Mother JonesModify

2025-12-05 07:50:15

The Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated the Trump-inspired gerrymandered congressional map in Texas after it was blocked by a lower court, with the Roberts court once again putting its thumb on the scale to weaken protections for minority voters and entrench GOP political power.

The conservative justices approved the Texas map, they wrote in an unsigned order, because “the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith” and “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race,” she wrote. “Race provided the excuse for the partisan effort. And yet more critically, race provided the key means of implementing it.”

Texas passed its mid-decade redistricting plan over the summer, when Trump said his party was “entitled to five more seats.” That launched a redistricting arms race ahead of the midterms. But the map was struck down earlier this month by a Trump-appointed federal judge, Jeffrey Brown, who wrote for the majority on a three-judge panel that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map.”

As I wrote at the time:

The panel’s two-judge majority pointed specifically to a Justice Department letter from early July that claimed that four congressional districts where Black and Latino voters comprised a combined majority were “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott cited that letter as the rationale when calling a special legislative session that month to redraw its congressional map. “The Governor explicitly directed the Legislature to redistrict based on race,” Judge Brown wrote.

Texas Republicans claimed the redistricting effort was motivated by partisan politics, a practice which the Supreme Court has said cannot be reviewed in federal court. But Brown concluded that “the letter instead commands Texas to change four districts for one reason and one reason alone: the racial demographics of the voters who live there.” The judge was unsparing in his criticism of the Justice Department, writing that the letter was “challenging to unpack” given its “many factual, legal, and typographical errors.”

The court concluded that the legislature “dramatically dismantled and left unrecognizable all four districts” targeted by the DOJ. The state ultimately eliminated seven “coalition districts” where two or more minority groups had joined forces to elect their preferred candidates, and turned them into districts where a single race predominated instead.

“It wasn’t enough for the map to merely improve Republican performance,” Brown wrote. “It also needed to convert as many coalition districts to single-race-majority districts as possible. That best explains the House bill’s authors’ comments during the legislative process and the map’s stark racial characteristics. The bill’s main proponents purposefully manipulated the districts’ racial numbers to make the map more palatable. That’s racial gerrymandering.”

In response, Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, wrote a scathing dissent that personally attacked Brown for not giving him enough time to respond to the majority opinion and mentioned George Soros or his children 17 times.

The Trump administration responded to the decision by claiming, “Texas was not doing DOJ’s supposed bidding—much less in a race-conscious way—but instead was engaged in a race-blind partisan gerrymander that happened to affect the districts DOJ identified.”

The Roberts court laid the groundwork for Trump’s Texas gerrymander by holding in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering claims cannot be challenged in federal court. And it let Texas off the hook by allowing Republicans to claim that their racially gerrymandered map was simply done for partisan purposes, much like it did in a South Carolina gerrymandering case in 2024.

The Texas decision is yet another example of how the Roberts court has greenlit the many undemocratic schemes of Trump and his party, which my colleague Pema Levy and I documented in a new cover story for Mother Jones. That includes repeatedly gutting the Voting Rights Act and refusing to constrain excessive gerrymandering. The Roberts court has also repeatedly ruled in favor of Trump on the shadow docket, siding with his administration in roughly 90 percent of emergency orders.

And the conservative justices may not be done. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to kill the last remaining protections of the VRA by holding that districts drawn to give representation to voters of color are unconstitutional. That could shift up to 19 US House seats in the GOP’s favor.

But the Supreme Court’s intervention on Trump’s behalf still may not be enough to save the president’s gerrymandering war. California voters last month passed Prop. 50, approving a new congressional map designed to give Democrats five new seats to offset Texas. (The Trump administration is now challenging the California map in court.) And though the GOP will likely pick up new seats in Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio through new legislative maps, Democrats gained a seat through a court-order in Utah and could redraw maps in other Democratic states including Virginia. Meanwhile, Republicans have thus far been unable to muster enough support within their own ranks to draw new maps in Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, and Nebraska. That means the parties could more or less break even in a redistricting war.

