President Joe Biden has issued a flurry of pardons during his final days in office, beginning with his grant of clemency to his son Hunter and continuing with a mid-December announcement that he had pardoned or commuted the sentences of nearly 1,500 Americans. This week, Biden told reporters that he was still considering issuing preemptive pardons for high-profile Trump critics before the end of his term. Donald Trump, too, has indicated that he’ll make liberal use of pardons, saying he’ll grant clemency to January 6 insurrectionists on his first day in office.

As this week’s episode of Reveal makes clear, debates over the presidential power of pardon are nothing new. Today’s show features audio from an interview with Gerald Ford, aired for the first time by Reveal in 2019, in which the former president discussed his 1974 decision to pardon Richard Nixon. “I had a visceral feeling that the public animosity to Mr. Nixon was so great that there would be a lack of understanding, and the truth is that’s the way it turned out,” Ford said. “The public and many leaders, including dear friends, didn’t understand it at the time.”

Also on this week’s episode, Reveal reports on the thousands of Americans who have been waiting for a presidential pardon for years in the aftermath of the war on drugs. Listen to the show here:

This is an update of an episode that originally aired in July 2019.

Former New York City mayor and Trump hanger-on Rudy Giuliani was found in contempt of court on Friday—for the second time in a week. Giuliani faces two different federal lawsuits against him stemming from his comments about a pair of Georgia elections workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, whom he falsely accused of helping rig the 2020 election. He has now been found in contempt of court in both cases and faces additional fines—on top of the $148 million he already owes the two women.

Shortly after the 2020 election, Giuliani falsely said that video footage of the Atlanta vote-counting site where Freeman and Moss—a mother and daughter employed as temporary election officials—were working showed the two women manipulating votes. The lies were later repeated by Donald Trump and spread around the Internet, leading to harassment and death threats against the pair. Freeman and Moss sued Giulani for defamation, and in 2023 a jury voted that he owed them $148 million in damages. Creditors later filed a second lawsuit against Giuliani for failing to cooperate in turning over the assets he owes.

On Monday, Giuliani was found in contempt of court in that second case, based in New York City, where the judge found that while Giuliani had turned over some assets, he had not been forthcoming with important paperwork needed to evaluate what other assets he must relinquish. The judge in that case ruled that Giuliani had “willfully violated a clear and unambiguous order of this court” when he “blew past” a December 20 deadline to provide certain paperwork.

On Friday, Beryl A. Howell, the Washington, D.C., judge in the original defamation case, found Giuliani in contempt because he has continued to defame Freeman and Moss, repeating lies about them even after he lost the original case. In May, Giuliani signed an agreement in which he said he agreed to stop repeating the falsehoods—a promise which he then broke in November with comments he made on his podcast.

The Supreme Court on Friday heard oral arguments on the future of TikTok—whether to let the platform go dark on January 19 according to a bipartisan law passed by Congress, or to intervene and spare the platform.

The case pits the First Amendment free speech rights of TikTok and its users against the government’s assertions that the platform poses a national security risk. With bipartisan support, Congress passed a law that will essentially ban TikTok in the United States on January 19 unless ByteDance, the Chinese-based company that owns TikTok, divests the platform.

Genuflecting to national security over fundamental rights has led to some of the court’s most regrettable decisions.

The Supreme Court does not generally like to second-guess the federal government when it comes to national security concerns, and is therefore likely to ultimately uphold the law. While the justices did express doubts about some of the government’s national security rationale, it’s unclear if there are strong enough to delay the law from taking effect, or to overturn it as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to free speech.

Los Angeles has been hit with its worst-ever wildfires, which continue to blaze, already claiming at least ten lives and devastating air quality—just as a spate of mask bans have been enacted or proposed around the country, including in LA itself.

Since authorities began issuing evacuation orders across the area, Joaquín Beltrán, a community organizer and software engineer, has been visiting centers to hand out masks. Beltrán still takes Covid-19 seriously, as do organizers with Mask Bloc LA, a mutual aid group that Beltrán linked up with, which has also been visiting evacuation shelters to hand out N95 and KN95 masks.

Personally handed out well over 1,000 respirators here at the Pasadena Convention Center to every person awake. @PasadenaGov @lapublichealth @RedCross, the people want to be protected from hazardous wildfire smoke. Please set up a system and supply respirators immediately. pic.twitter.com/C6OFzytjpr

For people involved in Covid mask organizing, handing out masks serves two purposes: protection from harmful wildfire smog and against infectious diseases. I spoke to Beltrán about his experience working to keep his community safe, even as this dual-purpose public health tool has become an increasingly villainized symbol of the culture wars.

