True, this particular moment in the United States of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and Elon Musk probably isn’t the best time for fond callbacks to an era when a rock journalist could flippantly coin the term “Kinderwhore” to describe an interviewee’s aesthetic and not raise an eyebrow. But when Rodrigo was asked to respond to the controversy on The New York Times’ Popcast, she didn’t mince words, pointing out that she’s worn more revealing outfits on stage with less pushback. The outcry, she said, “shows how we just, like, really normalize pedophilia,” adding, “You shouldn’t be responsible for some guy sexualizing you when that was never your intention.”

It was gratifying to hear the confidence in Rodrigo’s voice, along with the irritation of a young woman aware that she’s one outfit away from being deemed a bad role model despite never asking to be any role model. But equally important, Rodrigo contextualized the dress as a nod to the women of an earlier era who inspired her — and who, in their own time, wore similar frocks as a way to confront a pedophilic gaze that’s existed wherever girls have existed, for as long as they have.

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

The babydoll dress has a long and complex history, one that’s been associated with women’s sartorial freedom as much as it’s reified their cultural infantilization. The style had roots in the late 18th century, when France’s Directoire era represented a retreat from gaudy Rococo maximalism and an embrace of clean, froth-free lines. French designer Paul Poiret looked to this history in the early 20th century when he began designing chic, architecturally inspired gowns that required no corsets or petticoats. The babydoll itself debuted in the 1940s as a nightgown whose abbreviated length was the result of war-rationed fabric. Lingerie designer Sylvia Pedlar made the best of it, designing a flared silhouette that fell loosely from the shoulder and stopped just at the thigh.

That said, there’s no avoiding the seamy source of the garment’s name: The 1956 Elia Kazan film “Baby Doll,” in which a virginal 19-year-old woman whiles away the days until she turns 20 and consummates her marriage to an older man. (This involves sleeping, thumb in mouth, in an ornate crib — and yes, it’s a comedy.) The babydoll dress then bounced from this sordid scenario back into fashion innovation: Its silhouette inspired Cristobal Balenciaga’s unexpectedly chic evening take in the late 1950s; not long after, London mothers of Mod like Mary Quant and Biba streamlined the style for the Youthquakers.

Peak Babydoll arrived in the ’90s, when alternative culture broke through to the mainstream, a new feminist subculture called for “Revolution Girl-Style now,” and fashion magazines and mail-order retailers began speaking to teen girls in their own language. The short, kicky dresses that were everywhere in the early ’90s weren’t all one thing, though modern surveys of the time tend to invoke Riot Grrrl and call it a day even though scene icons like Bikini Kill and Huggy Bear favored Mod-ish dresses with a clean-lined primness, a stark contrast to the music’s raw, ragged fury.

And then there was Kinderwhore, the source of a still-contested alt-rock feud. Both Hole’s Courtney Love and Babes in Toyland’s Kat Bjelland claimed to be the first to perform in vintage, threadbare dresses with Peter Pan collars and puff sleeves, accessorized with knee socks and Mary Janes. Either way, the onetime roommates and bandmates pioneered a discomfiting broken-doll aesthetic of smudged eyeliner, smeared lipstick and plastic barrettes clipped to hanks of bleached-out hair.

(Ron Davis/Getty Images) Courtney Love

Pretty wasn’t the point: Kinderwhore’s power was that it stared down the normative fetishization of white innocence and refused to look away: You get off on little girls, sicko? Yeah? F*ck you. As her notoriety grew, Love used her massive platform to clear up any confusion: This was sexualized girlhood as grotesque, she asserted, citing the Bette Davis/Joan Crawford hagsploitation classic “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” as ironic inspiration.

The friend who texted me about Rodrigo’s babydoll dress wasn’t just making light conversation. Born into a nominally liberated time for women, our Gen X girlhood was a specific kind of confusing: Yes, we were weaned on “Free to Be You and Me.” Our Lego sets and footie pajamas were ungendered. Our right to play sports at school was enshrined. But we were constantly reminded that we were also just girls — girls who lacked the power, the vocabulary, and the adult supervision to understand that when we were objectified, we weren’t the ones at fault.

My friend and I were weedy tomboys who wore our brother’s hand-me-down corduroys and sweatshirts, swooned for “The Outsiders,” and snuck cigarettes into movie matinees when you could still smoke indoors. Though we got together only sporadically, it became clear that we were using clothing to hide in very similar ways. I had only one sartorial concern at the time: deflecting male attention whenever possible. It was a largely unconscious reaction to an inappropriate father who had a habit of looking me up and down wolfishly, commenting on my body and those of other women and girls in ways that made me want as many layers of clothing as possible between us. If it was less than two sizes too large, I wasn’t putting it on; if I wore a skirt, it was with jeans underneath it. My friend, who wore bulky sweaters year-round because she was always cold, was in the nascent stages of anorexia and bulimia. Neither of us knew what the other was dealing with until years later, when, as adults, we were able to laugh grimly over our late arrival to a world of clothes that actually fit.

(Gotham/GC Images/Getty Images) Robin Thede

Secretly, though, I loved fashion. My chic, birdlike mother, at one time a department-store buyer, had a wall-sized closet whose mirrored doors slid back to reveal pieces that I would love to have now: Black suede jeans, Norma Kamali knits, wide-collared shirtdresses in wild prints. When I was 17, I started an internship at the now-revered magazine Sassy, where I hoped, also secretly, that I might glean some wardrobe intel from the staff of cool twentysomething women. It was there that I first saw a dress that made me rethink girl clothes: It was a short, sacklike rectangle of crinkly black material printed with ditsy flowers, and it made me pause: I could wear something like that.

I pawed through the outer lands of my mother’s closet before asking if I could alter a navy trapeze-style dress she no longer wore. She was so thrilled by my interest that she would have handed over anything that fit, and I stayed up late hemming the dress by hand. When I wore it later that week to the Sassy office with a pair of men’s oxfords, one of the other interns — the coolest of cool girls, who went on to co-found a cult-favorite fashion label — took in the outfit, bestowing on it an affirming nod before adding a withering remark about my overgrown hair. It was a start.

This last category of ’90s babydoll dresses, the ones that hung on the racks at Express and Rampage and Merry-Go-Round, weren’t Mod, weren’t punk, and weren’t Kinderwhore. They accommodated a range of bodies, skimming over curves and covering cleavage. Their Empire waistlines were more like delineating seams that hit somewhere at the ribcage. The skirts were tiered or flared and, though they stopped a few inches above the knee, wearing black bike shorts was an acknowledged fail-safe, a Spandex barrier against air vents, strong winds, and creeps of all kinds.

(Kevin Winter/GA/The Hollywood Reporter via Getty Images) Chloë Sevigny

I eventually bought a proper babydoll dress and styled it like countless other women on the streets of New York, topped with a denim jacket or mohair grandpa cardigan, with Doc Martens or motorcycle boots below. Toughening up the dress made it feel, to me, like armor: concealing more than it showed, feminine but not obviously sexy. It made me willing to be seen for the first time in years. There’s no garment powerful enough to keep a NYC catcaller from doing his thing, but in that dress, I strode to Sassy’s Times Square offices and my retail job on lower Broadway with something that approached confidence.