Despite the best efforts of the Roberts court, what once appeared to be a decisive win for Trump’s party is now looking much more like a stalemate.

2025-12-05 02:19:01

“Independence means being able to investigate and act without fear of reprisal,” Sen. Andy Kim said Monday during a five-hour hearing. “What we have come to see here in New Jersey must be fixed, and the people demand it.”

Kim—a Democrat serving in the US Senate—was speaking at the New Jersey state capitol against a bill that seeks to remove most of the state comptroller’s watchdog authority and transfer it to a separate state agency tasked with investigating corruption in government spending. That latter agency, called the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, has been the subject of its own scandals.

Since the comptroller is appointed by the governor and can’t be removed from office by state lawmakers, the comptroller can conduct independent investigations. But Kim told Mother Jones that the new bill would give the state legislature more control, as they would be able to fire any employee of the combined anti-corruption body at will. 

“There is no effort to try to insulate the people doing this work from political ramifications,” Kim said. 

The bill advanced through the committee in a unanimous 5-0 vote. Kim’s efforts to push back represent an increasingly rare example of a US senator taking a stand against the power structure in his own party.

Kim’s political story has been built around opposition to the ossified corruption of the New Jersey Democratic Party. The senator won his seat in 2024 after announcing a primary challenge against Sen. Bob Menendez, who was facing corruption and bribery charges (not for the first time). Menendez ultimately withdrew from the race, and Kim beat back a challenge from Tammy Murphy, the wife of the current governor. In doing so, Kim waged a fight to abolish “county-line” primary ballots in the state, whose design unfairly grants electoral advantage to candidates with party endorsements. In New Jersey’s 2025 gubernatorial election, respondents to a Quinnipiac University poll ranked government ethics as the second most pressing issue behind taxes.

Kim says that the Monday hearing was an example of the state’s entrenched corruption. According to the New York Times, he arrived in Trenton at around 9 a.m. and was one of the first people to request to speak. But he was the last to deliver his testimony. The committee’s chairman, New Jersey state Sen. Jim Beach, a fellow Democrat, gave Kim three minutes to speak. 

“Sir, I have been here for five-and-a-half hours,” Kim said.

“So has everyone else,” Beach responded. “Why do you think you’re special? You’re not.”

Kim decried the effort to jam the bill through the legislature just after Thanksgiving—an attempt, he said, to fast-track it in a lame duck session before the state’s governor-elect, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, comes into office. Like Kim, Sherrill campaigned on a commitment to government efficiency and transparency.

For Kim, the fight is illustrative of a larger disconnect between voters and legislators. 

“Three million people showed up to vote a couple of weeks ago, overwhelmingly wanting to vote on issues related to affordability and cost-of-living,” Kim told Mother Jones. “Why aren’t those the bills that they’re taking on right now, rather than the effort to gut watchdog agencies and accountability?” 

Kim also connects this largely intra-party dispute to the Democrats’ higher-profile fight against the Trump administration, asserting Democrats can’t effectively argue that they are fighting a corrupt federal government if they are weakening anti-corruption protections in their own states. 

Kim likes to describe this combination of problems as a “corruption tax” on the American people, raising the cost-of-living even higher with the gutting of essential government programs like Medicaid to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. 

For Nicholas Scutari, the Democratic Senate president and author of the bill that Kim opposes, defanging the state agency is part of making it easier to sniff out corruption, not harder. “If there’s real corruption, we want to root it out, and that’s why we want to reinvigorate a powerful state independent agency — not one that’s appointed by the executive,” he told the New York Times.

Kim argues that the best way to achieve transparency in New Jersey would be to empower both the State Commission of Investigation and comptroller’s office with more resources. He also supports a proposal to re-establish a public advocate position in the state and wants to reverse recent legislation, including a bill that gutted New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act. Kim is also seeking a final court ruling banning the state’s county-line election ballots. 

