In March, the politerati were atwitter over what appeared major news: Longtime political operator, lobbyist, wheeler-dealer, and (pardoned) felon Paul Manafort was in talks to join Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. This seemed an odd move, given all of Manafort’s schemings over the years. A more recent Manafort business venture—unknown to the public—raises further questions about him and his attempt to return to the Trump fold. According to documents obtained by Mother Jones—including a memo written by Manafort—two years ago, Manafort was trying to orchestrate a $250 million deal to create a streaming service in China in a project that he asserted was blessed by the Chinese government and that was partnering with a Chinese telecommunications firm sanctioned by the US government. 

On Friday morning, the Washington Post, which obtained the same documents, broke the news of Manafort’s involvement in this endeavor. 

Manafort was Trump’s campaign manager for part of 2016—until Trump dumped him after allegations emerged that Manafort had pocketed $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments a few years earlier from a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine. (His lawyer denied he had received this money.) Two years later, as a result of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal, Manafort was found guilty of and pleaded guilty to assorted financial crimes related to his consulting work in Ukraine, including bank fraud and conspiring to defraud the United States. He was sentenced to more than seven years in federal prison and sent off to the hoosegow. (He was released to home confinement during the Covid pandemic.) In 2020, a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee declared Manafort a “grave counterintelligence threat,” revealing that during the 2016 race he had repeatedly passed Trump campaign inside information to a former business associate who was a “Russian intelligence officer” and a “Kremlin agent.” In his final weeks in the White House, Trump pardoned Manafort. 

In the years since Trump cleaned his slate, Manafort has mostly maintained a low public profile. During part of that stretch, he privately endeavored to facilitate a huge deal in China. Emails and memos show that in May 2022 Manafort was working with a privately-held Hong Kong-based company called Standard Huaxia Limited to set up a new streaming company in China dubbed Doorways. Manafort and his colleagues were looking to raise an initial $25 million for the project that Manafort noted was seeking $250 million. 

A memo written (according to its meta-data) by Manafort described Doorways as a firm that would distribute in China “several kinds of content covering the entire spectrum of intangible products related to culture, including music, television and film entertainment, news and education.” You can read the full document below.

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

Vermont is poised to pass a groundbreaking measure forcing major polluting companies to help pay for damages caused by the climate crisis, in a move being closely watched by other states including New York and California.

Modeled after the EPA’s Superfund program, which forces companies to pay for toxic waste cleanup, the climate superfund bill would charge major fossil fuel companies doing business within the state billions of dollars for their past emissions.

The measure would make Vermont the first US state to hold fossil fuel companies liable for their planet-heating pollution. “If you contributed to a mess, you should play a role in cleaning it up,” Elena Mihaly, vice-president of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Vermont chapter, which is campaigning for the bill, said in an interview.

If passed, the bill will face a steep uphill battle in the courts. But supporters say the first-of-its-kind legislation could be a model for the rest of the country. Four other states are weighing similar initiatives. Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) also attempted to include a federal version in the infrastructure bill passed in 2022, though it was omitted from the final draft. (The measure would have raised $500 billion.)

Here at Mother Jones, we respect a wide spectrum of views when it comes to dogs. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and that somewhere is revealing that you killed your 14-month-old wirehair pointer for acting like a puppy.

That’s what South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem admitted to in graphic detail in her forthcoming book, which was obtained by the Guardian and has since sparked outrage even in Republican circles. But if your instinct is to give Noem the benefit of the doubt, which I initially did upon hearing about this story, I am here to tell you that her actions are far worse than I could have imagined.

In the passages obtained by the Guardian, Noem details a hunt gone wrong because the dog, Cricket, was “out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life.” (To me, that behavior seems wholly appropriate for a puppy, especially when outdoors.) But things take a decidedly awful turn when Cricket attacks chickens belonging to a local family. From the Guardian:

Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin.”

When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me.” Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologised, wrote the shocked family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime.”

Known for its investigative reporting, El Faro has been referred to as “a breakthrough digital newspaper blazing an independent and ethical trail in Central America.”