“To be cringe about it, the ’90s babydoll dress wasn’t designed for the male gaze,” says my friend Rachel, a keen observer of Gen X fashion then and now. A 1992 fashion spread in Sassy that featured Chloë Sevigny, scouted right off the street by an editor, captured its us-girls magic: In it, she’s wearing bright-red tights, John Fluevog lace-up boots, and a dress resembling a scaled-down circus tent. She’s gorgeous, of course — she’s Chloë Sevigny, and she knows it — but she’s wearing what she wants, rather than what others expect to see.

I rarely talk or write about my experience as a sexualized child, but the way it informed my feelings about fashion is why my friend knew, when she texted me, that I’d go to the symbolic mat for Olivia Rodrigo. I don’t want Rodrigo or anyone else to surrender the babydoll dress because a culture that’s never needed an excuse to objectify girls is concerned that it might objectify girls. Babydoll dresses are not the reason that the full-scale disempowerment of women and girls sits atop a checklist of government priorities. Babydoll dresses didn’t cause the suppression of the Epstein Files or deny justice to his victims. Babydoll dresses aren’t the reason that tech billionaires spend their time devising tools for the express purpose of violating the consent of girls and women on the internet. It may seem like a good time to wave bye-bye to the babydoll. Maybe it is — but I’d argue that it’s an even better time to refuse.

The post In defense of the babydoll dress appeared first on Salon.com.

“I was sitting in the audience and it stung a little bit,” Clark, 33, confessed. “I was sitting there as a woman in her 30s who very much wanted marriage. And I know that there’s a lot of other ladies in this audience who are in the same boat.” She even complained about “right-wing men” who “act like we’re supposed to just I guess live under an overpass and wait for our husband to fall from the sky.”

But even while tacitly admitting Kirk’s scolding was unfair, she still insisted she was grateful for the “fatherly tough love.” (Kirk was younger than Clark, by about 8 months.) “Charlie was trying to wake America up,” she argued, though never quite articulated how.

Clark’s entire speech was a bundle of contradictions. She argued that it’s okay to be single, but then also chastised the audience, “I think we love ourselves a little too much.” She promised that being single isn’t God’s punishment, but then criticized unmarried women for being too picky, adding, “Now ask yourself, would you want to marry you?” At the end of this confusing speech, however, she reassured the audience that all this self-loathing and frustration was worth it.

“I’m engaged!” Clark triumphantly declared. While the audience freaked out with joy, she brought her fiancé, 26-year-old right-wing writer Vance Voetberg, on stage. Although she was dressed in a ruffled, all-white dress, they thankfully did not get married on the spot. Still, Clark waved her ring around while the young audience screamed in their collective hope that all the internalized misogyny would lead to the happy ending they were promised.

Clark is an especially tough case. She’s spent years preaching that Christian chastity and female submission would result in blissful marriage, but as she kept not getting married, her writing and podcasting took on an increasingly desperate tone. The situation got especially ugly a few weeks ago, when Clark had an unhinged, bitter reaction to Alex Cooper, the 31-year-old host of the sex-positive “Call Her Daddy” podcast, announced that she and her husband were having a baby.

“Whores get married first,” Clark griped in a May newsletter. Her language was nasty, but her frustration was somewhat understandable. Her own doctrine, she momentarily admitted, leaves its followers “socially isolated.” Turns out women who shun flirting, having fun with men, or (heaven forbid!) having sex outside of marriage, will find it’s just a lot harder to get dates. Note that when Clark was writing this, she was supposedly in an exclusive relationship with the man she’s going to marry, making this anger-fueled burst of honesty especially odd. By the time the summit came around a couple weeks later, Clark was back on board with the MAGA line: only through self-abnegation can women find their true purpose.

The message of self-loathing for women was carried throughout the San Antonio summit, which drew over 2,000 women, a remarkable turnout for TPUSA, which has been seeing dwindling crowds in recent months. Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, kicked things off with a speech denouncing feminism for teaching women to pursue “self-fulfillment,” which, she argued, is trying to be “like men.” She also coached them to “have more babies than you can afford,” without mentioning that her preferred party, Republican, keeps chipping away at social services that make it possible to raise them.

Erika Kirk’s hypocrisy has been well-documented. Even before her husband’s death and her takeover as CEO of TPUSA, she was a highly-educated career woman only playing at being the demure housewife for his audiences. But her message of submission was one of the milder speeches at this year’s summit.

Kate Johnson, married to replacement-level MAGA influencer Benny Johnson, shamed the over 99% of sexually active women who have used birth control, saying the choice to get pregnant is “not yours to take control of.”

Noleen Sedra, wife of far-right preacher Andrew Sedra, declared that feminism has been a “demonic, satanic death cult,” since its inception — which, in the U.S., means the Seneca Falls Declaration of 1848, when first-wave feminists demanded suffrage and the right to earn their own money. She then went on to defend burning women as witches. 

Her sister-in-law, Millicent Sedra, also spoke and scolded women who expect husbands to share housework. First she mocked women with, “What am I, my husband’s servant? Picking up after him all the time, picking his undies off the floor, ironing his clothes? What am I, his servant?” Then she grabbed her Bible, pretended to flip through it and said, “Let me just check. Yes!” Instead of “despising” being an unpaid servant for men, she instructed women to “start serving with gratitude!”

Speakers did try to insist that they don’t hate women, and that it’s the left that hates women. Right-wing commentator Isabel Brown insisted that, by using birth control, women are “reduced to a commodity to be bought and sold.” Even this effort to turn the rhetoric around fails by its own measure, assuming women don’t have autonomy and could not possibly have a good reason for wanting to avoid pregnancy or limit the number of children they have.

It’s all very strange for anything called a “leadership summit” to feature one speaker after another casting women not as leaders at all, but as servants. Of course, there’s nothing new about this paradox. Dating back to Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing women have found that preaching a doctrine of self-abnegation to women is a pathway to personal wealth and empowerment.

Still, it’s striking that TPUSA is doubling down on the extremist rhetoric, right at the time when more young women than ever before are rejecting traditional gender roles and embracing women’s equality. Despite the turnout, there was something strained and desperate about the whole enterprise, like they are the few still holding onto hope that anti-feminism can make good on its promises. The contradictions are getting harder to paper over, as evidenced by Alex Clark’s mess of a speech.

The post TPUSA’s new message to girls: Hate yourself appeared first on Salon.com.

There’s Rupert Giles, the tweedy Sunnydale High School librarian who mentored Buffy Summers on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” As the Slayer’s Watcher, Giles keeps Buffy battle ready, advises her and occasionally gives her a fatherly shoulder to cry on. He’s also an emotional anchor. Without him, as Buffy. Willow, Xander and the rest of the Sunnydale Scoobies discover in the show’s sixth season, the world starts to crumble around them.

And there’s the leering, preening Rupert Mannion from “Ted Lasso” — multimillionaire soccer team owner, inveterate philanderer and incurably vindictive divorcé. This Rupert’s talent for finding new lows is bottomless, but his main diversion is preying on those he views as weak. That includes Ted’s “Wonder Kid” assistant coach, Nate Shelley, a one-time pushover that Rupert seduces to the dark side to coach his new team, West Ham, which he buys expressly to pound the hopes of his ex-wife and her optimistic Coach Lasso into the dirt.

Since Rupert Mannion was played by the man who embodied Rupert Giles, it’s impossible to write him off as irredeemable. That isn’t the “Ted Lasso” way, for one thing, and it also contradicts everything Head conditioned us to expect from his characters, regardless of how terribly they behaved.

