A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



August 13, 2025

Nazi gets booed...... Nazi has no words...

Frustrated residents boo Calif. Republican at latest town hall

After months, the conservative congressman finally met with constituents. Many expressed their disapproval.

By Anabel Sosa

Rep. Doug LaMalfa, California’s second-longest tenured Republican congressman, held his first public appearance since Donald Trump’s second term began at two long-awaited town halls in Chico and Red Bluff on Monday. LaMalfa represents a district with a solid Republican majority; however, the reception he received at the town halls was anything but welcome.

The House Republican has represented the Northern California district since 2013, where he enjoys a safe red pocket for Republicans, given its significant registration advantage year after year for almost two decades. While many Democratic think tanks are fixated on several Republican districts, LaMalfa’s district has not been a point of focus for them as much as other districts, including those of Reps. Young Kim, David Valadao and Ken Calvert, which are considered more competitive.

Yet on Monday, LaMalfa struggled to get a word in. The town hall comes on the heels of a high-stakes summer session for Congress. Frustrated residents shouted over the seven-time elected congressman as he attempted to defend cuts to Medicaid and the social safety net, among other policies imposed under Trump’s highly contested budget bill.

LaMalfa spoke to a crowd of around 800 attendees at Chico Elks Lodge on Monday morning and again in the evening to a smaller, reportedly less rowdy crowd at a community center in Red Bluff, a city north of Chico with a population of less than 15,000 people. 

Members of the crowd in Chico, captured in recorded footage, could be seen holding up red and green colored pieces of paper, which are often used in town halls to signal signs of support or disagreement when someone is speaking.

When LaMalfa spoke, some attendees began booing the congressman, waving red pieces of paper and shouting, “You need to be impeached.” 

In response, LaMalfa said, “Put that finger down, that’s really immature.” 

LaMalfa’s staff was anticipating a strong reaction from Democrats, whom they blamed for the uproar. Butte County, home to Chico, has the largest number of registered Democrats in California’s 1st Congressional District, with about 42,500 registered Democrats, according to February registration data. Despite this, LaMalfa continues to appeal to the Republican majority, which makes up about 45% of registered voters in the district compared to about 27% of total registered Democrats.

“The democrat response was expected and unsurprising,” said Mark Spannagel, the chief of staff for LaMalfa, in an email to SFGATE. 

Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, warning signs of red districts flipping blue in next year’s midterm elections have been surfacing, as residents continue to express increasing concerns about federal cuts. While LaMalfa’s district is considered a safe Republican district, all eyes are on Republican-held districts where even conservative voters could turn against the party at the ballot box in 2026, as they face the brunt of cuts to social services. 

LaMalfa hosts town halls every year, typically in August, September and October. Monday’s gatherings were among the first of five he plans to host this week, Spannagel confirmed, without disclosing their locations. Only local media will be granted access, he said. 

At Monday’s town hall in Chico, the congressman’s comments on the Texas and California redistricting efforts were barely audible over the shouts from the crowd. “No matter which side of the aisle you’re on, it doesn’t look good,” LaMalfa said at one point, as someone in the audience could be heard shouting, “Blah, blah, blah.” 

One woman, who introduced herself as a Chico city councilmember, urged elected representatives to be as public-facing as possible. She said that the less frequently town halls are held, “the harder it will be to facilitate effective conversations.” The crowd cheered.

When another woman spoke, referring to the GOP budget bill as the “big bulls—t bill,” the congressman leaned into the microphone to say, “Watch your language.” That immediately incited an uproar of anger from the crowd, who continued to shout profanities toward the stage. Soon after, LaMalfa attempted to place blame on Gov. Gavin Newsom for the state’s immigration woes, to which members of the crowd responded, “Liar!”

The commotion settled down when a man shared his personal experiences as a veteran struggling to receive health care. LaMalfa acknowledged the limited access and understaffing for the Department of Veterans Affairs but did not admit that funding is being cut. 

LaMalfa “did not expect democrats to boo and cuss at our local veterans posting the flag, doing the flag salute, or leading the invocation,” Spannagel said, adding that “they owe the VFW [the Veterans of Foreign Wars] an apology.”

Constituents asked LaMalfa about the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, a controversy that has involved public speculation about whether President Donald Trump was at any point involved in the child sex trafficking scheme. LaMalfa said it was a “bad look” to have those files be “suppressed.”

Regarding tariffs, the congressman said he hopes they “can end soon … I want to believe at some point we’ll end up with very low or zero tariffs with all these countries,” KCRA-TV reported. He also signaled disapproval for Texas’s redistricting efforts, saying it would start a “grass fire all across the country.”

Go ahead and stick your head in the ice, it will melt soon........

A glacier outburst is underway in Alaska. It’s sending a surge of water downstream toward Juneau

By Mary Gilbert, Amanda Musa

A wave of water gushing out of an Alaskan glacial lake is causing a river to surge to a record level and is threatening significant flooding in the state capital of Juneau for the third consecutive August.

“A glacial outburst has occurred at Suicide Basin. The basin is releasing and flooding is expected along Mendenhall Lake and River,” Juneau officials said in a Tuesday news release. “Officials recommend residents in the 17ft lake level inundation zone evacuate the area until the flood waters recede.”

Suicide Basin is a glacial lake attached to the Mendenhall Glacier that runs up against the western portion of Juneau, about 10 miles from the city’s center. The basin formed as parts of its glacier melted and retreated and now acts like a giant bucket, filling up with rain, snow and ice that slowly melts over the summer.

Eventually, Suicide Basin gets so full that it escapes the surrounding ice of the Mendenhall Glacier. When that happens, water gushes out into the nearby Mendenhall Lake and eventually surges down the river.

The Mendenhall River, which flows along the west side of the city, eclipsed its previous record high level of 15.99 feet Wednesday morning after rising more than 7 feet since the National Weather Service issued the first flood warning for the area Tuesday morning.

It’s expected to crest at around 16.7 feet sometime Wednesday morning, well above the previous record crest set just last August.

“Please stay away from the river. This is a very dangerous situation, if you get in that river, you’re not going to come out,” meteorologist Andrew Park with the weather service in Juneau warned Wednesday morning, noting there’s a lot of debris – including trees – in the river.

Waters rose quickly after the glacial outburst began late Tuesday morning. Significant flooding was reported in the Mendenhall Lake that evening, with more than three feet of water gathering in some areas, according to the weather service.

Last year’s glacier outburst caused the river to surge to 15.99 feet, unleashing destructive flooding in Juneau that impacted more than 100 homes. City officials characterized the flood severity as “unprecedented.” The river level in 2024 topped the one reached during 2023’s early August glacial flood by a full foot.

Officials urged residents to prepare

Juneau installed a flood barrier along the area that was inundated in 2024, a city spokesperson told CNN. There are roughly 1,000 residents and businesses in that part of the city.

Water was seeping through some of the barriers, but they had not been breeched, according to a Wednesday morning update from the city.

Officials urged everyone in the inundation area to evacuate Tuesday night. “Don’t wait, Evacuate TONIGHT,” the city said in a Facebook post.

Despite the stark wording, there were no mandatory evacuation orders in effect Wednesday morning, a Juneau city spokesperson confirmed Wednesday.

“This is likely to become a life-threatening situation. If you are told to evacuate, stop what you are doing and immediately go to an emergency shelter or another safe location,” said Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski in an X post Tuesday.

On Sunday, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued a preemptive disaster declaration to better streamline emergency response efforts to the outburst.

“By issuing this declaration before the flood occurs, we can position state resources and personnel in advance to support local and tribal governments in their efforts to protect lives, homes, and essential services,” Dunleavy said in a statement. “Our goal is to act early to reduce impacts and preserve community safety.”

The capital of Alaska, Juneau has a population of about 33,000, according to the the US Census Bureau. The city is surrounded by coastal waters to the west and south.

They are yet another consequence of climate change due to fossil fuel pollution. The Arctic, including Alaska, is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet as global temperatures rise.

This is causing glaciers, like these in Alaska, to thin or melt altogether.

Mountains are among the planet’s most beautiful places. They’re also becoming the deadliest

Rising temperatures have severely reduced the expanse of the Mendenhall Glacier and its Suicide Basin, creating the annual glacial lake outburst hazard as ice gets replaced by liquid water and rises closer and closer to that “bathtub” edge throughout the summer.

Studies in recent years have shown that between 10 and 15 million people globally are exposed to impacts of glacial lake outburst flooding like what’s unfolding in Juneau.

Glaciers are melting and losing mass globally at an increasingly rapid rate as the world warms, producing more and larger glacial lakes, a 2024 study found. The uptick in number and size of glacial lakes is expected to increase the frequency of outburst flooding events in the future.

Build a kill switch............

The ‘godfather of AI’ reveals the only way humanity can survive superintelligent AI

By Matt Egan

Geoffrey Hinton, known as the “godfather of AI,” fears the technology he helped build could wipe out humanity — and “tech bros” are taking the wrong approach to stop it.

