They say history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes—and 2024 is, no matter how inconvenient for an embattled Joe Biden, resonating deeply with 1968. From anti-war protests on campuses to the Democratic National Convention being hosted in Chicago, these two distinct years, though decades apart, are drawing eerie comparisons, as I explain in my new video:

Biden’s disastrous debate performance last Thursday sparked calls for him to drop his reelection bid. While it’s uncertain if Biden will follow Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1968 footsteps and step aside, the fallout has added another dimension to the historical parallels. Team Biden insists the 81-year-old is in it until November. But on Tuesday, Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas became the first elected Democrat to call for Biden to reconsider, doing so from “the heart of a district once represented by Lyndon Johnson.” Others Democrats have since joined him.

On paper, Johnson and Biden share few similarities. Biden sailed through a relatively uncontested primary, while Johnson faced significant challenges from Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy. Biden, like Johnson, indeed faces a persistent anti-war movement. But 1968 campus protest organizer Juan Gonzalez assured me recently that the two eras, in this regard, are not the same: “I think people need to understand that there were significant differences,” he said. While the US is funding and supporting Israel’s war on Gaza, “back in 1968, the US was directly participating in the Vietnam War, leading to the deaths of over two million Vietnamese.”

Despite insistence from the White House that President Biden has no plans to drop out of the general election after his disastrous debate performance last week, Republicans seem to be already running against Vice President Kamala Harris.

A new ad released on Wednesday by the National Republican Congressional Committee calls Harris Biden’s “enabler in chief” and “architect of the border crisis.” The ad, titled “Careful for what you wish for,” depicts Harris as conniving, as her remarks championing the president play against images of Biden stumbling on stairs and appearing to fall asleep. It ends with a demand—“This November: Vote Republican. Stop Kamala”—as ominous music plays in the background over footage of Democrats chanting “four more years!” at Biden’s State of the Union while Harris smiles and claps in the background.

The Trump War Room account on X, run by the campaign, also posted a four-minute long video featuring various clips of Harris repeating the phrase, “What can be, unburdened by what has been.” The apparent aim of the video was to try to cast the phrase in a conspiratorial light. “Here are four straight minutes of Kamala Harris being ‘unburdened,” the account wrote. Other prominent figures on the right also appeared confident that Harris would soon be replacing Biden. “They’re gonna put in Kamala,” conservative commentator Meghan McCain posted on X. Turning Point CEO Charlie Kirk, meanwhile, breathlessly posted what he claimed was a “scoop” that “leftist [get out the vote] groups…are lining up the switch to Kamala.”

By now, anyone who follows presidential politics has an opinion on what President Joe Biden should do following his debate meltdown that raised questions, concerns, and fears about his mental acuity. So far, a small number of Democrats have urged him to withdraw from the 2024 race. A larger number of pundits have done the same. Major funders are fretting. And the White House and his campaign have insisted Biden is up to the job and can carry on. On social media, his diehard supporters have raged against the commentariat and the apostate Democrats, asserting that Donald Trump, his lies and multiple liabilities, and the threat he poses to American democracy ought to be more the focus than Biden’s age.

No surprise, there’s no consensus in the Democratic world.

After speaking with numerous people within the Democratic cosmos, I have thoughts about this mess and possible steps forward. And I’m immodest enough to believe they might be worth sharing.

Let’s look at this as a decision tree. The first branch: What does Biden’s debate debacle mean? Many of his supporters and his own team have dismissed it as merely one bad night, with some pointing toward President Barack Obama’s disastrous first debate with Mitt Romney. But Obama’s poor performance was due to his lack of preparation and his arrogant decision to not approach Romney as a worthy adversary. It said nothing about his abilities or health.

Biden’s debate prompted the question: Was this an one-off (due to a cold, fatigue from grueling travel, or whatever) or an indication of a worrisome condition that could—or probably would—manifest itself again. If the latter, this meant his reelection bid—and the effort to prevent Trump from returning to the White House—was in great danger. One more public appearance like this one would likely end Biden’s campaign. And if such an event occurred after the convention, the Democrats would be dead ducks. Burdened with a candidate seen as in severe cognitive decline, the party could take a wallop that would include losing the Senate and failing to retake the House. The authoritarian-minded Trump would rule again, with a Republican-controlled Congress.

