2025-12-02 06:30:46
Even if you have no idea what a crisis pregnancy center is, the donor website for the First Choice Women’s Resource Centers chain in northeastern New Jersey offers plenty of clues: Prominent logos for the anti-abortion groups Heartbeat International and CareNet. A home page banner proclaiming “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday 2026.” An agreement for prospective volunteers that states, “I openly acknowledge my personal faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior,” and “[I] reject abortion as an acceptable option for any woman.”
That’s what appears on the website directed at First Choice’s donors. The chain also has two websites targeted at potential clients—pregnant women who might be seeking an abortion but end up on the crisis pregnancy center website instead, where First Choice is less clear about its religious ties and anti-abortion mission. “Learn more about the abortion pill, abortion procedures, and your options in New Jersey,” one site urges on its home page. “We specialize in pre-termination evaluations,” another site says, with services that include “free and confidential Abortion Information Consultation” and “post-abortion support.” On most pages, it is only at the very bottom that the qualifier, First Choice “do[es] not perform or refer for” abortions, appears.
Websites that tell anti-abortion supporters one thing and pregnant women something else are common among the country’s 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs—part of a well-documented history of using misinformation and deception, as well as free ultrasounds and other services, to deter women from having abortions. Some of the best-known strategies include opening “fake” clinics near real abortion clinics, misstating the purported harms of abortion and emergency contraception, and pushing the unproven medical procedure known as “abortion pill reversal.”
Blue states have repeatedly tried to rein in CPCs. But as faith-based organizations, pregnancy centers have a powerful shield—the First Amendment.
Blue-state lawmakers and attorneys general have repeatedly tried to rein in CPCs. But as faith-based organizations, these pregnancy centers have a powerful shield—the First Amendment. When states try to regulate them, CPCs invariably claim that these efforts violate constitutional protections for free speech, religious expression, and freedom of association. In a landmark 2018 decision, the US Supreme Court sided with the CPC industry, blocking a California law that would have required pregnancy centers to inform patients about state-funded family-planning services, including abortion.
That decision chilled state and local efforts to curb CPCs’ more controversial practices, creating what one legal scholar has called “a regulatory dead zone.” Meanwhile, since the fall of Roe v. Wade, the number of CPCs has grown—boosted by a surge in state funding and private donations—and reproductive rights supporters have renewed their push for greater oversight, this time focusing on consumer protection.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest CPC case, this one involving New Jersey’s efforts to investigate whether First Choice may have misled consumers. The question before the court is technical: Can CPCs run directly to federal court to fight an attorney general’s subpoena, as First Choice did, or must they first go to state court? As reporters Garnet Henderson and Susan Rinkunas recently wrote in Mother Jones and Autonomy News, the answer could have sweeping consequences for the $2 billion-a-year CPC industry:
Boring as this procedural quibble may seem, a favorable decision would be a significant win for CPCs. They have a much better shot at winning any case in the Trumpified federal courts than they do in state courts that may be more supportive of abortion rights. What’s more, the ability to use friendly federal courts as a shield from state regulation would set pregnancy centers up for success in other lawsuits making their way to the Supreme Court—ones that could eliminate states’ ability to crack down on [abortion pill reversal] and other questionable practices entirely.
But the case has also raised concerns among groups aligned with progressives that the same type of subpoenas issued by New Jersey against First Choice could be weaponized against humanitarian groups, journalists, and protesters. “The problem is bipartisan,” the ACLU wrote in one amicus brief. While New Jersey focuses on crisis pregnancy centers, “Florida’s attorney general pursues restaurants for hosting drag shows,” and Missouri’s attorney general investigates chatbots “to find out why they express disfavored views about President Trump.”
In another brief, lawyers for Annunciation House, a Texas nonprofit that has been targeted for providing shelter and support to immigrants, wrote, “Nonprofit organizations—which rely heavily on volunteers—bear the heaviest burdens when faced with…state investigatory demands.” The stakes, the brief said, “can be existential.”