Hinton, a Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist and a former Google executive, has warned in the past that there is a 10% to 20% chance that AI wipes out humans. On Tuesday, he expressed doubts about how tech companies are trying to ensure humans remain “dominant” over “submissive” AI systems.

“That’s not going to work. They’re going to be much smarter than us. They’re going to have all sorts of ways to get around that,” Hinton said at Ai4, an industry conference in Las Vegas.

In the future, Hinton warned, AI systems might be able to control humans just as easily as an adult can bribe 3-year-old with candy. This year has already seen examples of AI systems willing to deceive, cheat and steal to achieve their goals. For example, to avoid being replaced, one AI model tried to blackmail an engineer about an affair it learned about in an email.

Instead of forcing AI to submit to humans, Hinton presented an intriguing solution: building “maternal instincts” into AI models, so “they really care about people” even once the technology becomes more powerful and smarter than humans.

AI systems “will very quickly develop two subgoals, if they’re smart: One is to stay alive… (and) the other subgoal is to get more control,” Hinton said. “There is good reason to believe that any kind of agentic AI will try to stay alive.”

That’s why it is important to foster a sense of compassion for people, Hinton argued. At the conference, he noted that mothers have instincts and social pressure to care for their babies.

“The right model is the only model we have of a more intelligent thing being controlled by a less intelligent thing, which is a mother being controlled by her baby,” Hinton said.

‘The only good outcome’

Hinton said it’s not clear to him exactly how that can be done technically but stressed it’s critical researchers work on it.

“That’s the only good outcome. If it’s not going to parent me, it’s going to replace me,” he said. “These super-intelligent caring AI mothers, most of them won’t want to get rid of the maternal instinct because they don’t want us to die.”

Hinton is known for his pioneering work on neural networks, which helped pave the way to today’s AI boom. In 2023, he stepped down from Google and started speaking out about the dangers of AI.

Emmett Shear, who briefly served as interim CEO of ChatGPT owner OpenAI, said he’s not surprised that some AI systems have tried to blackmail humans or bypass shutdown orders.

“This keeps happening. This is not going to stop happening,” Shear, the CEO of AI alignment startup Softmax, said at the Ai4 conference. “AIs today are relatively weak, but they’re getting stronger really fast.”

Shear said that rather than trying to instill human values into AI systems, a smarter approach would be to forge collaborative relationships between humans and AI.

AI is accelerating faster than expected

Many experts believe AIs will achieve superintelligence, also known as artificial general intelligence, or AGI, in the coming years.

Hinton said he used to think it could take 30 years to 50 years to achieve AGI but now sees this moment coming sooner.

“A reasonable bet is sometime between five and 20 years,” he said.

While Hinton remains concerned about what could go wrong with AI, he is hopeful the technology will pave the way to medical breakthroughs.

“We’re going to see radical new drugs. We are going to get much better cancer treatment than the present,” he said. For instance, he said AI will help doctors comb through and correlate the vast amounts of data produced by MRI and CT scans.

However, Hinton does not believe AI will help humans achieve immortality.

“I don’t believe we’ll live forever,” Hinton said. “I think living forever would be a big mistake. Do you want the world run by 200-year-old white men?”

Asked if there’s anything he would have done differently in his career if he knew how fast AI would accelerate, Hinton said he regrets solely focusing on getting AI to work.

“I wish I’d thought about safety issues, too,” he said.

Refuses to cede Donbas

Zelensky refuses to cede Donbas, says doing so would give Putin ‘springboard’ for future offensives

By Victoria Butenko and Lauren Kent

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky vowed on Tuesday not to give eastern Ukrainian land to Russia, saying that abandoning the Donbas region would open the door for Russian President Vladimir Putin to “start a third war” in Ukraine.

Zelensky’s warning comes ahead of Putin’s meeting with US President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday, where the Russian president is expected to demand Ukrainian land as part of a peace deal.

While there is confusion over Putin’s reported conditions for a ceasefire, most versions stress that the Russian president will demand that Ukrainian forces withdraw from all parts of Ukraine’s Donbas, which includes parts of the Donetsk region it still holds.

“For the Russians, Donbas is a springboard for a future new offensive. If we leave Donbas of our own accord or under pressure, we will start a third war,” Zelensky said in a meeting with journalists. Russia illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014, and went on to launch its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

“I am not going to surrender my country because I have no right to do so,” he added. “If we leave Donbas today, our fortifications, our terrain, the heights we control, we will clearly open a bridgehead for the preparation of a Russian offensive.”

Zelensky and Ukrainian military officials have warned that Russia is building up troops for a new offensive, ready to launch by September.

“I haven’t heard anything — not a single proposal that would guarantee that a new war won’t start tomorrow and that Putin won’t try to occupy at least Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv,” the Ukrainian president told reporters.

“The exchange of territories is a very complex issue that cannot be separated from security guarantees for Ukraine, for our sovereign state and our people,” Zelensky added, noting that the European Union’s involvement in peace talks is also crucial because “no one except Europe is giving us security guarantees.”

A conversation between the US, Ukraine and “all of Europe” will take place on Wednesday, according to the Ukrainian president.

Trump has signaled Zelensky would not participate in Friday’s summit, though the US president previewed his plans to phone Kyiv immediately after the meeting, along with other European leaders, to brief them.

Trump said his goal is ultimately to get Putin and Zelensky in the same room to hash out their differences, and surmised only they would be able to find a way to end the war with some “land swapping” between them.

“I’m not going to make a deal,” Trump said. “It’s not up to me to make a deal. I think a deal should be made for both.”

The White House on Tuesday characterized the upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin in Anchorage as a “listening exercise.”

“Only one party that’s involved in this war is going to be present, and so this is for the president to go and to get, again, a more firm and better understanding of how we can hopefully bring this war to an end,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

Asked by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins whether the two presidents would meet one-on-one, Leavitt said that is “part of the plan.”

Zelensky also gave further details on Tuesday about the diplomatic talks that have been taking place behind the scenes, as well as his take on the outcome of US special envoy Steve Witkoff’s meeting with Putin.

“Witkoff said that there should be territorial concessions on both sides. That’s how it sounded. And that Putin probably wants us to leave Donbas. So it didn’t sound like America wants us to leave,” Zelensky said. “I do not believe that Putin’s proposal is Trump’s proposal. I believe that Trump represents the United States of America. He acts as a mediator, he is in the middle – not on Russia’s side.”

Completely unqualified stooge from the disgusting Heritage Foundation

Trump Taps Project 2025 Architect Who Wants to Do Away With the Jobs Report to Run BLS

One economist described EJ Antoni, an economist for the Heritage Foundation, as “completely unqualified.”

Julianne McShane

On Monday night, President Donald Trump announced his new pick to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) after firing the previous commissioner and baselessly alleging that recently released poor jobs numbers were “rigged.”

Trump’s pick for the post is EJ Antoni, a conservative economist at the Heritage Foundation and a longtime critic of the BLS who has suggested doing away with the report that so triggered Trump. “Our Economy is booming, and EJ will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE,” Trump claimed in his Truth Social post announcing he would nominate Antoni for the role.

Economists have called him “completely unqualified,” “an extreme partisan,” and “disastrously terrible.” Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told Axios that Antoni’s work at the Heritage Foundation “frequently included elementary errors or nonsensical choices that all bias his findings in the same partisan direction.”

A look at Antoni’s public statements, writings, and politics suggest that, if confirmed, he will likely help remake the BLS—a wonky, heretofore nonpartisan agency housed within the Department of Labor (DOL)—in Trump’s image.

Last week, Antoni, who is also a senior fellow for the right-wing Committee to Unleash Prosperity, said on Steve Bannon’s podcast that the next BLS commissioner should “be willing to essentially overhaul the entire thing.”

“We need a redo at at BLS, essentially,” Antoni said. He also told Bannon he thinks a MAGA Republican should be running the agency, alleging that the lack of a Trump supporter in a leadership role is “part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems.”

Also last week, in an interview with Fox News, Antoni suggested instead publishing quarterly data. But the monthly data, focused on estimates of employment and earnings nationwide, offers important information on the state of the economy for economists, policymakers, government officials, and employers. In a post on X the same day, Antoni seemingly contradicted himself, calling for the next BLS commissioner to ensure “consistent delivery of accurate data in a timely manner.”

According to his LinkedIn profile, Antoni received a doctorate in economics from Northern Illinois University in 2020. Since then, he has worked as an economist for a handful of right-wing organizations, including the now-defunct FreedomWorks and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, where he currently works, has become best known for compiling Project 2025, the more than 900-page guidebook to a second Trump term. Antoni is listed in the document as one of several hundred contributors who the document says “volunteered their time and effort to assist the authors in the development and writing.”