Donald Trump’s criminal case ended with a sputter on Friday morning as a New York City judge sentenced him to no jail time and discharged his case. While the incoming president received no actual punishment for his 34 convictions for concealing hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, the sentencing did formalize his status as a felon—a first for any American president. Trump did not have to be present in court for the sentencing, but appeared by video from Mar-a-Lago, sitting next to his attorney.

“This defendant… has placed officers of the court in harm’s way.”

During the brief hearing, prosecutors said they agreed with the plan to not give Trump any jail time, but insisted he must be categorized as a felon. Joshua Steinglass of the Manhattan district attorney’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that a probation report produced for the sentencing described Trump as seeing himself above the law and refusing to take responsibility for his actions.

Steinglass argued that Trump, who appeared to either sleep or pretended to sleep for much of the trial, and who used his social media to direct vitriol at prosecutors, witnesses, and Merchan and his family, should not be allowed to walk away from his convictions without any formal recognition of his wrongdoing,

With Donald Trump less than two weeks away from taking office and promising an agenda of mass deportations, Democrats are poised to hand Republicans major new powers over immigration policy. Why? Still shell-shocked from the November results, they apparently fear their reelection prospects if they don’t.

The Laken Riley Act—named for the 22-year-old Georgia woman who was murdered last year by a Venezuelan migrant who was in the country illegally—passed the House with support from 48 Democrats earlier this week. Senators voted overwhelmingly in favor of advancing the bill on Thursday before potentially considering amendments and voting on the bill itself. The legislation would both mandate the detention of certain undocumented immigrants and make it easier for Republican attorneys general to sue the federal government over immigration matters—legal challenges that could then lead to sweeping decisions by right-wing judges.

Republicans do not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in Senate on their own. But they may attract enough Democratic support to pass the bill. Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) have already signaled they will support the bill. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told The Hill that she was “inclined” to support the bill as well.

The willingness of Democrats, particularly those in swing districts and states, to support the bill is a sign of how vulnerable many in the party now understand themselves to be on immigration. Instead of fighting Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, as they did during his first term, Democrats are increasingly willing to cave to it in the hopes of insulating themselves from future Republican attacks.  

The Supreme Court on Thursday narrowly denied President-elect Donald Trump’s last ditch effort to delay his sentencing in the New York hush money case in which he was convicted of 34 felony counts in May. That sentencing will now proceed tomorrow, January 10.

Trump was found guilty of falsifying business records to cover up payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 election. The sentencing, as Judge Juan Merchan has already indicated, will not include prison time, a fine, or any condition of probation. But it will, officially, make Trump a convicted felon just 10 days before resuming office. Trump will still have the opportunity to appeal his conviction, and the Supreme Court might yet overturn it in the likely scenario the case is appealed to the highest court.

On multiple occasions, the Supreme Court has come to Trump’s aid. On Thursday, it stood down—at least for now.

Rather than intervene before Trump has exhausted his appeal opportunities in state court, the justices’ decision not to intervene allows the New York courts to handle the case as it would handle any other criminal proceeding. This decision is not a sign that the justices are skeptical of Trump’s legal demands or that they won’t later throw out his conviction. But the court—which has in the past year repeatedly taken extraordinary steps to protect Trump from legal liability—stood down. At least for now.

The ongoing Los Angeles wildfires have reportedly killed at least 5 people and destroyed thousands of structures, leaving entire neighborhoods in heaps of ashes. 

With stately homes burned to the ground, or too damaged to imminently return to, wealthy Angelenos reportedly fled to hotels or other cities: Those who could afford the nightly rate of more than $1,000 stayed at the posh Beverly Hills Hotel, according to a Wednesday night dispatch from the LA Times. Others, the New York Times reported, went to the Sunset Tower Hotel in West Hollywood, where Thursday night’s cheapest rate was listed online at $512. Some drove the 30 miles southeast to the city of Anaheim, where several hotels are offering discounted stays. 

But the plight of people experiencing homelessness in the city—reportedly more than 45,000 as of last year, which marked a decrease from 2023—have been comparatively invisible in the wall-to-wall coverage. On Thursday afternoon, I called up John Maceri, the CEO of the People Concern, a social services organization in LA that oversees 700 shelter beds, to learn more about the barriers facing unhoused people trying to flee the wildfires. Their struggles, he said, range from lacking cell phones and Internet access, which can prevent them from learning about evacuation orders and resources, to coping with health issues from all the time spent outside inhaling wildfire smoke. With homelessness reaching record levels in the US last year and natural disasters increasing as a result of climate change, the challenges Maceri outlined seem less like anomalous hardships and more like harbingers of what’s to come as more Americans grapple with the dual housing and climate crises.

