Iran’s nuclear program at that moment in time. But you can’t turn back time. Even if Iran agreed to all the Trump administration requests of no enrichment and getting rid of all the stockpiles of enriched uranium, the time it would take Iran to break out for a weapon is about half the time it was under the JCPOA.

Iran has learned so much about the process, specifically their ability to install vastly more technologically efficient and proficient centrifuges and to install them a lot faster. It’s like six times stronger centrifuges that can install at three times the speed. 

And those [demands from the US] aren’t going to be met, so I think we are in a significantly worse off position.

What were the years under the Biden administration, after the US left the JCPOA, like regarding relations with Iran? I know Iran had resumed nuclear enrichment at that point after the US had reinstated sanctions.  

Under past presidents, the Israelis “were always told no…Trump said yes, and that is fundamentally the difference.”

Different Biden officials have different takes on this. My opinion is that there was a deal achievable but there were a few mistakes made on both sides, but more on Iran’s.

Iran expected, when Biden came in the door, to immediately indicate a desire to get back to the JCPOA as quickly as possible. We were slow; it took us a month. There was a conversation that happened both inside and outside the government about whether you should go back into the JCPOA directly or a deal that could be hypothetically more sustainable. At that point it was clear that Iran wanted a clean return to the JCPOA. By early April, the US had put together a comprehensive return to the JCPOA. 

But at that point it was too late for Iran. While I think their negotiators wanted a deal, they had elections coming up a couple months later and their Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] didn’t want the outgoing administration to get credit for it. So as much as we were trying to move forward a deal, they couldn’t say yes. 

The new [Iranian] team came in and spent three or four months getting their act together and eventually decided that they wanted to get back into the JCPOA too, basically under the exact same terms. A deal was possible, but Iran thought that the longer they held out, the more we would give them. And so they kept stalling and pushing for more and more. 

The Russia war broke out [in which Iran backed Russia], and then Iran went through massive protests. By the end of fall 2022, a return to the JCPOA wasn’t viable politically and timing-wise. And in the midst of all this happening, there were significant advances made in the nuclear program. 

So the deal was less valuable than it was in 2015, and even as it would have been in early 2021. 

I do think they wanted to get to yes, but they never could.

Trump’s JCPOA withdrawal meant economic sanctions were put back on Iran. How do you think that played into the events you mentioned during the Biden administration?

By the time Trump left office in his first term, you had a significant increase [in sanctions] under “maximum pressure.” For instance, the key part of JCPOA sanctions relief was delisting their central bank, their shipping sector, their oil sector, etc. All that got re-sanctioned not only when we pulled out of JCPOA, but then they also listed this vital JCPOA sanctions relief as terrorism. That complicated any potential deal.

But I think the bigger difference is oil. Obama signed language that reduced Iranian oil, but it was capped to not destabilize oil markets and it was agreed on with other countries. I think Trump’s approach was that no one can buy any Iranian oil. The net effect is everyone went down to zero eventually but China. China ended up buying the Iranian exports at that point and has ever since. China has become a beneficiary of the system and has basically kept Iran alive because they’re not adhering to the US sanctions.

Is there a good way to understand how the US leaving the JCPOA impacted Iran’s economy and the global oil market?

“You [now] have to have something that seven people agree on…I think that’s why you see this MOU is in Iran’s favor—because they couldn’t say yes to anything less.”

Oil exports are the best number. Pre-JCPOA they were doing about a million barrels a day. During the JCPOA, they’re at max capacity over two million barrels a day. And then under Trump’s maximum pressure—including during COVID when [production] went away, it went down to a couple hundred thousand barrels a day. It’s been creeping up ever since, including through [the second] Trump [administration]. They are now doing 1.7 million barrels a day—all that illegal, all to China, and at a discount. Iran has figured out how to evade sanctions and how to get oil to China. 

As a part of this [2026] deal that we signed, Iran could sell all the oil again with no repercussions for the first time since the JCPOA. They will now be able to recruit new purchasers who used to buy Iran oil—like Japan, South Korea, and India would be the biggest.

How do you think the re-implementation of US economic sanctions in 2018 affected the negotiations under Biden?

It definitely made it harder. It added layers of complexity that were time-consuming and difficult to figure out. You basically had to go through one by one and say, “is this actual, real terrorism or is this [an additional terrorism designation from] Trump’s sanctions?”

Some experts I’ve talked to have emphasized the 1953 CIA-backed coup in shaping Iran’s attitude to negotiating with the US. What do you think about that?

It’s very much in Iran’s political ideology and statecraft. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 was founded on anti-imperial and anti-US ideas that came out of 1953. They view the US as supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, and it’s just one living continuous piece of history that hasn’t ended. I don’t know if that’s wise or not, but I think it’s reality. 

There is no trust on either side. I think the difference between now and the JCPOA, though, is at least there was a desire to try to work through the mistrust to get somewhere that’s mutually beneficial. I am not sure that environment exists at all anymore, and I think it’s evidenced by the fact that Iran won’t sit down with the US directly. It has to be with an intermediary or a mediator in the room or just not at all. They’ll only pass messages right now through Qatar or Pakistan. 

And it goes both ways. When I started at the State Department in 2007, the door across from me had a sticker of an American flag and the inscription was like “save our hostages” from the hostage crisis. There’s still these survivors of this hostage crisis left over. There are still victims of Iranian violence and terror around the world, through Hezbollah or others.

It goes both ways, and the level of mistrust and animosity has got to be an all-time high coming out of this war.

The US and Israel’s bombing campaign has killed a lot of Iranian officials. Do you have any idea who is negotiating now, and if they have any different priorities?

I’m not really sure of the answer. On one hand, the foreign ministry guys are the same—they’re not dead. So the foreign minister and [longtime] lead negotiator [Abbas Araghchi], and his surrounding team have been around—with a minor blip from 2021 to 2024 during the Raisi presidency—since 2013.

To your real question of who’s making decisions, I don’t know. We knew before the Supreme Leader [Ali Khamenei] died that it was him. We don’t even really know if the Supreme Leader’s son [Mojtaba Khamenei, who was elected after his father’s assassination] is alive or not. We know the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of the Iranian armed forces accountable only to the Supreme Leader] has a bigger role than they have in the past, but we don’t really know what that means. There’s a new lead negotiator, the Speaker of Parliament [Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf]. There’s clearly five, six—probably more—people who are making decisions in a collaborative manner.

It’s much more complicated than the JCPOA. You have to have something that seven people agree on to get to yes. I think that’s why you see this MOU is in Iran’s favor—because they couldn’t say “yes” to anything less. 

I do think it reflects the correct desire by the president to get out of this war, which is a debacle and getting worse. But the terms are terrible, and it’s like the ultimate indictment of the war itself.

Foreign Service Officers play a pivotal role in the US Department of State—and in the world. According to the agency’s website, these high-ranking officials “engage with foreign governments, advocate for American interests, and help shape global policy across political, economic, and humanitarian priorities.” Because of the importance of their duties, the vetting process for Foreign Service Officers is famously intense and includes both a rigorous screening process and a difficult multi-hour exam.

Last year, the Trump administration announced sweeping changes to the program, vowing to end hiring practices that it said relied too heavily on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Secretary of State was to “remove any reference to the Core Precept entitled ‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility,'” Trump ordered in a March 2025 memo. “The Secretaries shall promptly direct all employees of their Departments not to give this Core Precept any force or effect.”

Later that year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio abruptly recalled 29 ambassadors and fired 246 Foreign Service Officers. The moves were part of a restructuring that, Rubio wrote in a Substack post, aimed to rid the State Department of a culture where “radical ideologues and bureaucratic infighters have learned to…push through their own agendas that are often at odds with those of the President and undermine the interests of the United States.”

Now, the US Department of State is looking to hire a new generation of Foreign Service Officers. To recruit applicants for these coveted and vital positions, the agency just signed a contract with a company called Military Hire, a subsidiary of the employment firm RedBalloon, which describes itself as “America’s non-woke job board.” At $978,750, the amount of the contract is not particularly high, but the company nevertheless has lofty ambitions. It aims to give the Foreign Service an anti-woke makeover by attracting ideologically “aligned” candidates—hopefully Christians. 

Earlier this week, RedBalloon CEO Andrew Crapuchettes appeared on CrossPolitic, a podcast that says it is “helping Christians apply God’s law to politics.” CrossPolitic is a project of CanonPress, the publishing house connected to Christian nationalist Idaho pastor Doug Wilson’s Church. Perhaps not coincidentally, Crapuchettes is an elder at Wilson’s Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Wilson has robust connections to the Trump administration through defense secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It was focused on trying to get in the guy with a PhD in Black dance, rather than people who can actually do a good job.”

In the CrossPolitic episode–called “Could 1,000 Employees Change the State Department Forever?”—Crapuchettes says that before the current administration, “a lot of the recruiting was focused on DEI. It was focused on trying to get in the guy with a PhD in Black dance, rather than people who can actually do a good job.”

Those DEI hires, Craphuchettes charges, were often reluctant to follow directives that aligned with the administration’s “America First” ethic. “What they’re finding is all these Foreign Service Officers are like, ‘Yeah, I don’t really want to. Yeah, that sounds really hard, so I’m not going to,’ because they’re, more than not, leftists, and they don’t want to do President Trump’s agenda,” he says. “They want him to look bad, and they want to drag their feet.”

Because of this mismatch of values, Crapuchettes says, the State Department “got rid of the entire recruiting department…like 50 people,” and now is in the process of “cleaning house.” That means “removing a lot of people who are not aligned with the current administration’s agenda, and they want to get people who are more aligned.”

Crapuchettes then invites Christians to apply for jobs in the foreign service. “I would love to see a lot of Christians applying, taking the test, doing the hard work, becoming a foreign service officer, going to Germany for two years, or Botswana, or Thailand,” he says. “You’re working for the ambassador; you’re going to build connections and relationships that you can’t get any other way, and all of a sudden you’re in a position where you can have a huge influence for the rest of your life on the US government.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Crapuchettes explains that RedBalloon is working on developing similar recruiting contracts with the Department of War and the Department of the Interior. He also claims that the company “just got another contract” with the Department of Veterans Affairs to perform “political appointee level recruitment for them.” Neither the State Department nor the VA responded to our questions; a spokesperson from the Department of War declined to comment.

Crapuchettes founded RedBalloon in 2021. At first, the company attracted applicants who were seeking jobs without Covid vaccine mandates. But as the pandemic faded into the background, the company’s remit expanded. A 2023 Wired profile noted that Donald Trump, Jr. called RedBalloon “a HUGE advance in the culture war.” Today, it boasts a network of “tens of thousands” of job seekers “who value freedom, hard work, and merit-based recognition.” The employers hiring through it include Turning Point USA, the Christian cell phone service Patriot Mobile, and the conservative media company The Daily Wire.

In the podcast, Crapuchettes boasts that RedBalloon has developed a reputation for working with government agencies unpopular with the political left. “We’re already doing stuff for like Border Patrol, which gets us in trouble—ICE, Border Patrol, we do hiring for them,” he tells Wilson. He suggests that Military Hire is a less controversial brand. “RedBalloon’s a little hotter to handle than Militaryhire.com, and so on a PR front, Militaryhire.com’s got the contract, not Red Balloon,” he says, “which is fine with me.” (A Border Patrol spokesperson clarified in an email to Mother Jones that the agency “has worked with Military Hire since 2022 and was under contract with them when they were acquired by RedBalloon.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Doug Wilson, who heads the Idaho church where Crapuchettes is an elder and also oversees a small fiefdom of businesses and schools connected to his church, is increasingly influential in national politics. A spiritual adviser to US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he delivered a sermon on manly, godly warriors at the Pentagon earlier this year. A self-proclaimed Christian nationalist, Wilson is a firebrand online. In previous interviews, he has told me that women’s suffrage was “a mistake” and that in his ideal version of the United States, public flogging would largely replace prisons. In a 2024 address at the National Conservatism conference, he described a society under siege by identity politics and anti-Christian bias. “It used to be that the sexually troubled had to keep their kinks hidden away in the closet,” he said. “Now it is the conservative Christian who needs to keep his virtues hidden in the recesses of the closet.”