So here is the first decision. If you’re in the one-bad-night camp and still ridin’ with Biden, your calculating is done. You’re going to have to white-knuckle your way through the next four months.

If you believe the debate revealed a potentially existential threat for the Biden effort, then you move on to other branches on the decision tree. The next question is, if not Biden, whom?

Before proceeding, let’s note that under Democratic rules, there is no way for the party at this point to deny Biden its presidential nomination. He holds a majority of delegates to next month’s convention in Chicago, and they are pledged to vote for him. For anything else to happen, Biden would have to withdraw from the race. If he sticks with it, the rest of this what-iffing is irrelevant.

In many ways, the end of Roe v Wade didn’t happen when the US Supreme Court issued its decision to overrule Roe in the Dobbs case in June 2022. Rather, it came nine months earlier, on September 1, 2021, when the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as SB8, took effect. The law banned abortion after embryonic cardiac activity became detectable, around six weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for fetal abnormalities. The job of enforcement was outsourced to private citizens (also known as “bounty hunters”), thereby making the law much harder to challenge in court. Since then, as wave after wave of post-Dobbs abortion restrictions have been enacted in deep-red states, reproductive rights advocates and journalists have—rightly—focused their attention on the effects of those draconian laws on the health and autonomy of women.

The reports of harm to pregnant patients, however, though wrenching, have been anecdotal, which has limited their ability to move the most conservative hearts and minds. Then there is an additional factor: It’s not clear that many far-right lawmakers and courts actually care about the well-being of women.

But they do claim to care about babies, which is why a new study about SB8 and infant mortality is so important. A team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University has spent the two-and-a-half years since SB8 took effect crunching data on infant deaths in Texas and other states, then re-crunching it to confirm their results. They found that as women whose access to abortion was drastically curtailed by SB8 began to give birth in 2022, those infants were dying at much higher rates compared both to the period before the law took effect and to other states that didn’t have near-bans. 

The likeliest reason, according to Alison Gemmill, a lead author on the study, is that more women were forced to carry what are sometimes called “medically futile” pregnancies to term. These are pregnancies in which the fetus had catastrophic genetic and other anomalies incompatible with life outside the womb. Unsurprisingly, many of those newborns quickly died. The study’s measured academic language— “Restrictive abortion policies may have important unintended consequences in terms of trauma to families and medical cost”—barely hints at the depth of suffering imposed by SB8. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that former President Donald Trump has broad immunity from prosecution for crimes he allegedly committed while in office. The majority decision provoked furious dissent from the court’s three liberal justices. “The President is now a King above the law,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor, concluding, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

The decision is deeply at odds with public opinion. Surveys by researchers at Bright Line Watch earlier this year found that fewer than 30 percent of Americans— including about half of all Republicans— believed the court should extend broad immunity to Trump and future presidents. The immunity decision joins a string of other, less-publicized opinions this term that will contribute to the paralyzed state of the American government and loosen constraints on public corruption.

Taken as a whole, these opinions may have ripple effects on American democracy that go far beyond the immediate impact on federal regulations or Trump’s criminal trials. At a bare minimum, they suggest that the conservative justices have forgotten a basic first-year law school lesson: when citizens no longer believe they can resolve disputes through trusted institutions or depend on a rational legal system to hold officials accountable, they are much more inclined to take matters into their own hands. And unlike many Supreme Court oral arguments, this one isn’t just a hypothetical.

“What we have found is that support for political violence is highly correlated with deep distrust of democratic institutions.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) on Tuesday became the first Democrat in office to call for President Biden to drop out of the general election in the wake of his disastrous debate performance last week.

In a lengthy statement, Doggett said Biden “should make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw” in order to reduce the likelihood of a second Trump term.

“Instead of reassuring voters [at the debate],” Doggett said, “the President failed to effectively defend his many accomplishments and expose Trump’s lies.”

“Our overriding consideration must be who has the best hope of saving our democracy from an authoritarian takeover by a criminal and his gang,” he continued. “Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory—too great a risk to assume that what could not be turned around in a year, what was not turned around in the debate, can be turned around now. President Biden saved democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2020. He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024.”

Last December, UNICEF reported that two and a half months into Israel’s offensive in Gaza, at least a thousand children lost one or both of their legs. As more Palestinians become disabled, their risks expand. A United Nations committee warned in May of “the disproportionate impacts on people with disabilities due to the destruction of hospitals, the cut-off of essential services, restrictions, [and] non-existing access to humanitarian assistance” amid the war waged in response to Hamas’s attack on October 7th.