This interview has been lightly condensed and edited for clarity.

For the last two mornings, I’ve woken up from broken sleep in my house on Los Angeles’ east side in a blind panic, the smell of smoke permeating the air. The light slanting in is a horrible, eerie orange, illuminating the white kitchen cabinets like a nightmare projection screen. When I climb onto the roof, the air in every direction is full of dark, low, menacing clouds fed by smoke, blocking out the mountains and trees even just a few miles away.

Every wildfire is accused of not being a wildfire, but a planned attack to further sinister ends.

Our car is packed. Our important documents are in a tote bag by the back door. Every ping from the Watch Duty app, which sends out real-time fire alerts, sends me scrambling for my phone. I’m anxiously scrutinizing the perimeter of the Eaton fire, which has destroyed the homes of friends and community landmarks I love, willing it not to jump the 134 highway, praying today will be the day that helitankers will be able to slow the spread. I watch helplessly as the other fires across town engulf homes, businesses, send pets and livestock fleeing alone, reduce lives and memories to ash. I pray the death toll doesn’t mount higher. I watch friends and acquaintances on Instagram reporting from where they’ve evacuated, haggard and blank-faced with shock in hotel rooms and packed cars. I don’t know what kind of city we’ll have waiting for us on the other side of this. 

Naturally, then, as a journalist who’s covered conspiracy theories and disinformation for many years, it’s been reassuring to learn that the disaster threatening my safety can be blamed on false flag attacks, Democrat plotting, the evils of diversity, and—say it with me—the Jews. A disaster is a ripe moment for conspiracy peddlers to ply their wares, and a historic series of fires threatening a major city—especially one filled with Democrats, non-white people and wealthy celebrities—has sent the machine into overdrive. The theories being spread about the Los Angeles fires, as Nitish Pahwa wrote yesterday, are a mix of climate change denialism and attempts to pin the disasters on their usual and preferred villains. Perhaps most disturbing of all, they also contain an ugly dose of celebration and schadenfreude. “The Hollywood Hills are on fire,” are burning, tweeted an account associated with the network of Stew Peters, a far-right and deeply antisemitic podcaster. “It’s almost poetic.”  

Weeks before the Supreme Court’s emergency session that could determine the fate of TikTok in the United States, Donald Trump on Friday issued a legal filing asking the high court to pause the law that would ban the Chinese-owned social media app if it isn’t sold by January 19.

The filing did not comment on the legal arguments of the law, which was signed under President Biden over national security concerns that have mounted in recent years. Instead, it touted Trump as “one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history,” noting his 14.7 million followers on TikTok. The president also echoed TikTok’s arguments that the law illegally restricts the First Amendment.

The filing marks the latest chapter in Trump’s shifting views regarding the popular app after he tried, and failed, to ban it in 2020. After meeting with TikTok’s CEO earlier this month, Trump hinted at possibly intervening before the law’s implementation, saying that he had a “warm spot” for the platform. In March, Trump experienced a similar reversal following a meeting with Jeff Yass, a conservative hedge-fund manager who happens to have a $33 billion stake in TikTok. All of this has come against the backdrop of Trump’s increasing coziness with some of tech’s most prominent billionaires.

D. John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer and nominee for solicitor general, wrote on Friday: “President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case, thus permitting President Trump’s incoming Administration the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case.”

Update, December 28: This story has been updated to reflect Donald Trump’s position on the H1-B visa program.

Less than a month before Donald Trump returns to office, two of his most ardent allies have plunged into a fierce online debate over immigration, specifically the government’s visa program that allows American companies to hire so-called “highly skilled” foreign workers.

The clash started on Monday with Laura Loomer, the far-right social media character known for her virulent racism, condemning Trump’s decision to name Sriram Krishnan, a tech investor who was born in India, as a senior adviser on artificial intelligence. Tech leaders, including Elon Musk, weighed in to defend the practice of hiring foreign workers, specifically through the government’s H-1B visa program. (Musk, a naturalized US citizen from South Africa, once held the visa.) The debate has since devolved into a relentless string of petty insults—Loomer likened tech billionaires to “termites” at Mar-a-Lago; Musk called Loomer a troll—as well as accusations of censorship on X as retaliation. At a different point, Vivek Ramaswamy chimed in to register his support for hiring foreign workers. The former presidential candidate and now-DOGE partner blamed an American culture that has so “venerated mediocrity over excellence” that tech companies have no other option but to hire engineers from abroad.