On matters of woke-ism, Wilson appears to be firmly aligned with the Red Balloon ethos. In a post on his blog last year, he thundered against DEI initiatives. “It is not enough for us to be against woke, or DEI, or social justice, or whatever new term our lizard overlords have decided to foist upon us,” he wrote. “We must be hostile to all such verbal iterations.”

Job seekers don’t pay to use RedBalloon and Military Hire; rather, employers pay to recruit through these companies—hence the State Department’s contract. Crapuchettes says in the podcast that his platform will offer opportunities to take practice tests—an important feature because applicants are only allowed to take the test once a year. In an emailed statement, RedBalloon spokesperson Isaac Lopez said that the company does not “screen, filter, or evaluate any applicant based on political affiliation, religion, or ideology, and we have no policy, written or unwritten, that does so, consistent with federal hiring law.” Lopez added that Crapuchettes’ comments on the podcast “reflected a personal hope that more public-service-minded people of faith consider federal careers. His sentiment was not a company screening criterion.”

The Trump administration’s July 4th fireworks show will likely produce unhealthy levels of pollution at the National Mall and the surrounding area—a fitting byproduct of the president’s 250th American anniversary celebration. 

Internal documents from the National Park Service, which hosts the annual DC fireworks celebration, and obtained by the Washington Post, say that people in the area should “remain indoors as much as possible during and after the show” and “wear an N95 mask when outdoors” to prevent “irritation symptoms.” 

A significant contributor to these warnings is the scale of the fireworks display: the approximately 850,000 fireworks for 40 minutes. This is about 50 times more than the usual number of fireworks and double the typical show duration. 

To fund the extravagance, Trump is using $1.6 million in revenue from entry fees to national parks—five times more than what’s usually spent on the show. According to the Washington Post, the president is funneling a total of at least $90 million from national park entry fees for his plans to remake DC in his own image. This includes $76 million for repairing fountains, such as the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. 

Surely, this is the best use of these funds, considering the US Department of the Interior states that, as of September 2025, it needs $35.4 billion for maintenance and repair tasks that have already been postponed.

As my colleague Dan Friedman noted in May, some watchdog groups say the Trump administration skipped past congressional oversight by funneling money to the public-private partnership Freedom250.

It’s just another set of opaque business deals to serve one man’s vanity.

Chief Justice John Roberts famously promised that he would run the highest court like an impartial umpire calling balls and strikes. Instead, Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees have studiously moved forward a radical agenda. This term, the justices in Roberts’ six-three majority not only advanced their priorities, they accomplished them. As a result, Americans now live in a different constitutional order. The court reshaped the government, shifting it away from a multiracial democracy and toward a racially-stratified autocracy. 

The Roberts Court is predictable. Not because it follows the law, but because it never passes an opportunity to push its ideological vision. Once you know where Roberts and his colleagues want the country to go, you can figure out how almost every relevant case will end. The roadmap is simple.

First, Roberts and the majority fundamentally disagree with the premise that we have three co-equal branches of government. They believe in the idea of a “unitary executive” with total control over the machinery of government, with the justices themselves serving as the main check on the president. The biggest loser is Congress. Despite it being designed as be the most powerful branch, the court takes every opportunity to trample legislative authority. Second, this court has allies it seeks to help whenever it can, namely, the Republican Party, President Donald Trump, and the wealthiest Americans and the businesses they run. Finally, this majority is animated by a dislike of the Reconstruction amendments, civil rights laws, and using the laws or the Constitution to protect disfavored groups. If they have a chance to strike a blow to a minority group, they take it.

This term, the court didn’t move the ball down the field, they scored tournament-changing goals. In two major cases, Roberts and his allies can claim victories for the conservative movement decades in the making. The country is already feeling the consequences. 

The message to Trump was clear: the law is not binding, and we will not stop you from ignoring it.

First, on April 29, the court effectively killed the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law that for 61 years guaranteed racial minorities a political voice. In Louisiana v. Callais, the court ruled that states can gerrymander communities of color so that they never have a shot at electing their choice of representative. Not only did the court deal a death blow to the VRA, its ruling also took away Congress’ ability to enforce the 15th Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination in voting. The Reconstruction amendments are worth little if the court won’t enforce them and Congress can’t. Yet the Callais decision all but forecloses Congress’ ability to protect voters of color. “I can’t even imagine what statute Congress would enact protecting racial equality in voting, especially when it comes to dilution, that would survive a Supreme Court judgment that will rely on Callais,” said Berkeley law professor Bertrall Ross.

Some Republican-controlled states immediately set about eliminating majority-minority Congressional districts ahead of this year’s midterm elections, including in Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee. But that’s only the beginning. Not only will Congress grow whiter as GOP states, mostly in the South, draw Black and brown people out of power as they were free to do before the VRA, but so will state and local governments. Legislatures, school boards, municipal councils—states can now cut minorities out of all levels of government, rendering them, effectively, subjects rather than equal citizens. 

In another case that is an earthquake to government, the court eliminated independent agencies in Trump v. Slaughter. This case fundamentally shifted the balance of federal powers in America, neutering Congress and handing vast new authority to the president. It’s an anti-democracy, pro-corruption decision that will affect everyone. 

Since the country’s earliest days, Congress has had the ability to create what we now call independent agencies, insulated in various ways from direct presidential control. These proliferated in the 20th century as the federal government adapted to the exigencies of modernity. In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies whose members can only be removed by the president for cause, as opposed to political disagreement. Relying upon this decision, Humphrey’s Executor, Congress created dozens of independent agencies over the last 90 years, to regulate everything from major mergers to the safety of consumer products. Until Monday, these agencies were run by bipartisan, multi-member commissions whose members have removal protection.

But on June 29, the court’s 6-3 majority declared that the president can remove the heads of these agencies for any reason. It overturned Humphrey’s Executor and effectively handed all the powers of these agencies over to one man. It’s clear where this will lead: allies and donors can ask for favors when it comes to any regulatory decision that concerns them, and the president can reward them. Likewise, the president can weaponize these agencies—which were supposed to be insulated from presidential politics—for his own political and financial gain. If any commissioner chooses not to act at the president’s behest, Trump can simply remove them. In fact, the opinion may ripple down from the commissioners to the civil servants who work for them. The ruling’s logic, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in dissent, could lead the court to overturn civil service protections and herald a return to a spoils system.

The decision is not just a boon to corrupt government and presidential power, it is a body blow to Congress. The legislative branch is simply not equipped to make every regulation, decision, or adjudication necessary to carry out its laws. As a result, it created agencies to do that work. And in some cases, Congress determined the agencies should have at least some insulation from presidential control. By taking away that independence, the court has done violence to Congress’ ability to ensure its laws are followed. Lawmakers can still hold hearings if they are concerned about an agency’s actions, or even withhold funding—although doing that undercuts its ability to see that its laws are carried out. This decision is a “nuclear bomb for the separation of powers,” Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote. If the president doesn’t want to follow the law, there’s little Congress can do to enforce its directives. 

In his majority opinion in Slaughter, Roberts lets his loathing for Congress spill onto the page. He chided Congress for “taking more power for itself” by creating independent agencies, and decried how they result in an “‘increased subservience to congressional direction.’” But ironically, it is the court that is grabbing power. The only explicit exception to its holding is the Federal Reserve Board, which the court claimed had a different history, but which was transparently an acknowledgment that placing the board’s monetary decisions under one man could destroy the economy. The 6-3 majority reserved the right to exempt other agencies from presidential control on a case by case basis, placing their own judgement about the necessity of independence over Congress’. 

This disdain for Congress was a theme in three major immigration cases, in which the same GOP-appointed majority let the administration ignore laws passed by Congress commanding how the president should implement immigration laws. In a decision that will have massive human consequences, the majority allowed the Trump administration to eliminate Temporary Protect Status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, even though, in the case of TPS for Haitians, the administration did not follow the rules Congress laid out to legally end such a designation. Now, Trump can unilaterally take legal status from some 1.3 million people without following the required process. The court’s message to the president was clear: the law is not binding, and we will not stop you from ignoring it. In a case over the rights of asylum seekers, the court ruled the administration doesn’t have to process asylum seekers as mandated by law if border officers can simply block them from physically stepping into the US. Finally, the court gave immigration officers more discretion to take away a lawful permanent resident’s green card at the border, a decision that, in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s words, undermines the “benefits and security that come with having” that status. In all three cases, the president’s prerogatives took primacy over the law.

The court is a single vote away from undoing our nation of equals.

As if going after Congress’ ability to enact voting rights laws, to determine who carries out its laws, and the legitimacy of its immigration laws wasn’t enough, the court dealt a serious blow to its authority to enforce rules it attaches to its spending. Under the Constitution, Congress can spend money for the “general welfare,” which is called spending clause legislation. Sometimes these laws dole out money, but come with strings attached: Famously, highway funding requires states to set the drinking age at 21. But in a case called Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, the 6-3 majority weakened Congress’ ability to enforce such rules.

One such spending clause law requires that prisons that receive federal funds respect inmates’ religious rights. In violation of this law, guards in Louisiana shaved the head of an incarcerated Rastafarian man, despite the religious dictate that he not cut his hair. The court found that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue the guards. This will likely result in more disregard for prisoners’ religious rights. But the broader picture is even more troubling. “The Court reduces some of Congress’s greatest legislative achievements—federal laws that secure civil rights, environmental stability, healthcare, and more—to nothing more than the wheelings-and-dealings of an especially wealthy private party,” Jackson warned in her dissent. If Congress can’t enforce the terms of its spending, it has lost an enormous source of power, with victims left in the lurch.

On the final day of the term, the court struck down one of Congress’ last standing campaign finance rules, giving the wealthiest Americans another way to influence politicians. The ruling in NRSC v. FEC limits how Congress can guard against corruption through campaign finance regulations, and specifically allows wealthy donors to circumvent the $7,000 limit they can directly give to a candidate by routing over half a million to them through the party apparatus. As Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent warns, this promotes corruption, degrades our system of government, and substitutes the court’s judgement for Congress’. Again, because the biggest winners are Republicans and billionaires, and the loser is Capitol Hill, this 6-3 outcome was predictable. 

Just as the Roberts Court has dedicated itself to destroying the VRA and ending independent agencies, it has likewise taken every opportunity to weaken campaign finance laws, allowing billions of dollars to flow into American elections, reorienting American politics toward rewarding the biggest donors. Callais, Slaughter, and NRSC v. FEC are all creatures of this 20-year agenda. All three cases rely almost exclusively on other Roberts court decisions. Again and again, they fail to find any help for their arguments that date back to before Roberts’ 2005 ascension to the high court. (The only exception is that Slaughter uses a 1926 case, Myers v. United States—but it’s a contrived reliance that takes the precedent beyond its bounds and ignores its deep and well-documented flaws.) The combined result of the rulings is stunning: these major cases have rolled back civil rights and reshaped the government in the image of the current permutation of this court. 

The conservative bloc also continued its march against civil rights for minorities. Beyond Callais, the court upheld state laws that ban transgender women and girls from participating in school sports. The decision locks transgender girls and young women out of the educational and social benefits of athletic competition in 27 states with bans, continuing this court’s anti-transgender turn. But all girls and women are likely to be affected. The court’s reasoning would logically extend to laws that treat the sexes differently, enabling more laws that discriminate on the basis of sex.