But Kim also works in what he calls “broken-machine politics.” When questioned about Sherrill’s refusal to comment on the bill to consolidate the watchdogs, he deflected. 

“I’m going to focus on those that have the votes and the ability to stop this piece of legislation right now,” Kim told Mother Jones. “We’ll have plenty of time to engage Gov.-elect Sherrill in terms of the kind of administration she’s going to build.” 

Kim said that he and Sherrill have talked “at length” about addressing government transparency.

But he hopes that he is able to demonstrate consistency to voters. Fighting corruption within the Democratic Party is part of what resistance against the Trump administration looks like. He said as much to Mother Jones, citing what he said during his speech following his Senate seat win: “I will not let the job change me. I will work to change the job.”

2025-12-04 20:30:00

Comedian Megan Sass has been struggling to get their health insurer to cover intravenous immunoglobulin for more than a year. The treatment, which addresses a genetic antibody deficiency, requires antibodies from blood donors. Without insurance, it’s unaffordable. And with the looming expiration of Affordable Care Act subsidies, Sass’ insurance will soon cost $1,300 a month.

“I am not at a place where [I’ve] been able to joke about this,” they said.

ACA marketplace subsidies, first implemented in 2014, expanded greatly during the Biden administration, allowing millions more people to afford private health insurance. But enhanced premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025. As ACA architect Jeanne M. Lambrew told me in October:

When the Biden administration came in during the pandemic, they tweaked the premium tax credits to improve them, which doubled enrollment. It increased the racial diversity of enrollment. It increased [the number of] low-income people enrolled. It removed a cliff, so when people’s income increased, they didn’t like fall off and have nothing. All that led to great gains and all that is at risk.

For contractors and freelancers in particular, the expiration of these enhanced subsidies could decide whether or not they can afford health insurance. According to KFF, around half of adults who purchase ACA marketplace plans are self-employed, small business owners, or their employees. Disabled people who work are 50 percent more likely to be self-employed than non-disabled people, meaning that people with existing health issues are at disproportionate risk of losing private health insurance for affordability reasons.

The ACA offers disabled people “options that many other people take for granted,” said Mia Ives-Rublee, senior director of the Center for American Progress’ Disability Justice Initiative, especially given the ties between insurance and employment.

The situation is especially frustrating for chronically ill and disabled contractors who watched Democratic leadership in Congress abandon a shutdown meant to protect those subsidies; President Donald Trump, during Thanksgiving week, then backtracked on a supposed plan to extend the tax credits when faced with the displeasure of congressional Republicans.

New Hampshire therapist Amanda McGuire is infuriated that Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) voted to end the government shutdown without a deal to extend ACA tax credits: after all, McGuire created a video that Shaheen’s team posted on social media during the shutdown advocating for the importance of the ACA. McGuire feels betrayed.

McGuire doesn’t qualify for ACA subsidies, though she expects to have to buy a marketplace plan next year as her disabilities, including multiple sclerosis, increasingly compel her to reduce her working hours. McGuire’s therapy practice focuses on patients with chronic illnesses and disabilities, and she’s even more afraid of what the future holds for them.

“A lot of them can’t even look at the options in the marketplace right now, because they know they’re going to be priced out of policies,” McGuire told me. “As someone with chronic illness, you can’t just go without insurance.”

Kathryn Sullivan Graf, a contractor who works as a writer and editor in Arizona, has multiple sclerosis; she expects to pay around $300 more a month and to have to seek new specialists. She was relieved when her neurologist assured her that he’d remain her neurologist no matter what happened—”but that’s just one of my providers,” Sullivan Graf said.

Sass doesn’t believe that politicians on either side of the aisle are doing enough. Members of Congress, Sass noted, get comprehensive health insurance through the government—so they can’t personally experience the stakes.

“Obviously, the main culprits are Republicans,” Sass said, who supports socialized medicine. “But the system,” they said, was either “broken, or it was intentionally designed badly.”