One might be tempted to view this MAGA infighting as a signal that Musk may not be as extreme as the other faithful. Could this mean that the tech billionaire who openly embraced some of MAGA’s most pernicious racism and conspiracy theories is capable of restraint, at least when it comes to matters of business and the economy? Such a takeaway from this online war would be a mistake. After all, the tech billionaire, who just last week endorsed Germany’s far-right AfD party, is simply acting as he always does: framing any argument to be of service to himself. For him, immigration policy should be crafted strictly in terms of what is economically beneficial to a company, or individual’s bottom line. Never mind immigrants who are deemed to be less than “highly skilled.”

It was their first day in battle and the two best friends had just switched places. Bob Fordyce rested while Frank Hartzell crawled down into the shallow foxhole, taking his turn chipping away at the frozen ground. Just then, German artillery fire began falling all around them. With his body plastered to the ground, Hartzell could feel shrapnel dent his helmet. When the explosions finished, he picked himself up to find that his best friend had just been killed in the blur of combat. 

“When you’re actually in it, it’s very chaotic,” Hartzell said. 

The following day, New Year’s Day 1945, Hartzell battled Nazi soldiers for control of the Belgian town of Chenogne. In the aftermath, American soldiers gunned down dozens of unarmed German prisoners of war in a field—a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. 

“I remember we had been given orders, take no prisoners,” Hartzell said. “When I walked past the field on the left, there were these dead bodies. I knew what they were. I knew they were dead Germans.” News of the massacre reached General George S. Patton, but no investigation followed.

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

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order on the climate crisis that, among other things, directed the secretary of the Interior to review the potential for clean energy on public lands. Later that year, he set aggressive national targets on green energy: 80% renewable energy generation by 2030 and 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035. Then came the passage of the historic Inflation Reduction Act, which showered the clean energy industry with federal incentives and encouraged private investors to cash in on its explosive growth.

Since Biden’s inauguration, his administration has approved a steady stream of solar, geothermal, and transmission projects across the West. In April, the Interior Department announced that it had permitted more than 29 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands—an amount nearly equivalent to the total capacity of Washington or Arizona. In the following months, it released a suite of new agency rules and a regional plan aimed at boosting regulatory certainty for clean energy development for years to come.

“2024 felt like the year where all the pieces finally came together,” said Rachael Hamby, policy director for the Center for Western Priorities, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy and conservation in the West. “A lot of that groundwork has been laid over the past four years, and we’re seeing the culmination of all of that progress.”

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

On the second weekend after Hurricane Helene, Swannanoa Christian Church held its first Sunday service since the storm-battered western North Carolina. The sanctuary was piled high with clothes, water, and food, so everyone gathered outdoors. Out in the yard, beneath a clear blue sky and uphill from the devastation wrought by the flood, the congregation interspersed prayer with the testimonies of congregants who had pulled people from the water or been pulled from it themselves.

After the service, as congregants lingered to chat or sort donations, Elder Gordon Dasher recounted his church’s mission following the storm. “Our goal is to be the kingdom of God here on Earth,” the pastor said. “We’re getting into the filth, getting dirty, getting sewage and mud on our feet and hands, and helping people in the darkest moment of their life. That’s number one. And number two, what we want to see come out of that is we want people to see at least a glimmer of a light to come on that says God is real, because here are his people right here, side by side with us in our suffering.”

Dasher and his ministry in Swannanoa are part of a teeming community of faith-based organizations using their deep roots, vast networks of the faithful, and financial means to help in whatever way they can. Beyond the local congregations, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, and many other denominations rushed in to help, as they so often do after floods, and hurricanes, and wildfires everywhere. Almost three months later, the sight of church volunteers clearing away rubble, handing out water, or gathering in prayer remains as common as the sight of damaged homes and washed-out roads. 

The staff of Mother Jones is, once again, rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Importantly, this is a completely non-exhaustive and subjective list, giving our reporters a chance to write about something that brought joy or discontent. Enjoy.

Camo hat, orange letters. The ever-present “Hot to Go!” dance. VMA alien makeout. Beyoncé covering Dolly Parton—and Dolly loving it in return. Feuds. Flirting. That shade of green.

There was a lot of buzz around pop music over the past year, and our younger colleagues have assured us that it wasn’t all hype. The music, especially the pop music, was legitimately good.

Even the numbers back it up. The data shows that 2024 was the year of the “pop star (re)emergence.” But the trend extended to other genres, from country to musical theater and the ’80s power ballads, experiencing a resurgence thanks to their association with pop stardom. The common denominator throughout? Women were at the forefront of all of it:

The staff of Mother Jones is, once again, rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Importantly, this is a completely non-exhaustive and subjective list, giving our reporters a chance to write about something that brought joy or discontent. Enjoy.