Though the court gave Trump massive wins over the course of the term, it held back when it deemed the consequences too potentially damaging to the economy. These losses for Trump demonstrate an understanding of what is best for the president and his allies, even if he doesn’t agree. In particular, Trump claimed the power to impose emergency tariffs on any nation, as well as the power to fire governors of the Federal Reserve over flimsy allegations. Both would have enormous economic consequences that would imperil Trump’s reigning political coalition. So in two opinions, both by Roberts, the court struck down most of his tariffs, and it blocked his attempt to immediately remove Lisa Cook from the Fed. (The Cook decision was narrow, leaving the robustness of Fed independence uncertain.) 

Hanging over the entire term was a case over the Trump administration’s attempt to take birthright citizenship away from the children of temporary visitors and undocumented immigrants. The policy, an executive order signed on Trump’s first day back in office, violates the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which states unequivocally that “all persons born” in the country and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. This sacred provision overturned Dred Scott and with it the era of inherited status. There is no American dream—the idea that anyone born here can get ahead through hard work—if all Americans are not born citizens on equal legal footing. Perhaps because this case struck at the heart of what this country is and what it stands for, it was widely presumed that a large majority would strike down Trump’s unconstitutional order and uphold the 14th Amendment. 

But when the decision came down on June 30, it was shockingly close. A bare majority, 5-4, ruled that birthright citizenship applied to virtually all people born in the country. Though spared this time, the closeness of this case did not settle the issue but brought on more nativist, anti-immigrant agitation on the part of Trump and his allies. Justice Brett Kavanaugh invited Congress to limit birthright citizenship, writing that he believed lawmakers could redefine citizenship. The decision is a warning that the entire project of multiracial democracy and legal equality hangs by a thread. 

The court ended a term in which it disempowered minorities and shifted power to the wealthy, to the president, and to itself, by unambiguously showing just how radical it is—a single vote away from undoing the basic tenet of a nation of equals. The court not only made radical changes to our system of government: it showed how much worse it could get.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Temperatures on the ocean surface have hit a record high, raising fears of another burst of extreme heat this summer.

On June 21, temperatures outside the polar regions exceeded the extraordinary highs observed at the same time in 2023 and 2024, the Copernicus Climate Change Service said on Wednesday.

It warned the new peak would probably bring “consequences for weather patterns, global climate, and marine ecosystems,” not least because it would coincide with the earliest phases of an El Niño event they forecast to be the strongest in decades.

In 2020, the heat being added to the oceans was equivalent to about 5 Hiroshima bombs per second. Last year, it was closer to 11 .

When the previous ocean record for June was set in 2023, scientists described the trends as “worrying,” “terrifying,” and “bonkers” because they were so far outside their expectations. That presaged an El Niño and a period of devastating global heatwaves, floods, and storms.

That 2023 record has now been surpassed and much of the world is once again seeing an alarming rise in temperatures. Last month, the UK and many other countries in Europe sweltered amid new heat records while Antarctica experienced unprecedentedly balmy winter conditions.

Although the focus is usually on land temperatures, oceans give a fuller picture of how much the climate is being pushed out of balance by human-caused warming.

Surface temperatures are affected by solar radiation, water currents, and the buildup of heat in the depths.

Oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the excess energy in the Earth system, which is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and gas. That imbalance hit a record 23 zettajoules last year, more than double the average of the previous two decades.

As a result, the oceans are warming at an accelerating rate. In 2020, the amount of heat being added to the oceans was equivalent to about five Hiroshima bombs per second. Last year, it was closer to 11 Hiroshima explosions per second. The UN’s secretary general, António Guterres, has warned “Earth is being pushed beyond its limits.”

Scientists said it was too early to say whether the sea surface heating would prove temporary or even worsen because annual peaks are usually registered in July and August.

But Carlo Buontempo, Copernicus director at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, warned it could indicate the beginning of a new phase, leading, once more, to uncharted territory: “With ocean temperatures at these levels and El Niño on the horizon, we are likely to see more temperature records fall in the coming months.”

Copernicus is part of the EU’s space program.

The Supreme Court dealt Big Brother a blow on Monday with a landmark ruling for digital privacy rights in Chatrie v. United States. Conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch joined the liberal bloc of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in finding that smartphone location data is subject to privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Though consequential, the case has gone largely overlooked amid this week’s deluge of high-profile rulings, including the decision to block President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order attempting to overturn the guarantee of birthright citizenship. It marks the Court’s first decision on digital surveillance since 2018, when it found that law enforcement’s warrantless search of cell site location history violated the Fourth Amendment.

To better understand the implications of Chatrie, I hopped on the phone with Stevie Glaberson, director of research and advocacy at Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology. The Center filed an amicus brief in the case alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. Glaberson helped break down Chatrie and what the Court’s ruling means in an age of growing digital surveillance.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

At the center of Chatrie is law enforcement’s use of a “geofence warrant” to identify the potential suspect of a bank robbery in 2019. What are geofence warrants, and how do they differ from regular search warrants?

A geofence warrant is one of the kinds of warrants that people sometimes refer to as “reverse warrants.” When you think about a traditional warrant, the police are supposed to have particularized suspicions—they’re supposed to be going to a neutral decision maker, like a judge or a magistrate, to show their reasons for suspecting that a certain person or a certain place has evidence of a crime that they’re investigating.

In the case of geofence warrants, [the police] don’t have a particular person in mind, and they sort of work backwards from a location. They draw a line around that location and ask the company, in this case Google, for all the devices that can be found within that location at the relevant time.

In this case, the police drew a line around the bank and asked Google for all of the devices that could be found within that space during the time the robbery occurred. That space didn’t just involve the bank. There was a church in the immediate area, and there might have been people’s homes or other businesses.

Have police increased their use of geofence warrants in recent years? How long has this search tactic been used?

“What was happening here is something that the founders could not have imagined when they were debating the Fourth Amendment.”

This technique did not exist previously. It’s only possible because of the way technology works now, and a big part of what the Court said in its opinion is that what was happening here is something that the founders could not have imagined when they were debating the Fourth Amendment—a kind of surveillance and a kind of police investigation that would not have been possible. It was not previously possible for the police to retroactively tail all of us into private businesses and homes, throughout our days, at this level of granularity.

The interesting thing about the Chatrie case is that the particular three-step process that happened here, Google had already said that they are no longer doing it the same way. But that does not mean that there are not other ways for the police to access this type of information.

Can you explain that three-step process ?

The more common thing is for police to just ask a company or a person for a specific thing in a specific location. Here, the warrant described this three-step process that, once the judge approved it, Google and the police would just go through [the data] on their own without returning to the magistrate. 

First, Google would look in that physical location, the box the police had drawn, and return anonymized information about all the devices. The police would then look at what Google gave them and try to narrow down which of the devices they wanted more information about. In this case, the initial step returned 19 devices. And the police said, Okay, we want information about these nine. 

And what’s important to note is that in this case they were only looking for one suspect. So, at each of these steps, they’re getting the data of people that are affirmatively not the suspect. And it’s important to recognize that these kinds of searches could draw in all of us, regardless of any suspicion or not. 

So the police asked Google for more information about those nine accounts to look at where else those devices went before and after the crime. The identities of the people were still not being revealed to the police, but they could now see two hours of really granular location information about all the places those devices came from and went to during that period. Google captures location data once every two minutes, and it’s pretty precise about where a person is. It also can capture elevation data—if this person went to the doctor’s office on the third floor, rather than the insurance salesman on the tenth floor. 

“We found…that the majority of American adults, as of 2021, were in Department of Homeland Security immigration databases and could be located by ICE and CBP.”

From that return of nine sets of more granular information over two hours, the police then were supposed to look through that and identify the devices they wanted unmasked, to learn the identities of the people who owned those devices. And in this case, they didn’t just ask for the person they eventually prosecuted, Mr. Chatrie. They asked Google to de-anonymize three accounts—so, once again, people who affirmatively were not then the suspect.

What did the Supreme Court have to say about this process?

Six justices got in line behind the idea that the decision [from a lower court] should be vacated—that a search did happen here according to the Fourth Amendment and needs to be more closely reviewed. Five justices signed on to the main opinion written by Justice [Elena] Kagan. And Justice Gorsuch wrote his own opinion that gets to the same place, but through a different avenue.

Justice Kagan’s opinion goes through the most recent, really seminal opinion on Fourth Amendment privacy in the digital era, which is Carpenter. That’s a case about cell site location information, which is pretty similar to the Google location history that was at issue here. And the majority opinion decides that, in accordance with Carpenter in 2018, a search did occur here when the government went to Google and asked for all of this information, and so we need to look very closely at whether the warrant that the police got was appropriate. The opinion leaves for another day the questions that will ultimately resolve the case about whether the warrant itself was appropriate, but it decides that, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the government did conduct a search here.

One thing that’s really important about this decision is that it says a third-party doctrine does not apply in this case. The third-party doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment that risks really swallowing the rule for all of us in today’s digital economy. It’s the idea that once you voluntarily share information with someone else, a third party [like Google], you lose all reasonable expectations of privacy in that information and the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply. And in this case, Justice Kagan’s opinion really importantly says the third-party doctrine does not apply here—just by using a cell phone the way cell phone users do, we don’t give up our rights to our private information.

What are the broader implications of the Court’s ruling? Do you expect this case to have a ripple effect?

So if you read Justice [Samuel] Alito’s dissent, he basically says this is coming for all digital surveillance—which in our book is probably a good thing, but he says it as though it is a terrible thing.

I think this is probably the most significant Supreme Court ruling on the Fourth Amendment since Carpenter. What practical impact it will have remains to be seen, but I think it is an incredibly important development that the Supreme Court is not just extending the third-party doctrine to to all cases and saying that the introduction of a layer of corporate interaction in our lives removes all expectations of privacy.

Because basically, in the last few decades, every single thing we do—from communicating with our families to managing our finances to even thinking our own private thoughts—corporations have sort of wormed their way into all of those processes and are mediating all of our human interactions, sometimes the most sensitive facets of our lives.

“Everybody should recognize that placing these limits on police and on government is vital…for community and for democracy.”

And if the mere fact that a corporate tool was in the middle of all of that meant that we had no expectation of privacy whatsoever, that would be the exception that swallows the Fourth Amendment. I don’t know whether this opinion will meaningfully change our day-to-day, but it is a step in the right direction to say that the Fourth Amendment really does still mean something. Privacy is still a value, and one that we’re going to protect.

It seems like people are increasingly aware of and concerned about surveillance, but thinking about things like First Amendment concerns, why does this decision matter for everyday people who haven’t committed or aren’t suspected of having committed any crimes?

All of these techniques—from geofence reverse location searches to police use of facial recognition technology—impact all of us. The companies and the police and the federal government don’t necessarily distinguish when they vacuum up information—when they buy information from data brokers, or when they use facial recognition on a crowd, they don’t distinguish between folks that they have a particular interest in and folks that they don’t. They are just vacuuming up information on everybody.

We found in our research that the majority of American adults, as of 2021, were in Department of Homeland Security immigration databases and could be located by ICE and CBP. So, at a practical level, it impacts all of us, and it has really serious implications on our ability to live our lives and do the things that we want to do together. Because very quickly information about one of us becomes information about a whole group of us, and the police can use these kinds of techniques to surveil and track us from afar, without our knowledge, and identify when we go to protests or come together in community.

So everybody should recognize that placing these limits on police and on government is vital to maintain any kind of any hope for communal action for community and for democracy.

On a hot, sunny day in California, I crawled into the tiny cockpit of a small Cessna aircraft to fly around one of the state’s most active volcanoes, Mt. Lassen.

Video by Peter Berger

I wasn’t looking for lava. The volcano in Lassen Volcanic National Park hasn’t erupted in more than 100 years. Instead, I was looking for the telltale signs of herbicide spraying across vast stretches of forestland. I’d already seen it from the ground: seemingly endless expanses of land devoid of plant life because glyphosate—a.k.a. Roudup—or similar herbicides were deployed to kill everything except young tree saplings being grown for timber. But it was hard to fully get a sense of the scale.