So when reporters at the Salvadoran news outlet noticed their cellphones acting strange all of a sudden—batteries draining, unexplained overheating—they had a weird feeling that someone was accessing their messages. They sent one reporter’s phone to Citizen Lab, a watchdog group, and the analysis found something shocking: It was infected with Pegasus, a military-grade surveillance software that can copy messages, harvest photos and even control the phone’s camera and microphone.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){prx("https:\/\/play.prx.org\/e?ge=prx_149_679a41b1-a105-4f0a-aad5-a0cd40f5bda0&uf=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.revealradio.org%2Frevealpodcast", "prx-1", "embed")});Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

“Okay, I’m the target right now,” reporter Julia Gavarrete recalled. “But the thing was, it’s obvious that it’s not only me.”

The watchdog checked more journalists’ phones, and it quickly became clear that El Faro was under a massive surveillance campaign. But who was behind it?

Once again, there’s not much love lost between Bill Barr and the man he accused of betraying the Oval Office, Donald Trump. When the former attorney general confirmed this week that he would support the Republican presidential ticket in November, his former boss took the opportunity to mock Barr as “slow-moving” and “lazy.” 

“That’s classic Trump,” Barr chuckled on Friday when CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked about the insults. “What’s the question?”

He went on to express frustration with that voters are faced with a rematch between Joe Biden and Trump. But given that choice, Barr explained that he would happily vote for Trump, who, he revealed in the same interview, routinely broached the idea of executing his rivals.

“But he’s mocking you,” Collins pressed.

“So? It’s not about me.”

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

Climate experts fear Donald Trump will follow a blueprint created by his allies to gut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), disbanding its work on climate science and tailoring its operations to business interests.

Joe Biden’s presidency has increased the profile of the science-based federal agency but its future has been put in doubt if Trump wins a second term and at a time when climate impacts continue to worsen.

The plan to “break up NOAA is laid out in the Project 2025 document written by more than 350 right-wingers and helmed by the Heritage Foundation. Called the “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” it is meant to guide the first 180 days of presidency for an incoming Republican president.

The document bears the fingerprints of Trump allies, including Johnny McEntee, who was one of Trump’s closest aides and is a senior adviser to Project 2025. “The National Oceanographic [sic] and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” the proposal says.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what could end up being its most consequential abortion decision since Dobbs. In a case pitting Idaho’s extreme abortion ban against a federal law known as EMTALA—that since 1986 has required hospitals to provide emergency care—conservative justices seemed to embrace the idea that states can deny crisis medical treatment to pregnant patients, even if doing so means those patients suffer catastrophic, life-altering injuries. “My reaction can be summed up as ‘appalled,’” says Sara Rosenbaum, emerita professor at George Washington University who is one of the country’s foremost experts in health policy issues affecting women and families. “Will [the court] really say it is fine [to enforce] a law that costs women their organs as long as they don’t die?”

It’s hard to think of a piece of progressive American health care policy since the late 1970s in which Rosenbaum hasn’t played a pivotal role conceptualizing, enacting, or improving. That includes the federal statute that guarantees the right of every American to go to a hospital emergency room and receive medical treatment before being sent somewhere else. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to screen and stabilize anyone who arrives at the emergency room, including women in active labor. Narrow in scope yet vast in impact, the law has been a “force field around hospital emergency departments,” Rosenbaum says, protecting pregnant patients for four decades. Now, with the Dobbs decision, SCOTUS has “blown up medical care for childbearing people,” she says—and EMTALA could be the next major health care protection that the court decides to explode.   

To more fully understand the implications of the case before the Supreme Court, we reached out to Rosenbaum to discuss the history of this unique statute and why it has become even more vital since the end of Roe v Wade. 

You’ve called EMTALA “revolutionary” and “the most important American health care law that we have.” Why? What makes this law so special? 

It’s the only American law we have that guarantees access to care. For everybody. It doesn’t matter who you are—whether you have insurance or don’t have insurance, what color you are, how much money you have, whether or not you’re disabled. If you come to a hospital emergency department and you believe you have an emergency, they have to screen you. If it is an emergency, they have to stabilize you. The definition of an emergency isn’t that you’re in danger of dying; it includes situations that could lead to severe, long-lasting physical harm. And the decision about what is required to stabilize you—it’s up to the doctor’s medical judgment. 

In the early morning, one can hear the birds perched on trees around the Gaza Solidarity Encampment at Columbia University. Farther off, there are sounds of protest and counterprotest. But inside the camp itself—technically the second camp after the New York Police Department cleared out the first and caused even more national attention to focus on this campus lawn—the resistance is often quieter if steady: a community formed to call for ceasefire, divestment, and the end to war.