One organization that is trying to help disabled Palestinians in Gaza is Humanity & Inclusion, an international Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian group, which has operated in Palestine—both in Gaza and the West Bank—for nearly three decades. Since October, H&I has provided mobility devices to newly disabled Palestinians.

Their work has been treacherous—multiple H&I staff members have been killed and their office in Gaza City has been destroyed. In mid-June, H&I says the Israeli Defense Forces bulldozed their warehouse in Rafah, where medical supplies and mattresses had previously been stored. (In response to a request for comment on the destruction of H&I’s warehouse, a spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Forces did not deny the warehouse’s destruction, but said the IDF “follows international law.”) The Israeli army has also prohibited many medical devices from entering Gaza, claiming that these are “dual-use items”—that crutches or hearing aid batteries, for example, could have a military use. 

Mother Jones spoke to Noor Bimbashi, an advocacy officer for Humanity & Inclusion based in the West Bank about the challenges that disabled people in Gaza face, the impact of aid restrictions, and how those in the West Bank experience violence, too. 

Every 16 hours in the US, a woman is gunned down in an act of domestic violence. Nearly 1 million American women have been shot or shot at by a current or former intimate partner; some 4.5 million have been threatened with a gun. Those appalling numbers would be even higher if Congress hadn’t enacted laws over the past 50 years prohibiting certain categories of abusers from possessing firearms, the leading cause of death in domestic violence homicides.

Now, in an 8 to 1 decision that is likely to have sweeping ramifications for other gun rights cases going forward, the Supreme Court has rejected an argument that could have gutted one of those protections for abused women and children, ruling that people who have domestic-violence restraining orders filed against them are banned from having guns. Read the opinion here.

The decision in US v. Rahimi, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a 1994 federal law aimed at safeguarding victims of intimate partner violence for whom obtaining a protection order is both a vital step in breaking free from an abuser—and an act of empowerment that can increase an abuser’s rage. The court found that the prohibition on gun possession for people subject to restraining orders is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted by conservative justices in a landmark 2022 ruling.

“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,” Roberts wrote.

Last week, Senate Republicans introduced a bill that would designate federal funds for “Restorative Reproductive Medicine,” a loose group of therapies meant to help treat infertility without the use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination. The seven lawmakers who introduced the Reproductive Empowerment and Support through Optimal Restoration (RESTORE) Act, say it isn’t meant as an attack on IVF, which recently has come under fire by conservatives. “I strongly support treatments such as IVF, which have helped so many families experience the miracle of life,” Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a statement last week. “Healing the actual causes of infertility will only help increase the success rate for couples trying to conceive.”

Yet Restorative Reproductive Medicine isn’t the politically neutral medical field that the measure’s champions claim. Rather, it’s the latest rebranding of an IVF “alternative” by religious groups who consider the process of IVF, which can include the destruction of unused embryos, to be a form of abortion.  

“Healing the actual causes of infertility will only help increase the success rate for couples trying to conceive.”

The authors assert that Restorative Reproductive Medicine “means any scientific approach to reproductive medicine that seeks to cooperate with, or restore the normal physiology and anatomy of, the human reproductive system, without the use of methods that are inherently suppressive, circumventive, or destructive to natural human functions.” If that sounds vague, it’s because it is: Restorative reproductive medicine, according to these lawmakers, basically can include anything that’s not IVF, artificial insemination, and certain kinds of birth control. The bill says that “most male and female infertility” can be treated with medication, surgery, or simply by figuring out the optimal time for intercourse in a woman’s cycle.

On Monday, the US Department of Justice sent a letter to Alaska’s director of elections, outlining the state’s litany of violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act that impacted disabled voters. Under the ADA, disabled voters should have the same opportunity and access to vote as non-disabled people. The DOJ says in Alaska that was not happening.