2025-12-04 20:30:00

Activist and educator Loretta Ross didn’t know she was helping to birth a movement. The year was 1994, the place was a crowded hotel room in Chicago, and the impetus was frustration bordering on rage. Pro-choice activists from around the country had just heard a presentation about the historic health care reform initiative led by then–First Lady Hillary Clinton. But the plan was “very male-centric,” Ross recalls—and very white-centric. In a futile effort to win over moderate Republicans, it ignored abortion and other basic reproductive care, as well as other health services vital to Black and brown women. 

Afterwards, Ross and other Black feminists gathered in one of their rooms to vent about the systematic devaluation of women by their own allies and brainstorm about how to fight back. Their first salvo was taking out full-page ads in The Washington Post and Roll Call. The presentation was buttoned-up, the ideas—“Reproductive freedom is a life-and-death issue for many Black women and deserves as much recognition as any other freedom,” and “WE WILL NOT ENDORSE A HEALTH CARE REFORM SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT COVER THE FULL RANGE OF REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES FOR ALL WOMEN, INCLUDING ABORTION”—profound. “We didn’t know we had created a paradigm shift,” Ross says, “because that wasn’t our intention at that time. We meant it only as a response to the Clinton administration and to Congress.”

Thirty years later, the conceptual framework that Ross helped launch has been transformational. Where once abortion was the primary focus of the reproductive rights movement, reproductive justice is equally concerned with birth control, sterilization, the criminalization of pregnancy, and maternal health. Where “pro-choice” centered the concerns of middle-class white women, reproductive justice widens the lens to include women of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and the poor. Instead of tokenizing Black and brown activists, reproductive justice organizations—including the SisterSong collective, which Ross cofounded in 1997—reflect the diverse communities they serve. At the core of reproductive justice is autonomy: the idea that people have the right to control their own bodies; to have children, or not have them; and to raise those children in safe and healthy environments.

“It was radical then,” adds Ross’s longtime friend and collaborator, activist and scholar Marlene Fried, “and it’s radical still.”

In the Trump 2.0 era, the reproductive justice framework is more important than ever, Ross and Fried argue in their new book, Abortion and Reproductive Justice: An Essential Guide for Resistance. Reproductive justice stands in opposition to pretty much every health and social policy espoused by the Trump administration and its Christian nationalist, pronatalist allies. “We are in a ferocious backlash,” Fried says. “It’s a moment when people see the fragility of rights won or not—realizing that rights are not secured forever.” With so much under attack, it can be tempting to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton era, sacrificing those on the margins in a vain attempt to avoid greater losses.

“We’ve been very struck by how little of our own history of resistance and activism is known within our own movement,” Fried says. “We want people to learn their own history and gain inspiration and strength from it.”

No one is better suited to tell that story than Ross, whose work earned her a MacArthur “genius” award in 2022, and Fried, an emeritus professor in philosophy at Hampshire College who was the founding president of the National Network of Abortion Funds. I caught up with them soon after the release of their book, Ross from her office at Smith College, where she is an associate professor of women’s and gender studies, and Fried from her home office outside Boston. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Why did you feel the need to write this book now? 

Marlene Fried: We actually decided to write it during the first Trump administration. What immediately prompted us was the fact that 53 percent of white women voted for Trump and, at the same time, were opposed to the administration’s policies attacking abortion and contraception. So one of our goals was to expose the way in which abortion is located in the world of racism and white supremacy. It was also important to us to include the international context—to ground reproductive justice in human rights.

Much of the book is focused on this country’s history of racism and oppression—exactly the history that Trump 2.0 is trying to erase.

Loretta Ross: As we frequently say, if you don’t understand white supremacy and neoliberal capitalism, you don’t understand reproductive politics. Because it’s not just about gender. Racism and [homophobia] and Christian nationalism and antisemitism and ableism and Islamophobia—all of those things affect reproductive politics. 