(Apple TV) Anthony Head

Head, who died June 1 at the age of 72, was the kind of actor we loved to see wherever he turned up.  His charisma made him a worthy inheritor to the role of Dr. Frank-N-Furter in stage productions of “The Rocky Horror Picture Show,” which he reprised several times over the years. Early in his TV career, his purring voice and enchanting grin helped transform a string of coffee commercials into a serialized love story. More recently, he appeared as a lord in “Bridgerton.”

No matter where Head turned up, whether expected or as a surprise, his presence lit a spark of familiarity, even delight. That was even true in features commonly thought to be unwatchable.

Shortly after his death, people mounted casual watching parties linked to, of all titles, “Repo! The Genetic Opera,” a 2008 rock musical-meets-Grand Guignol from “Saw” director Darren Lynn Bousman. Head plays a protective father, Nathan, who is forced to repossess people’s organs by hunting them down and vivisecting them, crooning his conflicted feelings in a velvety baritone all the while.

“Repo!” is about as far from a quality film as one might push that definition. Nevertheless, Head fully commits to his character’s self-loathing, which he endures to shield his daughter from the nastiness of their dystopian surroundings.

I’ve no doubt that Head signed on to that gore circus for the fun of it and out of a desire to shake up his image yet again. Still, regardless of who he played in the years following “Buffy” or how odiously that character behaves, Giles was never far from our minds, especially as we matured and increased our emotional distance from Sunnydale.

(Courtesy of Getty Images)

In the ‘80s and ‘90s, Head co-starred in a slow-to-boil romance that played out in a series of instant coffee commercials, of all things. In Nescafé’s serialized Gold Blend romance, which  aired in the U.S. as the Taster’s Choice saga, he brewed up the romantic hero almost too well.

“He’s clearly sick of talking about the ads, purring ‘God bless you’ to a reporter for not beginning an interview with a barrage of Taster’s Choice questions,” noted a San Francisco Chronicle reporter who spoke to him in 2002.

Because of that popular campaign, a portion of the “Buffy” fandom thought of Giles as a smokeshow on top of appreciating his vision of what being the only adult in the room looks like. In that capacity, Head cemented Giles in our minds as a positive father figure without meeting the strict definition of a TV dad. Plus, his performance let us in on the secret most grown-ups know: that many seemingly stiff people have at least flirted with teen degeneracy.

Giles has a past so brutal that it was nearly enough to build a spinoff around it, as Head hinted by wearing an ever-present hint of exhaustion and despair on his skin. The Sunnydale gang fought monsters and demons, even dating a few. Meanwhile, when he was their age, young Giles, nicknamed Ripper, terrorized London by summoning hell spawn for fun. (Alas, “Ripper” never evolved beyond the development stage.)

Within a show built on parable and metaphor, Head’s librarian showed us that the gentlest men might hide a well of anger – and that bottled-up capability can be tapped to keep the souls of those they care about spotless. That was never far from our minds and never made Head’s signature persona any less heroic, just more human.

While Head’s portrayals of Uther Pendragon on “Merlin,” or a ruthless senator on “Dominion,” kept his association with his genre fandom going strong through the aughts and 2010s, his ensemble work in 2002’s “Manchild” poured his sensual commercial persona into the mold of a strutting midlife crisis. James is a dentist who launches into his 50s by divorcing his wife and oozing into his sleaze era, chasing younger women and undergoing penile enhancement surgery to cure his performance issues.

The BBC Two series was too caustic to last for more than two seasons. Those of us who faithfully watched “Manchild” enjoyed it because of its brutal, validating portrait of badly behaved men of a certain age and the way it humanized characters like James by forcing them to deal with the consequences of their relentless tomcatting around. James is wealthy and a good time in limited amounts, but he’s also insecure and only fitting company for his three most loyal male friends.

“[Ultimately], it’s about how there is a little boy in all men, much to the chagrin of women who have to put up with them,” he told the Chronicle in that 2002 interview, not realizing how aptly it would explain one of his last unforgettable characters — the other Rupert, introduced to us 18 years later in “Ted Lasso.”

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

Rupert Mannion is a creature of corrosive spite, lording his recent divorce over his ex-wife throughout Season1 and popping around to cut her back down to size whenever she seems to be doing well.

(Apple TV) Ted Lasso

In those moments — indeed, every time Head chews the scenery as this toxic villain — he shows us someone who’s more broken than purely evil, which means we can never entirely take our eyes off him. That is, until his selfish acts rebound on him at the end of Season 3, when his new wife divorces him and his televised assault on his own team’s manager makes him a pariah in the sports world.

Head was nothing like that fiction, demonstrated in the many remembrances that are still circulating in the wake of his death, which follows that of his wife, Sarah Fisher, by a matter of months.

“We know how dearly he will be missed by friends, colleagues, and fans of the shows he was in,” said his daughters Emily and Daisy Head in an official statement released on June 5, adding, “[He] loved his job very much, and he always considered himself incredibly lucky, to have been able to work alongside such exceptionally talented people, in such wonderful productions, across a career that spanned several decades.”

That includes nearly 30 years bookended by figures we’ll never forget, along with the star who made them real parts of our lives.

The post Anthony Head made the flawed father figure impossible to hate appeared first on Salon.com.

This has always struck me as a bit odd. Sure, it makes sense to use cartoon characters to sell products to kids — a phenomenon that’s been well-documented.

But why are advertisers using the same techniques on adults?

To me, it’s just one symptom of a broader trend of infantilization in Western culture. It began before the advent of smartphones and social media. But, as I argue in my book “The Terminal Self,” our everyday interactions with these computer technologies have accelerated and normalized our culture’s infantile tendencies.

Society-wide arrested development

The dictionary defines infantilizing as treating someone “as a child or in a way that denies their maturity in age or experience.”

What’s considered age-appropriate or mature is obviously quite relative. But most societies and cultures will deem behaviors appropriate for some stages of life, but not others.

As the Bible puts it in 1 Corinthians 13:11, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”

Some psychologists will be quick to note that not everyone puts their “childish ways” behind them. You can become fixated at a particular stage of development and fail to reach an age-appropriate level of maturity. When facing unmanageable stress or trauma, you can even regress to a previous stage of development. And psychologist Abraham Maslow has suggested that spontaneous childlike behaviors in adults aren’t inherently problematic.

But some cultural practices today routinely infantilize large swaths of the population.

We see it in our everyday speech, when we refer to grown women as “girls”; in how we treat senior citizens, when we place them in adult care centers where they’re forced to surrender their autonomy and privacy; and in the way school personnel and parents treat teenagers, refusing to acknowledge their intelligence and need for autonomy, restricting their freedom, and limiting their ability to enter the workforce.

Can entire societies succumb to infantilization?

Frankfurt School scholars such as Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and other critical theorists suggest that — like individuals — a society can also suffer from arrested development.

In their view, adults’ failure to reach emotional, social or cognitive maturity is not due to individual shortcomings.

Rather, it is socially engineered.

A return to innocence

Visiting America in 1946, French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss commented on the endearingly infantile traits of American culture. He especially noted adults’ childish adulation of baseball, their passionate approach to toy-like cars and the amount of time they invested in hobbies.

As contemporary scholars note, however, this “infantilist ethos” has become less charming — and more pervasive.