What would it look like from the sky?

I knew record amounts of glyphosate were being sprayed in California’s forests, much of it in the wake of the megafires that have hit the state in recent years. For our Mother Jones investigation, my colleague Melissa Lewis and I analyzed more than 5 million state records and found that the state’s fastest growing market for the controversial chemical was to spray forestlands.

That’s when the scale of the destruction hit me.

As the cramped little plane took off from an airfield in Chico, with me sitting in the co-pilot seat, I had to fight the urge to nervously press my feet down, because they rested on pedals that—insanely to my mind—could send the plane careening off in some unwanted direction. Pilot Gary Kraft, who’d agreed to take me up as part of his nonprofit EcoFlight’s mission to show people nature from the sky, initially said not to worry about the pedals, but then, sternly, warned me against pressing on them. I didn’t need to be told twice.

As our Cessna ascended, my anxiety waned, and the birds-eye beauty of the volcanic landscape took shape. Mount Lassen marks the southern end of the Cascade Range, and the northern beginning of the Sierra Nevada mountains. This confluence of sparsely populated mountains is among the most majestic in a state brimming with natural beauty.

The plane headed out of the farm-rich Central Valley and took us over oak-studded foothills, cut with deep canyons whose cascading creeks are home to some of the state’s last remaining spring run chinook salmon—a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. 

Soon, the oak trees gave way to the Christmas-shaped trees so many of us associate with the mountains, towering conifers like firs and cedars. And that’s when the scale of the destruction hit me.

First, we spotted the dead hillsides where two of the state’s largest infernos—the 2021 Dixie Fire and the 2024 Park Fire—had burned across mountainsides.

Wildfire-scarred woodlands in Northern California.EcoFlight

Then, there it was: the telltale signs of herbicide spraying. All the trees had been cleared, and rather than fresh spring grasses and green bushes, the mountainsides hosted nothing but dirt. 

Landscape with the telltale signs of herbicide spraying.EcoFlight A hillside with signs of glyphosate spraying.EcoFlight

The United States Forest Service and timber companies say they use glyphosate to reforest land after it is harvested by loggers. They say killing all other plant life helps trees regrow faster by reducing competition for sunlight, water, and soil nutrients. In Lassen National Forest, the federal government plans to spray about 10,000 acres.

Our reporting showed that private timberland around Lassen was the state’s heaviest sprayed forestland in recent years. Seeing the destruction from the sky, mountainside after mountainside, this scale of lifeless earth felt surreal—like I was watching a movie about some other planet.

One supposed fact that glyphosate proponents repeat a lot is that the herbicide binds with soil, meaning it won’t move and contaminate other places. Yet a 2020 study by the US Geological Survey found it in 74 percent of American streams tested. Peer-reviewed studies also have found the herbicide is toxic to fish and other aquatic life, like those spring-run Chinook salmon. The Environmental Protection Agency has said it likely harms 93 percent of endangered species. And the World Health Organization has called glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.

Bayer, Roundup’s manufacturer, insists it is safe when used according to the EPA-approved label. In 2020, the EPA deemed glyphosate reasonably safe for people and the environment, but a collection of labor and environmental groups sued, arguing that the EPA was wrong and hadn’t properly conducted its review. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the agency did not provide adequate evidence for its conclusion. The EPA is now in the process of reassessing the herbicide.

But even as the federal government works to make that determination, the spraying of environmentally sensitive forestlands is continuing at a breakneck pace. And the impacts of all this spraying, which only recently came to the public’s attention following our yearlong investigation, will undoubtedly take years or even decades to fully assess.

Despite the countless problematic aspects of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup—power-hungry fascists and the wealthy elite grabbing every ounce of political and monetary gain they can imagine at the expense of fans, national team players and staff, workers, and more—there are a few inspiring stories that I have been following. 

Among them: A national team playing in its first World Cup, outplaying established opponents with their spirit and tactics; a friendship between residents of a Kansas town and the national team players training there; and a young player showing the world what his sister always saw in him. 

As Jules Boykoff, a former US men’s national team and professional soccer player—and current politics professor at Pacific University in Oregon—told me just before the tournament started, soccer has the power to spark new connections within our communities and organizing. More simply, it can be fun.

Cape Verde’s ascent to the knockout stages

Cape Verde, a nation of about 530,000 people (about the same population as Atlanta), qualified for its first World Cup last year. This year, they earned draws against their three group stage opponents: Spain, one of the favorites to win the whole tournament, Uruguay, and Saudi Arabia. Vozinha, the goalkeeper, had a star performance against Spain with seven saves and gained 14 million followers on Instagram as a result, but beyond that, the Verdean team genuinely challenged Spain during the match in ways that they had no answer to.

Against Uruguay, Cape Verde scored its first two goals—including Kevin Pina’s stunning, long-distance free kick that punished their opponents’ flimsy defensive wall—and the team created much better chances to score than Saudi Arabia. 

Prior to the start of the tournament, Cape Verde was projected to have the fourth-lowest chance of making it out of the group stage behind Iraq, Curaçao, and Haiti. They beat the odds with flying colors and will play Argentina, led by perhaps the greatest player of all time, Lionel Messi, on Friday. 

Lawrence, Kansas, residents connect with Algerian national team players and fans

At the start of the World Cup, a video of two Lawrence residents enthusiastically welcoming Algerians to town after the national team set up their training camp there went viral. If you didn’t get the chance to watch it, one resident explains to a reporter that he attended what appears to be a fan event because he was “so happy” that “they chose our town for their base camp.” While both he and another resident said in the interview that they didn’t know much about Algeria, they were already adopting their fan chants: “1, 2, 3, vive l’Algerie,” or “1, 2, 3, long live Algeria”—a phrase with ties to Algeria’s fight for independence from French occupation. 

Local outlets have done some great reporting on the new Kansas-Algeria bond, which I highly recommend you give a read.

The friendship has led to some of my favorite videos to come from the tournament:  

Bless this man, his excitement about Team Algeria and their base camp in Lawrence, Kansas, is just

— Anne Thériault (@annetheriault.bsky.social) 2026-06-13T03:35:16.643Z

Algerian fans chanting THANK YOU LAWRENCE

— Rodger Sherman (@rodger.bsky.social) 2026-06-28T19:20:03.383Z Ivory Coast’s star winger Yan Diomande plays a great tournament for his first fan

I sometimes find myself searching for the personal stories of the soccer players I enjoy watching. Diomande plays for the major German club RB Leipzig; his story in the Players’ Tribune, a platform that publishes first-person stories from athletes, really moved me.

You should take a look at it yourself—his words are so powerful that any description I come up with wouldn’t do it justice—but Diomande talks about his sister Roxanne, who believed that he would become a great soccer player, taking him to tryouts for professional teams, and about his shock and grief when Roxanne died at the age of 15 after someone spiked her drink at a party. Yan Diomande has achieved so much at just 19 and is attracting the attention of the best teams in the world.

His dribbling is mesmerizing, and his decision-making after the dribble—whether that be a pass or shot—is impressive for how early he is in his career. His Ivory Coast teammates are so cleverly organized and look to get him the ball often to cause chaos in the opposing team’s defense. 

Given that, I still think about one quote from Diomande’s story, entitled “Dear Roxanne”: “Everything I do on a football pitch, it’s for you.”

Although the Ivory Coast lost 1-2 against Norway on Tuesday, he and his teammates have achieved so much, reaching the knockout stage for the first time in their World Cup history.

Donald Trump added billions to his net worth in the year and a half since his return to the presidency—much of it paper wealth in the form of cryptocurrency, but plenty of it in hard cash paid to him by business partners, including the investment firm run by the United Arab Emirates’ national security advisor.

In total, it appears that Trump added about $2.2 billion to his net worth in 2025—by far his most lucrative year in the presidency, and far more than in 2024, when he reported earning about $600 million.

Trump filed required personal financial disclosure forms on Tuesday evening that revealed his earnings, but there are some major caveats—most of the gained wealth is in the form of cryptocurrency or crypto-related businesses, and the crypto industry has had a steep decline since the start of this year, led by crashing Bitcoin prices.

And the forms do reveal some new details. Trump was closely involved with the launching of a Trump meme coin cryptocurrency shortly before taking office, but it wasn’t clear how much that had earned him. On his new forms, Trump disclosed earning $635 million from a company called Celebration Coins, which is believed to be behind his meme coin.

While Trump was paid for the creation of the coins and was awarded a significant number of them, the coin’s price has collapsed from a high of $44 on his inauguration day to $1.69 on Wednesday. No matter the price, Trump’s stake in the coin is all profit to him—but a recent analysis found buyers of the coin had likely lost in the neighborhood of $700 million trying to trade on $Trump coins.

There’s another $290 million in cryptowallets that appear to be associated with Trump’s other crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, but again, the price of the WLFI cryptocoin has also dropped by about 65 percent since the end of 2025. And as with the meme coin, an analysis suggests that investors in WLFI may have lost as much as $700 million.

One very real bit of wealth Trump added in 2025 was $65 million from sale of equity in World Liberty Financial, a deal that was reportedly the sale of 49 percent of the company to a firm controlled by Sheikh Tahnoun bin Mohammed Al Nahyan, the brother of Mohamed bin Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates. Sheikh Tahnoon is the UAE’s national security advisor as well as the chairman of several of the wealthy country’s investment funds.

Reaping large sums of money from overseas sources was a theme on Trump’s disclosure. In addition to the money from Sheikh Tahnoun’s fund, Trump also reported huge payments for lending his name to a slew of new Trump-branded properties around the world. And it appears he has signficantly upped his fees.

In 2014, Trump signed a deal with a Dubai-based company called DAMAC to build a golf course with his name on it—over the course of the next four years, he earned somewhere between $2 and $10 million for the deal. In 2025 alone, DAMAC paid Trump $12.5 million, including $5 million a piece, just to use his name on two new Trump properties.

And it wasn’t just DAMAC, which is owned by Emirati billionaire Husain Sajwani, who has frequently appeared at Trump’s side at Mar-a-Lago and has been given special access at Trump’s inaugurations. Trump was paid more than $25.2 million by a Saudi development firm for the use of his name on properties in Dubai, Saudi Qatar, and Oman. Partners in India, Vietnam and the Phillipines added even more money to Trump’s pocket for using name there, the reports show.

While those are impressive numbers, Trump’s war in Iran, just across the Strait of Hormuz from his Oman development, has reportedly helped sink other potential deals, including one deal in Australia.

The forms also appear to show a new deal—Trump reports being paid $2 million in a non-refundable development deal by a company called Base Co. LTD. According to a report in a Korean business publication in February, the Trump Organization and a large Korean construction company signed an agreement to work together, and Eric Trump was hosted at a lavish dinner attended by top Korean politicans and business executives.

Trump also listed hundreds of investments in stocks. Many of these appear to be standard blue-chip stocks or municipal bonds that might appear in any diversified portfolio, recent stock trading disclosures show Trump has been investing in companies and then lauding the company’s products in speeches.

While the forms require Trump to disclose earnings, debts and valuations of his businesses, it doesn’t necessarily require him to report profitablity. While crypto has far surpassed Trump’s traditional busineses of hospitality and real estate in terms of importance for his wealth, it’s not necessarily clear whether his Trump properties are thriving.

What is clear is that Trump has taken some of his new cash and used it to get rid of old debts—in the last year, he has paid off mortgages on his Seven Springs golf course and his 40 Wall Street commerical building in New York City. He also paid off a personal mortgage on a house next to Mar-a-Lago, which he purchased from his sister in 2018 for $18.5 million.

That mortgage repayment actually raises another potential caveat about all of Trump’s newfound wealth—Trump loves to say everything is worth more than it is. That house he bought for $18.5 million eight years ago? This year, Trump listed it as being worth an open-ended and optimistic “over $50 million.”