One of the things we always want to do is correct the record, because there are many accounts of how people are oppressed, particularly women, but fewer accounts of how they fought back. So we wanted to make sure that we included women who mounted strategies of resistance—not just detailing what happened to them, but what they did for themselves.

Fried: When you examine history, what you see is that the world we’re living in now is not that different from the world we’ve been in. In some ways, yes, it is a different world. It’s a very frightening world. But it has been for a very long time. We have been here before.

Tell me about your own histories—how you became not just abortion activists, but reproductive justice activists. Loretta, you were from Texas, right? 

Ross: I call myself an accidental feminist because I had no intention of dedicating my life to [this movement]. But as I always say, my plumbing got in the way of my dreams. I was pregnant through incest at 14, and had a baby at 15 because in 1968, one didn’t have a choice about whether or not you were going to continue a pregnancy. I chose to keep my son after his birth instead of giving him up for adoption. 

You got into Radcliffe College at the amazingly young age of 16. But when they found out about your baby, they took away your scholarship. Is that how you ended up at Howard University?

Ross: Right, and I got pregnant again during my first semester. I was under 18, so I needed parental consent for birth control, and my mother wouldn’t sign the permission slip. I had an abortion, and this is when I accepted implantation of [an early IUD,] the Dalkon Shield. Within a few years, it sterilized me. 

A lot of people have forgotten the story of the Dalkon Shield. This was an IUD with a defective design that made it incredibly dangerous. 

Ross: It was a piece of plastic with a string attached. The string was only there to make it easy for the physician to remove the device. But it served as a bacterial wick into the uterus, which led to pelvic inflammatory disease and acute sepsis. Hundreds of thousands of women were sterilized because of that design flaw, and some died.

I got an acute infection in my fallopian tubes, and they burst one night—sending me into a coma. I had been suffering all these mysterious symptoms, but I was a young, Black, single mother, so instead of conducting lab tests, the doctor made a lot of racist assumptions about me. And I was sterilized at the age of 23.

My god, Loretta, I just have to say how sorry I am to hear that this happened to you. Marlene, your background and experiences were quite different. You were a white, middle-class kid from Philadelphia who ended up writing your dissertation at Brown University on Marx’s theory of historical materialism.

Fried: In grad school, I got caught up in politics—the anti-war movement, women’s liberation, civil rights. I came to work around abortion rights when I was pregnant with a much-wanted pregnancy after several miscarriages. The experience of not being able to get pregnant when I wanted to be felt very connected to the experience of trying not to get pregnant when I didn’t want to be. 

Your personal stories really highlight how abortion is just one aspect of reproductive health and rights. How, then, did the pro-choice focus become so narrow?

Ross: You can’t understand the myopic focus on abortion that women’s rights activists were pushed into until you understand how abortion became a significant wedge issue for the Republican Party in the post–Brown v. Board of Education era. In their attempts to reclaim power, the segregationists who were resentful of the civil rights movement formed an alliance with the evangelical Christian movement that was opposed to abortion. They integrated anti-gay activists, anti-immigrant people, and a very hawkish set of people who were very pro–Vietnam War. This unruly coalition was eventually called the Moral Majority when Ronald Reagan used the same tactic, but it all started under Richard Nixon. And opposition to abortion became the best mobilizing strategy that these right-wing people had. 

The feminist movement also played into the hands of those conservative forces—for example, by not working harder to stop the Hyde Amendment, which passed in 1976 and banned federal funding for abortion.

Fried: The Hyde Amendment erased Roe for millions of people. I mean, who cares if abortion is legal if you can’t get one? By not putting access and affordability in the foreground, the larger mainstream choice movement was pretty much saying, “Okay, here’s this group of middle-class white women whose rights we’re putting ahead of everybody else.”