Here are just some of the issues found by the DOJ:

Not all early voting and Election Day sites had accessible voting machines, and some machines did not work. At one site, the DOJ found, the machine was still in its shipping box.The state of Alaska does not provide accessible voting machines at absentee in-person voting sites. There are audio issues with some accessible voting machines. One Blind user could not understand the audio and had to get a poll worker to assist them in voting on a paper ballot, stripping them of the right to vote independently. There were accessibility problems to get into some voting locations. Issues include the lack of ADA-accessible parking and issues with ramps, including one where there was a step before the ramp started. Some voting machines were also placed at too high of a level, making it difficult for wheelchair users to reach.Alaska’s election website is inaccessible for some disabled users, with some videos not containing captions.

The DOJ warned that if Alaska does not address these findings, the US attorney general may file a lawsuit against the state.

“The Justice Department is fully committed to enforcing the ADA to make sure that individuals with disabilities have an equal opportunity to vote, including by voting privately and independently like everyone else,” DOJ Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke said in a statement.

Once upon a time there was a person with the unnoticeable name of Mary Harris, born in County Cork, Ireland, in 1837, who lived a private life of suffering and failure. Her parents, fleeing Ireland’s Great Hunger, brought her as a teenager to Canada, where she briefly attended a Toronto teachers’ school, before she went to Monroe, Michigan, where she briefly taught school in a convent. A skilled seamstress from a girl, she left Monroe for Chicago, where she opened a dress shop. But she moved on yet again, to Memphis, where in 1861 she married George Jones, an organizer of his fellow iron foundry workers, to whom she quickly bore four children. Then her worst tragedy hit, the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1867, which wiped out all five members of her family. Back in Chicago, she reopened her dress shop, to have it destroyed by the Chicago Fire of 1871. Disaster had crowded on disaster throughout her entire blighted life, leaving no record of having done a single thing memorable.

Then, mysteriously, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, an entirely new person appeared. The previous one had been private and passive. The new one would be public and expansive. This woman would have a remarkable (but made-up) age and name and garb and task. She would be exactly (and by plan) the opposite of what went before—the most amazing work of self-reinvention on record. Mary Harris was erased, replaced by Mother Jones. Just consider the thoroughness of the changes this involved: 

Made-Up Age

Women, according to a stereotype, especially actresses or public figures, try to pretend they are younger than their real age. The made-up Mother Jones claimed to be older. Safely in her middle-aged (for that time) 40s, she claimed to be in her 50s. And she kept on adding 10 or more years to her age all the way up to her 80s, which she made out to be her 90s. Despite what should have been a cumulating decrepitude, she displayed a prodigious energy in the union organizing of her late husband. This allowed her to have beers with “my boys“ (as she called the workers), and curse the “goddamned” strike breakers, without being confused with the prostitutes around the coal mines and oil fields where she labored. Other women lied about their age to stay young enough to remain sexually interesting. She lied to escape that. It freed her to mix with all kinds of people without sexual tension or questioning.

Made-Up Name

The new person adopted a name that is not personal. It is a title. And a female title at that. If it had been male, the community in and around the mines would have had a touch of the military. Since it is a maternal title, the community was a family, made up of her children and grandchildren. Her appeal was to the women as well as the male workers.

There was a time when Republicans said they were very supportive of in vitro fertilization. That time was late February.

The Alabama Supreme Court had just ruled that frozen embryos are considered children under state law—and that their destruction could bring murder charges. The decision prompted several IVF providers in the state to pause services and left Republican politicians scrambling.

It took a few days, but Donald Trump proclaimed his support for IVF in a Truth Social post. Republicans working to elect GOP senators publicly urged those candidates to support IVF. A poll conducted after the Alabama decision showed why: 86 percent of Americans support the fertility procedure. Even Alabama backtracked, enacting legislation that protected IVF clinics.

Evangelical leaders took Alabama’s anti-IVF ruling as an opening to push forward.

On Thursday, committees at Stanford University published two reports on the campus climate following October 7. The publication comes just days after hundreds of pro-Palestinian students walked out in protest of the official graduation ceremony. The new reports, created by separate committees, are complex. Broadly, they delve into antisemitism and bias against Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians at the California university amid mass protests. But their lessons go far beyond the college campus.

Activists at Stanford were some of the first in the nation to set up a tent encampment protest, calling for an immediate ceasefire on October 20. Students and community members seeking to create a platform for pro-Israel student voices set up a corresponding encampment—called a “blue and white tent”—on November 13. The encampment calling for a ceasefire was among the longest-established student encampments, lasting more than 120 days. In early June, pro-Palestinian students occupied the president’s office on Stanford’s campus. Thirteen people were arrested.

