Geofence warrants... They don't seem to care about all the other privacy losses...

Supreme Court restricts use of geofence warrants

By Nina Totenberg, Grady Martin

The Supreme Court on Thursday restricted the use of a relatively new law enforcement technique that allows police to tap into giant tech-firm databases to see who was near the scene of a crime.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan said that the technique, known as geofencing, violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

Geofencing entails drawing a virtual fence around a geographic area where a crime was committed. The government can then seek a warrant to require a tech company to search its data to identify any of its users who were within the geofence at the time of the crime.

This case stems from a robbery in the suburbs of Richmond, Virginia. A man stole $195,000 from a bank, but after two months, the case had gone cold. That is, until detectives served a warrant on Google, asking for the location information of cellphone users in and around the bank for the hour before and after the crime was committed.

Complying with the warrant, Google initially found the names of 19 people who were in or near the bank, but Google pushed back, ultimately providing the police with the names of just three people whose location data showed they were at the bank. When police went to the home of one of them, they found a pistol matching one seen on security camera footage of the robbery and nearly $100,000 in cash. That man, Okello Chatrie, later confessed and was convicted of the crime.

His attorneys argued in filings to the court that geofence searches violate the Fourth Amendment because they allow the government "to search first and develop suspicions later." The geofence warrants in this case directed Google to search millions of users' location histories, meaning that millions of people were subjected to a search despite never having done anything suspicious.

But the government argued in its filings that because people can choose not to give companies like Google their location data, that data is not constitutionally protected.

Upholds grace periods for mail-in ballots

The Supreme Court upholds grace periods for mail-in ballots, siding against the GOP

Ashley Lopez

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days after it.

The ruling is a loss for the Republican Party, which brought the case, ahead of this year's midterm elections.

Eighteen states and territories, including Mississippi, have such mail ballot grace periods. Most of the states are Democratic-led, including California, Illinois and New York. A dozen additional states have grace periods for ballots returning from overseas, like from military members.

The court's ruling was 5-4, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring the opinion, joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal wing of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"[T]he election-day statutes require the electorate's choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi," Barrett wrote. "But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward."

Justice Samuel Alito authored the dissent, writing in part that the "majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

How the battle over grace periods ended up at the Supreme Court

These grace periods have historically provided voters time to get their absentee ballots to officials in case there are any issues with the Postal Service — as well as any other unforeseen issues, such as weather events.

But Republicans have been fighting these grace periods in recent years — an effort led by President Trump.

Ahead of the 2024 election, the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign filed legal challenges — including one against Mississippi's law — alleging that these grace periods violate the Constitution. They argued that Congress sets the end of an election, not states.

At the time, many of the lawsuits were dismissed by judges across the country, but the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Republicans, setting up the Supreme Court case.

Trump also signed an executive order last year — which was quickly blocked by lower courts — that required that all votes be received by Election Day during federal elections.

Many state officials, particularly in Democratic-run states with universal mail-in ballot programs, raised concerns about such a requirement.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said in a statement last year that more than 250,000 ballots that had been postmarked on time arrived after Election Day during the 2024 election.

"Had this rule been in effect," he said, "those voices would have been silenced, especially in rural areas where mail delivery can take longer."

Kind of a dick...

Bill Maher receives Mark Twain Prize amid uncertainty at Kennedy Center

By Camila DeChalus, Isabelle D’Antonio

Comedian and Trump critic Bill Maher on Sunday received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the Washington institution that is entangled in a legal battle over President Donald Trump’s effort to overhaul it.

The center — which Trump has sought to put his stamp on — was set to temporarily close its doors for a yearslong renovation, but is now faced with difficult financial choices after a judge ordered it to continue operating. Plummeting ticket sales, artist withdrawals, political controversies and a diminished staff have made restarting a full-scale programming schedule a challenge, multiple sources familiar with the operation previously told CNN.