Project 2025 has some questionable ideas for BLS, including collecting and disseminating monthly “family statistics,” including marriage and fertility rates, and having a congressionally-appointed assistant commissioner for family statistics to oversee this data collection and dissemination. (This would, of course, track with the administration’s pronatalist priorities.) The document also suggests the administration should consider merging BLS with other statistical agencies, including the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which collect and share distinct data. Antoni did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones on Tuesday afternoon, including a question on whether he supports Project 2025’s proposals for the agency or would implement them if confirmed.

Like Trump, Antoni has argued that the BLS revision of May and June jobs numbers to show weaker growth was politically motivated to make Trump look bad, even though such revisions are commonplace as BLS gains more precise data over time as employers complete voluntary surveys. Former government officials, including former BLS Commissioner William Beach, who was appointed by Trump in 2019, also said there was no way that Trump’s allegations of “rigged” data were possible.

Trump and Antoni share many other baseless takes. In his other writings for the Heritage Foundation website, Antoni has alleged Biden’s DOL shared unreliable jobs data, even though there is no evidence to support that. He called criticisms of Trump’s tariffs “overblown and unfounded,” even though major banks have said they create a higher likelihood of recession and economists have estimated they will cost the average US household thousands of dollars per year. He praised the work of DOGE, despite the havoc the DOGE bros wreaked across government. And Antoni has claimed immigrants are stealing jobs from American-born workers and that Trump’s mass deportation policies would raise wages and create more jobs, even though experts say they will tank the GDP and decimate industries including agriculture, health care, and construction, as my colleague Isabela Dias previously reported.

The Senate will need to confirm Antoni’s nomination in order for him to formally assume the post. And if he does, he will have his work cut out for him: Several of the agency’s top roles are vacant, and the White House budget seeks to cut its funding by $56 million.

Have Anti-Abortion Records

Half of Trump’s Judicial Nominees Have Anti-Abortion Records

Trump is quietly packing the federal courts with abortion opponents.

Julianne McShane

During his campaign for a second term in office, President Donald Trump claimed that he would leave abortion “to the states” if reelected.

Trump has, in fact, managed to quietly shape the national abortion politics in his second term. According to a new analysis from the Associated Press, roughly half of Trump’s nominees to the federal judiciary thus far have records of being openly anti-abortion or associating with anti-abortion groups.

This is not entirely surprising for anyone who has been paying attention. As my colleague Madison Pauly outlined back in January, packing the federal courts with anti-abortion judges is one of the many insidious measures that reproductive rights advocates warned Trump could take to restrict access to abortion nationwide. But the new analysis from AP reveals the greatest detail to date about the extent of these nominees’ opposition to abortion.

In a statement provided to Mother Jones, Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, called on senators “to defend their constituents’ rights and health care by voting no on the remaining and future anti-abortion nominees.” (Five of Trump’s nominees, including two who the AP found have openly anti-abortion hsitories, have already been confirmed by the Senate.)

At least eight of the 17 nominees Trump has named so far have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanding access, the AP reports.

These nominees include Whitney Hermandorfer, who defended Tennessee’s abortion ban as an attorney representing the state attorney general’s office last year; Jordan Pratt, who argued in support of Florida’s 15-week abortion ban back in 2023, when he was an attorney for the First Liberty Institute, a right-wing Christian legal group; John Guard, who defended the same Florida law as the state’s chief deputy attorney general; and Bill Mercer, a GOP state lawmaker in Montana, who has voted for a variety of anti-abortion bills.

Several of the nominees have also explicitly sought to restrict access to abortion pills, even though more than 100 scientific studies have proven they are safe and effective. Maria Lanahan, who is awaiting confirmation, and Joshua Divine, who has already been sworn in, both, while working in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, co-authored state’s complaint when it intervened in joining a then-pending lawsuit before the Supreme Court asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rescind its approval of abortion pills.

It may be tempting to dismiss these nominees as a small handful of anti-abortion zealots who appear to share the anti-abortion politics of many others in the Trump administration. But as I previously wrote, nominees who secure one of these lifetime appointments wield immense power:

The significance of these lifetime appointments for the future of reproductive rights becomes apparent when you consider Matthew Kacsmaryk. He’s a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas who issued an anti-science ruling [in 2023] that paved the way for anti-abortion activists to bring a case to the Supreme Court challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in a medication abortion.

[In 2024], the Supreme Court sent the case on emergency abortion care back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—a federal court in California with 10 Trump-appointed judges and jurisdiction over more than a dozen district courts in nine states.

As David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University whose scholarly work focuses on abortion access, told me when I wrote that piece last year: “The power of lower court federal judges is immense, because the Supreme Court only deals with such a limited number of cases.”

Reproductive rights advocates said that the nominees’ anti-abortion politics are both unsurprising and deserving of urgent opposition.

“It’s no surprise that Trump is not only continuing to nominate more anti-abortion, anti-democracy extremists, as he did in his first term, but is also ignoring his promise to ‘leave it to the states,’ while lying about a half-baked plan to pay for IVF procedures, a major campaign promise, which has been proven to be nothing more than a hoax to curry favor with single-issue voters,” Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement provided to Mother Jones.

“These nominees have, and will always be, about who will remain loyal to Trump while advancing his agenda to ban abortion nationwide,” Timmaraju added.

It Didn’t Work.

Trump’s Homelessness Crackdown Has Been Tried Before. It Didn’t Work.

On this week’s “More To The Story,” Sam Tsemberis explains how his Housing First approach to homelessness went from receiving bipartisan support to being abandoned by the Trump administration.

Reveal

This week, President Donald Trump announced that his administration will remove homeless encampments from Washington, DC. It came at a press conference in which he declared a public safety emergency in the nation’s capital, despite violent crime numbers hitting a 30-year low. But the announcement also illustrated something else: The way the country approaches homelessness is rapidly changing.

In July, Trump issued an executive order that not only makes it easier for cities and states to eliminate homeless encampments, but also directs authorities to involuntarily commit unhoused people struggling with mental health issues or substance abuse. The policies represent a dramatic shift away from an approach the federal government has used for years called Housing First, an evidence-based program that prioritizes housing over treatment. Sam Tsemberis first developed the Housing First approach in the 1990s. Tsemberis was working as a clinical psychologist in New York City, where he brought people who lived on the streets into hospitals for treatment, often against their will. He soon realized that many of those people ended up back on the streets, seemingly no better off. 

Housing First proved more successful than treatment-first models. It soon became the way cities, states, and the federal government approached homelessness, including the Department of Veterans Affairs, which used Housing First to cut veterans’ homelessness in half over the last 15 years.

But the Trump administration is now abandoning the approach, and Tsemberis says that decision could lead to disastrous consequences for the hundreds of thousands of people who are homeless in America. “People will get discharged from the hospital. They will get released from the jail. And they’ll be back out on the street and the thing will be going in a circle again,” Tsemberis says. “The only way to end homelessness is to provide housing.”

On this week’s More To The Story, Tsemberis sits down with host Al Letson to examine the potential effects of Trump’s executive order, how he developed the Housing First approach decades ago, and whether the US has the necessary values to truly tackle poverty and homelessness.

This following interview was edited for length and clarity. More To The Story transcripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors.

Al Letson: Let’s talk a little bit about how you came up with the idea for the Housing First Program. Exactly what is that and when did it originate?

Sam Tsemberis: The Housing First Program is a program that helps people who are homeless and have mental health, and addiction problems, and often health problems as well. The program originated in response to this era of homelessness. We’ve had homelessness in America at an increasing level for the last 40 years, so this has been around, for some of the people that are listening, I imagine, their entire lives. A whole generation has grown up thinking homelessness is part of the landscape, but homelessness really started in the early ’80s, right after the Reagan administration took office and introduced policies that were supply side economics, they were called. They had this idea about trickle-down theory, give tax breaks to the wealthy and to corporations and they will create jobs for the rest of the population and let’s cut government spending because there isn’t a lot of tax revenue because corporations and very wealthy people aren’t paying taxes so you have to reduce the size of government.

One of the things that they did was they were cut out, essentially cut out the public housing program which was housing for people who needed a rent subsidy. That, very soon, right after that, we began to see people on the streets of every major city in America. That was homelessness, that was disaster. Many of the people looked like they had disabilities, mental health issues, the shelters were filled, and there was a struggle in getting people into housing at that time, because in order to get housed, if you had a mental health or addiction problem, you needed to take care of the mental health issue and the addiction issue before you would get housing. Some people were successful in that, but many tried and couldn’t. Mental illness and addiction are relapsing conditions. You can do okay for a while and then you relapse and it’s back to the start, so there was a growing group that wasn’t managing in the existing system of care in the treatment then housing system. That’s a lot of background to say that we needed a different approach, we needed to do something else, and that’s where Housing First came in.

The Trump administration signed an executive order that will make it easier to remove homeless people from the streets and called for ending support for Housing First policies that don’t promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency. What’s the clash between what they’re doing and what you do?