Researchers on both sides of the Atlantic have observed how this ethos has now crept into a vast range of social spheres.

In many workplaces, managers can now electronically monitor their employees, many of whom work in open spaces with little personal privacy. As sociologist Gary T. Marx observed, it creates a situation in which workers feel that managers expect them “to behave irresponsibly, to take advantage, and to screw up unless they remove all temptation, prevent them from doing so or trick or force them to do otherwise.”

Much has been written about higher education’s tendency to infantilize its students, whether it’s through monitoring their social media accounts, guiding their every step, or promoting “safe spaces” on campus.

Meanwhile, tourist destinations like Las Vegas market excess, indulgence and freedom from responsibility in casino environments that conjure memories of childhood fantasies: the Old West, medieval castles and the circus. Scholars have also explored how this form of Las Vegas-style “Disneyfication” has left its stamp on planned communities, architecture and contemporary art.

Then we’ve witnessed the rise of a “therapy culture,” which, as sociologist Frank Furedi warns, treats adults as vulnerable, weak and fragile, while implying that their troubles rooted in childhood qualify them for a “permanent suspension of moral sense.” He argues that this absolves grown-ups from adult responsibilities and erodes their trust in their own experiences and insights.

Researchers in Russia and Spain have even identified infantilist trends in language, and
French sociologist Jacqueline Barus-Michel observes that we now communicate in “flashes,” rather than via thoughtful discourse — “poorer, binary, similar to computer language, and aiming to shock.”

Others have noted similar trends in popular culture — in the shorter sentences
in contemporary novels, in the lack of sophistication in political rhetoric and in sensationalist cable news coverage.

High-tech pacifiers

While scholars such as James Côté and Gary Cross remind us that infantilizing trends began well before our current moment, I believe our daily interactions with smartphones and social media are so pleasurable precisely because they normalize and gratify infantile dispositions.

They endorse self-centeredness and inflated exhibitionism. They promote an orientation towards the present, rewarding impulsivity and celebrating constant and instant gratification.

They flatter our needs for visibility and provide us with 24/7 personalized attention, while eroding our ability to empathize with others.

Whether we use them for work or pleasure, our devices also foster a submissive attitude. In order to take advantage of all they offer, we have to surrender to their requirements, agreeing to “terms” we do not understand and handing over stores of personal data.

Indeed, the routine and aggressive ways our devices violate our privacy via surveillance automatically deprive us of this fundamental adult right.

While we might find it trivial or amusing, the infantilist ethos becomes especially seductive in times of social crises and fear. And its favoring of simple, easy and fast betrays natural affinities for certain political solutions over others.

And typically not intelligent ones.

Democratic policymaking requires debate, demands compromise and involves critical thinking. It entails considering different viewpoints, anticipating the future, and composing thoughtful legislation.

What’s a fast, easy and simple alternative to this political process? It’s not difficult to imagine an infantile society being attracted to authoritarian rule.

Unfortunately, our social institutions and technological devices seem to erode hallmarks of maturity: patience, empathy, solidarity, humility and commitment to a project greater than oneself.

All are qualities that have traditionally been considered essential for both healthy adulthood and for the proper functioning of democracy.

Simon Gottschalk, Professor of Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The post The infantilization of Western culture appeared first on Salon.com.

In nearly every state, hyperscale data centers powering artificial intelligence are being proposed and built. These facilities need much more computing power compared to other data centers and that comes with a much larger footprint, in the literal and carbon sense. A typical hyperscale data center needs 10 acres, or 435,000 square feet of land. However, many of these proposed sites plan to use over 1 million square feet, which could fit a few Eiffel towers or roughly 50 Boeing 737 jets.

The list of potential drawbacks for communities receiving a data center are plentiful. The huge increased pressure on energy grids translates to higher utility bills, which puts additional strain on gas and coal plants, which of course jacks up toxic air pollution. Furthermore, the centers’ cooling systems need a lot of water, draining local aquifers and water tables, with the more efficient systems still requiring significant amounts. Even noise pollution from constant humming of the servers impacts local quality of life.

“When we bring this massive amount of electricity demand to the grid, and there’s a couple ways the grid can respond,” Jeremiah Johnson, an environmental researcher at North Carolina State University, said. “One is we have existing power plants that aren’t used at their full capacity, and we increase their output. Another way it can respond is neighboring regions can increase their output and ship electricity by transmission to where the data centers are, and a third option would be to build new power plants.”

Johnson’s recently published research found that the increased pressure on the energy grid from new data centers will have extreme effects on both energy costs and carbon emissions in the next four years. By 2030, national energy prices may have an average increase of up to 29%, with areas that have high concentrations of data centers like northern Virginia expecting an almost 60% increase in costs. This pressure on the grid also means, as Johnson explained, more energy will need to be produced, either through new plants or increased production at existing plants.

“ In our base case run, it was a 28% increase in CO2 emissions across the power sector as a whole, so a really sizable increase from a scenario that did not have additional data centers,” he told Salon. “Lots of additional coal and natural gas generation is attributable to that additional electricity demand.”

Local coalitions of neighbors are springing up in the most rural towns and counties as quiet, nature-filled lands are being replaced with loud, energy intensive data centers. Groups, often regardless of political affiliation, are fighting back in town council meetings and local government sessions where most of these projects are approved.

Kayleigh Henry is one organizer taking to council meetings and zoning boards to advocate against data center construction in New Jersey — and it’s working. As the ecology director at the nonprofit Climate Revolution Action Network, the 20-year-old has helped put a stop to multiple data centers across New Jersey and pushed for ordinances to ban their construction altogether.

In organizing against a proposed 1 million square foot data center in Monroe Township, New Jersey, Henry protested with over 100 community members at multiple city council meetings discussing the project.

”After about three to four council meetings, they finally understood the importance of actually banning these centers because the people cared so much,” Henry told Salon. “Without a doubt, every single meeting I went to, over 100 people went and tried to speak and tell the council how much it meant to them that their community stays safe and is not affected by these data centers.”

With guidance from Henry’s organization, Monroe, Millville and Andover townships passed AI data centers bans or restrictions. Across the nation, similar stories are playing out as communities stand up to some of the biggest names in tech, like OpenAI and Google. However, the fight is far from easy and victory is not inevitable.

Often these projects are approved with little to no input from community members, either because they flew under the radar or because companies bulldozed their way into building them anyway. A small farm town in Michigan voted against a proposed data center, but the developers sued and the municipality was forced to settle. This isn’t just an average hyperscale project — it’s a $16 billion, 250 acre OpenAI and Oracle campus.

This campus will draw 1.4 gigawatts of energy, or enough to power the entire city of San Diego, California. For reference, the Delorean time machine in Back to the Future needed 1.21 gigawatts — a figure so comically large it could only be harnessed from plutonium or a bolt of lighting.

Some proposed projects get even more extreme, such as the energy needed for a data center underway in Utah. Originally proposed at an estimated nine gigawatts, the center would use more energy than the entire state twice over. Only after dogged protests and local disapproval did the authority overseeing the project demand it be scaled back. As of June 4, the project site will be cut in half from 40,000 acres to 20,000 and the actual center itself likely taking up about 10,000 acres.

The project also plans to have its own natural gas plant onsite to produce energy. While developers argue this is beneficial to remain independent from Utah’s power grid, it would still be highly pollutant and unlikely to account for all the center’s energy needs.