It’s been a very long week for Beatriz Armada, the Venezuela operations manager for the humanitarian nonprofit Humanity and Inclusion. Hers is just one of many non-governmental organizations that have been responding to the devastation of two massive earthquakes that struck Venezuela last week, which have left, by a conservative estimate, some 1,700 people dead and thousands injured, with more than 15,000 displaced from their homes.

Many survivors who were pulled from the rubble needed amputations, Armada told me, a further challenge for Venezuela’s health care system—and health care workers in Caracas were affected as well, making it “very complicated to be able to give medical attention,” she said.

Armada told me that around 38 structures related to health care infrastructure had been decimated by the earthquakes, including one that specifically provided help for disabled people, who are disproportionately impacted by earthquakes.

“There was nothing left of the entire building, and so many people with disabilities who lost their lives in this, in this particular space,” Armada said.

One disabled man and his family that Armada spoke to lost everything in their home, including hard-to-replace equipment “that he would normally need to be able to have dignity.”

“We’re mobilizing resources to be able to more directly support people with disabilities,” Armada said, including with mobility devices and rehabilitation, “which is also quite a main need at the moment.”

Armada says she’s heartened by the responses of people across other parts of Venezuela, where people are also being transferred for medical care, and by international support. She hopes it doesn’t end prematurely.

“We need this [support] to continue in the upcoming months, because I think it’s going to take months, or even years, to be able to fully recuperate from,” Armada told me.

In response to lawmakers’ ongoing questions about ICE’s surveillance practices, a previously unpublicized letter to Congress reveals Homeland Security officials are taking an increasingly evasive approach when asked if the Trump administration created a database of protesters labeled as “domestic terrorists.”

The administration has repeatedly denied that DHS maintains a specific database of US citizens who protest ICE operations or photograph federal agents. But this letter, which was addressed on May 22 and comes amid mounting litigation over ICE’s alleged intimidation of protesters, appears to sidestep the question of a standalone protester database entirely.

“ICE does not independently approve adding individuals or entities to the U.S. government’s Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS),” John Cooper, Assistant Director of ICE’s Office of Congressional Relations, wrote in response to a February inquiry from Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.).

The TSDS is a publicly known, interagency terrorist watchlist that is not maintained by ICE and was not the subject of Markey’s questioning. The letter is the first time ICE has publicly mentioned the TSDS in response to questions about a potential protester database.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In February, Todd Lyons, then-acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, appeared before the House Homeland Security Committee and testified emphatically that ICE was not surveilling US citizens.

“There is no database for protesters, sir,” Lyons told Rep. Lou Correa (D–Calif.), who asked Lyons about threats ICE agents made on camera to legal observers in Maine. “I can assure you there is no database that’s tracking United States citizens.”

“The public deserves clear and consistent answers about ICE’s surveillance activities and its infringement of Americans’ civil liberties.”

Lyons echoed these statements again in an April 21 letter to Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D–Fla.). But this time, he added a caveat for law enforcement investigations: “Where individuals decide to go beyond protected speech and commit crimes against federal personnel and property or threaten, or forcibly impede, assault, or interfere with lawful operations, ICE remains steadfast in exercising its authority to investigate and prosecute violators.” Put simply, Lyons denied that ICE was keeping a “separate, standalone database” of protesters, but admitted the agency had “collected information” on citizens suspected of breaking federal law.

These carve-outs were already broad and vaguely defined enough to raise concerns among civil liberties advocates. Now, while evading Markey’s specific questions about an ICE database, Cooper’s letter raises new concerns that anti-ICE protesters and legal observers are, in fact, being added to the TSDS based on so-called “antifa” activity.

Cooper’s May letter went on to cite a “whole-of-government process,” administered by the FBI, in which nominations to the TSDS are reviewed and approved “based on federal criteria derived from statutory definitions of terrorism.” Notably, President Trump designated “antifa”—which is not a single group and generally defined as anyone who is against fascism—as a domestic terrorist organization in September. And in May, as my colleague Sophie Hurwitz reported at the time, the White House released a new counterterrorism playbook that “prioritize[s] the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.”

Today, in a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Acting ICE Director David Venturella, shared exclusively with Mother Jones, Markey and Rep. Frost are demanding answers.

“ICE’s shifting and carefully worded responses prevent Congress and the public from determining the extent of ICE’s surveillance activities,” Markey and Frost wrote. They pressed Mullin and Venturella on whether “DHS, ICE, or any component agency of DHS” is “maintaining their own database, list, or record of individuals engaged in protest activity, outside of the TSDS” or creating any “record of individuals identified as threats to officer or facility safety, including those who have not been accused of any crime.” The congressmen also requested a copy of an internal ICE memo, first reported by CNN in January, that instructed agents to “capture all images, license plates, identifications, and general information on hotels, agitators, protestors, etc.” for inclusion in a “consolidated form.”

“These attempts to evade congressional oversight are unacceptable,” Markey and Frost wrote. “The public deserves clear and consistent answers about ICE’s surveillance activities and its infringement of Americans’ civil liberties.”

To celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Donald Trump has promised the July 4 fireworks display in Washington will be the largest in world history. There will be a parade, a 17-plane flyover, and a “spectacular Trump rally” featuring a lengthy speech by the president. The private company producing these festivities, Event Strategies, Inc., is no stranger to massive gatherings on the National Mall. Five years ago, the same firm helped organize Trump’s January 6, 2021, rally at the Ellipse, which preceded that day’s attack on the US Capitol.

Since Trump returned to the White House, Event Strategies, sometimes known as ESI, has received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts from government agencies to organize anniversary events, often without completive bidding. The company also has a large contract with Freedom 250—a semi-private entity that receives public funding. Working under Freedom 250, Event Strategies is managing events including the July 4 rally, the ongoing Great American State Fair, the “Rededicate 250” prayer event on the National Mall, and other gatherings.

“This is typical behavior from the Trump administration, where everyone feels they have license to do sleazy self-dealing.”

Event Strategies won those contracts while one of its partners, Justin Caporale, holds a second position. Trump in late 2024 announced that Caporale would work for his “external operation” as “Executive Producer for Major Events and Public Appearances.” In practice, that means that Caporale is Trump’s “events guy,” a person familiar with White House planing for the anniversary said. Caporale helps Trump plan 250th anniversary celebrations and other public events, often attending meetings in the White House, the person said. His work has reportedly involved drafting budgets for anniversary spending.

Caporale is not a government employee. But his advisory role for the president’s “external operation” means he has helped to plan the same Freedom 250 festivities that the administration is paying Event Strategies—Caporale’s private firm—to carry out. Government contractors often advise federal agencies, but it is highly unusual, at least until now, for them to have regular presidential access, and to wield influence over decisions that could affect their own bottom line.

Caporale and Event Strategies haven’t been accused of breaking any laws. But critics argue that the set-up is vulnerable to abuse at a time when the president and his allies are routinely profiting from government power.

“It is clear that such a backdoor arrangement for White House advisory personnel creates the opportunity for the appearance of impropriety, the avoidance of which is a bedrock principle of all federal ethics law,” said Toni Aguilar Rosenthal, a program director at the Revolving Door Project, a nonprofit group.

“It’s just unethical,” said Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen. “This is typical behavior from the Trump administration, where everyone feels they have license to do sleazy self-dealing.”

Caporale did not respond to inquiries. The White House press office has previously said that the White House had no role in federal agencies awarding contracts to Event Strategies. But the White House did not respond to questions from Mother Jones about what exactly Caporale’s events work for Trump entails, or whether he influenced Freedom 250’s hiring of Event Strategies under its separate contract for massive DC events related to the anniversary.

Danielle Alvarez, a spokesperson for Freedom 250, defended the group’s employment of Event Strategies, arguing the company is uniquely suited to organize semiquincentennial events. “There are few firms in the world that can do this,” Alvarez said. “ESI is one of those firms. They do an excellent job at executing events.”

Donald Trump reads a note that Justin Caporale handed on stage at a campaign town hall at the Greater Philadelphia Expo Center & Fairgrounds, 2024.Alex Brandon/AP

Freedom 250 won’t say exactly how much it is paying Event Strategies or any other vendors. The person familiar with anniversary planning said the firm’s profit comes from receiving a small percentage, around 3.5 percent, of the money it gets from Freedom 250 to stage events. That gives the company, and Caporale, an incentive to push for big, expensive celebrations—on American taxpayers’ dime.

Trump aides set up Freedom 250 as a limited limited liability corporation operating through the National Park Foundation, a nonprofit partner of the National Park Service. Based on that structure, Freedom 250 has asserted that, even as it spends taxpayer dollars, it does not need to tell Congress how it is using those funds.

“They have done a very clever job of hiding where the money is going,” said Alan Zibel, research director for Public Citizen. “The opaque nature of this arrangement makes public scrutiny all but impossible.”

ESI was launched 26 years ago by political operatives with experience in campaign advance work—that is, organizing candidates’ campaign appearances and other events. The company hitched up with Trump in 2015, helping to arrange his “golden escalator” campaign launch. It has since won steady work from all three Trump campaigns, and it’s been paid more than $67 million by political committees backing Trump, the New York Times has reported.

In late 2020, Turning Point USA and Women for America First—right-wing groups that had received funding from Julie Jenkins Fancelli, a Publix grocery heir—hired Event Strategies to arrange a rally Trump had announced for January 6 in Washington. With his infamous “Be there, will be wild!” tweet, Trump summoned supporters to assemble to oppose the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. The president worked up the crowd with false claims that he had actually won the election, and he urged them to march “peacefully” on Congress. More than 2,000 of his supporters ultimately stormed the Capitol.

Event Strategies was paid about $688,000 for work that included handling lights, staging, trash, and other details for Trump’s Ellipse rally, Mother Jones has reported. The firm appears to have spent a bit over $500,000 of that money to pay subcontractors.

None of the company’s employees were charged with wrongdoing. In a subsequent deposition, Caporale distanced the firm from the riot, which he called “a disgusting display that should’ve never happened.”

The House January 6 committee, in its final report released late 2022, cited a December 29, 2020 text in which Caporale told an associate that the Ellipse rally would be “a call to action to march to the [C]apitol and make noise.” That’s an indication Caporale was aware that Trump planned to urge the assembled crowd to advance on the Capitol and pressure lawmakers to allow him to remain in office.

“There are few firms in the world that can do this.”

Event Strategies continued working for Trump after January 6. And following his victory in 2024, Trump credited Caporale with helping to arrange “viral” events, including an appearance in which Trump was photographed behind the wheel of garbage truck. Caporale was also reportedly involved in a controversial incident in which Trump filmed a campaign video at Arlington National Cemetery. During the incident, another campaign staffer allegedly pushed aside a female cemetery employee who tried to stop Trump from using what many Americans consider a hallowed ground as a campaign backdrop.

Trump’s second presidency has provided a bonanza for the company, allowing it to shift from campaign events to federal government work.

After receiving less than $200,000 in federal contracts over the last decade, Event Strategies since last January has received nearly $40 million from the government, according USA Spending, a database of federal contract awards. That includes a $15 million contract the State Department gave the group in June for “event planning.” The department did not answer questions about the contract.

Wired has reported that most of ESI’s federal contracts are for anniversary events. And many were awarded with limited competition. According to the New York Times, five of the firm’s contracts were awarded without the agencies seeking competing bids. The agencies instead signed so-called sole-source contracts with the firm, citing rules that allow doing so in cases where there is an urgent need, or where the government determines only one specialized vendor can do the work.

When Trump took office, America250—a congressionally chartered nonprofit—had already spent more than a decade planning events to mark the country’s 250th anniversary. By statute, America250 is bipartisan and reports to a commission that includes lawmakers from both parties.