What they’re doing is they are insisting that people go to treatment or else they get arrested and go to jail. It sounds like they’re doing something. Actually, other than the immediate removal of someone from the street to go to a hospital or to a jail, this is a very expensive and completely ineffective approach to homelessness, because people will get discharged from the hospital, they will get released from the jail, and they’ll be back out on the street and the thing will be in a circle again. This is what it was like in the ’80s when Reagan started all of this, and we had that same cycling. The only way to end homelessness is to provide housing. Unless you provide housing, you’re going to have people going in and out of jail, hospital, shelter, jail, hospital, shelter. They’re saying that they believe in treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency. It absolutely flies in the face of what then they are proposing for their policy. There is no recovery in jail. There is no recovery in a hospital. You’ll take care of an immediate illness, but recovery is a long-term process that requires support in the community.

It feels like their idea of recovery and homelessness is not based on reality, is based on the things that they would like to see. All of us would like to see people who are unhoused and who are having mental challenges get the help that they need and become self-sufficient, but that’s not an easy path. The reality of it is that it takes a while for these things to happen and sometimes you may never get the outcome that you want, but if that’s the case, do you just throw people away because they can’t get to that goal that you have set? That is an unrealistic goal.

What I find amazing about the language in the executive order is that they have taken the very language of Housing First and twisted it into making it sound like this is what they want. Housing First is about treatment, and recovery, and self-sufficiency. That’s what living in an apartment by yourself with supports is all about. They have done the same thing with DEI. They’ve taken diversity and inclusion and made it into discrimination. I mean, there’s a sinister quality to this, like the language choice and calling up-down and left-right, and just confusing people with it. There’s a sort of a sinister quality to it. The thing that is to be determined, I would say, is the extent to which this executive order will actually translate into actual policy. This is an executive order. It’s not the budget for Housing and Urban Development, or Health and Human Services, or the Veterans Administration.

I think where the rubber hits the road on these policies will be determined about where the money is allocated. I mean, are they really going to stop funding housing and rent subsidies? What about the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people now, that are housed and the government is paying rent for them? Are they going to pull those rents? I doubt that that is going to be welcomed even by this party. Taking such a strong stance specifically against Housing First Program reverses the policy that’s been in place for at least the last 10 or 15 years. The question is, will the funding follow the policy? If it does, it would be quite disastrous.

As someone who was around when Ronald Reagan put these policies in place that helped create the homelessness problem we’re seeing today, the ideas of trickle-down economics, are you now feeling a sense of déjà vu watching what the Trump administration is doing on this issue?

Absolutely, a parallel in policy, although I would say that the first version, there was still a veneer of politeness about the things somehow. This is the gloves off and we got to get these people off our street, they’re a hazard to us. Any trace of compassion about people suffering is really gone from this administration’s policy. There’s a punitive tone to getting people out of the citizens’ ways, get people out of parks, get people off the streets, reclaim the cities, which is understandable from the point of view of we’ve had homelessness for a long time and why haven’t we solved it, because I think there is a solution. I have that same frustration. But from that frustration, this administration is going to punitive measures like arresting people or demanding involuntary treatment for people, basically to move them from the streets into jail or hospital as opposed to something more compassionate like help them get housed. It’s cruel.

Do you think that through the eyes of the administration just going off of their policy stances, that they look at poor people, unhoused people, people with mental disabilities as like it’s a moral failing? I.e. like you did something wrong and so now you have to pay the consequences and it’s not on us to fix it.

Yes, that was the policy. I don’t know if you recall, Reagan used to talk about welfare queens and people taking advantage of the system, and then about homelessness, he’s quoted saying that, “Well, some people are just out there by choice,” and always pointing to individual failings, because if you don’t point to individual failings, you have to acknowledge that we have an out-of-control real estate system, that the rents have been increased, and minimum wage has barely increased at all. You have people falling into homelessness all the time not because they’re not working hard. You have people in shelters that are working one or two jobs and can’t get that first month’s rent and first month’s security together.

Everyone is doing the best they can, but the system is stacked up against you if you are not making enough money, if you are a member of a minority group. In every single state that we count homeless people, in every single state, minorities, Blacks, Latinos, or indigenous people are always overrepresented, so these are structural issues that preclude people getting the good jobs, getting into housing, and then you see the representation on the street and you’re blaming the individual for a game that’s stacked against them.

Yeah. Can you give me a sense of how many people are homeless in the U.S. at any given night?

On the last count for 2025, we had about 775,000 people that were homeless on that one night, but it’s a very narrow window. They count in January so all of the northern states are quite cold. I mean, that’s the minimum number, and these are people who are both in shelters and on the streets.

With this new executive order from President Trump, what do you expect to happen to that number?

I think if you remove the funding from housing and put money into going into hospitals or jails, it’s going to be much more expensive and there are going to be many more people homeless.

Let’s talk about that a little bit as in the expense of it, because on the surface, it would seem that they are creating this new path as a way to save on the budget. It’s in the spirit of DOGE and trimming the government down, but you think it’s going to actually cost the government more in the long run.

Well, it costs, on the low side, about 1,500 to $2,000 a day for a hospital bed. If you put someone in a hospital for a month, you have basically spent… Let’s say a $2,000 day, you’ve spent $60,000 for a month of hospitalization, and then at the end of that month, the person is discharged back out into homelessness. For $60,000, you could pay someone’s rent for three or four years depending on where they’re living. This is not saving anyone any money. It’s costing a fortune for these very expensive acute care services and doing nothing about ending the homelessness. Whereas that investment just skip hospitalizing people, skip arresting people, put them right into housing, you would save a lot more money and you would house and end homelessness for a lot more people.

Talk to me about how you got into this work.

Well, I got into this work out of complete frustration and failure in trying to bring people to the hospital, ironically enough, because I thought that was the right thing to do. I was trained as a psychologist, I saw people on the street that had mental illness, and I would try and persuade them that it’s for their own good to go to Bellevue and get some treatment and things will be better, I naively thought. Some people did go, and other people, we actually had to bring involuntarily to the hospital. I was one of those people that worked in one of these involuntary treatment programs that are being proposed now. What I saw both as an experience, but we were also keeping data on it, is that the majority of people ended up returning to the street and actually being more wary of engaging in treatment because it didn’t go well for them that first time. That’s ultimately what got me to thinking, “Hey, we got to do something else, because what we’re doing is not only not effective but it’s actually alienating people.”

We went to the people themselves that were on the street, was very much a ground up kind of a program developed, and we said, “How can we help you?” They said, “Isn’t it obvious? Isn’t it obvious? We need a place to live?” We began to bring people literally from the streets into apartments, and then we had a team of case managers, social workers, psychiatrists, people with lived experience that would make house calls after the person was housed. We thought, “Okay, we had now at least another alternative for those who couldn’t get clean and sober to get into housing.” People got into housing and then they got well, they got better. 80% of the people assigned to Housing First would be housed and stay housed, and about 40% of the people that needed treatment first and then housed would get housed, so we were onto something, I thought, very, very effective.

We published it and then people began to say, “Maybe there’s something to this. We think it’ll work over here, why don’t we try it over here? Would you be willing to come and show us how to do it?” I think the gradual implementation of the programs with the success that it delivered, it began to be more widely accepted.

Here’s what I’m trying to wrap my head around. A decade ago, this approach was widely celebrated and received bipartisan support. The George W. Bush administration was even the first to make it a centerpiece of their federal approach. When did things start to change? What happened?

It was during the first Trump administration. They appointed somebody in what used to be the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness that the Doge people have actually now eliminated as an agency, but that was sort of the federal agency in charge of setting federal policy. The first Trump administration appointed someone that was anti-Housing first. They were saying, “Housing fourth. First is treatment, sobriety, and then employment, and then housing maybe,” but they weren’t in power long enough to actually do anything about it. Project 2025 did a lot of work in between those two terms, and when they hit the ground running this time, it wasn’t housing fourth, it was housing last, and now we have the executive order that says, “Actually, don’t do Housing First at all.”

Housing First definitely has its critics. Homelessness in the U.S. has been rising, some say that Housing First doesn’t adequately address the underlying mental health and addiction issues that often contribute to homelessness. What do you tell people who say this approach doesn’t work?

Homelessness is rising because of the structural factors that contribute to homelessness. The rents are too high and the salaries and the benefits are too low and there’s a racial discrimination. That’s what contributes to homelessness. We have more people falling into homelessness. Every year that we’ve been counting homelessness with a few rare exceptions, the numbers keep going up. Housing First is a program that works for people who are homeless and have mental health and addiction problems. Everywhere where the program is implemented properly, it solves homelessness for 80 or 90% of the people it’s working with. These programs serve a couple of hundred people.