This is a village built overnight. On April 17, student activists descended on the lawn outside the library—which had already been locked off to outsiders without a student identification card—and set up green tents and Palestinian flags. It was planned for the same day Columbia President Minouche Shafik appeared before Congress to discuss antisemitism on college campuses. The protesters hoped to call attention to the role of the United States and Columbia University in supporting Israel. Since Hamas’ attack on October 7, in which more than 1,000 Isrealis were killed and 129 hostages were taken, the Israeli government has waged a war that has led to more than 34,000 dead Palestinians and led Gaza to the brink of famine. 

Following her testimony, Shafik called the New York Police Department, which came in wearing riot gear, and students involved in the protests gained new energy. They quickly built a second encampment. Student demands have remained: that Columbia’s endowment divest from companies they say enable the conflict; that Columbia be transparent about its investments going forward; and that amnesty be provided for all students and faculty who have participated in protests. They hope to center the struggles in Gaza, where Israel is on the brink of a potential invasion of Rafah.

Inside the encampment over the past week, I have found life different than most social media posts and news coverage might have you believe.

Students are not only protesting but attempting to create a new world. Within the camp, there is a certain normalcy in the daily communal flow. The few hundred students here—who each night come outside despite memories of the NYPD’s charge—wake up each morning, stretch, and brush their teeth. An IKEA table serves as an ersatz whiteboard, where students can see daily programming. Next is a morning assembly where leaders update everyone on the status of negotiations between protesters and the administration. Occasionally there are guest speakers and lectures.

A year and a half after Mother Jones exposed how Oklahoma courts were imprisoning mothers for longer than their abusers, state lawmakers passed a bill that could allow some of those mothers’ sentences to be shortened. But this week, Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed the legislation.

In an award-winning investigation in 2022, I told the story of Kerry King, a mom in Tulsa who got 30 years in prison under the state’s “failure to protect” law because she couldn’t stop her abusive boyfriend from beating her 4-year-old daughter. He received significantly less time behind bars for committing that violence. When my colleague Ryan Little and I conducted a groundbreaking review of Oklahoma’s court records, we identified hundreds of people like King who had been charged under the state’s law since 2009 for allegedly failing to protect their children from another adult’s harm. About 90 percent of those imprisoned under the statute were women, disproportionately Black mothers. Many of them experienced abuse from the same person, often a romantic partner, who harmed their children.

In recent weeks, Oklahoma’s legislature overwhelmingly approved the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act, which would allow courts to shorten prison sentences for people who can prove their crime stemmed from domestic violence. The legislation could help mothers like King who are convicted for “failure to protect,” as well as others who killed an abuser in self-defense, or committed a crime while attempting to escape from the abusive relationship, or followed an abuser’s order to break the law for fear of retribution. It would apply to both new and old cases, theoretically helping people with active trials or those who want to retroactively shorten their sentences.

It’s a big deal that this legislation passed with so much support: As I’ve reported before, only a few other states have laws like this, including New York. And none of those states are as conservative as Oklahoma. But the issue appears to have struck a chord on both sides of the Sooner State’s political aisle. “This may be the first time in my life I agree with someone from San Francisco,” then-Rep. Todd Russ, who is Republican and now Oklahoma’s state treasurer, wrote to me in 2022 after I emailed him from California to share our investigation. In March, the state Senate unanimously approved the Oklahoma Survivors’ Act, and in April the state House approved it with a vote of 84-3.

Despite such broad support, Republican Gov. Stitt vetoed the bill on Tuesday. He described the legislation as “bad policy,” arguing that “untold numbers of violent individuals who are incarcerated or should be incarcerated in the future will have greater opportunity to present a threat to society due to this bill’s impact.” (Our investigation found that the vast majority of women in Oklahoma convicted for failure to protect—a nonviolent crime—had no prior felony record.)

The first criminal trial of a former US president is underway, with Donald Trump facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush-money payments allegedly made in 2016 to cover up an affair he had with adult film star Stormy Daniels. Here’s the latest—the key updates and absurd moments—from the historic trial.

Public birthday wishes are a tricky art. Some are cute! Others give the ick. But on the 54th birthday of Melania Trump, a new entry into the canon of birthday messages has emerged—and it defies neat categorization.