Maher noted the potential closure during remarks on the red carpet before the event, saying, “This is the last show here for at least two years.”

“It is a beautiful building. They keep talking about how they need to renovate. It looks perfectly fine to me. I don’t see one thing that needs a single thing changed,” he said.

The performing arts center has been at the center of Trump’s remaking of Washington, DC — and the limits he faces in enacting his wishes. Two weeks ago, the Kennedy Center complied with a judge’s order in removing Trump’s name from the building, which was added by the president’s handpicked board of trustees.

The administration has told the court the name is gone — but a tarp still covers the spot where it hung, leaving the removal hidden from public view.

“Finally, an award from my dear friend, ironically at the Trump Kennedy Center. No — oh right, we fixed that,” actor Woody Harrelson quipped onstage during the Sunday event.

Maher has been a target of the president’s ire, but also dined with Trump at the White House in 2025. The comedian praised the president after the dinner, though their relationship has remained tense. In February, Trump called Maher a “jerk,” dismissed their 2025 White House dinner as “a total waste of time,” and said the comedian suffers from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

“I’d rather be fighting and yelling — that’s his way of talking,” Maher told CNN on the red carpet ahead of the event. “I’d rather the channels be open; anything is better than the channels being shut off.”

The White House in March initially denied that the comedian would be awarded the honor, which is an annual lifetime achievement award given by the Kennedy Center.

“Believe me, when they asked me and called and said, ‘Would you accept this?’ I did not have to ask twice. Of course, after the president tried to get the show canceled, they actually did have to ask twice,” Maher joked during his speech.

As Maher was accepting his award, he was “interrupted” by the president — or rather, comedian Matt Friend’s portrayal of him.

“Why are we giving this low-ratings, lightweight jerk the Mark Twain Award?” Friend joked, repeating insults the president has used against Maher.

The “Real Time with Bill Maher” host joins a list of past honorees that includes Richard Pryor, Carol Burnett, Dave Chappelle, Jon Stewart and Conan O’Brien. (Maher’s HBO show is also presented on CNN on Saturdays. HBO and CNN are both part of Warner Bros. Discovery.)

The 27th annual ceremony, which will premiere on Netflix on July 21, featured guests including Louis C.K., Whitney Cummings, Jay Leno and John Mellencamp, many of whom made jokes revolving around Trump.

“President Trump not happy about Bill getting this award. You think he’s mad now? Really, finds out next year the recipient is Bad Bunny,” Leno joked, referring to the Puerto Rican rapper, whom Trump has criticized.

Guests on the red carpet, meanwhile, emphasized the importance of comedy in the divided political environment.

“Just because we are on opposite sides of the aisle, doesn’t mean we don’t relate to the opposite side from time to time,” radio host Stephen A. Smith told CNN.

“When either side gets mad at me because I put them in jokes —jokes that work — my lesson to that is simple: You want to not get mocked, stop being funny,” Maher said in his speech.

$6 billion of assets frozen in Qatar will be returned

Iranian President says $6 billion of assets frozen in Qatar will be returned

By Aida Karimi and Tim Lister

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said that half of Iran’s frozen assets held in Qatar will be returned to Tehran.

Pezeshkian was quoted by the semi-official Tasnim news agency as making the announcement during meetings with senior Iranian clerics in the city of Qom.

“Based on the plans made, $6 billion out of the total $12 billion of Iran’s resources in Qatar will be returned to the country, and the necessary follow-ups are also underway for the return of the remaining part of these resources,” Pezeshkian was cited as saying.

CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on the claim.

The memorandum agreed earlier this month by the US and Iran stipulated that Washington “undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation” of the agreement.

Iran has long insisted in the talks that the return of assets frozen in overseas banks must be part of the process following the signing of the memorandum.

Willing to go

Weekend escalation shows how far Iran is willing to go to control Hormuz

By Mostafa Salem

Escalation over the weekend between Tehran and Washington underscored that the Strait of Hormuz remains the most precarious issue threatening the ceasefire, as the two rivals clash over competing interpretations of who ultimately governs the vital oil chokepoint.