The mainstream pro-choice movement also didn’t spend a lot of time focused on sterilization. There was the kind you experienced, Loretta, from an unsafe medical device. And then there was America’s ugly history of forced sterilizations, which continued for decades and targeted poor women and women of color. 

Fried: It’s about who’s supposed to have children, what the country is supposed to look like. Going back to the genocide of Native American people, this was established as a white country for white people. Many of the reproductive policies put in place throughout our history are implicitly or explicitly eugenicist. The only time I can think of when Black and brown babies were valued is when children of enslaved women were enslavers’ property. Otherwise, most reproductive policies in this country have been enacted to prevent women of color from having children. 

The activism against sterilization abuse—which was led by women of color—was going on at the same time as the fight for Roe v. Wade. But you wouldn’t know that if you looked only at what was going on in the abortion sector of the movement. 

Frustrations about all of this came to a head in the summer of 1994. Loretta, why then? 

Ross: 1994 was a very eventful year. I had just returned from South Africa, serving as an election monitor for Nelson Mandela’s election in April as president. Later that year was the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, which explicitly renounced population control as a framing for reproductive rights and asserted that reproductive rights were human rights. That June was also the OJ Simpson car chase, when he was accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend.

So there were a series of huge events that spotlighted, in their different ways, themes like human rights, population control, misogyny, and violence against women. 

Ross: There was a conference in July organized by the Illinois Pro-Choice Alliance. A number of women of color had received scholarships from the Ms. Foundation to be there. We heard this proposal by the Clinton administration for health care reform that pretty much left out reproductive health care, as well as the needs of Black women. One of the people at the conference, [Georgia state lawmaker and activist] “Able” Mable Thomas, convened 12 Black women in her hotel room and asked us what we wanted to do to respond. 

That’s when we first analyzed that abortion was always separated from routine health care, which doesn’t make sense. We talked about how both the pro-choice and the pro-life movements neglected things that were important to Black women—not just the right not to have a child, but because of the history of sterilization abuse, the right to have children under the conditions in which we want to have them. Neither the pro-choice nor the pro-life movements spent a lot of energy on what happens to children once they’re born. 

And so we spliced together the concept of “reproductive rights” and “social justice” and coined the term “reproductive justice.” We decided to purchase an ad in two national newspapers that more than 800 women signed. But the ad didn’t mention reproductive justice, because nobody would understand what it was.

I remember the first time I heard the term—my reaction was, What?

Ross: [A communications specialist for nonprofits] heard about this term and offered to test it with some focus groups. And she came back and said, “I don’t think this ‘reproductive justice’ thing is going to work.” The first focus group asked, “Do you mean Law and Order?” Because the word ‘justice’ made people think of criminal justice. The second focus group seized on the word “reproductive” and asked, “What do y’all got against Xerox copiers?” They actually thought we were organizing to protest the Xerox copier! 

But Marlene, you were an early adopter. What about the repro justice concept spoke to you?

Fried: I came to abortion rights activism with a broader view, having been schooled by the civil rights and anti-war movements, and socialist feminism. I was also one of the founders of the National Network of Abortion Funds, where my work was very focused on access issues and helping people obtain abortions when they didn’t have the money or other resources to afford one. In a way, reproductive justice gave us a language for how we already saw the world. It was a way of putting intellectual arms around our politics. But it didn’t take hold right away, because it’s a radical framework.

Ross: It’s radical because it transcended the limits of the US Constitution. It invoked the global human rights framework.

A lot of the mainstream abortion rights movement found it threatening.

Fried: Some very prominent abortion rights groups opposed it. They worried that by widening the frame, you would shrink the importance of abortion rights. There was a commitment to single-issue politics on the assumption that it is the most winning approach. If nothing else, people who read our book should come away understanding that it doesn’t make sense.

Flash forward 31 years. Reproductive justice has become a critical part of the broader reproductive rights movement. So that is the good news. But now the right wing has captured our country. It’s targeting people of color, especially Black women. Under Trump 2.0, just using the word “justice” in a research grant application is enough to get your grant canceled.