“I want to start by wishing my wife Melania a very happy birthday,” Donald Trump told reporters on Friday. “It would be nice to be with her but I’m at a courthouse for a rigged trial.”

Trump begins today's rant by wishing Melania a happy birthday while simultaneously whining about his case pic.twitter.com/qgAkHA2voJ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 26, 2024

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

The world’s 3,000 billionaires should pay a minimum 2 percent tax on their fast-growing wealth to raise about $313 billion a year for the global fight against poverty, inequality, and global heating, ministers from four leading economies have suggested.

In a sign of growing international support for a levy on the super-rich, Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain say a 2 percent tax would reduce inequality and raise much-needed public funds after the economic shocks of the pandemic, the climate crisis and military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East.

They are calling for more countries to join their campaign, saying the annual sum raised would be enough to cover the estimated cost of damage caused by all of last year’s extreme weather events.

“It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods,” the ministers say in a Guardian comment piece. “One of the key instruments that governments have for promoting more equality is tax policy. Not only does it have the potential to increase the fiscal space governments have to invest in social protection, education, and climate protection. Designed in a progressive way, it also ensures that everyone in society contributes to the common good in line with their ability to pay. A fair share contribution enhances social welfare.”

Donald Trump is on trial in Manhattan facing 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of another crime: conspiring to influence the 2016 election. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argues that, to squelch negative publicity that might hurt Trump’s 2016 campaign, Trump directed the creation of fake records to hide hush-money payments to women who claimed they’d had extramarital sex with him. 

That’s a complicated case to prove. And one in which it does not matter one whit, at least legally, who Trump actually had sex with. All Trump’s lawyers have to argue is that the payoffs, while perhaps unseemly, were legal. And they’re doing that. Yet Trump’s lawyers are also going further, asserting that the former president didn’t have sex with any of the three woman whose possible encounters with him resulted in payoffs for silence.

In one case—a $30,000 payout to a doorman who claimed to know of Trump fathering an out-of-wedlock child—the underlying allegation in fact seems to be false. But it’s striking that Trump’s defense includes denials that he slept with porn star Stormy Daniels (who received $130,000) and Playboy model Karen McDougal ($150,000). That’s because, to exaggerate only a bit, no one believes him.

The ongoing testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, who helped spearhead the so-called “catch and kill” scheme to buy the rights to stories about Trump’s alleged encounters in order to suppress the claims, drives home that point. Pecker on Thursday indicated that he, former Enquirer editor Dylan Howard, and Trump fixer Michael Cohen all believed McDougal’s account of a year-long sexual affair with Trump.

What’s more, according to Pecker, Trump did nothing at the time to counter that impression. Pecker recounted a June 2016 call with Trump which came while Pecker’s company was in the process of buying the rights to McDougal’s story. Trump, who Pecker said knew of McDougal’s claims and the talks about paying her to stay quiet, remarked that “she is a nice girl,” Pecker recalled. Trump then asked: “What do you think I should do?” Pecker said. Pecker said he suggested paying her. Trump, that is, did not deny McDougal’s claims. Nor, according to Pecker, did Trump dispute her claims in a January 2017 Trump Tower meeting in which he thanked Pecker for “handling” the matter.

Israel and its allies were scrambling to shoot down a fleet of Iran-launched drones on Saturday evening, according to both countries’ militaries, in a major escalation of a regional conflict sparked by the Israel-Hamas war. Iranian state media claimed that the country was coordinating the drones with a barrage of ballistic missiles.

The unfolding aerial attack comes in retaliation for Israel’s strike on an Iranian embassy in Syria earlier this month. Israel’s war cabinet held emergency meetings as President Biden cut short a weekend trip to Delaware to huddle with officials in the White House Situation Room. Flight tracking websites were reporting widespread airspace closures across multiple countries in the region as Israeli officials confirmed efforts to intercept the weapons before they entered Israeli territory, according to the New York Times. The exact targets of the offensive remained unclear.

Iran said that the April 1 attack on its consular facility in Damascus killed seven military advisers, including three top commanders, and in the weeks since, according to Reuters. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, vowed retaliation, saying Israel “must be punished and shall be.” As recently as Friday, when asked to assess how close Iran was to attacking Israel, President Biden said “my expectation is sooner than later.” As of early Saturday evening in the United States, the US claimed to be shooting down incoming Iranian drones, as television images showed the night sky above Israel lighting up with what appeared to be intercept fire. 