Traffic at the strait is now effectively partitioned into multiple routes. Iran insists that vessels use its own designated corridor and has fired on ships using other routes, rendering all alternatives unsafe.

Tehran remains unrelenting even after the US military struck Iran in retaliation for the Islamic Republic’s attacks on transiting ships. It is signaling that it will aggressively defend its newly acquired control of the strait, even if that means putting its own infrastructure at risk to preserve its greatest gain from the war.

The weekend’s escalation triggered a sharp drop in the number of ships transiting the strait after more than a week of optimistic traffic recovery in the corridor, observers say.

But as vessels pull back from the other routes, traffic through the Iran-approved route remains steady, shipping experts say.

Despite the setback, maritime experts remain optimistic. They view the return to calm today as a sign that an all-out conflict is still unlikely. Instead, the exchanges appear driven by competing interpretations of control over the Strait.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains the principal flashpoint, but also the principal focus of ongoing negotiations,” Dimitris Maniatis, CEO of maritime risk consultancy Marisks told CNN, adding that Washington and Tehran “demonstrated a willingness to retaliate while simultaneously preserving the diplomatic track.”

As long as dialogue continues, Maniatis assess that there “remains a realistic window of opportunity for commercial transits under carefully managed conditions,” although the “security environment remains fragile and capable of changing with little warning.”

Oil prices

Why oil prices are rising so tepidly after weekend of conflict

By David Goldman

Oil prices are rising after a weekend of back-and-forth strikes near the Strait of Hormuz. But not by as much as you’d think.

Brent crude was up just 0.6%. US oil prices are up only around 0.8%. And oil remains below where it had traded before the war started.

What’s going on here? Sure, the US and Iran agreed to end hostilities in the strait. But there are 3 reasons why oil has tumbled so low and is staying there.

Supply: The cushion of record oil supply before the war has kept a cap on prices throughout the conflict. They never approached record highs despite the strait’s closure creating the largest oil supply shock in world history. And oil analysts expect OPEC to start producing rapidly again soon, potentially creating another massive supply glut.

Demand: As prices rose and oil became scarce in some parts of the world – particularly Asia, demand fell much more sharply than expected. That was particularly true in China, which rapidly switched to alternate fuels during the war – and the industry expects demand may never fully return.

Trump: Inventories in the US are at critical levels. President Donald Trump recognizes that: He said as much two weeks ago. The market believes he is hugely incentivized to keep the strait open. And, like clockwork, the president announced in a social media post Monday that US and Iranian negotiators will meet tomorrow.

Doesn't know what the fuck is happening...

Trump says meeting with Iran will take place in Doha Tuesday

By Aileen Graef

US President Donald Trump said the US will meet with Iran in Doha on Tuesday.

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” he posted on Truth Social early Monday.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s chief negotiator, had previously told reporters that no technical working group meetings have been scheduled for this week.

A senior US official, meanwhile, told CNN yesterday that technical talks regarding the memorandum of understanding were “on track” as planned despite a recent exchange of fire.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News shortly after the president’s post to say there will be high-level talks with technical talks on the sidelines.

“Well, I just spoke with the president about it. Iran has requested a meeting this week, so Special Envoy (Steve) Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be flying to Doha for high-level meetings this week as we continue to discuss the memorandum of understanding,” she said.

Stupidest foreign policy ventures in US history

Trump and Iran: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Or: How not to go to war.

David Corn

Donald Trump’s war in Iran is one of the stupidest foreign policy ventures in US history.

I know that’s not a new or hot take. When he attacked Iran on February 28, it immediately became clear that he had no idea what he was doing. Karoline Leavitt, his press secretary, said he had initiated the attack based on a “feeling”—while negotiations to limit Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs were ongoing.