Still, America250 last year attempted to appease the new president. It hired a slew of Trump-linked operatives, including former Trump co-campaign manager Chris LaCivita, former Fox News pundit Monica Crowley, and Caporale. As Mother Jones first reported, the group also tapped Event Strategies to stage events, including the June 2025 military parade on Trump’s 79th birthday.

Rather than agree to anniversary celebrations that Democrats could swallow, Trump aides created Freedom 250.

But those efforts were insufficient for Trump. As he pressed for increasingly partisan and garish events to mark the anniversary, America250’s board eventually pushed back hard enough to interfere with the president’s ambitions. Rather than agree to anniversary celebrations that Democrats could swallow, Trump aides created Freedom 250—an alternative entity that allowed Trump to stage events that resemble his self-aggrandizing campaign rallies.

Freedom 250 soon tapped Event Strategies to function as its general contractor for anniversary events. That work has been is extensive. For instance, Freedom 250 has received $14 million in federal funds to dispatch a small fleet of so-called Freedom Trucks to travel the country, displaying AI-supported history lessons on the nation’s founders that were crafted by two conservative organizations, PragerU and Hillsdale College.

Critics argue the trucks offer a sanitized version of American history, ignoring Native Americans, women’s rights, and the impact of slavery. Freedom 250 didn’t directly hire staffers for the trucks. The people driving those vehicles, and interacting with visitors, work for Event Strategies, two of them told me at a recent event.

Event Strategies is just one of a host of firms and people with ties to the administration that appear to be benefitting from anniversary events. Public Citizen and the Revolving Door Project, in a June report, said that the administration has awarded more $100 million in grants and federal contracts “to a network of politicized entities” run by Trump allies for the celebrations.

Freedom 250 also employs Campaign Nucleus, a company run by Brad Parscale, a former top Trump campaign official, to provide a communications platform. Parscale’s work for the group comes while he also works as a registered agent for Israel. LaCivita and former Trump fundraiser Meredith O’Rourke also have key roles with Freedom 250, though Freedom 250 says they are unpaid.

Freedom 250 is paying contractors, at least in part, with federal appropriations. It has reportedly received at least $79 million in federal funds. But the group is also raising money from corporate donors, including many with interests before the administration.

United Airlines was added to a list of Freedom 250 donors in April, a few months after the airline reportedly pitched the Trump administration on supporting a United merger with American Airlines, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibly and Ethics in Washington has noted.

Various companies have also donated to Freedom 250 while mounting lobbying campaigns to influence federal officials. They include Palantir, the much-maligned federal contractor lobbying to boost its image; defense contracting giant Northrup Grumman; RTX, formerly known as Raytheon, another federal contractor; and mining giant Mosaic, which is seeking federal approval to expand a waste pile in Florida. Penske Corporation, the trucking and auto company owned by Trump ally Roger Penske, gave to Freedom 250 while it also stepped up its lobbying on trucking regulations and electric vehicle legislation.

Then there’s the UFC fight that Trump hosted on White House grounds on his 80th birthday, which was organized as part of the 250th celebration. That spectacle offered UFC chief executive Dana White, a Trump donor, and Paramount Skydance Corp—controlled by Trump backers Larry and David Ellison—a valuable benefit, a lawsuit by the Public Integrity Project charged. The sponsors received “unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to stage a private, for-profit sports event, with all the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access,” according to the suit, which was dismissed by a judge.

Another Freedom 250 sponsor, ScottsMiracle-Gro, sells the weed-killer Roundup, which includes glyphosate—a chemical that the EPA says is safe but that lawsuits have alleged may cause cancer. The company is helping fund Trump’s anniversary events while its lobbyists push the administration to limit pesticide regulation. In February, Trump signed an executive order calling for boosting production of glyphosate, a move that could help ScottsMiracle-Gro.

After the UFC fight trashed the White House lawn, ScottsMiracle-Gro said it was donating $1 million worth of labor and materials to restore the grass. The White House promoted a gushing Fox News story about this pledge, providing what looked like free advertising for the company.

Last month, various performing artists—including Young MC, Martina McBride, and the current Milli Vanilli—backed out of Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair over concerns about the event’s partisanship. So Trump turned the fair’s opening night into a rally, featuring a speech in which he celebrated his own record. And Freedom 250 booked country music signer Alexis Wilkins, the girlfriend of FBI director Kash Patel, to perform the national anthem. Wilkins said she was not paid. But the televised event offered valuable publicity to Wilkins, whose music has so far won less notice than her relationship with Patel.

Happy birthday, America.

On Tuesday, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) held a House oversight hearing on MKULTRA, the notorious and failed CIA mind control program that is believed to have operated from 1953 to 1973. Luna heads the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets; the two witnesses called were authors who both wrote excellent books on different aspects of MKULTRA, and who used their testimony to call for the declassification of more documents related to the program.  But Luna, a Trump loyalist, muddied the proceedings by trying to link MKULTRA with her own pet conspiracy theories. She made it clear that she thought MKULTRA could still be active today, asking one witness if USAID, the international humanitarian aid organization dismantled by the Trump administration, “may have been used overseas” on “prisoners of war” to further the CIA program, a suggestion for which she provided no direct evidence.

As with a hearing she held on the JFK assassination last year, Luna implied that the MKULTRA hearing was merely the opening salvo, and that further revelations about bygone conspiracies would come. She said that she had “received reports” about “new MKULTRA boxes that were discovered,” and that the CIA was in the process of declassifying what was in those files, which appeared to relate to a “forgery program that was being housed under MKULTRA.” Luna promised that the documents would be released as soon as possible. 

“Why were they talking about COVID and Anthony Fauci at a hearing about MKUltra?”

It was obvious to knowledgeable observers that Luna would likely use the hearing to promote conspiracy theories. Mike Evans, an author at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, warned as much in a blog post earlier this week. (The National Security Archive is an NGO that focuses on government transparency and holds a large collection of declassified government documents.)

“Instead of focusing on the real and enduring secrets surrounding MKULTRA, there are strong indications that Luna will use the hearing as a platform to incite panic about vaccines, something she has done time and time again,” Evans wrote. “Luna’s preoccupation with the perceived dangers of ordinary vaccines was also what originally inspired her to call for a hearing on MKULTRA, according to a February 24 post to her account on X.com.”  

One of the authors called to testify was Dr. Stephen Kinzer, the author of Poisoner In Chief, a book about Sidney Gottlieb, the infamous chemist who headed the CIA’s Technical Services Division in the 1950s and 1960s and oversaw both MKULTRA and multiple attempts to kill or discredit Cuban leader Fidel Castro. The other was Tom O’Neill, author of Chaos, a book that documents his decades-long quest to determine whether Charles Manson or members of his murderous Family may have been subject to CIA experiments, served as FBI informants, or both. 

“I would urge this committee to fill out all the blank spaces in the documents that we have,” Kinzer said in his opening statement.

The task force, Kinzer added, “could also consider trying to determine whether some new incarnation of MKULTRA exists today,” arguing that some kind of mind control technology could exist that did not in the ‘60s and ‘70s. “In the many decades since then, there have been enormous advances in cybertechnology and artificial intelligence, in neuroscience; covert agencies may have access now to tools for mind control that Sidney Gottlieb could not even have imagined.”

The question of whether mind control “might now be possible under our new circumstances,” Kinzer said, “is something that has presumably occurred to scientists who work for secret services, including our own.” 

O’Neill also pointed out that a key promise of the 1977 hearings into MKULTRA and other governmental abuses was never fulfilled. “Committee members like yourselves,” he told the panel, “promised that the victims of MKULTRA would be identified, compensated and provided lifetime medical care. None of that ever happened.” Later in his remarks, O’Neill also argued that the documents that have thus far been discovered, “warrant a thorough reexamination of what this program accomplished, what Congress was told, and what may still remain hidden.”

Luna also noted during the hearing that more documents related to MKULTRA could and should be declassified, but presented an incomplete picture of what’s been released already. Documents about MKULTRA released by a Senate committee beginning in 1975. Two years later, in 1977, records containing far more detailed revelations were made public, including that the CIA had given drugs like LSD to unwitting civilians. One particularly infamous operation related to MKULTRA was Operation Midnight Climax, in which sex workers in CIA safehouses drugged patrons with LSD while CIA agents watched behind two-way mirrors. At least one person is known to have died as a result of MKULTRA: Frank Olson, a CIA scientist who was drugged with LSD at a CIA meeting in 1953 and either jumped or was pushed from a hotel window the same night. His death remains one of the most hotly-contested and infamous incidents in US intelligence history. (Gottlieb, meanwhile, the architect of MKULTRA, was allowed to retire quietly after his time in the CIA, living in rural Virginia, taking up folk dancing and breeding goats.)

During a 1977 hearing, the late-Sen. Edwardy Kennedy (D-Mass.), denounced MKULTRA’s bizarre and unethical pseudo-experimentation in stark terms. 

“The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense,” he said. “The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers. The test subjects were seldom accessible beyond the first hours of the test. In a number of instances, the test subject became ill for hours or days, and effective followup was impossible. Other experiments were equally offensive. For example, heroin addicts were enticed into participating in LSD experiments in order to get a reward—heroin. Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent of experimentation on human subjects was unknown.”  

The present-day hearing was considerably less focused, and no one involved—elected officials or witnesses—seemed able to answer the questions they were raising, particularly about whether MKULTRA or a similar program might still exist in some form. House Democrats also didn’t appear to know what to do with this strange event; they called as a witness a former NIH employee, Dr. Elizabeth Ginexi, a research psychologist who had no specific knowledge of MKULTRA, but who warned that the agency is being stripped, warped, and politicized beyond recognition. 

In response to Ginexi’s presence on the panel, Republicans grilled her about Anthony Fauci and the origins of Covid. “Do you believe the NIH or Dr. Fauci lied to the American people about Covid?” Rep. Nancy Mace, (R-SC) asked, in one representative exchange.

“No,” Ginexi replied. 

Mace questioned why Ginexi had been sent to participate in the panel at all, if she wasn’t an expert on MKULTRA. Ginexi responded that she’s an expert on human subjects research; not appearing to understand the connection, Mace moved on.

Ginexi also tried to tell the members of Congress that canceling government-backed clinical trials, something that’s happened repeatedly under the Trump administration, was harming people’s trust in science and in the government, and would make it hard to recruit patients for such trials in the future. Republican members of Congress seemed uninterested in discussing that idea, instead focusing repeatedly on Covid and Covid conspiracy theories.

“You just brought up trust,” shot back Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.). “Do you think the NIH has a trust problem, based on how they handled Covid?” 

“No, I do not,” Genexi responded. “I think the NIH is beloved by the American people because we know about the advances in human health and cancer treatment and heart disease and diabetes and all the health gains the research has produced.”

“Well I think you’re wrong, ma’am,” Crane responded. “I think the public has a serious mistrust issue with the NIH. Do you deny that the NIH tried to cover up the origin of Covid?” 

Mike Evans of the National Security Archive told Mother Jones on Wednesday that the hearing had proceeded more or less as he expected. 

“I think that the two main witnesses did their best to stay focused on what the committee can do to illuminate the historical record,” he told me in an email. “But l just don’t think that this is a sincere effort by the Task Force to do that. Why were they talking about COVID and Anthony Fauci at a hearing about MKULTRA?”

Evans was also confused by Genexi’s inclusion: “I also have to say that I found the decision by the minority members to call a former NIH staffer with no background in researching MKULTRA to be rather baffling. I still don’t understand why they did that.”

By far “the most underwhelming part,” Evans added, was Luna’s announcement that files will be reviewed related to an apparent forgery program. “What does that have to do with MKULTRA or CIA mind control efforts?” he asked. “That’s just basic intelligence tradecraft. My guess is that CIA felt like they needed to produce something to satisfy the task force, but if that’s the extent of it, then these hearings were a total failure.”

“In the end, the hearing didn’t break any new ground as far as I can tell,” Evans added. None of what was presented at the hearings, he said, “is really new. So why are they holding hearings now?”