In Gaza, the health care system has collapsed, but nearly 200 women each day still need to find a safe place to give birth. In this week’s episode of Reveal, reporters Gabrielle Berbey and Salmad Ahad Khan tell the story of one woman, 42-year-old Lubna Al Rayyes, as she deals with a complicated pregnancy in the midst of the war. After fleeing her home in Gaza City, Al Rayyes tries to find refuge in Khan Younis—only to be forced to evacuate again when that city comes under attack too. 

Also in this episode, reporters speak with Dutch researcher Dr. Tessa Roseboom, who has been studying how famine affects the development of babies in the womb, and Dr. Ghassan Jawad, an OB-GYN who had worked at Al-Shifa hospital before it was left in ruins by an Israeli military attack. 

jQuery(document).ready(function(){prx("https:\/\/play.prx.org\/e?uf=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.revealradio.org%2Frevealpodcast&ge=prx_149_84c84caa-4600-43fc-93a5-30f02c78c9cf", "prx-0", "shortcode")});Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

Days after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a near-total ban on abortion could be enforced in the state, Kamala Harris went after Trump for his position on abortion in a campaign speech Friday in Tucson. Harris said that the ruling, which granted abortion exceptions only when it was “necessary to save” a woman’s life, “demonstrated once and for all that overturning Roe was just the opening act of a larger strategy.”

“And we all must understand who all is to blame,” Harris, who has become the Biden administration’s most vocal official on abortion, said. “Former President Donald Trump did this.” She said that a second Trump term would produce even more abortion bans and adversely affect reproductive care for women. 

Harris calling out Trump comes as the former president appears to be carving out distance between himself and anti-abortion policies. Over the past week, he has repeatedly said that there is no longer a need for a federal abortion ban, because “we broke Roe v. Wade.” On Wednesday, he said he would decline to sign such a ban, and on Monday, he claimed that abortion policy should be left to the states. He also released a statement opposing the Arizona ban. 

Democrats, including President Biden, have accused Trump of lying as he attempts to avoid the political fallout of being associated with strict anti-abortion policies, which consistently poll as extremely unpopular among voters. 

Trump has moved back and forth on abortion as it has been politically expedient—prior to running for office, he both claimed to be “very pro-choice” and then “pro-life.” In 2016, he said he would attempt to defund Planned Parenthood and then try to provide “some form of punishment” to women seeking abortions. In 2017, he supported the 20-week abortion ban that the House passed, saying that he would sign it, though the bill never made it through the Senate. 

Famine is already happening in parts of Gaza, a top US humanitarian official publicly acknowledged this week for the first time. After six months of Israeli war and blockades, an estimated 2.2 million people are facing acute or catastrophic food shortages. One in three children in northern Gaza are malnourished, and deaths due to hunger are expected to accelerate quickly, US officials have warned.

According to the groundbreaking work of Dutch researcher Dr. Tessa Roseboom, the impacts of near starvation are also likely being experienced by generations not yet born. Roseboom, a biologist and professor of early development and health at the Amsterdam UMC/University of Amsterdam, has been studying the long-term consequences of prenatal malnutrition for almost 30 years.

Much of her work focuses on people like her parents, who were born around the time of the Dutch “Hunger Winter” at the end of World War II. In dozens of studies, Roseboom and her colleagues have provided some of the first direct evidence in humans of the intergenerational impact of in-utero exposure to stresses such as famine. Their work suggests that malnutrition during pregnancy can have lasting consequences not only for the future health of the child but for subsequent generations. “It’s one of the things that makes me very passionate to talk about how the decisions we make today will have an effect for many, many decades,” Roseboom says. “I really feel the generations before me urging me to speak out.”

Audio journalists Neroli Price, Salman Ahad Khan, and Gabrielle Berbey talked with Roseboom as part of their investigation into how Israel’s blocking of aid trucks carrying food and medical supplies is leading to a maternal and infant health disaster. Excerpts of their conversation can be heard on the latest Reveal radio episode, “In Gaza, Every Pregnancy is Complicated,” (available for listening on nearly 600 NPR stations or for download).  Given the timeliness and urgency of the subject, we are presenting a longer digital version here. 

Let’s start with the Hunger Winter. What was the confluence of events that made the winter of 1944-1945 so devastating for people in the Netherlands?