Trump then had a tough time explaining to the nation what the hell this war was for. To eliminate a nuclear program he had claimed was obliterated by a previous bombing raid? To address an “imminent threat” because Iran was, he falsely claimed, within two weeks of developing a nuclear bomb? To achieve regime change? To wipe out Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles? To protect Iranian anti-government protesters? To diminish Iran’s ability to strike at US allies and bases, if Israel attacked Iran? To end Tehran’s support of terrorism? To “get rid of evil”?

If you don’t know why you’re warring, it’s tough to figure out when to stop. After all, what counts as victory?

Then the war became mostly a matter of addressing unintended—but utterly predictable—consequences. Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz, which was an easy-to-foresee possibility, and sparked a global economic crisis. Trump had no plan for that—just as he had no plan to achieve any of the assorted aims he had expressed at different times. Now the mission was to undo what his war had caused.

So dumb. Trump spent gazillions of taxpayer dollars on this endeavor, only to end up fighting for a return to the status quo. He had to put out the fire he started. And thousands of Iranian civilians—including an estimated 168 schoolgirls—have been killed, as well as 13 American servicemembers. It’s a pointless loss of treasure and lives. With the higher gas prices, the war so far has cost Americans $132 billion. This folly has also raised food prices—which has an especially dramatic impact on poorer, food-stressed nations. It further strained US ties with its closest allies.

The signing this week of a memo of understanding between Washington and Tehran to end the war highlighted the imbecility of this action. The terms met none of the revolving goals Trump had tossed out. It kicked down the road any discussion of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic programs. But the deal handed the repressive government of Iran much-desired deliverables, such as an end to sanctions, an unfreezing of assets, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Iran could immediately start to sell oil. Ka-ching! It only had to keep the strait open, as it had always done prior to the war. It looked as if Trump was rewarding the mullahs with tremendous riches for doing what they used to do for free. Art of the deal, right? Trump had previously called for a “unilateral surrender” from Iran. This was not that.

Critics of all ideological stripes blasted the deal. Hawks and Republicans saw it as a total sellout, as well as an abandonment of Israel. (The agreement called for an end to Israeli attacks in Lebanon—a provision that did not please the Netanyahu crowd.) The New York Post lambasted Trump. Neocons exclaimed on podcasts, “What’s going on?” 

Democrats and liberals noted this was the equivalent of an American surrender to a government still presumably committed to running a repressive regime and supporting terrorism, and it fell far short of the agreement that the Obama administration had forged with Iran in 2015. It was good that the fighting was over—at least for the moment—but nothing had been settled. Only the most cultish of Trump cultists (Jesse Watters, I’m looking at you) could hail the deal as a masterpiece of statesmanship and a win for the United States.

Trump signed the MOU during a trip to Versailles, which in a previous era hosted the signing of a notoriously lousy accord that led to a conflagration we call World War II.

What was especially ludicrous was how Trump and his crew talked about the deal. On March 1, the White House declared that Trump had attacked Iran to “destroy its ballistic missile arsenal.” On Wednesday, he said it was no biggie for Iran to retain ballistic missiles: “If other countries have them, it’s a little unfair for them not to have some.” He added, “Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but [Iran] can’t have them? It doesn’t work that way.”

As for Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium—which is now not suitable for use in a nuclear bomb but could be refined to weapon-grade level—Vice President JD Vance on MSNOW said, “One of the core parts of the agreement is that the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the United States are going to help Iran destroy the highly enriched stockpile, and that’s something that’s spelled out very clearly in the MOU.”

But the MOU said nothing about this. And Trump sent conflicting signals about what he hoped to do about this half ton of material that ostensibly was one of the key reasons for the war. At one point on Wednesday he said, “We’re going to get it.” At another, he remarked, “I don’t think anybody could get at it.” (This material is apparently beneath a mountain that was bombed last year by US and Israeli warplanes.)