“ Some data centers really want to make sure that they have reliable, uninterruptible power, and so they’re putting generators on site,” Johnson of North Carolina State University explained. “But those generators onsite also carry with them local pollutants that are kind of borne by the community right by the data center as well.”

The authority overseeing the project is under its own scrutiny. The Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA) is a quasi-governmental agency meant to “to support Utah’s economic growth and defense-related infrastructure.”

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The project, called Stratos, is located in Box Elder County, Utah where local officials have no jurisdiction over the project. “MIDA projects do not go through the standard local land use approval processes,” the county explained in a press release.

“The nature of the type of data center being contemplated will specifically cater to hyperscale providers who include the federal government and related defense industry users as clients,” MIDA wrote in a May 4 press release on the project area plans.

“Why do we need a nine gigawatt data center in one of the driest states in the nation that’s in a severe drought,” Caroline Gleich, an environmentalist and professional skier, asked. Gleich, who was also Utah’s democratic nominee for Senate in 2024, utilizes her online platform of nearly 400,000 combined followers to raise awareness about the Stratos project.

“ It’s really brought a lot of Utahns together,” she told Salon. “People across the state are really concerned about the environmental impact, the land use, and really about the process through which this whole thing came to be.”

The process of the center getting approved outside of traditional means, has vexed many Utahns who didn’t get a say in the construction of this monumental energy use project. Gleich also takes issue with also the face of the Stratos project — Shark Tank personality Kevin O’Leary.

“Why isn’t a foreigner, an Emirati, Canadian and Irish citizen, the face of this project if it’s for national security?” she said. O’Leary himself accused Gleich of being funded by foreign interests in an NBC interview. Gleich said she has never been paid for her activism by foreign operated organizations

“ As a Utahn and as someone who spent a lot of my precious free time that I would rather be spending doing other things, trying to advocate for this, they keep calling us paid protesters and out of state and all these things, defaming Utahns that are trying to protect our state,” Gliech said. “Instead of actually listening to us and providing evidence of studies or environmental impact statements, we just get called names and bullied and defamed on national television.”

Nevertheless, she remains persistent in her advocacy against this project and preserving Utah’s environmental health. Her advice for pushing back against figures like O’Leary and Big Tech is to hit the ballot box and don’t skip local elections.

“ It’s gonna take a massive amount of turnout at the polls this November in order to hold them accountable, and that’s really the lever of change,” she said. “ Vote out every single one of them that have been complicit or supportive of these projects — vote them all out.”

Henry of New Jersey’s Climate Revolution Action Network agrees and advocates for concerned citizens to turn out not just to the voting booth but to local council meetings.

“ One of the main things is actually just being involved in your community or even different communities,” she said. “Just going to these council meetings, even if you may not be from that town, just going to learn about how things work.”

It is in these jargon-rich, usually quiet meetings where so many data centers are approved without second thought. So, Henry became familiar with local zoning and planning and that intimate knowledge allowed her to propose actionable changes like data center bans.

Making noise, online and in local government meetings, is where organizers are succeeding across the country in their goals of stopping new center construction. Ever still, major projects are still underway across the country and many will feel their consequences.

“ Once our water is gone and our air is polluted, our cities and our homes are gonna be unlivable,” Gleich said. “So we need to make sure that we’re holding these people accountable and stay eternally vigilant with everything that’s happening.

The post AI data centers are taking over. These Americans are fighting back appeared first on Salon.com.

(UPDATE: Mexico did in fact win, 2-0, in a fast-paced, energetic and intermittently ugly game. Three players were shown red cards for egregious fouls, two from South Africa and one from Mexico. It seems tensions are running high!)

Regardless of the outcome, the focus on opening day will be on spectacle, showmanship and soccer, in roughly that order. There has been a predictable amount of disorder around the tournament in the Mexican capital, including a teachers’ strike and left-wing street protests. But none of that has anything to do with Donald Trump, who will not be on hand to get booed and pretend he’s being cheered. However security is handled, there will be no ICE officers surveying the crowd with facial-recognition software and abducting people for unstated reasons. Everyone who needed a visa to attend this game, as far as I know, got one with minimal fuss.

It’s a happy accident of sorts, if you choose to look at it that way, that the first couple of games in the largest and most troubled tournament in the ambiguous history of this overinflated event are taking place outside the United States, and may serve as modest reminders of what the World Cup is somehow, still, vaguely supposed to symbolize. (Later on Thursday, South Korea will play the Czech Republic in Guadalajara.)

It might also serve as something of a reality check. Almost everything negative that could possibly be said about this World Cup is true: It’s an egregiously expensive festival of interlocking consumerism and nationalism, plagued by staggering levels of corruption and set against a visibly crumbling but wildly ambitious quasi-authoritarian regime. When earnest liberals called upon FIFA, the governing body of world football-and-or-soccer (both words are legit and I refuse to litigate that issue), to bar the U.S. from competing or to cancel the tournament, an enormous epistemological error was involved: FIFA president Gianni Infantino is, if anything, a more shameless, soulless and sycophantic specimen than Donald Trump.

Still and all, the World Cup is literally too big to fail. It’s the biggest global showcase for the world’s most popular sport, not to mention a television and marketing enterprise many times larger than the Super Bowl, the NBA Finals or the Oscars. In an era increasingly dominated by “narrowcasting” and web streaming, roughly one-third of the world’s population is likely to watch the final match on July 19. Furthermore, for hardcore fans the idea that FIFA is a semi-criminal enterprise and the World Cup tournament something of a garbage fire is nothing new. Fandom of all varieties is a testament to the fact that hope springs eternal, and all true football fanatics know that this tournament has a history of pure-dee showboating and athletic glamour that makes it larger than its surroundings.

The front page of the French sports newspaper L'ÉquipeWelcome to the USAPretty apt to have Trump with his hand up Infantinos bottom during the World Cup run-in

— Steve Brewer (@sjbrewer.bsky.social) 2026-06-10T00:14:12.537Z

Sure, holding this extravaganza in the U.S. under the second Trump administration is both tragicomic and grim, for reasons I hardly need to explain here. (Despite those first-round games in Mexico and a handful in Canada, about 80 percent of the tournament will be held in the U.S., including both semifinals and the July 19 final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.) It’s already clear that teams and supporters from majority-Muslim nations are being subjected to arbitrary and punitive scrutiny, and a FIFA-licensed referee from Somalia with a valid visa was denied entry, for no known reason. All of that is shameful, and deeply contrary to the supposed traditions of international sport. Well, kind of: Let’s stop there for a minute and consider history.

Four years ago the World Cup was held in Qatar, an autocratic hereditary monarchy where homosexual activity is illegal, and whose stadiums and tourist venues were built by foreign laborers under a system akin to indentured servitude. That tournament also featured one of the greatest matches ever played, the thrilling, back-and-forth 3-3 draw between Argentina and France, finally won by Argentina on penalty kicks.

Four years before that, the tournament was in Russia — and, yeah, Vladimir Putin hadn’t officially invaded Ukraine yet (except that he actually had). That one also ended in brilliant fashion, with the stylish French team capping their glorious run with a 4-2 victory over Croatia’s gritty, gutty band of outsiders.