In all, the hearing was a neat demonstration of current Republican priorities, their interest in promising disclosures that never really come, as well as their energetic embrace of any conspiracy theory that does not directly implicate Donald Trump. A neat, if accidental, encapsulation of what happened during the hearing was provided by Kinzer, the Poisoner in Chief author, near the end of the proceedings. 

“There’s a reason why conspiracy theories are so widespread in America,” Kinzer told Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.). “It has to do with the dissociation between what we say we are and do, and what we really are and do. This has become more and more clear to more and more people. Therefore, they’re suspicious of nefarious dealings by the US and they’re also suspicious of other things that aren’t nefarious at all.”  

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

China has emerged as the sole winner in Asia from the strait of Hormuz crisis, according to a report published on Tuesday.

The report by the geopolitical consulting firm Asia Group concluded that China had weathered the storm of the global commodities crisis resulting from the closure of the Middle Eastern waterway, and also stood to gain from the economic and geopolitical trends sparked by the wider conflict.

“China weathered the initial shock better than any regional peer.”

Iran virtually closed the strait, a vital waterway through which much of the world’s oil and gas flows, after the US and Israel launched joint strikes on February 28, targeting government and military sites and killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. The ensuing crisis has sent global energy prices soaring, with Asia particularly exposed.

The report noted that before the strait’s closure, roughly 80 percent of the oil and nearly 90 percent of the liquefied natural gas transiting the waterway was destined for Asian markets, along with a significant share of other critical commodities.

The report looked at Asia’s largest economies—China, India, Japan, and South Korea—as well as emerging markets across south-east Asia. The researchers mapped the economic and political repercussions of the crisis and its impacts across key sectors including manufacturing, energy, and agriculture.

They concluded that China was a clear winner from the crisis caused by Donald Trump’s foray into the Middle East.

The country’s large stockpiles of oil and the hugely ambitious rollout of renewable energy mean it has been less exposed to the energy shock than other countries.

China has long maintained strategic reserves of energy, and last year took advantage of cheap prices to build up even bigger stockpiles. Its crude imports grew from 11.1 millin barrels a day to 11.6 million in 2025, with over 80 percent of that increase being sent to stockpiles, according to analysis by Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at the Centre on Global Energy Policy. As of January, China had enough stockpiled to cover 104 days of imports at the 2025 level.

The country has also been building massive amounts of renewable energy infrastructure in recent years. Last year it installed 315GW of new solar capacity, more than half of the world’s new solar. The year before, it added 277GW. Beijing is aiming for half of China’s energy to come from non-fossil sources by 2030, with the share from wind and solar reaching 30 percent, up from 22 percent in 2025.

Although China’s energy mix is still largely based on coal, which accounts for more than 50 percent, renewables’ share is increasing rapidly.

“It’s tempting to see any loss of credibility in the US as a benefit for China, but that’s not necessarily the case for Beijing.”

The Asia Group’s report said: “With 1.4 terawatts of operating renewable capacity already online and a reported 90-110 days of crude import cover in reserve, China weathered the initial shock better than any regional peer.”

China has also benefited from other countries reacting to the crisis by accelerating its clean energy buildout. Beijing dominates the global supply chain in solar and other clean technology industries and in recent years has been pushing much of this production overseas at low prices, to the chagrin of western leaders worried about their own industries.

China’s electric vehicle exports soared by more than 110 percent in May compared with the previous year, while solar shipments in April increased by 60 percent.

Beijing has called for a ceasefire in the Middle East, and when Trump visited in May and met China’s president, Xi Jinping, he claimed the two countries were united in wanting to find a settlement. But the Asia Group report noted: “The crisis allows Beijing to cast the United States as the destabilizing actor whose Middle East entanglements impose costs on the world.”

There are some risks to China from the instability. Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said: “It’s tempting to see any loss of credibility in the US as a benefit for China, but that’s not necessarily the case for Beijing, which does not want to supplant Washington as a Middle East hegemon or provider of security for the region.”

Wen-Ti Sung, a non-resident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, based in Taiwan, said the crisis could also make Beijing think twice about a future military assault on Taiwan because it showed the difficulty of navigating ships through hostile territory.

The Asia Group’s report concluded: “Ultimately Beijing views the pain points not as existential threats, but as challenges to be managed and even opportunities to be exploited.”

Growing up in Los Angeles in the 1980s and ’90s, a daughter and granddaughter of social justice activists, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein fell in love with math and the physical sciences and developed a profound curiosity about the cosmos (though the smoggy night sky of her childhood blocked her view of the stars). She soon developed a detailed plan for her life that led to a career writing and teaching about physics and gender studies at the University of New Hampshire.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){prx("https:\/\/play.prx.org\/e?ge=prx_149_72095ec7-3401-4fe3-8953-73404272499e&uf=https%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.revealradio.org%2Frevealpodcast", "prx-1", "embed")});Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

Today, Prescod-Weinstein’s work stands out for the ways she weaves her identity as queer, Black, and Jewish into her work. In her latest book, The Edge of Space-Time: Particles, Poetry, and the Cosmic Dream Boogie, Prescod-Weinstein brings a Black feminist lens to cosmology, quantum physics, poetry, and popular culture to help unlock the mysteries of the physical universe.

“The Edge of Space-Time is a much more intimate book because this is my brain,” Prescod-Weinstein says. “This is how I see the universe. These are the things that I am passionate about in my quiet moments.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Prescod-Weinstein talks about the need for diversity and inclusivity in the sciences and puts science fiction’s various hypotheses for space travel to the test with host Al Letson.

Find More To The Story on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app, and don’t forget to subscribe.

Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist, has won the high-profile primary for Colorado’s first congressional district, the Associated Press and other outlets projected Tuesday. With more than 90 percent of votes counted, Kiros leads Diana DeGette, Colorado’s longest-serving Democratic member of Congress, by a comfortable 51-42 margin.

DeGette—who has held her position since before Kiros was born—was seeking a 16th term in the House. She leads Colorado’s congressional delegation.

I covered Kiros’ outsider challenge to DeGette as part of a wave of young congressional candidates running in part to challenge the Democratic establishment on Gaza:

And in a primary taking place Tuesday in Denver, Melat Kiros, a 29-year-old democratic socialist who calls herself a “recovering lawyer,” is running against incumbent Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, who has held her seat since 1997.

Two years ago, as a new lawyer in New York, Kiros wrote an open letter defending law students who organized for Palestine. “I myself am from the northern region of Ethiopia, where a genocide had also taken place a few years ago,” Kiros, whose parents immigrated to Colorado when she was a baby, said.

Her employer asked her to take the letter down. Kiros refused, was fired, and moved back to Colorado within a week. She took a gig as a barista (“the best job I’ve had”) to make ends meet, and is now running on a familiar progressive platform: Medicare for All, universal childcare, AI regulation, ICE abolition and an arms embargo on Israel.

The only poll in the race, by progressive firm Data For Progress, showed Kiros up by five points earlier in June.

“Every single thing that you care about, from social justice to economic justice to environmental justice, all of these things are intertwined with who has the money and the influence to wield power over our government,” Kiros said to me in an interview June 10.

In the final weeks of Kiros’ race, millions of dollars flooded in to support her DeGette. The largest outside group spending on DeGette’s behalf, Pro-Choice Majority Action, has ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. The biggest spender backing Kiros has been the super PAC of the progressive group Justice Democrats, which endorsed her in December.

Kiros is also backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and high-profile supporters like Bernie Sanders and streamer Hasan Piker, who was urging voters to get to the polls in Denver minutes before they closed. (“What do you guys think about the data center that just popped up over here?” Piker told audiences. “Diana DeGette, who’s represented this district for 30 years in Congress, is saying nothing about the data centers, because she’s in the pocket of big corporations.”)

Kiros will join a group of left-wing insurgent candidates who have upset the Democratic establishment by winning decisive primary victories on unapologetically progressive platforms. Only half an hour after polls closed, with the race not yet called, Republicans were already treating Kiros as the presumptive winner. Democrats are “showing their true colors and saying we want socialism, inevitably we want communism,” said Republican Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert on Colorado’s News9. “You’re seeing this in New York—you have the Mamdani allies, who won their candidacy.”

Two politicians aligned with Mamdani—former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier—knocked out incumbents; a third, Claire Valdez, will replace retiring Democratic veteran Nydia Velázquez.

Kiros says she will work with them to push the Democratic Party leftward. “If enough of us share that commitment to Medicare for All, to ending corporate capture, to an arms embargo [on Israel], we should absolutely say: here are our conditions,” she told Axios. “If you want our votes on leadership, on appropriations, this is what it costs.”

In a widely anticipated defeat for transgender rights, the Supreme Court upheld state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that ban transgender girls from playing on girls’ school sports team. The decision, issued on Tuesday, does not impose a nationwide ban on trans athletes. But it does preserve laws passed in 27 states by GOP politicians and anti-trans activists who argued that transgender women threaten safety and fairness in women’s athletics.

All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that Title IX, the federal law forbidding sex discrimination in schools, allows states to ban trans girls from girls’ sports. They also ruled 6-3, along ideological lines, that such bans do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

“He’s not only creating a bad precedent for trans people, he’s significantly lowering the protection all women get under Equal Protection.”

The science is far from settled about whether trans girls who have received gender-affirming treatment actually have a competitive advantage or pose a greater risk of injuring other players. But the majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, glosses over those unknowns—reasoning that “biological sex” is a good enough proxy for athletic ability for states to categorically ban trans girls from girls’ sports.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” Kavanaugh writes. “Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Yet the ruling has much broader implications. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out that the majority opinion is allowing states to make laws based on broad differences between boys and girls, without looking closer at the subcategories of people who may not fit into those generalizations. “In so concluding,” she writes, “the Court…lowers the State’s burden for justifying the use of sex classifications in potentially all cases.”

In other words, the decision makes it easier for states to justify treating men and women differently. In the past, Sotomayor argues, the court has overturned laws that used “overbroad generalizations” that suited most men and most women but failed make exceptions for a minority who did not conform to sex stereotypes. But this case breaks that longstanding pattern: The court on Tuesday failed to account for the minority of students who have received gender-affirming treatment and thus may not conform to sex stereotypes about their athletic performance.

As a result, the ruling could threaten decades of progress on gender equality, Sotomayor warns. “The majority applies its diminished view of equal protection to the sports context today,” she writes. “One can only hope that the same misguided approach does not and will not extend to other contexts tomorrow.”

The legal cases, known as Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., began in 2020 and 2021, when trans students’ participation in sports had not yet become a culture-war flashpoint or presidential campaign-defining issue. Back then, conservative political strategists had just begun to invest in messaging on trans athletes, and Republican legislators began to introduce legislation banning them —even though many couldn’t identify a single trans athlete playing school sports in their state.

“There was a concerted effort to use this issue as the wedge for establishing…that transgender women are not women.”

The issue of trans athletes in sports proved persuasive. Soon, Republican legislators were introducing and passing a wide array of anti-trans laws, targeting LGBTQ-inclusive school curricula and medical gender transitions for minors, and even successfully passing the kinds of bathroom bans that had failed in the past. “There was a concerted effort to use this issue as the wedge for establishing, both in law and in public opinion, that transgender women are not women, and that they should be treated differently from cisgender women,” explained Joshua Block, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued one of the cases before the Supreme Court, in an interview last year. “They go right from ‘transgender women don’t belong on our sports teams’ to ‘and they don’t belong in our restrooms or in our social clubs.’ It’s been a very potent political weapon for them.”