Trump zigged and zagged on another issue. At the start of the war, he said, “We’re now totally independent of the Middle East. We don’t need their oil.” A few weeks in, he reaffirmed this: “It doesn’t really affect us. We have so much oil. We have tremendous oil and gas, much more than we need.” On Wednesday, he asserted that if he didn’t agree to the MOU, we “would run out of reserves at about four weeks…We would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

Once this war was about ballistic missiles and highly enriched uranium and oil was no concern. Now, who cares about the missiles or the uranium? And Trump had to give Iran so much to get the oil flowing. Meanwhile, instead of regime change, it’s likely there’s been regime worsening. As for helping the Iranian people rise up against the tyrannical mullahs? Fuggedaboudit.

No sane person expects consistency from Trump. But during a war, erraticism is particularly dangerous and idiotic. His impulsive attack on Iran has accomplished none of his stated objectives. It’s been a foolish waste.

During a press conference on Wednesday at the G7 meeting in France, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick standing behind him, Trump mused, “In war, terrible things happen. Like you mentioned…the [girls’] school gets hit. Other things get hit. Bad things happen in war. War is a nasty place. I see it. I see it better than maybe anybody has ever seen it.” Yes, even at this point, Trump was claiming he understands this war better than anyone else. But he had no vision of what this war was for, of how to wage it, or of how to win it. This was a vanity project for him. He thought he could unleash violence and chaos—threaten to commit war crimes and destroy an entire civilization—and end up the star triumphantly bathed in military glory and, oddly, deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the end, this disaster does not demand deep analysis. It was a foolhardy move from a narcissistic numbskull who now cares more about a ballroom, an arch, and a reflecting pool than the carnage and damage he wreaked. A stupid war is yielding stupid results—and with Trump its author that’s no surprise.

Survive a Brutal Heat Wave

How to Survive a Brutal Heat Wave in Italy

It may or may not involve lots of gelato.

Jessica Lionnel

With Western Europe in the grip of a punishing early-summer heat wave, maximum health alerts have been issued in Rome, Paris, and even London. Thursday was the UK’s and Switzerland’s hottest June day on record, with each just below 100 degrees F, while France endured its warmest day ever on Wednesday, with temperatures in some areas rising to approximately 111 degrees F.

The toll of the sweltering temperatures driven by a heat dome has been stark: French authorities have recorded at least 48 drownings as people try to escape the heat, while hot cars have tragically claimed the lives of three young children. Spain is seeing a similarly tragic reality. Between Sunday and Thursday alone, an estimated 327 people lost their lives to the extreme conditions, according to data from the Spanish health ministry’s monitoring system.

Italy, where I live, is under severe strain too. Even though this is the country that holds the title for Europe’s hottest-ever temperature (119.8 degrees F in Sicily in 2021), the current climate is testing those limits once again. On Friday, the Italian Ministry of Health placed 18 major cities on strict Level 3 red alert (bollino rosso), indicating immediate risk to even healthy adults. These cities include Rome, Milan, Florence, Venice, Turin, Bologna, Genoa, and Bari.

That warning seems prescient—of the five people who have died so far, one was a 61-year-old male in the Piacenza area who collapsed while working in his vineyard. Though this initial toll seems small compared to those in Spain and France, Italy has recorded the highest heat mortality in Europe for three consecutive summers, capturing a grim toll of roughly 18,800 deaths in 2022, 13,800 in 2023, and over 19,000 in 2024. (Numbers for 2025 aren’t in yet.)

Moreover, even as other places in Europe are looking toward relief this weekend, meteorologists warn that Italy’s anomalous heat wave will not ease significantly until early July. Yet, tourism figures for this summer indicate a record-breaking 172 million people are slated to come to the Bel Paese in July and August. Oh, and remember—we do not really do air conditioning in this country (more on that in a moment). If you are heading our way, how will you cope?

The Italian health ministry offered sage advice in their recent circular titled “Protect Me From the Heat”: Avoid going out between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. (when the weather is at its hottest), limit alcohol and coffee (sorry), dress in natural fibers such as linen (do this anyway), eat lightly (again, sorry), and drink at least a liter and a half of water.