We could keep going: In 1978, the World Cup was held in Argentina, then under a brutal military dictatorship that disappeared dissidents by the thousands, sometimes by throwing them out of helicopters into the ocean. The Argentine team won the trophy, although that wasn’t the year of Diego Maradona’s infamous “Hand of God” goal, which happened eight years later in Mexico. If we go back to the tournament’s no-budget beginnings, the second-ever World Cup was won by Italy at home in 1934, under Benito Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship, in large part because Uruguay, the defending champions, refused to play.

So while it might seem like a rhetorical masterstroke to compare this year’s tournament to the 1936 Berlin Olympics under Hitler — a popular theme on social media this week — you’re not likely to impress or surprise any half-conscious world football fan with that analogy. An authoritarian regime is using this so-called festival of global togetherness to sportswash its crimes? Gotcha, that checks out. (The 2034 World Cup will be held in, ahem, Saudi Arabia, sportswashing regime par excellence.) This tournament is less about sportsmanship and athletic excellence than about pushing crappy beer and extortionate credit cards? Thanks for the heads up, champ. This year’s flatulent spectacle combines all the worst tendencies of consumer capitalism, surveillance-state policies and self-important sports machismo into a toilet-bowl perfect storm? Friendo, did you just wake up and figure out what decade this is?

Tickets are outrageously expensive, as if to drive home the point that in the Land of the Free, one-percenters will pay literally any price for VIP treatment (or, frankly, for routine treatment) at these kinds of pseudo-significant events. Picking a game at random, the cheapest tickets I could find for the match between England and Ghana in Foxboro, Massachusetts, on June 20 were about $750 each. Tickets in the lower deck near midfield were about $1,250.

European visitors are learning first-hand exactly how dreadful American public transit is, and what actual hot weather feels like. Indeed, climate-change-fueled summer heat could be a disabling health hazard for players and traveling supporters alike; while stadiums in Dallas, Atlanta and Los Angeles are enclosed and temperature-controlled, those in Kansas City, New Jersey and Miami are not. (Yes, I said Miami. Outdoors. In the summer.) “Hydration breaks” will be introduced at roughly the 23rd and 67th minute of World Cup matches, finally fulfilling one of the TV networks’ most cherished desires: Chopping up soccer games to get in more commercials!

(Staff/AFP via Getty Images) Klaus Fischer of West Germany ties the score at 3-3 on a bicycle kick in extra time of the World Cup semifinal against France, July 8, 1982.

Given all that, no amount of skepticism or cynicism is unjustified. And yet: Even in this godawful Trumpian summer, millions of people around the world will hope to witness something magical that rises above the empty discord, something like that 2022 Argentina-France final, or — be still, my heart — something like the legendary 1982 semifinal between France and West Germany (as it was then) that my dad and I watched on Spanish-language TV — the only way it was carried live, without the then-new phenomenon of “cable” — from the comfort of his Naugahyde sofa.

In the middle of an otherwise routine article of jocular sportswriter predictions on The Athletic, Canadian journalist Joshua Kloke explained why he’s bringing his seven-year-old son to a match this year. His German-born grandparents, Kloke writes, had instilled a deep family loyalty to Die Mannschaft (the German national team), so he’s taking his kid to the June 20 match between Germany and Ivory Coast in Toronto. (A terrific choice, honestly.) He continues:

My grown man’s eyes get wide just thinking and talking about it. I’m choosing to pierce through all the ugly noise that surrounds the tournament and remember what it’s like watching your first World Cup as a child. What a rush. Maybe something happens during the game and he’ll latch onto the sport and tournament for good. It happened to most of us once. It’s a good, and pure, feeling while it lasts. It’s too soon to spoil it for him.

Well, OK then. So what about the U.S. team? Are they any good?

What about them indeed? The short version is that even if you’re feeling less than patriotic under current conditions, the U.S. men’s national team, circa 2026, comes with high drama and an intriguing storyline. They’re playing at home and coached by one of the biggest names in world football, Argentina’s Mauricio Pochettino, former head coach at Chelsea, Paris Saint-Germain and Tottenham Hotspur. By consensus, this is the most talented group of male American players ever assembled, led by lightning-quick winger Christian Pulisic, the first Yank to approach genuine stardom in a major European professional league.

You could feel me hedging more than a little there, right? That’s because the best-ever American men’s team is still just a notch or two above “bang average,” to use the standard Brit insult hurled at Yank players, and this team has yet to prove it can play Pochettino’s aggressive, attacking style with any consistency. Pulisic at his finest is definitely not bang-average, and he had a brilliant year for AC Milan in Italy — but it was last year, and in 2026 he virtually disappeared. For the U.S. to thrive in this tournament, it can’t be the Pulisic show, despite his ubiquitous appearance in beer and credit-card commercials. His supporting cast of Europe-based almost-stars will need to coalesce big time.

(Michael Miller/ISI Photos via Getty Images) Folarin Balogun of the U.S. national team during a friendly match against Germany in Chicago, June 6, 2026.

I’m looking at you, Weston McKennie of Juventus and Tyler Adams of Bournemouth, and maybe most of all at slinky-smooth forward Folarin Balogun, who scored 18 goals for Monaco in the French Ligue 1 last season. We’ll find out soon enough: On paper, the U.S. team should be able to beat its first two opponents, Paraguay and Australia, and slide into the knockout rounds as a favored seed. But lose either of those games and the flag-waving will be over real fast. If you’re not sure how you feel about that, I’m right there with you.

Admit it: You’re going to break down and watch, aren’t you?

Those U.S. games will make for compelling theater, but the Yanks’ chances of winning the tournament are mathematically indistinguishable from zero. (Reaching the round of 16 would be a fine result, and the quarterfinals would be fantastic.) So who’s going to win? No national team from outside Europe or South America has ever hoisted the World Cup, and while that will certainly change someday, it won’t be this year. If either France or Spain, the two teams most visibly loaded with big-name stars, don’t capture the prize on July 19, it will be at least a modest surprise — and will probably mean that either Argentina or Brazil has recovered from their self-torment and navel-gazing and gone on a spectacular run.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Look, if you can’t resist soaking up at least a little of the grandiose spectacle — either despite the awfulness of the larger meta-narrative or because of it — I won’t tell. It’s hard to tell how many first-round matches will actually mean anything this year, since 32 of the 48 teams will be moving on to the knockout stages and the most important task in early games is to avoid losing. We’ll see several startling upsets in this round that won’t end up mattering, along with a disheartening number of 0-0 and 1-1 draws. With that, here are my best guesses on the can’t-miss matches of the first round:

June 12: Canada v Bosnia (Toronto) A pair of lovable underdogs who both hope to be among the tournament’s surprises. Playing at home with the go-go style favored by American coach Jesse Marsch (a fact that took some adjustment up north, believe me!), the Canadians are always fun to watch. Bosnia barely snuck in via qualifying and is probably overmatched here, but the team’s biggest star, Esmir Bajraktarević, is a fun story: He was born in Appleton, Wisconsin, and played in Major League Soccer before deciding to commit his sporting future to his parents’ homeland.

June 13: Brazil v Morocco (East Rutherford, N.J.) It’s unusual to get such a terrific matchup right off the bat: The world’s most famous footballing nation, now led by superstar Italian coach Carlo Ancelotti — who looks more like a World Bank executive than a sports bro — against Africa’s most skillful team, loaded with European-based players. (Many nations draw heavily on their global diaspora for soccer talent, but Morocco is an extreme case: Only seven of the 26 players on the squad were actually born there.) There’s a chance both teams will decide it serves their interests to play a listless draw and share the orange slices. But I’m betting pride will speak louder than caution.