The case dates from November 2023, when New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin—an abortion rights supporter and CPC critic—issued a subpoena against First Choice as part of an investigation into whether the pregnancy chain was “misleading donors and potential clients into believing that it was providing certain reproductive health care services,” Platkin’s office states in a brief. The subpoena was broad, seeking 10 years’ worth of emails, videos, handbooks, the identities of many of its donors, and other information about First Choice’s ads and solicitations, its services and staff, and its claims about medical procedures, including abortion pill reversal.
State and federal agencies have been using similar subpoenas to investigate potential violations of the laws they enforce for over 150 years, Platkin’s brief points out. Such subpoenas are not “self-executing,” meaning that Platkin’s office didn’t have the power to enforce them. Instead, in New Jersey and the rest of the country, the long-accepted procedure for enforcing or challenging a state agency’s subpoena is to seek relief in state court. If First Choice disagreed with the ruling from a New Jersey court, it could then plead its case in federal court.
But First Choice’s attorneys—the conservative legal behemoth Alliance Defending Freedom—cried foul, saying the CPC had done nothing wrong and accusing Platkin of “selectively target[ing] the nonprofit based on its religious speech and pro-life views.” Pregnancy centers “have been subject to a shocking level of violence and intimidation,” ADF asserted in one court filing. “First Choice is concerned that if its donors’ identities became public, they may be subjected to similar threats.”
“We haven’t forced those services on anyone. We haven’t charged any women for the services we provide…. Yet Platkin calls this kind of caring ‘extremist.’”
The lawyers also pointed to a 2021 Supreme Court precedent blocking California’s efforts to force charities and nonprofits in the state to report the identities of their major donors. According to ADF, the Platkin subpoena was so concerning that First Choice should be able to seek immediate relief in the federal courts, rather than having to expend time and resources litigating the issue first in state court. The ADF team—including Erin Hawley, wife of Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley—compared Platkin’s investigation to Southern states’ attempts to force the NAACP to produce member lists in the late 1950s and early ’60s.
In an op-ed for NJ.com, First Choice’s executive director, Aimee Huber, noted that in 2022 alone, CPCs throughout the US provided 500,000 free ultrasounds, 200,000 STI tests, 3.5 million packs of diapers, and 43,000 car seats to women and families in need. “Over the last 40 years, First Choice has been privileged to offer crucial resources to more than 36,000 women across our state. We haven’t forced those services on anyone. We haven’t charged any women for the services we provide…Yet Platkin calls this kind of caring ‘extremist.’”
But courts repeatedly ruled that the case wasn’t ready—or “ripe”—to be litigated in federal court. A state judge, meanwhile, ordered Platkin and First Choice to negotiate to narrow the subpoena’s scope. The first time First Choice asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, back in February 2024, the justices declined. But when ADF tried again, this past spring, the court took the case.
Most of the amicus briefs siding with First Choice are from a predictable collection of anti-abortion and conservative or libertarian groups, including red-state attorneys general, Republican members of Congress, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. But the CPC chain also received support from some unexpected quarters, including animal rights activists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, represented by the ACLU.
In its brief, the humanitarian relief group Annunciation House described being hit with an investigative subpoena by Ken Paxton in 2024 demanding that it immediately turn over thousands of documents about immigrants and refugees it has helped—including sensitive medical and personally identifiable information—or face being shut down. The subpoena touched off a grueling, costly fight in state courts, with the Texas Supreme Court ultimately siding with Paxton.
“The chilling effect impacts not only the targeted nonprofit, but also the broader nonprofit community, as organizations may avoid lawful speech or actions out
of fear that they will lead to investigatory scrutiny,” the Annunciation House lawyers write. “Left unchecked, the [subpoena] process becomes the punishment.”
In an interview with Mother Jones, Grayson Clary, a lawyer at the Reporters Committee, raised similar concerns. “Well beyond the context of this crisis pregnancy center, we have seen more state attorneys general trying to use their consumer protection authorities in new and potentially troubling ways, including to investigate news organizations,” he said, pointing to a Missouri case targeting the left-leaning Media Matters. “Saying, ‘We’re not after the journalism—we’re just protecting the consumers’ is often a fig leaf for efforts to control the content that a news organization is putting out.”