Always carry a bottle with you, too; in both the countryside and cities in Italy, you are bound to come across a water fountain. If filling water from somewhere public grosses you out, fear not; there is a knack to it. There should be signs saying Acqua Potabile (drinking water) above the fountain. If it says Acqua Non Potabile, it’s a no-go. If you’re headed to Rome, there are specific drinking-water fountains called nasoni, named because they resemble long noses. There are about 2,500 dotted around the Eternal City.

On a much broader spectrum, there is an app called Acquea that pinpoints over 150,000 points with drinkable water throughout Italy. Run by Rome’s water company, Acea, the app also gives out the sodium and calcium levels of the liquid from the fountains and has a built-in tracker to monitor hydration (small amounts of sodium are essential to rehydrating effectively).

Lunch during hotter times tends to be a no-cook affair. Instead of devouring a plate of hot pasta or a whole pizza come midday, opt for timeless Italian summertime classics such as prosciutto-wrapped melon, a refreshing caprese salad, or an insalata di riso (rice salad) tossed with light ingredients such as vegetables and eggs. Back in 2023, the Italian Ministry of Health even advised swapping out pranzi freddi (cold lunches) for gelato instead. “Consuming an ice cream or a milkshake can be an alternative to a midday meal,” the guide suggested.

Speaking of sweet treats to cool down, Sicilian granita is a semi-frozen dessert similar to a slush, but with fresh ingredients and a more crystalline texture. Originating on the Italian island, but now found everywhere in Italy, popular flavors of granita include lemon and strawberry. In Rome, grattachecca (shaved ice) is king come the summer months. Vendors manually shave ice off of a block and into a cup. The ice is then drenched with flavored syrups, making for a perfect Roman summer street food.

Coffee doesn’t have to be a complete no-go either. There are plenty of cold coffee options, such as caffè shakerato, a drink made by vigorously shaking coffee with ice and a sweetener in a cocktail shaker, or caffè leccese, a sweet, almond-based coffee from Puglia made by placing almond syrup and ice cubes in a glass and topping them off with espresso.

While mastering the local food and drink menus is a delicious way to stay cool, surviving an Italian summer also requires a bit of structural strategy. Wherever you are staying or plan to eat, make sure you call before you book to inquire about whether they have air conditioning. The reason it is not a given in Italy is a somewhat unique belief called colpo d’aria (hit of air). According to Italian lore, a sudden exposure to a cold draft while you’re hot is believed to cause neck aches, stomach cramps, earaches, and headaches. Fortunately, recent market data shows unit sales have increased by 16 percent since last year, providing a glimmer of hope that this attitude is changing given the heat waves.

If you find yourself AC-less, the shutters found on the facades of all Italian residential properties can provide much-needed respite. Do as Italians do and keep them closed during the morning to stop the sunlight from getting in and warming up your hotel room.

The boiling weather doesn’t necessarily mean you have to skimp on major landmarks, either—it just means you may have to switch it up. If you fully intend to brave the heat between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., make sure you get tickets in advance to avoid queuing for hours in the blistering sun.

More importantly, make sure your midday landmarks are indoors; standing in the center of the Colosseum at noon during a heat wave is a surefire way to ruin your day. But Italy has plenty of crisp indoor sights to see, such as art galleries and museums, catacombs, and stone churches filled with art.

Taking a stroll (passeggiata) and sightseeing at night is also just as nice as doing it in the day. You’ll probably meet more locals along the way too, as they seldom step out when it is boiling. During summer, main attractions stay open until 7 p.m., and even offer exclusive night openings; after-hours entry at the Vatican or visiting the Colosseum by moonlight allow you to see world-class history under the stars.