Ross: Justice is about accountability. And I think that’s one of the things that scares the bejesus out of the Trump administration, because accountability is not their strong suit.

How, then, can the reproductive justice framework help us get through this dire moment?

Fried: The right is trying to take back every civil, political, and human right possible. The extremism that’s been unleashed at this moment is terrifying—for example, abortion abolitionism, which calls for the death penalty for people who are engaged in abortion work or have an abortion. As people struggle to access abortion, the fear is that sterilizations will rise, and while some of those procedures might be voluntary, we know that a lot of them will not be. In a moment like this, people often retract. “OK, we’ll ask for less, because otherwise we’re going to get nothing. Let’s just try to hang on to something.” But if you ask for less, you get less. If you truncate the frame, you’re not going to end up with justice. 

So that’s one big lesson—Don’t retreat. Another seems to be: “This is not new. Don’t freak out—fight.” And maybe the most important message: The past is prologue.

Ross: I’ve been thinking about how we need to update the reproductive justice framework that we created in the 20th century, for the 21st century so that we can look at what’s coming down the pike in 30, 40, 50 years. It’s something we call reproductive justice futurism.

For example, designer babies. We’ve got these amoral scientists working with these immoral billionaires trying to sculpt the future of the human race, that’s all designed around themselves and their genes. They’re not even showing me pictures of designer babies that are Black or brown!

Fried: Is this a whole new thing we’ve never seen before? No, it’s good old eugenics and population control repackaged in a new way. Seeing how these oppressive frameworks emerge in different moments in our history is an important tool for trying to understand where we’re at now, but also what’s going to come.

But meeting this political moment requires us to be focused on the resistance as a source of inspiration and hope. We tell a history of abortion that shows us that people have historically struggled against oppression in order to lead the lives they want for themselves, despite the danger and the strength of the opposition. Yes, we are living in a dangerous and frightening time, and that history calls us to action.

Top image: Mother Jones illustration; images courtesy: UC Press, Hampshire College, National Women’s Hall of Fame.

2025-12-04 20:30:00

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

Zillow, the US’s largest real estate listing site, has removed a feature that allowed people to view a property’s exposure to the climate crisis, following complaints from the industry and some homeowners that it was hurting sales.

In September last year, the online real estate marketplace introduced a tool showing the individual risk of wildfire, flood, extreme heat, wind, and poor air quality for 1 million properties it lists, explaining that “climate risks are now a critical factor in home-buying decisions” for many Americans.

But Zillow has now deleted this climate index after complaints from real estate agents and some homeowners that the rankings appeared arbitrary, could not be challenged, and harmed house sales. The complaints included those from the California Regional Multiple Listing Service, which oversees a database of property data that Zillow relies upon.

Zillow said it remains committed to help Americans make informed decisions about properties, with listings now containing outbound links to the website of First Street, the nonprofit climate risk quantifier that had provided the on-site tool to Zillow.

Matthew Eby, founder and chief executive of First Street, said that removing the climate risk information means that many buyers will be “flying blind” in an era when worsening impacts of extreme weather are warping the real estate market in the United States.

“The risk doesn’t go away; it just moves from a pre-purchase decision into a post-purchase liability,” Eby said. “Families discover after a flood that they should have purchased flood insurance, or discover after the sale that wildfire insurance is unaffordable or unavailable in their area.

“Access to accurate risk information before a purchase isn’t just helpful; it’s essential to protecting consumers and preventing lifelong financial consequences.”

Eby claimed that the push to delist the First Street ratings from Zillow is linked to a challenging real estate environment, with a lack of affordable housing and repeated climate-driven disasters that are causing insurers to raise premiums or even flee states such as California. “All of that adds pressure to close sales however possible,” he said. “Climate risk data didn’t suddenly become inconvenient. It became harder to ignore in a stressed market.”