“In practical terms,” Clary said, “what’s at stake in this question is how much of a tax does a state attorney general get to place on you for speaking, or for publishing news that they might disagree with, before you get a chance to ask a court to put a halt to it? And that question really can, in practical terms, be life or death, especially for a smaller or nonprofit news outlet,”
On the abortion-rights side, what is most surprising about the amicus briefs is that they are nonexistent. But one group paying close attention to the case is Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch, a CPC watchdog. “If the Court finds in favor of this pregnancy center,” executive director Debra Rosen says, “I worry that it’s going to chill further scrutiny into this massive [CPC] industry.”
Instead, amicus briefs in support of keeping the First Choice case out of federal court come from agencies that routinely issue investigative subpoenas, including blue-state attorneys general and state medical boards. The consequences of adopting First Choice’s argument would be “far-reaching,” Platkin’s office argues, “turning every quotidian subpoena dispute into a federal case.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case by next summer.
2025-12-01 20:32:00
This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket—and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher.
If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging.
Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert.
“Even if you were to reduce [beef’s] emissions by 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.”
Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit.
“We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case.
According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States.
“We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel.
The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems.
In the original complaint, filed in DC Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate-smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims.
Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system.
“In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.”
A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals, and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.”
The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint—this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2040.
Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy.”
James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net-zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company.
The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts.
“Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agri-food companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized.
That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments—including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies.
Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable.
Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said.
But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.”
2025-12-01 01:31:03
In the wake of the longest government shutdown in US history, an ongoing self-inflicted tariff war, and his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, President Donald Trump’s approval rating has cratered to 36 percent, the lowest of his second term. Gallup, which conducted its latest poll between November 2 and 25, reports that disapproval of Trump’s performance climbed to 60 percent—including his ratings from Republicans and Independents, which dropped significantly.
The dismal numbers follow a Politico poll that appeared to show cracks emerging within Trump’s MAGA base.
But it isn’t just Trump’s approval ratings that are taking a heavy hit these days. The Wall Street Journal reports that stocks tied to the president and his family, including $MELANIA and $TRUMP, two “meme coins” launched just days before Trump returned to office in January, have plummeted by as much as 86 and 99 percent. It’s unclear if the staggering losses reflect Trump’s dismal approval ratings; the notoriously volatile industry is experiencing a wider rout that has lost more than $1 trillion in recent weeks. But Trump’s free-falling assets also reflect something directly related to the president’s own policies: investor shakiness over his tariff policies. From the Journal:
Trump stocks benefited from expectations that the incoming administration would usher in an era of deregulation, tax cuts and supportive crypto policies—and that assets tied directly to Trump and his family would continue to rally. With the president’s return to the White House, though, his policies on global trade have upended some of those bets now that investors are paying more attention to the performance of those companies than to his political future.
Despite months of market volatility and economic warning signs, Trump remains steadfast in his commitment to his trade war. As he declared on Truth Social on Saturday: “Tariffs have made our Country Rich, Strong, Powerful, and Safe. They have been successfully used by other Countries against us for Decades, but when it comes to Tariffs, and because of what I have set in place, WE HAVE ALL THE CARDS, and with a smart President, we always will!”
He also urged the Supreme Court, which expressed rare skepticism about the president’s sweeping tariffs, to uphold his policy. “Pray to God that our Nine Justices will show great wisdom, and do the right thing for America!” A ruling is expected by the end of this year.
2025-12-01 01:13:28
In a rare instance of bipartisan alarm, Republican-chaired committees in the House and Senate announced that they have launched inquiries into an explosive Washington Post report alleging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had given a spoken order to “kill everybody” aboard a vessel carrying suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean. The occupants included two people who had survived an initial missile strike on the vessel and were seen “clinging” to the wreckage.