(Franck Fife/AFP via Getty Images) Kylian Mbappé of the French national team during a friendly match with Northern Ireland on June 8 in Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France.

June 16: France v Senegal (East Rutherford) You could call this one a post-colonial theorist’s delight, but more than anything else it’s a match between two top-shelf teams that value showboating elegance, occasionally to their own detriment. Despite the burden of history, there’s not as much animosity here as you might imagine: At least 10 players on the Senegalese team are French by birth, and several of the French players have Senegalese roots. Your first chance to see whether mercurial French forward Kylian Mbappé, the world’s best player, is paying full attention this year.

June 17: England v Croatia (Arlington, Texas) Could this be the year that England’s mighty Lions finally bring the World Cup “home” to the nation that invented the sport, launching a display of beer-soaked Union Jack patriotism to nauseate the world? Well, probably not. But starting against a gritty, grinding opponent with a long history of making better teams look bad will provide a useful test.

June 21: Spain v Saudi Arabia (Atlanta) Spain may have the most overall talent of any team in the tournament, and they’re barely getting tested in the first round. The Saudis have a record of startling upsets in international play; we might see that happen, or we might see Spanish wonder-teen Lamine Yamal score five goals.

(Roger Wimmer/ISI Photos via Getty Images) Scott McTominay of Scotland in a friendly match against Bolivia in Harrison, N.J., June 6, 2026.

June 24: Scotland v Brazil (Miami) They are making a bunch of Scottish men play soccer — sorry, fitba’ — outdoors, in late June. In Florida. Against Brazil. Mind you, this Scottish squad, led by Scott McTominay of Napoli, have outdone themselves to get this far. Even if the Brazilians win 6-1 (which seems relatively likely), guys in Glasgow pubs will be talking about the magnificence of that one Scotland goal 30 years from now.

June 26: Norway v France (Foxboro) The French may have qualified for the second round by this point. If they haven’t, this tough, ambitious young Norwegian side, led by relentless goal-scoring machine Erling Haaland, could present a difficult challenge for Mbappé, Ousmane Dembélé and the rest of the superstar French lineup, which tends to pout and bicker when things aren’t going well.

(Rita Franca/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal during a friendly match against Chile at the National Stadium in Lisbon, June 6, 2026.

June 27: Colombia v Portugal (Miami) On the last day of the first round comes its best single matchup: Two evenly-matched sides with fading but still relevant superstars — Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo and Colombia’s James Rodríguez — that favor aggressive, attacking football and tend to feel that defense is for cowards. At least both teams are used to playing in the heat, because this one will be relentless.

The post Can the worst World Cup ever find a way to redeem itself? appeared first on Salon.com.

Your host, “President” Donald Trump, conducts each day of his administration as if it were an episode of “The Apprentice.” He’s always looking for someone to fire — or throw under the bus.

He has gone from standing up and shouting at Nuremberg-style rallies two or three times a week to sitting in the Oval Office where, with appropriate props, he opines about the B-2 bomber, the “One Big Beautiful Ballroom” and his “One Big Beautiful Blue” reflecting pool.

He now limits public interactions to small numbers of people who work for him or cheer him on, or who he can easily control. To deal with others, he has sent Karoline Leavitt, his pep secretary, into the Brady Briefing Room to handle the reporters he despises. Those interactions are now limited to once a week instead of daily.

When Leavitt recently went on paid maternity leave — something most American women cannot get — Trump found himself assigning other members of his staff to the chore of  briefing room guest host, much as Johnny Carson used to do when he took nights off from  “The Tonight Show.”

So far Trump has assigned four guest hosts and has made history in doing so. The vice president, the secretary of state, the secretary of the Treasury and the administrator of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services have all appeared to face the press, marking the first time that any person in any of those positions has ever conducted a routine briefing on the president’s behalf.

Alexander Haig, then the secretary of state, famously shouted, “I’m in control here” in the briefing room after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981. But to substitute for the press secretary? It’s unheard of for Cabinet members or the vice president to take such a lowly job. Maybe Dr. Mehmet Oz getting tasked with it is somewhat more appropriate. Of course, rumor has it that Oz became a substitute host because he’s auditioning for the Health and Human Services job currently held by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Everyone who has taken on the guest host role shares a few things in common: They’ve all praised the president and deflected any and all responsibility away from him. Their appearances have also offered us some insight into potential future GOP leadership and the question of who might carry forward Trump’s, ahem, legacy.

So let’s assess each of them, beginning with the first person to serve as substitute anchor, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He’s the one-man band of the Trump administration. Rubio wears several hats and is often credited with being the brightest person serving in the administration. While that’s an admittedly low bar to crawl over, let’s take a look:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio

Appearance date: May 5, 2026

Length of time in the room: approximately 49 minutes.

He opened the door to the briefing room a crack, drew a laugh as he pretended to sneak in, made a short announcement and took questions. He was professional, didn’t insult the Democrats, defended the president and covered a wide variety of subjects including the War Powers Act, The war in Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, Russia, the pope, China, Cuba, Venezuela, the economy and the price of gas, as well as joking that he should use a laser pointer to choose which reporters could ask him a question. While Rubio defended the president, he wasn’t demeaning.

Most poignant moment: Speaking about American history, Rubio said, “I think in the U.S., we’re not perfect. Our history is not one of perfection, but it’s still better than anybody else’s history. As we come upon this 250-year anniversary, I think we have a lot to learn and be proud of in our history. It is one of perpetual and continuous improvement where each generation has done its part to bring us closer to fulfilling the vision that the founders of this country had upon its founding.” No one else in the Trump administration has ever been that reflective — or that hopeful.

Funniest moment: When he said the room was “chaos,” a reporter shouted out, “Welcome to the White House.”

Biggest lie: “The war is over,” he claimed. “Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation.” That statement has haunted the administration since he uttered it.

Worst moment: Rubio said the U.S. just wanted the situation in the Strait of Hormuz to be “the way it was.” It was that way before Trump started the war. So remind us why it was necessary?

Overall, he was the best guest host. Maybe that’s why the next guest host showed up. Vice President Vance might face Rubio in 2028 for the GOP presidential nomination. So, two weeks later, he made his own appearance, trying to best the secretary of state before the White House press corps. Here’s a hint: He didn’t.

Vice President JD Vance

Appearance Date: May 19, 2026

Length of time in the room: approximately 55 minutes

Vance walked out with his head down and smiling. That was as good as it got. He conducted his briefing as if he was auditioning for the job he already holds. He lasted five minutes longer than Rubio and covered China, fentanyl, Iran, Russia, AI, the pope, the anti-fraud task force, Rep. Ilhan Omar, immigration, the southern border, Jan. 6, Charlie Kirk and other non-issues. He complimented a reporter on her “beautiful cross necklace,” and told us the president was “locked and loaded” and ready for Iran. “The president is willing and able to go down that pathway if we have to,” he told us, while repeating the rhetoric about the war being over and adding, “We have an opportunity here, I think, to reset the relationship that has existed between Iran and the United States for 47 years.”

Worst moment: All of it. He oozed condescension and assumed superiority.

Most honest moment: When asked a question he said, “I’m a politician. Maybe I won’t even answer the one that you asked, but I will try at least to answer one question.”