We don’t have a National Housing First Program, but we have a national homeless count, so because the national homeless count is going up does not mean that the hundreds of Housing First Program serving people are not working. They are absolutely working, but we’ve never taken Housing First to a national scale. We’ve never tried to house 770,000 people. Not all of them would need Housing First anyway. Most of the people who are homeless just need a housing voucher, but we’ve never taken Housing First to scale, so to say that it hasn’t solved homelessness is accurate, but…

But it’s also disingenuous.

Totally disingenuous, because it’s never been scaled up to try and solve homelessness. It only solves pockets of homelessness in the cities where it’s tried.

Yeah. You’ve been working on this for a really long time. How does it feel seeing something you’ve developed get dismantled this way?

I haven’t given up that it’s being dismantled actually. But the attack, the attack, I have to say, is completely new, and it’s just such a disservice to homelessness. The irony of it is that Housing First is probably the most successful program that has been used by the two federal agencies that have actually embraced it. HUD and the Veterans Administration have used Housing First over the last 10 years to house veterans that are homeless, and they have reduced veterans’ homelessness by 56%.

Do you think this executive order is going to threaten those programs?

It appears as a threat to all Housing First Programs, and I don’t know exactly how it’s going to be implemented.

Yeah. What are you doing to try and keep your policies, Housing First, in place? Is there anything you can do?

Well, the thing that I think we can do is sort of the same thing we’ve learned from people that were running DEI programs and other programs that have been pushed out by this administration. We are basically providing people with housing and supports. I think that maybe we get less pushback if we say we’re housing people and we’re providing support services for them. You don’t have to call it Housing First, you don’t have to call it anything. You can call it helping people who are homeless.

Yeah. It’s like figuring out ways around the roadblock by not calling attention to it.

Exactly, exactly.

If the Democrats get back in power, what are the moves that you think that they should be taken? I guess the question is that Ronald Reagan was in office for a set amount of time, and when he got out, we never went back to fixing the policies that clearly weren’t working, so what is the work for the next administration that wants to get this right?

I’m not sure that, as a country, we inhabit or embrace the kinds of values it would actually take to fix poverty in this country. If you recall after Reagan, Clinton came in and did away with welfare so that people who are poor have been beaten up on by both parties, because both parties are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum between left and right. I mean, we’re way over on the right now. But even if the usual Democrats get back in, I don’t know that they are willing or able to go back to building public housing, guaranteeing healthcare for all, which are the kinds of things we would need to have to begin to deal with the damage that has been done since Reagan and what this administration will also contribute to significantly. We have to move way over to a much more… A society where we believe that every member of our society needs to be taken care of.

Left Three Communities Hanging

Desperate Towns, Empty Promises: The EV Startup That Left Three Communities Hanging

45,000 jobs, zero progress, and many unanswered questions.

Ames Alexander

They came with promises of transformation: thousands of jobs, surging salaries, and a foothold in the booming electric vehicle market.

Imola Automotive USA, a Boca Raton, Florida-based startup, pitched officials in small, struggling towns in Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arkansas on a bold vision. The company planned to build six EV plants, create 45,000 jobs—and help these impoverished communities secure a place in America’s green future.

But more than 18 months later, the company hasn’t broken ground on a single site. And its top executive—whose background is in television and athletic shoes, not automotive manufacturing—has gone silent.

A Floodlight investigation did not uncover lost taxpayer money in Fort Valley, Georgia; Langston, Oklahoma; or Pine Bluff, Arkansas, where Imola has sought free land, municipal financing, and other incentives for its shifting proposals. 

But an economic development watchdog said the episode illustrates how the frenzy to land electric vehicle jobs can leave economically distressed towns vulnerable to empty promises. 

Imola CEO Rodney Henry declined requests for an interview. He responded to Floodlight’s inquiries with a short statement, insisting the company had not given up on its plans, which have included a partnership with an Italian manufacturer of two-seat electric vehicles. 

“Our timetable has been modified due to matters outside of our control,” Henry said in a statement. “We are highly focused on bringing our goals into alignment. Due to proprietary considerations as well as NDA (nondisclosure) agreements, we are not at liberty to discuss specifics at this juncture.”

That’s a stark shift from the company’s earlier promises. In a press release issued in January 2024, Henry claimed the company had already secured land in multiple states to build half a dozen plants and create tens of thousands of jobs. 

Could someone with no experience in car manufacturing really deliver that?

“It’s ludicrous,” said Greg LeRoy, CEO of Good Jobs First, a nonprofit that tracks and analyzes economic development projects. 

Building large auto plants, he said, requires “a great deal of capital, a great deal of management skill, a great deal of engineering and marketing chops. And obviously, Tesla developed those, but they didn’t do it overnight, right?”

Langston, Fort Valley, and Pine Bluff weren’t the only towns swept up in the competition to attract electric vehicle plants. Spurred by federal policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, which unlocked billions in private investment and expanded government incentives, local officials across the country scrambled to land high-paying manufacturing jobs and a slice of the booming clean energy economy.

Since the IRA passed in 2022, more than 150 EV plants have been announced in the United States, according to E2, a nonpartisan group of business leaders who advocate for economic development good for the environment.

But that rush may be grinding to a halt. The recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which rolls back many federal tax credits and incentives for electric vehicles, is already throwing the EV sector into turmoil—threatening to stall or shrink the kinds of ambitious projects towns like Langston, Fort Valley, and Pine Bluff were counting on. E2 reports that plans for 14 EV-related plants have been canceled this year.

In three towns where Imola pledged massive investment, there’s no sign of construction and little more than confusion.

Langston—a town of 1,600 where more than 35 percent of residents live in poverty—never saw Imola’s plans take shape.

A 2023 letter to the city council from former Imola chief operating officer Eric Pettus stated that the company had run into “multiple obstacles,” including trouble acquiring enough land.

“In order for us to continue moving forward on the project, we are requesting that the City of Langston convey to us any and all vacant properties owned by the city,” Pettus wrote.

Langston City Council member Magnus Scott said the company also asked the town to issue municipal bonds to help them build their plant. 

But before any land changed hands or bonds were issued, a company representative delivered unexpected news: The deal had been canceled. “I guess maybe they ran into financial problems,” Scott said.

Reached by phone, Pettus, of South Florida, said he’s no longer employed by Imola but instead works as a consultant for the company. Citing a nondisclosure agreement, he declined to discuss Imola’s plans.

Fort Valley gave its backing in early 2024 to Imola’s ambitious plan to build an EV plant that would employ 7,500 workers. 

A year later, with no sign of progress on the plant, the company came back to the Georgia town with an entirely different proposal. This time, instead of building an EV plant, they pitched a high-tech lighting system for the town. 

One city council member balked.

“You want us to sign an agreement for 99 years before you bring us the car company,” said council member Laronda Eason, according to minutes of the March 2025 meeting. “It feels like a bait and switch.” 

Eason did not respond to emails and text messages seeking comment on the Imola proposal.

In Pine Bluff, where per capita income last year was just over $21,000, city officials were initially all in. Writing to Henry in August 2024, then-Mayor Shirley Washington said the city of 39,000 stood ready to buy land, build infrastructure, and issue industrial revenue bonds to support Imola’s vision.

“With an anticipated employment base of more than 8,000 jobs,” Washington wrote, “we firmly believe this investment will marshal a pivotal turning point in our community.” 

But a year later, the project hasn’t moved. “We never did get off the ground with that,” Washington said in a brief phone interview.

LeRoy said Imola’s pitch fits a troubling pattern.

“It grabs me as an example of how the craze among governors and mayors to get the next big thing has caused some sloppy vetting,” he said of the struggling communities courted by Imola. 

Such towns, he said, are “easy prey…They’re desperate.”

Henry, who lives in Florida, touts a background as a longtime TV executive producer and the founder of Protégé, an athletic footwear brand. He claims on his IMDB profile that Protégé donated a million pairs of shoes to African nations.

But despite announcements of partnerships and promises of good-paying jobs, his EV company has yet to show any tangible progress. 

Floodlight found the website for Imola—named after the Italian city where Tazzari EVs are made—is no longer accessible without a password. A search of the Tazzari website found no mention of plants in the United States. But a 2024 version of the Imola site mentions the tiny vehicles “coming soon to America.”

In early 2024, Imola Automotive USA and the Tazzari Group—an Italian firm best known for its electric two-seater micro cars—jointly announced plans for a partnership. 

The EVs that Tazzari makes in Italy aren’t designed for highway driving. Top speed on the company’s Opensky Sport model is about 56 miles per hour, while maximum speed on the Opensky Limited is about 37 mph, according to the company’s webpage.

Tazzari didn’t respond to email messages from a Floodlight reporter.

Henry said at that time that the company chose Langston and Fort Valley because of their universities. 

“Both of these locations are ideal,” he said in the January 2024 news release, “as their proximity to communities with institutions of higher learning will allow residents and students career opportunities in the fast-growing EV Technology and Innovation Industry.” 