“We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question,” the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee said in a joint statement on Friday.
“The Committee has directed inquiries to the [Department of Defense], and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances,” leaders in the Senate Armed Services Committee said.
The September 2 attack kicked off what has now been nearly two dozen attacks, killing at least 83 people, who the US military claims, without evidence, had been attempting to smuggle drugs into the US. The attacks, which President Trump justifies as a part of an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, have been likened to extrajudicial killings.
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona told CNN on Sunday that Hegseth’s actions, as reported by the Post, appear to be a war crime.
“If what has been reported is accurate, I’ve got serious concerns about anybody in that chain of command stepping over a line that they should never step over,” Kelly said. “We are not Russia. We are not Iraq. We hold ourselves to a very high standard of professionalism.”
Kelly is locked in a related battle of words with Hegseth after Kelly participated in a social media video with five other Democrats seeking to remind members of the military that they can “refuse illegal orders.”
Hegseth has blasted the Post’s reporting on the missile strikes as “fabricated.”
“As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland,” he wrote on X.
2025-11-30 20:30:00
This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
On a sunny morning two years ago, a group of state officials stood in the mountains of northwestern Colorado in front of a handful of large metal crates. With a small crowd watching them, the officials began to unlatch the crate doors one by one. Out of each came a gray wolf—arguably the nation’s most controversial endangered species.
This was a massive moment for conservation.
While gray wolves once ranged throughout much of the Lower 48, a government-backed extermination campaign wiped most of them out in the 19th and 20th centuries. By the 1940s, Colorado had lost all of its resident wolves.
But, in the fall of 2020, Colorado voters did something unprecedented: They passed a ballot measure to reintroduce gray wolves to the state. This wasn’t just about having wolves on the landscape to admire, but about restoring the ecosystems that we’ve broken and the biodiversity we’ve lost. As apex predators, wolves help keep an entire ecosystem in balance, in part by limiting populations of deer and elk that can damage vegetation, spread disease, and cause car accidents.
“This was not ever going to be easy.”
In the winter of 2023, state officials released 10 gray wolves flown in from Oregon onto public land in northwestern Colorado. And in January of this year, they introduced another 15 that were brought in from Canada. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)—the state wildlife agency leading the reintroduction program—plans to release 30 to 50 wolves over three to five years to establish a permanent breeding population that can eventually survive without intervention.
“Today, history was made in Colorado,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said following the release. “For the first time since the 1940s, the howl of wolves will officially return to western Colorado.”
Fast forward to today, and that program seems, at least on the surface, like a mess.
Ten of the transplanted wolves are already dead, as is one of their offspring. And now, the state is struggling to find new wolves to ship to Colorado for the next phase of reintroduction. Meanwhile, the program has cost millions of dollars more than expected.
The takeaway is not that releasing wolves in Colorado was, or is now, a bad idea. Rather, the challenges facing this first-of-its-kind reintroduction just show how extraordinarily difficult it is to restore top predators to a landscape dominated by humans. That’s true in the Western US and everywhere—especially when the animal in question has been vilified for generations.
One harsh reality is that a lot of wolves die naturally, such as from disease, killing each other over territory, and other predators, said Joanna Lambert, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. Of Colorado’s new population, one of the released wolves was killed by another wolf, whereas two were likely killed by mountain lions, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
The changes that humans have made to the landscape only make it harder for these animals to survive. One of the animals, a male found dead in May, was likely killed by a car, state officials said. Another died after stepping into a coyote foothold trap. Two other wolves, meanwhile, were killed, ironically, by officials. Officials from CPW shot and killed one wolf—the offspring of a released individual—in Colorado, and the US Department of Agriculture killed another that traveled into Wyoming, after linking the wolves to livestock attacks. (An obscure USDA division called Wildlife Services kills hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of wild animals a year that it deems dangerous to humans or industry, as my colleague Kenny Torella has reported.)