And remember, Italy is more than its cities. With tourists never being too far from a beach or hills, and train travel being cheap (and air-conditioned!), holidaymakers can always substitute a day wandering around cobblestoned streets for white sands or grassy paths to keep out of the humidity. By learning to adjust your clock, leaning into the art of the pranzi freddi, and treating the midday heat as an excuse for an extra gelato, you won’t just survive the intense Mediterranean summer, you will get to experience Italy in a safer way, exactly the way the locals have become accustomed to.

Could destroy ecosystems Indigenous communities hold sacred.

Trump’s “America First” Fishing Policy Is a Recipe for Plunder

Opening protected areas to industrial fishing could destroy ecosystems Indigenous communities hold sacred.

Ayurella Horn-Muller and Anita Hofschneider

When Kekuewa Kikiloi boarded a research vessel to visit the northwestern Hawaiian islands in 2002, he didn’t know what to expect. Kikiloi grew up on O‘ahu, but like a lot of Native Hawaiians, he had never had the opportunity to visit the uninhabited islands and atolls scattered to the west of the main islands. 

What he saw changed his life. “There’s no places left in Hawai‘i, or very few places, where the environment is so wild and intact that you have your ancestors who are embodied in the environment communicating with you every second: birds hovering over you, monk seals swimming up to you, fish trying to bite you,” he told Grist. “It’s so raw, the experience up there.”

The trip, a monthlong research expedition with scientists and Native Hawaiians, sparked decades of advocacy within the Hawaiian community for the protection of the Papahānaumokuākea. “It ended up being this amazing journey of rediscovery for a lot of us. When we came back to the main Hawaiian islands, we started telling the community about how thereʻs a whole other side of our house that we didnʻt know about. We have to know about this place,” Kikiloi said. That support helped establish Papahānaumokuākea as both a marine sanctuary and a marine national monument. 

Now Kikiloi is worried those protections are under threat. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued an executive proclamation to allow commercial fishing in parts of three national marine monuments in Hawai‘i, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI): the Mau and Ho‘omalu Zones of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, and the Islands Unit of the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument. Collectively, the areas under the proclamation span roughly half a million square miles in the Pacific Ocean and are home to thousands of plant and animal species in some of the planet’s most ecologically sensitive habitats.  

The proclamation is Trump’s latest attempt to dismantle conservation guardrails for industrial fishing. Last April, the president signed a proclamation to open over 400,000 square miles of the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument to commercial fishing. He also issued an executive order intended to boost domestic seafood production, and his administration has continued to increase several fishery quotas. Then, this February, Trump signed another proclamation removing commercial fishing from the prohibited activities in two national monuments in the Atlantic. 

“AMERICA FIRST FISHING POLICY,” the White House posted on Facebook after this month’s proclamation. “MASSIVE WIN FOR AMERICA’S FISHERMEN!” During the signing in the Oval Office, Trump himself promised the move would generate “millions and millions of dollars in new business for our great, really great fishermen” and lower seafood costs. 

Rep. Kimberlyn King-Hinds, the sole congressional representative from the CNMI, attended the signing and said in a press release that she hopes the federal government will work with local officials and communities to implement the directive and that it creates jobs. “For the CNMI, ocean policy is local policy,” she said. “If American fishing activity grows in these waters, our goal should be to connect that activity to local jobs, local businesses, port activity, seafood infrastructure, and long-term food security for the Commonwealth.”

Numerous commercial fishers and groups have also hailed the president’s move to roll back the restrictions in areas such as Papahānaumokuākea. “We need to eat fish caught by our fishermen who follow US laws,” Kitty Simonds, executive director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, told Grist. Eric Kingma, executive director of the Hawai‘i Longliners Association, told Honolulu Civil Beat that he welcomed a review from the federal government “guided by sound science” on the scientific, economic, and cultural significance of the area, as well as management decisions that support “the long-term viability of Hawai‘i’s longline fleet.” After Trump signed the first commercial fishing proclamation last April, Kingma argued that ocean conservation and commercial fisheries can be compatible. “What we like about opening these up is the opportunity to fish there when the fish are there,” Kingma said at the time. 