The two dueling encampments are an example of yet another reckoning on a college campus—albeit an elite, private one with one of the largest endowments in the country—over student protests after Hamas’ attack and Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza.

In mid-November, Stanford University convened a select number of students, alumni, and professors to create a Subcommittee on Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, as well as a Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian (MAP) Communities Committee. 

On Skidaway Island, off the coast of Georgia, “not one blade of grass feels out of place.” Giant oak trees provide shade from the heat. Nature surrounds you, but as Center for Public Integrity reporter Alexia Fernández Campbell describes, it “seems to have been tamed to become amenities” for The Landings, a gated community that takes up half of the island.

The average price of a home in The Landings was more than $800,000 in 2022. The community boasts a spa, four clubhouses, five swimming pools, and six golf courses. Although Black people are the majority in nearby Savannah, on Skidaway Island 93 percent of the population is white.

It’s hard to tell now, but this wealthy white enclave used to be home to a Black utopia. In 1865, a promise was made to newly freed people, the promise of “40 acres and a mule.” For thousands, that was made real. The Center for Public Integrity found that at least 99 men and women were issued federal documents entitling them to land on the island. But as the latest episode of Reveal details, it was later all taken back from them as white Southerners sought pardons from President Andrew Johnson, who granted many of them and returned plantations back to the enslavers.

“You could feel chills to know that they had it and then they just pulled the rug from under them, so to speak,” said Linda Brown, one of the few Black residents at The Landings.

This weekend marks the official start of summer, and it’s shaping up to be a scorcher. The extreme heat that’s afflicted much of the eastern United States this week is set to continue, with temperatures hitting the mid to upper 90s in the Midwest and the Mid Atlantic regions. The National Weather Service reports that temperatures in the Midwest are “anomalous and dangerous for early Summer.” In the Southeast, temperatures could exceed 110 degrees. Making matters worse, overnight temps are expected to stay high, allowing little relief to those without access to air conditioning.

According to climate scientists at World Weather Attribution, we’ve largely done this to ourselves. Their recent report found that in the year 2000, this level of heat was only expected to occur once in a lifetime for those living in North and Central America. Now, “on average a person will experience it 5 or 6 times in their lifetime.” That uptick is driven by “fossil fuel driven warming,” which has made the heatwaves we’re experiencing in this region 35 times more likely to occur.

Black people in the US are 40 percent more likely than other racial groups to live in areas “with the highest projected increases in extreme temperature related deaths.”

“As long as humans fill the atmosphere with fossil fuel emissions, the heat will only get worse,” stated one of the report’s authors, Izidine Pinto, a researcher at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, adding that “vulnerable people will continue to die.”

In 2022, in a decision penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court announced a new approach to regulating firearms. Henceforth, the court declared in Bruen, gun laws would only pass Second Amendment muster if they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

Within a year, the Supreme Court was asked to confront the effect of their backward-looking decision: Could someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order have firearms? The question pitted the right of abusers to possess guns against the right of their victims not to be murdered. Would the justices double-down on their history-only approach, or would it find a way to keep guns away from violent abusers?

This decision hinges on ancient laws most people have never heard of.

On Friday, all the justices—except Thomas—decided that the government could take guns away from people whom a court deems a credible threat. The decision in United States v. Rahimi attempted to make Bruen workable in our modern world: one with far deadlier weapons than in 1791, and far more respect for women. But as the decision in Rahimi, its concurrences, and its lone dissent demonstrate, a clear and sensible approach to evaluating gun laws is a long way off.

The United States, as a rule, is not very good about pricing in negative costs, in part because the people responsible for those costs get very upset when you try. The federal gas tax—which is supposed to pay for infrastructure repairs necessitated by gas consumption—has not been raised in 31 years, so everyone else has to cover the balance. Gun violence costs in excess of $229 billion a year and the only people who aren’t on the hook for that are the people who make guns. The enormous societal costs of asthma and respiratory ailments are largely shouldered not by the people and corporations who poison the air, but invariably by kids who breathe it in. Inhalers, hospital bills, rent—a lot of things are more expensive here, because of all the other things that are cheap.