Many local officials in Fort Valley, Langston, and Pine Bluff did not respond to interview requests. Few documents were provided in response to Floodlight’s public records requests.

But it’s clear from available records that Imola’s promises stirred hope. 

Langston Mayor Michael Boyles called the proposal “transformative” in a January 2024 news release.

But some local leaders soon began to question the details.

Erica Johnson, a real estate agent and former member of Langston’s economic development commission, said parts of the plan didn’t add up. How, for instance, would the company house more than 1,000 workers in such a small town? And how were they going to build such a large plant on land without utilities or water?

Her doubts deepened when she learned that Imola wanted to lock down land agreements without putting up any earnest money.

“My early feeling was, ‘Something is not quite okay with this,’” she said. “But I think the hope for our community kind of outweighed the ability to just take things slow and look at them for where they are and what they are—versus where you hope them to be.”

Eventually, the promise fizzled. 

“It was disappointing,” Johnson said. “We could have had our energy and time focused on something that seemed more valid and more substantial.”

Some residents in Fort Valley are still holding out hope.

Mayor Jeffery Lundy said early last year that it was a “priority for my administration to land a company like Imola Automotive USA.” Local officials, he said, were looking forward to the economic boost the plant would bring.

At the time, Imola claimed it would break ground on a 195-acre site by the third quarter of 2024 and open the plant within 20 months, according to a report in the Macon Telegraph. 

During a February 2024 town hall meeting, Imola officials told residents that the plant would pay employees an average of $45 an hour, according to a Facebook post. Commenters buzzed with excitement, with one writing: “Application me !!!!” 

Pettus told a local TV station that most jobs would require only a high school diploma.

In early 2024, Fort Valley rezoned land to accommodate the plant, and the city council signed off on the deal. But more than 15 months later, there’s still no sign of construction. 

Council members were told that Georgia Power couldn’t provide sufficient power for the EV company, according to minutes of their March 2025 meeting. A spokesman for Georgia Power said that while the utility doesn’t discuss economic development projects, “We’re prepared and ready to meet the energy needs of any new customer.” 

Makita Driver, one of the Facebook commenters who’d voiced excitement about the proposed EV plant, said there’s no doubt she would have applied for one of the jobs there, had the facility ever been built.

“The pay rate was really what got my attention,” she said.

Trapezium


What lies in the heart of Orion? Trapezium: four bright stars, that can be found near the center of this sharp cosmic portrait. Gathered within a region about 1.5 light-years in radius, these stars dominate the core of the dense Orion Nebula Star Cluster. Ultraviolet ionizing radiation from the Trapezium stars, mostly from the brightest star Theta-1 Orionis C powers the complex star forming region's entire visible glow. About three million years old, the Orion Nebula Cluster was even more compact in its younger years and a dynamical study indicates that runaway stellar collisions at an earlier age may have formed a black hole with more than 100 times the mass of the Sun. The presence of a black hole within the cluster could explain the observed high velocities of the Trapezium stars. The Orion Nebula's distance of some 1,500 light-years make it one of the closest candidate black holes to Earth.

America will not last another 10 years........

White House announces Smithsonian review amid Trump’s cultural reckoning

The administration wants the museum system to “celebrate American exceptionalism” and “remove divisive or partisan narratives” ahead of the country’s 250th anniversary.

By Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing

The White House is planning an extensive review into the Smithsonian Institution to ensure that its exhibitions reflect the administration’s view of American history ahead of the country’s 250th birthday — a move that comes amid President Donald Trump’s broader takeover of the nation’s cultural institutions.

In a letter sent to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch and subsequently posted on the White House website on Tuesday, three administration officials outlined areas subject to review and revision in an effort to “reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story.”

“This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,” senior associate staff secretary Lindsey Halligan, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought wrote in the letter.

The review aims to adjust not only the museums’ public exhibitions, planning and curation, but also narrative standards and collection use.

The move is the latest in a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to overhaul how American history and culture is taught and presented in institutions across the country — from universities to museums to Washington’s Kennedy Center for the performing arts.

The letter outlines that within 30 days, eight Smithsonian museums should select a representative to liaise with the administration and provide a list of selected materials for review.

Within 120 days, the museums will have a set window to institute any changes sought by the administration, “replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.”

Still, the administration officials maintained that their goal “is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of curators or staff, but rather to support a broader vision of excellence that highlights historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive portrayals of America’s heritage.”

The initial phase of the project will target the National Museum of American History, National Museum of Natural History, National Museum of African American History and Culture, National Museum of the American Indian, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian American Art Museum, National Portrait Gallery and Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.

The administration officials said the museum network should promote the idea of “Americanism — the people, principles, and progress that define our nation,” in order to “renew the Smithsonian’s role as the world’s leading museum institution.”

“Phase II” of the review will involve an additional list of museums, the letter previewed.

A spokesperson for the Smithsonian did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump has specifically targeted the Smithsonian Institution, singling it out in a March executive order on “restoring truth and sanity to American history.” The president railed against the network of museums, saying it had “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and its various branches “portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”

In an effort to pivot to a more positive retelling of American history, Trump assigned Vice President JD Vance to remove “improper ideology” from the institution’s museums, education centers and zoo — a directive that has involved challenging any language perceived to discuss diversity, equity and inclusion, trans people, or the history of systemic racism in the U.S.

Halligan, an attorney by trade, was also named directly in that executive order to work “in consultation” with Vance.

“I would say that improper ideology would be weaponizing history,” Halligan told The Washington Post in a profile published in April. “We don’t need to overemphasize the negative to teach people that certain aspects of our nation’s history may have been bad.”

Tuesday’s letter is only the latest interference with the institution’s operations and personnel.

Trump in May declared that he was firing Kim Sajet, the longtime director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. While the institution maintained that the president had no authority to remove her, Sajet, who was the first woman to hold the position, stepped down from the role in June.

Earlier this month, the Smithsonian said it had removed a reference to Trump’s 2019 and 2021 impeachments from one of its exhibits. The institution denied that the decision was in response to pressure from the administration, and later restored a version of the exhibit.

California's emissions rules

Another one of California's Trump-proofing planks just broke

The FTC is cancelling the trucking industry's agreement to abide by California's emissions rules.

By Alex Nieves

The Trump administration is taking away California’s backstop Trump-proofing tactic.

The Federal Trade Commission announced an agreement with four heavy-duty truck manufacturers and their trade association on Tuesday, declaring California’s agreement with them to continue meeting the state’s zero-emission sales targets “unenforceable.”

With that, the Trump administration has kicked out one of the last remaining legs in California’s strategy to protect its nation-leading climate regulations — its voluntary deals with industry.

“The Commission’s swift action will put the Clean Truck Partnership squarely in the rearview mirror and prevent repeats of CARB’s troubling regulatory gambit,” Taylor Hoogendoorn, the deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said in a statement.

To recap: The California Air Resources Board signed a deal in 2023 with nine truck manufacturers to abide by California’s rules “regardless of whether any other entity challenges California’s authority to set more stringent emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act” — i.e., in case President Donald Trump returned to power and tried to dismantle the state’s special authority to set stricter-than-federal vehicle rules, as he did during his first term (and as he did again in June).

On Monday, prior to the FTC’s announcement, the companies (“original equipment manufacturers,” or “OEMs” in industry parlance) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Sacramento, arguing that they didn’t foresee this particular regulatory twist.

“The OEMs are in an impossible position,” Daimler, Volvo, International Motors and PACCAR argued in Monday’s suit. “The OEMs are subject to two sovereigns whose regulatory requirements are irreconcilable and who are openly hostile to one another. Each wields a hammer to enforce its will on industry, leaving OEMs — who simply seek to sell heavy-duty trucks in compliance with the law — unable to plan with the necessary certainty and clarity where their products need to be certified for sale and by which regulatory authority.”

Environmentalists say that argument, which came just days after the U.S. Justice Department sent a cease-and-desist letter to CARB, doesn’t pass the smell test.

“The Clean Truck Partnership was designed exactly for a moment like this,” said Adam Zuckerman, senior clean vehicles campaigner with Public Citizen’s Climate Program.

CARB declined to comment on the litigation or the FTC’s move. But a former CARB official who helped negotiate the 2023 deal said it represents a significant softening of California’s regulatory hammer, especially after the loss of its EV sales mandate for light-duty vehicles.

“It’s bad,” former CARB deputy executive officer Craig Segall said about the potential impacts to the state’s pollution-reduction efforts. “They’re still going to sell some electric trucks, but it’s somewhere between bupkis and inadequate.”

It’s unclear how the other companies that signed on to the deal — including Cummins, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis — will react after not joining the lawsuit or being named in the FTC announcement. A spokesperson for Hino Motors declined to comment, while the other companies didn’t respond immediately to requests for comment. The Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, which joined the FTC agreement but not the lawsuit, also didn’t respond.