But the administration’s strategy for boosting America’s $319 billion-dollar fishing sector has been riddled with unresolved legal questions.

In spring of last year, just days after the president’s April 2025 proclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, known as NOAA Fisheries, announced in a letter to permit holders it had reopened commercial fishing in the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument. That ban was lifted for nearly four months, until last August, when a federal district judge ruled, in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice, that the move violated the federal rulemaking process. 

Earthjustice attorney David Henkin believes that the lawsuit, which he led, may have prompted the administration to change its strategy for revising industrial fishing regulations. This shift became evident when, after the president’s Atlantic Ocean proclamation earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries went through the formal rulemaking process to change the regulation that previously banned commercial fishing in those monuments.

Still, there is another, more fundamental legal question that Henkin says remains open. Though Congress has absolute authority over the use and management of federal lands and waters, the Antiquities Act of 1906 also gave the president the authority to designate certain federal water and lands containing scientific, historic, or cultural resources as protected monuments. No federal court has yet ruled whether the Antiquities Act allows a president to undo a national monument or their protections, though several cases are pending. Earthjustice is again preparing to challenge the administration in court. “It’s anyone’s guess what these folks are going to do, other than play fast and loose with the law,” said Henkin. 

Opening these areas to commercial fishing has the additional effect of edging out traditional Indigenous fishers, who not only tend to practice smaller-scale, more sustainable fishing, but are also largely exempt from the commercial fishing bans in protected waters. Indigenous fishers, for instance, still retained the right to subsistence fish under the protections Trump just stripped back within the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument.

“If anyone gains to benefit from this, it’s not going to be the traditional Indigenous communities,” said Steven Mana‘oakamai Johnson, Kanaka Maoli from the island of Saipan and an assistant professor at Cornell University. “It’s going to be businesses, corporations, and those who have these larger vessels.” 

Even in American Samoa—where tuna is the biggest export and support for commercial fishing is widespread—some are questioning the expansiveness of Trump’s latest proclamation and its effect on Indigenous peoples. A year ago, congresswoman Uifa’atali Amata from American Samoa said of the Pacific marine monuments, “Neither presidents Bush, Obama, or Biden ever asked American Samoa what they wanted before they took away our Indigenous fishing rights without any science.” But now Amata is concerned about how fishing around Rose Atoll could also infringe on Indigenous rights. “Amata remains convinced that Rose Atoll should be off limits, her longstanding position, especially as she respects the cultural rights of the people of Manu‘a,” her office said in a press release. 

Camilo Mora, a scientist at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, challenges the administration’s argument that deregulation will create jobs and strengthen the fishing sector. Mora has long studied the relationship between biodiversity, fisheries, and the global food system, and argues any short-term economic benefits of the move will be offset by the long-term ecosystem losses. Most US waters, in any case, are already open to commercial fishing—highly protected areas where all extractive activity is banned make up about 3 percent. 

Papahānaumokuākea, for one example, is one of the largest marine protected areas in the world and is a refuge for rare and ecologically significant species. The Hawaiian monk seal, humpback whales, and green sea turtles are among the more than 7,000 species found there, many of which are critically endangered. Opening up the Mau and Ho‘omalu zones of the area to commercial fishing, Mora warns, could trigger a trophic cascade—when a change in the top predator’s population or behavior ripples throughout the food chain—that will then drive “all of these populations to collapse.” 

“We are destroying the capacity of the oceans to make the food we need,” said Mora.

For Kikiloi in Hawai‘i, what’s at stake is not just food—it’s the ability for Indigenous people in Hawai‘i to stay connected to their ancestors. He’s not surprised that scientists like Mora have found some of the oldest living corals on Earth in Papahānaumokuākea, because Hawaiian oral histories describe it as the place where life began. “It’s the place where our souls return to after death,” he said. “It’s hard to exist as Hawaiians nowadays if every aspect of your environment is degraded.”