When Idaho and West Virginia passed their sports bans, trans students in each state sued, arguing that the laws were discriminatory and unjustified—not just because there are so few trans athletes, but also because the science remains unsettled about whether athletes who medically transition from male to female retain any physical advantage. The plaintiff in the West Virginia case, Becky Pepper-Jackson, had identified as a girl at school since the third grade, and, thanks to puberty blockers, never went through a male puberty; still, she was banned from trying out for her middle school’s girls’ cross-country team. Meanwhile, in Idaho, Boise State University student Lindsay Hecox was also barred from running women’s cross-country, even though she had medically transitioned and suppressed her testosterone for a year, as NCAA rules at the time required. In response to their challenges, federal appeals courts blocked the bans in both states. Then the Republican-led state governments asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court overruled those appeals courts decisions. “This is a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” Block said a statement following the ruling. “The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”

The court’s decision on Tuesday is limited in some important ways.

For one thing, it doesn’t require all states to ban trans girls and women from women’s sports. “This ruling does not require any state to follow West Virginia’s or Idaho’s cruel, overly-broad approach, and it does not mandate categorical bans on transgender students participating in school sports,” Chris Erchull, Senior Staff Attorney at the nonprofit GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said in a statement following the ruling.

On top of that, the Title IX ruling is specific to sports—citing an amendment made to Title IX in 1974 that allowed schools to separate athletic teams by sex—and does not say whether Title IX allows or forbids discrimination against trans students in other contexts. That means trans students can continue to use Title IX to fight back when schools impose policies that harm them—such as rules that restrict their bathroom use, forbid teachers from using their preferred pronouns, or forcibly out them to unsupportive parents or guardians.

And while the justices decided that trans sports bans are allowed under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, they didn’t rule on a broader question: Whether judges, when analyzing other anti-trans laws, should apply the same rigorous legal analysis they use for laws that treat men and women differently. That bigger, still-unresolved question has enormous consequences for transgender rights. If that answer is yes, courts must examine whether anti-trans laws are “substantially related” to an “important government” objective. That standard, known as “intermediate scrutiny,” is tough, and it makes it more likely that anti-trans laws of all kinds will be overturned.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Kavanaugh said that trans sports bans must be analyzed under intermediate scrutiny—because they treat people differently based on “biological sex.” But the court still hasn’t decided whether other laws that treat people differently based on transgender status qualify for the more rigorous legal analysis.

Still, Tuesday’s ruling could have much wider consequences for gender equality under the Constitution—affecting not just trans people but cisgender men and women.

As I reported in depth earlier this year, feminist legal scholars have been sounding alarms about the conservative legal movement’s strategic use of anti-trans laws to chip away at the Equal Protection Clause’s protections against sex discrimination. The term “biological sex” has become “the new takedown strategy for anti-discrimination law,” legal historian Mary Ziegler, of the University of California, Davis, explained:

“What they’re trying to do is to replace sex discrimination law with a Trojan horse sex discrimination law that no longer prohibits sex discrimination,” Ziegler says. Rather than attacking protections head on, she explains, “they’re going to say, ‘American anti-discrimination law means you can treat men and women differently because they have different bodies.’” If courts embrace this logic, Ziegler says, it would be much harder to fight back against potential restrictions on women’s lives—laws that limit job options for pregnant workers, for example, or that ban women from military schools—by arguing they violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause.

Sotomayor points out a similar threat in her dissenting opinion. Under the court’s previous precedents, Sotomayor explains, states are not allowed to treat people of different sexes differently based on generalizations about “the way women are.” Instead, they have to account for the subset of women who might not fit into sex stereotypes. In a famous case, the court ruled that the Virginia Military Institute couldn’t categorically exclude women by reasoning that most women wouldn’t do well under its adversarial style, since at least a small subset of women would, in fact, succeed there. 

In the case of the trans girls who have received gender-affirming care, Sotomayor argues that it’s too soon to say whether or not they fit into generalizations about the athletic ability of “biological” boys. “West Virginia might be right that transgender girls retain some inherent athletic advantage over cisgender girls due to their sex identified at birth even after receiving the hormonal therapy B. P. J. identifies,” she writes. “At this point, however, neither the District Court nor the Fourth Circuit has passed upon any of the available evidence or made the necessary factual findings about the state of the scientific debate.”

Trans girls who have received gender-affirming treatment may, in fact, not threaten safety or competitive fairness in girls’ sports. The court simply doesn’t have enough evidence to tell.

In other words, trans girls who have received gender-affirming treatment may not, in fact, threaten safety or competitive fairness in girls’ sports. The court simply doesn’t have enough evidence to tell, Sotomayor argues. Instead, she says, Idaho and West Virginia’s laws “[rest] on exactly the kind of overbroad generalizations based on sex the Equal Protection Clause is supposed to root out.”

“Even if most trans athletes would have strength advantages or potentially raise safety concerns, not all of them would, and that’s what intermediate scrutiny requires you to look at, and [Sotomayor] thinks that the court is watering down that part of equal protection,” Ziegler explains.

That’s important, explains Albany Law School professor Ava Ayers, because Kavanaugh’s decision on Tuesday could make it easier for courts to uphold other laws that generalize about all men and women based on sex. “What really concerns me about this decision is that he’s not only creating a bad precedent for trans people, he’s significantly lowering the protection all women get under Equal Protection,” Ayers says.

In the immediate term, the people who will have to live with the Supreme Court’s decision are mainly teenage girls. Disturbingly, Idaho’s law allows a “dispute” about a student’s sex to be resolved by a “physical examination” of their “reproductive anatomy.”

Many of the transgender girls seeking to play on the girls’ team simply want to play sports with their friends. “Where are they supposed to go?” says Ayers, who clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor before she was appointed to the Supreme Court. “It’s not safe for a trans girl to play on a trans boy team, or at least she’s very justified in feeling that way.”

And there are the harder-to-quantify consequences for teenagers encountering rigid gender policies at school—no matter whether or not they’re trans. “I didn’t realize I was trans until I was about 40, but I was deeply confused and perplexed by gender when I was a kid, and sports is a fraught experience,” Ayers says. “I think there are lots of kids who may not grow up to identify as trans, but who benefit immensely from a space in which they can think about their gender with a measure of freedom that these laws deny to people.”

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down yet another campaign finance restriction in what has become its years-long aim to obliterate regulations governing money in politics. In a decision that broke down along party lines, the six Republican appointees lifted limits on how much parties and candidates could spend in coordination with each other. The decision will effectively allow wealthy donors to circumvent caps on direct giving to candidates by routing funds through the party, which can now spend the entire sum in coordination with the candidate.

The majority’s decision, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, hangs the ruling on the First Amendment. To restrict how a political party coordinates with one of its candidates—whether to consult on an ad or to pay the pizza bill—now infringes on the party’s free speech rights. To reach this conclusion, the majority overruled both Congress’ judgment about how to stop political corruption and its own precedent in a case just 25 years ago.

“The political party coordinated-expenditure limits impose a ‘stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do,'” Kavanaugh wrote, arguing that the coordination limits imposed by Congress some 50 years ago are too burdensome.

In a dissent joined by the Democratic appointees, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the decision endangers our democratic system of government. As it has in other campaign finance cases, she wrote, the majority “jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy’s integrity.”

This court has repeatedly blocked Congress’ attempts to limit political spending.

Indeed, with Tuesday’s opinion in NRSC v. FEC, the Roberts Court has, once again, nullified Congress’ judgment about how to stop corruption and given wealthy donors another vehicle to influence elections and extract favors from politicians. Thanks to the court’s past rulings, our elections are already defined by massive spending from the ultra-wealthy and our politics is already reoriented toward repaying those oligarchs for their donations. Though the Federal Election Commission announced after Trump’s inauguration it would not enforce the coordination limits struck down today, the ruling is a green light to both rich donors and candidates that their cozy relationship can become even closer.

Just by looking at the case docket, it’s clear that this case was a partisan brawl where the Republican-appointed justices threw in with the Republican Party. On one side were the GOP party committees, the sitting vice president, and the Trump administration, all urging the court to strike down the limits. In amicus briefs, conservative organizations funded by GOP-backing billionaires like Charles Koch joined their political allies. A win would allow these billionaires to have more influence over politicians, and for the politicians to get more money in return. The Roberts Court appears endlessly solicitous of both these groups. On the case’s other side were a handful of left-coded good government groups, Democratic politicians, and the Democratic National Committee. While some billionaires give to Democrats, Republicans receive a much larger slice of the billionaire pie. The New York Times recently found that in the 2024 election, Republicans took in five times as much as Democrats from billionaire donors.

Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act just ahead of the Watergate scandal, then amended it after President Richard Nixon’s quid pro quo with the dairy industry came to light as part of the Watergate investigation. Over many decades, the Supreme Court has eroded the anti-corruption limits that Congress enacted in this era. The Roberts court has knocked down limits on outside political spending, creating a free-for-all of super PAC and nonprofit election spending. Corruption and outsize influence from the wealthiest has predictably followed. In today’s opinion, the court turns to restrictions on donations that, effectively, go directly to candidates and starts to dismantle those.

After Watergate, Congress realized that if it wanted to limit how much money an individual could give to a campaign, it also needed to restrict how much parties could spend in coordination with a candidate to prevent circumvention of that limit.

After today’s decision, one of the last remaining pieces of Congress’ anti-corruption campaign finance laws is a limit on how much individuals can give to parties. For now, that means that technically there remains a ceiling on the amount of money a donor can route to a candidate through the party apparatus. But that number is still high. In her dissent, Kagan lays out how the decision allows donors to get around the individual contribution limit, now $7,000 for both a primary and general election campaign. The majority enables “a party to serve as an alternative checking account for a campaign,” she writes. “As a result, a donor will be able to give a party as much as half a million dollars (as compared to the $7,000 he can give directly to the candidate) to cover the candidate’s bills.”

The remaining aggregate limits on how much people can give parties and directly to candidates will almost certainly become the next targets of Republicans and their wealthy allies. In fact, during oral arguments, the attorney for the GOP political committees, former solicitor general Noel Francisco, admitted as much.

For decades, this Supreme Court has repeatedly blocked Congress’ attempts to limit outside political spending which is ostensibly—though not in reality—independent from the candidate and therefore uncoordinated. But it has repeatedly upheld Congress’ ability to limit direct payments to candidates, including through parties, as part of Congress’ power to limit quid pro quo corruption schemes. Tuesday’s ruling argues that there are other avenues to combat corruption that are less burdensome on First Amendment rights: namely that records of donations to parties are available for people to find online. It’s hard to see how that sort of disclosure will stop an exchange of favors for donations, but the majority thinks it’s enough.

Not only does the majority use the First Amendment to attack the integrity of our democratic system, but it also based its opinion on its members’ own policy preferences. Suffice to say, that’s Congress’ and the president’s job—not the court’s. Nonetheless, the opinion is overly concerned with the weakened status of political parties in relation to the massive figures flowing through outside super PACs and other independent dark money groups. What the court doesn’t admit is that it created this current imbalance, most notably in Citizens United, when it lifted outside spending limits on corporations and unions. To enact one policy due to the ill effects of another is Congress’ role—but in Tuesday’s opinion, the Supreme Court acts as a super legislature, responding to its own folly by pursing a new policy.

Perhaps most galling, Kavanaugh lays the blame for the parties’ weakened state at the feet of the 2001 precedent he overturns, Colorado II, which 25 years ago upheld these coordination limits. “That one is rich,” Kagan rights in dissent. “If one is overruling—or just reversing—decisions on that ground, I can think of a couple of more obvious ones—that is, the ones that created the modern Super PAC system, and thus the complained-of imbalance,” she added, going on to reference Citizens United.

Both Democrats and Republicans have been preparing for the court’s decision. In the short term, it is likely to change how they pay for television ads. By allowing coordination, the party expects to purchase ad time at a lower rate that is generally reserved for candidates, allowing them to buy more ads. After the midterms, this rule could result in more advertising and longer campaigns, as the parties’ dollars stretch further.

So perhaps the most immediate consequence felt by voters will be an even greater barrage of ads. But in the long term, far more is at stake. The result, in Kagan’s words, is “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”