California still has one of the companies on its side, at least in the light-duty sector. Stellantis, which inked a deal last year to follow the state’s EV sales rules even if they went away, reaffirmed its commitment in June after Trump signed a resolution revoking the EPA waiver California needs to enforce it.

Segall argued that the four truck makers’ retreat from their ZEV commitments won’t stop a long-term global trend towards zero-emission models that will benefit California. He said the state still has tools at its disposal, like offering incentives for companies and fleets that buy electric trucks, and excluding those who don’t.

“It’s not like there’s any statute making California buy from these [companies], or any statute requiring it to provide particular incentives to them,” Segall said.

California could put that plan into action soon. State agencies are supposed to deliver recommendations for bolstering the EV market to Newsom’s office this week, after the governor signed a June executive order that directed CARB to start developing new regulations and suggested the state offer preferential treatment to companies that continue to work towards electrification goals.

The "Bro" world......

‘My Life Became a Living Hell’: One Woman’s Career in Delta Force, the Army’s Most Elite Unit

Courtney Williams wanted to serve her country. What happened next shocked her.

By Seth Harp

Courtney Williams was 24 years old when she learned of an intriguing job opportunity at an unnamed “special mission unit” at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the headquarters of the top secret Joint Special Operations Command. It was 2010, and she was coming off a four-year enlistment in the Army, in which she’d been an interrogator and Arabic linguist but never deployed. She was recruited at a job fair by K2 Solutions, a contractor in Southern Pines, North Carolina run by former members of Delta Force, the Army component of JSOC.

The day of her interview, Williams noticed something unusual. All five women being considered for the job looked exactly like her. “We were all young, petite, attractive, well dressed and blond,” she said. The applicants even had on similar outfits: black pantsuits with blue dress shirts and high heels. “What are the odds?” they asked each other, laughing. At the time, it seemed like a coincidence.

The job opening was in the mission support troop of the intelligence support squadron of Delta Force, a covert commando unit that has been at the bleeding edge of every American war since 2001. Because the job of the MST was to create and maintain fictitious cover identities for Delta Force operators to use on clandestine missions, and because of the widespread perception that most of the troop’s employees were women hired principally for their good looks, everyone in the unit referred to them, informally, as the Cover Girls.

One of Williams’s former colleagues, Esther Licea, said that most MST employees fit a distinct physical profile. “The general type,” she said, “was white, in shape, with blond hair.” In short, “a pretty girl.” Licea herself didn’t fit the mold, being bigger and brown-skinned. She was hired not for her appearance but for certain internet technology skills. Back then, “there were only three Latinas in the whole Building,” she said, using a discreet metonym to refer to the unmarked compound on Fort Bragg that houses the Delta Force headquarters.

I thought of the Cover Girls last year, when President Donald Trump appointed Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense. In his confirmation hearing, Hegseth faced tough questions about his past comments on women in the military. He had previously argued that women should not serve in combat roles, armor units, artillery or special mission units like Delta Force. “We need moms,” he once said. “But not in the military, especially in combat roles.” A National Guard veteran who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, Hegseth has adopted the attitude and style of a heavily tattooed special operator and positioned himself as a fierce defender of the special operations community, an institution ridden with prejudice and violence against women.

I first learned about the Cover Girls in the course of reporting my new book, The Fort Bragg Cartel: Drug Trafficking and Murder in the Special Forces. My investigation began in December 2020, when two veteran special operations soldiers, including an active-duty member of Delta Force named Billy Lavigne, turned up murdered in the woods on Fort Bragg. I soon learned that there had been many more unexplained deaths at Fort Bragg, dozens of fatal overdoses and a pattern of coverups and collusion between military and civilian police. There was even a shadowy drug ring, made up of paratroopers and Green Berets as well as a local cops and marines from Camp Lejeune, that was trafficking hundreds of kilos of cocaine into the United States from Mexico and allegedly smuggling heroin out of Afghanistan. Underlying it all was a cartoonishly macho culture of drinking, drugs, sex and lawlessness.

As the new military leadership scrutinized so-called “DEI” initiatives aimed at gender equity, I thought of the vicious harassment that Williams faced during her eight years at Delta Force. Her story is a cautionary tale for just how bad it can get for female service members and civilian employees in elite units shrouded in secrecy and steeped in privilege and impunity. It is a rebuke to those who believe, wrongly, that the military panders to women and minorities.

Eight years have passed since Williams left Delta Force, but with American-sponsored shadow wars and proxy conflicts raging in places like Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Ukraine and Gaza, the unit’s preeminent role in the new American way of making war is more integral than ever. Things haven’t improved much for women, either. Since Williams left the force, female servicemembers have continued to fear retaliation should they report rape. The phrase “murder-suicide” shows up in news copy all too often, with female servicemembers being killed by their male partners, and male veterans killing their wives and girlfriends.

A spokesperson for the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) declined to comment on Williams’ experience or the broader problems with Delta Force. The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, said in an emailed statement that “the Department applauds all of the work the Special Operations Community does to keep our nation safe. This Department has a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of harassment. Additionally, no matter what skin color our warfighters are, they bleed red. Our nation is grateful to the honorable, upstanding men and women who serve our country.”

It’s not just women who are sidelined and denigrated in this hyper-competitive, ultra-macho environment. Delta Force, which is overwhelmingly male, has plenty of Black and brown men serving as support soldiers. But in Williams’ time, less than one in 100 of the actual operators were nonwhite. “It is very, very, very rare,” said former Fort Bragg paratrooper Jordan Terrell, who felt out of place simply being a Black man in the airborne infantry. The Army as a whole is tremendously diverse, but the infantry is mostly white, the Special Forces is even whiter and Delta Force is the whitest of all. “I could not believe, mathematically,” said Licea, “that there were not more minorities.”

For the most ambitious officers, the high-speed West Point studs looking to rise in the ranks, Delta Force is a steppingstone to the highest echelons of the Army and the Pentagon. “All those unit commanders have their paths laid out for them,” said Licea. “Next stop is probably USASOC. Then MacDill Air Force Base as some sort of SOCOM [United States Special Operations Command] deputy CO,” she said, using an acronym for commanding officer. “Eventually, they all make general.”

In his memoir, former JSOC commander Stanley McChrystal obliquely critiques Army special operators for being excessively tribalistic, insular, strong-willed, opinionated, arrogant and entitled. In a telling passage, he writes of feeling intimidated and eager to make a good impression when he came down from the Pentagon to take command of JSOC. He had risen in the ranks through the 75th Ranger Regiment, not the Delta Force “old boys’ club,” as he calls it, and was susceptible to the pangs of an inferiority complex.

The imprimatur that the unit leaves on top officers is invisible to outsiders, but looking at photos of known ex-commanders, you begin to develop an eye for the signature steely-eyed, square-jawed look of the generals who came up through the Delta Force mafia. You see the physiognomic continuity, too, when you walk down the spine of the building, past portrait after portrait of former commanders in an unbroken sequence that does not include a single Black or brown face. “That makes an impression,” said Williams.

Both women said that the unit was even less tolerant of gays and lesbians, who were not represented even in support roles. At work, Licea heard homophobic slurs uttered “all the time.” There was one longtime contractor rumored to be gay, said Williams, but “he sure as hell wasn’t talking about it.”

Williams’ official job title was “signature reduction specialist.” For a base salary of $80,000 a year, she served as the custodian of a controlled repository of valid but fictitious passports, identity documents and financial instruments, which were issued to operators upon deployment and checked back in when they returned from overseas. “Everything is accountable,” she said. “Whether it’s a passport, driver’s license or credit card, it’s all logged. Sign it out, sign it back in, just like you would a gun or anything else that’s sensitive, so that the backstory stays consistent.”

Williams’ experience on the job provides a unique window into how the military carries out some of America’s most classified national security operations, involving plainclothes troops in civilian guises living undercover in foreign countries, where they abduct or assassinate high-value targets on orders from the White House, or conduct espionage and bugging missions against hostile governments.

The State Department, Social Security Administration, postmaster general, credit card companies and motor vehicle departments of most American states have memorandums of understanding with the military to provide Delta Force with “fully backstopped personas,” said Licea, including real passports and Social Security numbers issued to nonexistent people. These enable operators to travel internationally, disguised as civilians and blending in with the populace, without leaving a digital trail traceable back to an actual person.

“The things you see on TV and think they don’t exist, they really do exist,” said Williams. At first it was “shocking,” she said, to see how the government counterfeited its own instruments for the purposes of international espionage and assassinations. But over time, “it becomes day-to-day life,” she said. “I’ve got to get this guy a driver’s license. Got to get him a Social. New name, new identity, new backstory, new passport. Sitting at your desk doing paperwork.”

Part of her job was to support a compartmented element of the unit called G Squadron, made up of 40 or 50 veteran Delta Force men and a very small number of female operators, the only ones in the unit. “They are the most professional soldiers,” said Williams. “The most well rounded and mature. The top tier of operators.”