On CNN, John Bolton, a former national security adviser to Donald Trump and rabid war lover who wants to bomb Iran and North Korea (among others), revealed that he is voting for a write-in candidate in 2024.

“I might as well say it now,” Bolton said, “I voted for Dick Cheney [in 2020]. And I’ll vote for Dick Cheney again this November.”

Why would Bolton do this? “Because [Cheney] was a principled Reaganite conservative, and he still is,” Bolton told the CNN viewers. Bolton then went on to explain that age is no longer a factor, allowing him to vote for a man who is 83 years old. And he continued, in a bit of a joking tone, to say that if he could sway the nation toward a write-in campaign for Cheney to prevent either Biden or Trump from being president, he would. Bolton also noted that someday he might vote for Cheney’s very hawkish, very anti-Trump daughter, former Rep. Liz Cheney.

John Bolton: “I might as well say it now: I voted for Dick Cheney [in 2020]. And I’ll vote for Dick Cheney again this November.” pic.twitter.com/RCJGpeJQBJ

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) April 11, 2024

Everyone seems to be talking about saving democracy this year. “American democracy, that’s what the 2024 election is all about,” Joe Biden has emphasized, painting the threat of Donald Trump’s return to power as the central issue in the 2024 campaign. “We have to prove that our model isn’t a relic of history.”

But the crisis facing American democracy is much older and deeper than Trump and it is, indeed, a relic of a very different time in US history.

In a new video companion for Mother Jones, based on my forthcoming book Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People—and the Fight to Resist It, digital producer Sam Van Pykeren explores how the US political system was created to restrain democracy, not protect it. The founders essentially placed a ticking time bomb at the heart of our political system—and this could be the year it explodes.

As I explain in my book, it all dates back to the birth of American democracy, when the Founding Fathers created political institutions within a system that concentrated power in the hands of an elite, propertied, white male minority. More than 200 years later, the series of compromises the founders made have increasingly vested the majority of political power in the hands of a minority of the population—a reactionary conservative white minority that is seeking to entrench and hold onto power through a wide variety of anti-democratic means.

You can pre-order Minority Rule here, and find the exclusive Mother Jones excerpt here.

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

With just two weeks left until the Democratic primary for western Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district, climate and environmental groups have overwhelmingly endorsed the anti-fracking incumbent, Rep. Summer Lee. 

One of the only contested Democratic congressional primaries in the state, the race between Lee and Edgewood Borough Council member Bhavini Patel has drawn attention, with the candidates clashing over the Biden Administration’s continued military funding for Israel and the GOP-funded Moderate PAC bankrolling advertisements targeting Lee on behalf of Patel, who supports continuing military aid. 

On Wednesday, the Lee campaign said it has received a slate of new and existing endorsements from 14 prominent climate and environmental groups, including Greenpeace, the Sunrise Movement, Sunrise Pittsburgh, Zero Hour, the Sierra Club of Pennsylvania, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Jane Fonda Climate PAC. The endorsements shift focus away from Israel and Palestine to Lee’s environmental justice platform, which advocates for bringing jobs and money to a district mostly made up of Pittsburgh that has spent decades under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry.

Edith Abeyta, an environmental justice organizer and air quality advocate in the district, said she is an enthusiastic supporter of Lee’s re-election campaign. “For me, it’s this intersectionality that Lee upholds within her district,” Abeyta said. “She represents a lot of people that live in environmental justice zones and frontline communities, and I think she gets it…she’s a voice for the people.” 

Despite Elon Musk’s enshittification of Twitter, to borrow a term from the novelist and culture critic Cory Doctorow, his rebranded social media platform is still useful to journalists like me to communicate with certain people and to promote good stories, even if its algorithm now seems to further reward clickbait, disinformation, and right-wing trolls.

But Musk has transformed the company’s comms apparatus into a scorched hellscape governed by mindless, nonhuman decision-making—which is ironic given the antipathy Musk has expressed about bots on his platform. I experienced the rot myself recently, after X locked up my account for “unusual behavior” that supposedly violated its rules. That was all the explanation I got.

Hours before, interestingly, I’d quote-tweeted a post from Musk wherein he mocked the notion of Americans living on land stolen from Indigenous people. At best, it was a really dumb joke, not the sort of thing most people would want to share with 180 million people—which is how many followers Musk has.

We live on stolen land.

By “we”, I mean us mammals.