As the US, along with the rest of the world, has heated up due to the burning of fossil fuels, worsening extreme weather events have taken their toll directly upon people’s homes, as well as other infrastructure.

Last year, disasters probably amplified by the climate crisis caused $182 billion in damages, one of the highest on record, according to a government database since taken offline by the Trump administration.

As a consequence of these mounting risks, the home insurance required for buyers to obtain a mortgage is becoming scarcer and more expensive across much of the US. These changes are running headlong into an opposing trend whereby more Americans are moving to places such as Florida and the Southwest, which are increasingly beset by threats such as ruinous hurricanes and punishing heatwaves.

But assigning climate risks to individual properties has been controversial within the real estate industry, as well as some experts who have questioned whether such judgments can be made at such a granular level.

Warnings of such perils deterred some buyers, especially if the home was particularly costly anyway. Last year, a sprawling Florida mansion was put on sale for $295 million, making it the most expensive property in the country and in a place also ranked as one of the most at-risk in the US for flooding. After several cuts to the asking price, the house has been taken off the market.

Jesse Keenan, an author and expert in climate risk management at Tulane University, said many scientists and economists have argued that “proprietary risk models that provide highly uncertain assessments can have the perverse effect of undermining the public’s confidence in climate science.

“There has been a growing bipartisan recognition that the government should play a more active role in supporting and standardizing risk assessment for properties,” Keenan said. “At the same time, the science is limited in its capacity to assess property-by-property assessments.

“I do not believe that this is a sign that the brokerage industry is trying to hide climate risks,” he added. “Brokerage firms know they cannot stop the transmission of climate risk information because climate impacts are already being felt far and wide in the sector.”

Eby defended First Street’s methods and accuracy, pointing out that the models used were built on peer-reviewed science and validated against real-world outcomes.

“So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence,” he said. “To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.”

2025-12-04 05:23:23

The United States Department of Agriculture is threatening to withhold federal funding for food stamps for more than 20 Democratic-led states that have refused to hand over sensitive personal data about millions of participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

The agriculture department is seeking personal information like Social Security numbers, birth dates, and home addresses—information it claims will aid officials in rooting out fraud. Democratic leaders have warned the data could be used for other policies not related to keeping people fed, like immigration enforcement.

During a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, USDA Secretary Brooke L. Rollins said that leaders have until next week to send in data or the department will “begin to stop moving federal funds into those states,” adding that her office wants the data to “protect the American taxpayer.” If the administration follows through on this deadline, according to the New York Times, more than 20 million beneficiaries could be affected. 

“NO DATA, NO MONEY,” Rollins wrote on X, “it’s that simple.”

According to the agency, since the administration asked states for SNAP recipients’ data in May, 28 largely Republican-controlled states have already complied. 

The move comes after SNAP recipients across the country have just recently emerged from the confusion and frustration surrounding whether they would get money for food during the longest government shutdown in US history. It’s unclear how the secretary’s current request will impact—or avert—the ongoing SNAP-related legal battles between states and the Trump administration. 

Just last week, Democratic attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over language within the GOP’s tax and spending package, which the group says unlawfully blocks certain groups of legal immigrants from accessing SNAP benefits. 

Following the secretary’s Tuesday announcement, Democratic governors across the country accused the Trump administration of, once again, playing politics with peoples’ hunger.

“We no longer take the Trump Administration’s words at face value — we’ll see what they actually do in reality,” Marissa Saldivar, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, said in a statement. “Cutting programs that feed American children is morally repugnant.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul posted on X, “Genuine question: Why is the Trump Administration so hellbent on people going hungry?”

Claire Lancaster, a spokesperson for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, said the state’s leader “wishes President Trump would be a president for all Americans rather than taking out his political vendettas on the people who need these benefits the most.” 

“The Trump Administration is once again playing politics with the ability of working parents with children, seniors and people with disabilities to get food,” Maura Healey, the governor of Massachusetts, said in a statement, calling the move “truly appalling and cruel.”