Yet, another wolf was killed after trekking into Wyoming, a state where it’s largely legal to kill them. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has, to its credit, tried hard to stop wolves from harming farm animals. The agency has hired livestock patrols called “range riders,” for example, to protect herds. But these solutions are imperfect, especially when the landscape is blanketed in ranchland. Wolves still kill sheep and cattle.
This same conflict—or the perception of it—is what has complicated other attempts to bring back predators, such as jaguars in Arizona and grizzly bears in Washington. And wolves are arguably even more contentious. “This was not ever going to be easy,” Lambert, who’s also the science adviser to the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, an advocacy organization focused on returning wolves to Colorado, said of the reintroduction program.
There’s another problem: Colorado doesn’t have access to more wolves.
The state is planning to release another 10 to 15 animals early next year. And initially, those wolves were going to come from Canada. But in October, the Trump administration told CPW that it can only import wolves from certain regions of the United States. Brian Nesvik, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency that oversees endangered species, said that a federal regulation governing Colorado’s gray wolf population doesn’t explicitly allow CPW to source wolves from Canada. (Environmental legal groups disagree with his claim).
So Colorado turned to Washington state for wolves instead.
But that didn’t work either. Earlier this month, Washington state wildlife officials voted against exporting some of their wolves to Colorado. Washington has more than 200 gray wolves, but the most recent count showed a population decline. That’s one reason why officials were hesitant to support a plan that would further shrink the state’s wolf numbers, especially because there’s a chance they may die in Colorado.
Some other states home to gray wolves, such as Montana and Wyoming, have previously said they won’t give Colorado any of their animals for reasons that are not entirely clear. Nonetheless, Colorado is still preparing to release wolves this winter as it looks for alternative sources, according to CPW spokesperson Luke Perkins.
Ultimately, Lambert said, it’s going to take years to be able to say with any kind of certainty whether or not the reintroduction program was successful. “This is a long game,” she said.
And despite the program’s challenges, there’s at least one reason to suspect it’s working: puppies.
Over the summer, CPW shared footage from a trail camera of three wolf puppies stumbling over their giant paws, itching, and play-biting each other. CPW says there are now four litters in Colorado, a sign that the predators are settling in and making a home for themselves.
“This reproduction is really key,” Eric Odell, wolf conservation program manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, said in a public meeting in July. “Despite some things that you may hear, not all aspects of wolf management have been a failure. We’re working towards success.”
2025-11-30 02:42:50
On Thursday, President Donald Trump once again found it acceptable to use the r-word, directing it towards Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, in a Truth Social post which also attacked Somali immigrants in the state.
“The seriously [r-tarded] Governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, does nothing, either through fear, incompetence, or both,” Trump posted.
For Republican Indiana State Senator Michael Bohacek, Trump’s most recent use of this anti-disability slur was “the final straw” in his decision not to support Indiana redistricting in support of Republicans winning more seats. On Friday, Rep. Bohacek posted the following on Facebook:
Many of you have asked my position on redistricting. I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter. Those of you that don’t know me or my family might not know that my daughter has Down Syndrome. This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references and his choices of words have consequences. I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority.
In a Facebook comment, Bohacek’s wife, Melissa, said she supported her husband, writing, “for families like ours, hearing the same mocking, derogatory language from our president isn’t abstract. He didn’t almost say or do something hurtful, he did.”
According to the Indy Star, the Indiana State House of Representatives is set to meet on December 1 to discuss a redistricting map, and the Indiana State Senate is supposed to vote on the map on December 8.
As I’ve previously outlined, Trump has a long history of making ableist statements and holding deeply harmful ideas about disability. In October 2024, at a dinner for Republican donors, Trump referred to then-Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris the r-word. He also has a pattern of referring to people he doesn’t like as “intellectually disabled” in a negative way, underlining his ableist views.
The National Down Syndrome Society also condemned Trump’s latest use of the r-word, writing that “as the language used by our leaders carries significant weight in shaping actions and societal attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, we are dismayed and disheartened that President Trump used this harmful term in a recent social media post.”