G Squadron’s missions are truly covert. They are the blackest of black ops, the dirty deeds that official representatives of the White House, Pentagon and State Department will stand behind a lectern and falsely disavow with the utmost apparent sincerity. “High-level, specialized ‘read ins’ with no ties to the U.S. government,” said Williams, describing a process by which participants are granted access to “sensitive compartmented information,” which involves taking a polygraph, undergoing a background check, signing a nondisclosure agreement and being “read in” or indoctrinated about the specifics of an above-top-secret program.

“We worked with DIA, CIA,” she continued. “All the agencies worked with JSOC together. We’d get executive-level orders from the White House to either collect information or capture a target, or to kill, depending on what the mission was.” She added, “Usually we were going after high-profile targets that nobody knew the American government was after.”

Besides fake identities, it was Williams’ job to maintain the existence of front companies used by G Squadron operatives as “commercial cover” when they deployed on “alias operations,” she said. Her duties included paying rent and utility bills on behalf of spurious business entities used as cutouts, work that often entailed expenditures of her time and taxpayer money that she saw as wasteful. She recalled taking a chartered flight to a small town in Maine simply to check the mail at an empty office. The MST would send people on monthly rotations to a city in Florida merely to be seen walking in and out of a vacant building. They once sent Williams to California with $10,000 in cash to buy a bunch of cell phones straight from the factory — no receipt needed.

Another time, a pipe burst in the untenanted suite of a front company in Washington, causing the landlord to become suspicious because the place flooded and no one was around to open the door. Williams and a co-worker jumped into one of the unit’s brand-new sport-utility trucks and drove at top speed all the way to D.C. to deal with the situation. “Sorry,” they told the incredulous landlord. “Everybody’s away.”

Williams’ time in the unit was a roller-coaster eight years of her life. She was expected to wear a pager at all times and be at the Building within an hour of it going off. She juggled multiple cell phones, and when one would ring, she’d have to remind herself which front company it pertained to, and what role she played in relation to that fictitious entity. “In two seconds,” she said, “you have to swap mentally.” Staffers were routinely dragooned into supporting training exercises, and in airline hijacking scenarios Williams was invariably cast in the part of a damsel in distress. “I got shot a bunch of times in the face with a paintball gun,” she wryly recalled. The operators were forever playing pranks on the Cover Girls, packing their desks with plastic explosives, for example, or coming down from the team bays with savage war dogs straining against their leashes to frighten the women who were afraid of dogs. “It was not a professional environment,” said Williams, and Licea agreed. “Having worked in corporate America prior to going to the unit,” Licea said, “this stuff would never fly. You’d be fired.”

Fat people on the support staff were relentlessly mocked. A soldier of Asian descent was called a “chink” to his face. The boozing in the team bays inevitably degenerated into obstreperous roughhousing. “That’s it, we’re not fucking drinking anymore,” a sergeant major would bellow in frustration. “You guys are out of control.” But the dry spells never lasted long. “It was like they were trying to herd cattle,” said Williams, “or take care of a bunch of children.”

The operators who came down to Williams’ office for paperwork purposes routinely propositioned her for sex. “The comments were just ridiculous,” she said. “Don’t you think your job would be better,” one man said, boldly looking her right in the eyes, “if you were under the desk sucking my dick?” Others massaged her shoulders, took big whiffs of her hair, made comments about the size of her breasts or drunkenly proposed marriage. A besotted sergeant major often seen walking around with a beer in one hand and a tomahawk in the other once punctuated his declarations of affection by hurling his ax into the wall.

On two occasions that both Williams and Licea recalled, aggrieved women came on base and went to the front gate of the unit demanding to speak to the commander. One claimed that an operator had attempted to rape her at his apartment after a date. The other was an operator’s wife who had learned that her husband had married another woman while working under an alias identity in Jordan. On neither occasion did the commander grant an audience. The unit sent counterintelligence personnel to placate the women and pretend that something would be done about their complaints.

“There is zero respect for women in that community,” said Valeria Zavala, a psyops soldier who deployed to Afghanistan with JSOC. “I know this is specifically about Delta Force,” she said, “but it’s like this across the whole of USASOC.”

Some operators, said Williams, “were more mature” and resented the madhouse atmosphere. Ryan Savard, who was killed by machine-gun fire in Kunduz in 2012, was one of them, she recalled. “He’d come down and talk to me about this a lot. He wanted to start a family and be faithful to his wife,” and was annoyed by the unit’s aggressively virile culture of philandering, seduction and conquest.

“‘I’m so frustrated with this fraternity-like mentality,’” she quoted Savard as saying. “But no one in their right mind would choose to leave Delta and go back to the regular Army,” Williams said. “Because at Delta, you didn’t have to be at work at nine. As long as you got your training, paperwork and pre-deployment stuff done, you just showed up whenever the fuck you felt like it. So even if they were sick of the culture, they’d vent to me about it, but they’d rather die than go back to the regular Army.”

One day over lunch in the dining facility, seated across the table from the commander of the intelligence squadron, Williams raised the possibility of deploying with the unit overseas, as support staff often do, and which would have been a boon to her professionally. Her boss’s reaction caught her completely off guard. He started laughing hysterically, hitting the table with his hands. “You’re not hired to be deployed with the operators,” he told her once he’d regained his composure. “You were hired for your assets,” he said, making a hefting gesture at chest level, “and if they want you to deploy with them, it’s because they all want to fucking run a train on you.”

Williams stood up without a word and walked out of the cafeteria. She managed to get into the hallway before the tears began to flow. “It was like everything that I already knew and feared, he just said to my face,” she said. “How I had been made to feel for the whole time that I had been working there. Those were the exact words that he used.”

Previously, the same lieutenant colonel had called Williams into his office for a supposed dress code violation. Concerned that her white pants were transparent, he and the squadron sergeant major had directed her to turn around and bend over to assess whether her underwear could be seen through the fabric. Williams had complied, but got the impression that their real intention was to humiliate her. “So that I could walk out of their office,” she said, “and make them laugh.” Licea learned about the white pants incident afterward and witnessed the interchange in the cafeteria firsthand. I interviewed her separately from Williams, and she confirmed that both of these incidents took place, and that Williams was “unfairly targeted.” But Williams made things worse for herself by never backing down from a conflict, Licea said. As a mellow Southerner whose family comes from a Caribbean island, Licea sympathized with Williams’ plight, but had trouble relating to her acerbic Yankee pugnacity. “A lot of times I felt like telling her, ‘Dude, Courtney, pick your battles,’” she said. “But to Courtney, everything was a battle.”

Williams filed a grievance at the squadron and unit level, but nothing was done. The next time she came up for a performance review, she received a mediocre rating. Now she was really angry. “My work,” she said, “was immaculate.” She appealed the performance review, submitted a complaint with USASOC’s inspector general and eventually filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

“Once she started speaking up,” said Licea, “things kept getting worse and worse for her. They came after her hard.” If Williams were one minute late, she received a counseling statement. If she rushed home to take care of her sick daughter, she was clapped with an AWOL. Then, in 2016, the unit yanked her security clearance on the grounds that her dispute with the leadership made her a security risk. “From that point on,” said Williams, “my life became a living hell.”

Still employed but unable to view classified material, she had to wear a big red badge on her arm and be escorted everywhere in the Building, even to the bathroom. They moved her desk into a cramped storage closet and assigned her the task of proofreading a spreadsheet that contained some 8 million entries. Such drudgery would have driven another person insane, but Williams’ irrational tenacity powered her through the tedious labor for more than a year. “I’m one of those people,” she said. “I’m so fucking stubborn. I was not going to let this happen to me.”

She was never going to win this battle of wills, though. She was up against a force much bigger than herself. Not wanting to get crosswise of the Special Forces command, none of the attorneys in Moore County Williams reached would represent her, forcing her and her husband to burn through their savings on out-of-town lawyers. Then the administrative law judge overseeing the EEOC hearing granted a motion to protect classified information contained in the materials at issue, greatly increasing the cost of continuing to prosecute the case. That ruling is what finally broke her. “I was trapped,” she said. “I’d exhausted everything. I had lost years of my life and was just completely drained.”

Given enough time, anyone who has adverse dealings with an entity like Delta Force will inevitably drift into paranoia. Williams was sitting at a traffic light in Fayetteville when it first occurred to her that she was mired in a rancorous legal dispute with an organization that kills people in secret. The question of whether she was putting her own life at risk necessarily followed. “Am I going to be one of these people,” she asked herself, “who dies in a car crash and it’s not really a car crash?”

Finally, she agreed to sit down to settlement talks. The unit’s lawyers initially offered her pittances in the realm of $5,000 or $10,000, but a changeover in leadership at USASOC in the summer of 2018 resulted in a significantly more amenable offer, a sum sufficient “to buy a small house in North Carolina,” she said. She took the money and was medically retired so that she and her kids didn’t lose their health insurance.