Destroyed by Watergate and vilified for suggesting that presidents are above the law, Richard Nixon died in disgrace in 1994.

But it turns out he was right. The 37th president was quietly but resoundingly vindicated by the Supreme Court in its Trump v. United States decision in July, when Chief Justice John Roberts declared that “the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”

“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

The staff of Mother Jones is, once again, rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Importantly, this is a completely non-exhaustive and subjective list, giving our reporters a chance to write about something that brought joy or discontent. Enjoy.

For those of us who would be described in HR packets at progressive workplaces as “gender nonconforming” or “of non-normative gender presentation,” it can sometimes be really hard to get a haircut.

The places where one might get one are usually gender-segregated zones, where cisgender people go for what one might call gender-affirming care—that is, cosmetic care toward redeclaring their man- or womanhood. Still, enough gender studies papers have been written about the barbershop as a masculine space and the hair salon as the center of an all-women’s social world. I, frankly, don’t want to get into all of that.

But my point here is, in the expensive coastal cities where broke queer and trans people congregate for safety and community, it can be difficult to find an affordable haircut. When I moved to New York City, I was inundated with ads for queer-affirming barbershops. But these were all promoting places where haircuts cost $120—not, for me, a particularly affirming price tag. For a while, I resorted to making my friends cut my hair with drugstore scissors. 

The staff of Mother Jones is, once again, rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Importantly, this is a completely non-exhaustive and subjective list, giving our reporters a chance to write about something that brought joy or discontent. Enjoy.

When was the 2024 presidential election really lost? 

Maybe you’d argue (though I would not) that it was the rubber-stamp nominating process for Vice President Kamala Harris. You could point, on a symbolic level, to Trump’s fist pump after surviving an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. For a time, it seemed like the clearest answer to this was the first debate, when President Joe Biden melted down on stage. But I think if you want to pinpoint when things went irreversibly downhill, you have to go back further—to the aftermath of the midterms two years ago, when a then-80-year-old Biden moved ahead with his plan to run for a second term.

Biden had always insisted that he was never planning on being a one-term president. Still, he tried to allay concerns about his age that dogged him even in 2020 by referring to himself as a generational “bridge,” and behind the scenes, aides offered context for his public denials. “He’s going into this thinking, ‘I want to find a running mate I can turn things over to after four years, but if that’s not possible or doesn’t happen, then I’ll run for reelection,’” an aide told Politico in 2019. “But he’s not going to publicly make a one-term pledge.” After a strong showing in the midterms against a predicted red wave, any notion of a smooth transition to the next in line—or a competitive primary—went out the window. Democrats shuffled around their primary calendar to warn off challengers. And that was that. Biden was dead set on running, he argued, because the stakes were too high and he was the best candidate for the job. 

Annoyed with time changes in the fall and spring? So is President-elect Donald Trump. On Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social that the “Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time” because it is “inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.”

Ending daylight saving time would also not be that original—two thirds of countries do not have it. Americans do seem to be split on the issue. In a 2019 poll, 7 out of 10 Americans said they did not like the biannual switches, but 4 in 10 wanted a fixed standard time and 3 in 10 wanted daylight saving time.

Even putting aside the economic argument for ending daylight saving time, some research suggests that the practice of putting the clock one hour ahead in the spring can negatively impact peoples’ mental health. When our internal clock is thrown off and we get less sleep, our mood can be impacted, leading us to feel less focused and potentially more depressed. This lack of focus can also be deadly—a February 2020 study that looked at two decades’ worth of traffic accidents found that there was a 6 percent increase in the risk of fatal traffic accidents in the week following daylight saving time in the United States.

In October 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, a professional society that represents medical specialists who focus on sleep medicine, even issued a statement in support of ending daylight saving time in favor of a fixed year-round schedule:

Every summer, 50 of the nation’s best and brightest teenage girls gather in Mobile, Alabama, to embark on two of the most intense weeks of their lives. Everybody wants the same thing: to walk away with a $40,000 college scholarship and the title of Distinguished Young Woman of America.

Reporter Shima Oliaee competed for Nevada when she was a teenager, and was invited back as a judge more than 20 years later. Oliaee accepted, and recorded the experience for a six-part audio series called The Competition.

In the final days of the competition, there was news from Washington that had big implications for women across the nation: Roe v. Wade had fallen. 

The girls are faced with a tough decision: Do they speak up for their political beliefs or stay focused on winning the money? And what might this mean for their futures—and their friendships?