This made the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s plan for congestion pricing in Manhattan, which was scheduled to begin later this month—after 17 years of planning, legislating, study, and litigation—something of a miracle. For once, the priorities were in order. New York proposed that the people who contribute to a problem should subsidize the solution. Drivers would pay a $15 toll for entering a “congestion zone” south of 60th Street during peak hours (it’s only $3.75 off-peak). The fees would net the MTA about $1 billion annually, which it would use to finance a $15 billion capital plan. That money would pay for long-needed improvements and upgrades to subways, bus lines, and commuter rail.

If all went according to plan, a significant number of drivers would choose mass transit instead—pushing still more funds into the agency’s coffers, improving air quality, and reducing carbon emissions. It would also ease Manhattan’s notorious gridlock, enhancing commutes for people who really did need to drive. Hence the name.

In a speech last month, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul evoked images of cars “spewing exhaust” and noted that New York commuters spend an average of 102 hours a year stuck in traffic. “It took a long a time because people feared backlash from drivers set in their ways,” Hochul said, acknowledging the stop-and-go pace of implementation. “But, much like with housing, if we’re serious about making cities more livable, we must get over that.”

Is the dream dead? And, if so, who killed it?

On June 15, 2012, President Barack Obama stood in the Rose Garden of the White House to announce a massive change in immigration policy. For years, Congress had been unable to pass legislation to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, undocumented youth brought to the United States as children. In 2001, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) first introduced a bill that would have granted them a path to citizenship. But, a decade later, the Dream Act had failed—again.

Obama declared that day he had taken matters into his own hands. His administration put forward an executive action to create a now-famous program: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). “These are young people who study in our schools, they play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag,” Obama, facing pressure over his administration’s harsh immigration enforcement practices, said. (He had begun to be called a moniker that would stick: “deporter in chief.”) “They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.” As such, they shouldn’t be expelled from the country or have to live under the “shadow of deportation.”

DACA went on to become a landmark achievement of the Obama presidency—lauded for its seamless logistical implementation led by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, then head of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and the economic benefits of authorizing eligible beneficiaries to work. Crucially, it gave a lifeline to more than 800,000 young immigrants raised and educated in the United States. DACA was “a temporary stopgap measure,” Obama had said. But its success, for a time, allowed the program’s original sin to be played down. The expectation, Mayorkas told the New York Times recently, “was that DACA would be a bridge to legislation.”

Politicians could assume that change, albeit delayed, would likely someday materialize. Over the past quarter of a century, the issue of Dreamers has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress. It has been included in virtually every immigration negotiation. And the stories of promising undocumented young people have been common on front pages and magazine covers—inspiring a rare kind of solidarity that transcended political divisions. (There was even a Broadway musical.)

For all his efforts to evade transparency and, instead, offer a steady stream of lies, Donald Trump has always been brutally honest about one thing: his penchant for revenge.

This lust has, over the years, taken on a particular kink. When possible, Trump has often enjoyed walking up to a microphone and implying—if not outright saying—that his enemies should be investigated, prosecuted, or arrested by the government he wants to head. These enemies include a seemingly endless list of people, from James Comey to Joe Scarborough.

It’s no surprise that vengeful threats of political prosecution have escalated since Trump’s conviction; he and his allies now appear hellbent on opening investigations into all their perceived enemies. Republicans have made clear political persecution could take place as a key role of government should Trump return to the White House.

With a second term possible, here is an incomplete and running list of everyone we could find that Trump has said should be prosecuted.

Remember when Trump, as the Republican frontrunner in the 2016 election, claimed that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and he wouldn’t lose voters?

Well, that bold assertion, which has proven somewhat true among his devout base, may run into some technical issues in New York, where the police department is trying to make it impossible for Trump to even carry a firearm following his guilty conviction in his hush-money case, according to a Wednesday report from CNN.

Citing an anonymous senior police official, CNN reports that the NYPD is trying to revoke Trump’s license to carry a concealed weapon, a move stemming from a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing firearms. (New York and Florida also have laws outlawing people with felonies from possessing a gun.)

Trump reportedly has three pistols, two of which were reportedly handed over to the NYPD in March 2023 when he was indicted on criminal charges in the hush-money case. Though his third gun was reportedly legally transferred to Florida at the time, possession of it in the Sunshine State would still be illegal now that Trump is a convicted felon. All of which is to say that if Trump does still have that a gun somewhere within the gilded walls of Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach resort, or any of his other homes… he could be in violation of multiple laws and committing a federal crime, CNN reports.