Inadvertently funniest moment: Vance praised Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and said he “is going to be a great senator for the people of Texas.” He claimed that he loved incumbent Sen. John Cornyn but that Paxton “was there for the president,” and if you’re “out of step with the president of the United States, that’s not a good place to be politically.”

He repeated Rubio’s line about chaos, denounced former President Joe Biden on several occasions and told so many lies about the war in Iran it would be easier to point out how often he told the truth — if he had ever done so.

He claimed we were in a “ceasefire” situation “where we’re trying to get a negotiated settlement that gets the American people the things that we need for our national security.”

Those things included no nuclear weapons for Iran and free travel through the Strait of Hormuz. He also conveniently forgot to remind everyone we had those things before Trump started a war.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

Appearance date: May 28, 2026

Length of time in the room: Approximately 31 minutes

Bessent walked to the podium with a wry smile. He told everyone it was a pleasure to be there as a dress rehearsal for testifying before Congress. The joke fell flat, but Bessent was undeterred. I kept waiting for him to ask “Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?” Yes, he still reminds me of Brad Majors in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.”

Bessent has neither the background nor the experience to handle the press. He was lackluster and stuck mostly to talking about Trump accounts, taxes, 401k’s, digital currency and interest rates, though he did have to handle a few questions on Iran, AI, Cuba and antifa.

His innate ability to fawn over Trump came just a few moments into the briefing when he said, “President Trump is a great American who has endured more than 10 years of nonstop harassment and weaponization from the federal and state government actors.”

He tried to make a few more jokes that fell flat. He criticized the Washington Post over an article about the administration’s attempt to put Trump’s face on the $250 bill. One reporter in the room said, barely audibly, “He’d be better on the $3 bill.”

Most honest moment: A reporter noted that both the vice president and secretary of state had already been guest hosts in the briefing room and asked Bessent if his presence meant he was running for president in 2028. He said, “No. I think it just means they’ve run out of things on the food chain.”

Biggest lie: “What we’ve seen is actually oil prices are down about 10 percent in May. … We could see prices come down very quickly.”

Worst moment: Plenty to choose from. I’ll go with this statement: “With the Iranian government we did not have regime change, but we changed the regime.”

Best moment: When he left.

Dr. Mehmet Oz

Date of appearance: June 2, 2026

Approximate length of appearance: 39 minutes

Oz walked into the room sounding like the studio head Jack Woltz in “The Godfather.” Obviously enamored with himself, he told the press corps that talking to us was “like I’m talking to a classroom.” He preached about Obamacare, ACA fraud, Turkey, the World Cup, the Trump prescription website,  hospice care, COVID mandates, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, forced vaccinations and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

He spent the first 10 minutes on an opening statement that sounded like it had been written to put Trump to sleep in a Cabinet meeting before he took questions, providing few answers.

Biggest lie: “It is it is an embarrassment that during COVID we allowed ideology and fear to dictate healthcare policy.” Unless he was referring to Trump’s handling of COVID, the statement made no sense.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Funniest moment: Praising Bessent’s “dry humor.” Claiming that Rubio is “just an earnestly funny person” and as an afterthought adding, “JD was spectacular.”

Worst moment: He said he was stunned at how healthy Trump is. “That amount of energy and that amount of mental acuity does not exist in a vacuum.”

Inadvertently humorous moment: When asked why the president keeps going back for more medical checkups, Oz said: “I think he likes the results. He does really well. He aces the test every single day.”

Assessing these four guest hosts is, ultimately, an unnerving and dreadful task. Leavitt herself is the worst press secretary I’ve covered since I walked into that briefing room for the first time in 1985. Her replacements, with the sole exception of Rubio, are far worse.

But how bad has it gotten that the veep or secretary of state must conduct a press briefing — and how much worse will it get before the end of this administration?

In a fever dream brought on by a combination of the on-again, off-again war, reading too much Hunter S. Thompson and imbibing a bottle of Kentucky bourbon while ingesting Trump’s Adderall, I could imagine Melania walking into the room to brief us, wearing her famous jacket, the one that says, “I don’t care, do you?”

The post How soon can we cancel the White House reality show? appeared first on Salon.com.

The FBI agents arrived at David Bolter’s Milwaukee home on a cool, cloudy Wednesday morning in late May. They were armed with a list of questions for the 2020 poll worker, who had raised concerns about the way local officials handled the 2020 election, Bolter told Votebeat.

President Donald Trump relied on Bolter’s claims in an unsuccessful 2020 lawsuit that sought to throw out more than 220,000 votes. That would have been more than enough to move Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes from Democrat Joe Biden, who won the state, to Trump. Though courts, several election reviews, and many audits rejected Trump’s claims, the Republican never stopped believing that he was cheated out of the presidency in 2020.

That appears to be why, last month, the FBI sent agents back to Milwaukee to question Bolter as part of an expanding national effort by the second Trump administration to investigate long-debunked claims of fraud in the 2020 election.

The investigation into the 2020 election appears to be relying on already disproven allegations from people like Bolter. Bolter declined to divulge more about his conversation with the FBI, which has not been previously reported, but allegations from Bolter’s 2020 affidavit were central to some conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. For example, he alleged that somebody in Milwaukee’s absentee ballot counting facility announced around midnight on Election Day that a “huge truckload of ballots” was going to be delivered — an accusation for which there has so far appeared to be no additional evidence.

Around the same time Bolter says he talked to the FBI, two plainclothes agents with FBI badges showed up at the apartment of a former Milwaukee resident and 2020 poll worker about an affidavit she submitted, according to the former poll worker, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Christine, to give her the freedom to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Christine had also submitted an affidavit about the 2020 election, saying election workers had been told that all votes were counted, but she then saw workers continuing to count ballots around midnight. That affidavit was the focus of the agents’ questions, Christine told Votebeat.

“I suspected wrongdoing, but I’m not saying that it actually happened,” she said. “I’m just one lowly person that was working there.”

During the interview, she added, an agent showed her a photograph of Claire Woodall, the former Milwaukee election chief, asking her if she recognized the former election official who has been central to false allegations about the 2020 election. She identified her by name. Woodall didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Caroline Clancy, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Milwaukee office, declined to comment.

While investigators seem mainly focused on the 2020 vote, some elections experts believe the Trump administration’s wide-ranging probe is actually designed to create more doubts among Americans about future elections, as Republicans face strong political headwinds that could cost them control of Congress later this year.

“This isn’t about the 2020 election, this is about the 2026 and 2028 elections,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research. “This is about intimidating election officials. This is about creating a stream of disinformation designed to delegitimize an election the president may believe he’s going to lose. This is designed by the president’s underlings to satisfy the unrealistic expectations of a president that still cannot comprehend that he lost an election that he definitely lost, and it’s incredibly destabilizing.”

Wisconsin is the latest known target of the Trump administration’s 2020 investigation. The FBI is looking to interview elections officials and Milwaukee police officers in what some worry could be a precursor to an effort to seize ballots from the 2020 presidential race, as it already has in Georgia.

The Trump administration is revisiting allegations of election fraud that have been repeatedly scrutinized

In January, federal investigators seized 600 boxes of ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton County, Georgia. The heavily Democratic county, home to Atlanta, was key to Biden’s narrow 2020 victory in the state.

As in Wisconsin, the FBI in Georgia has built its investigation on allegations that have already been repeatedly scrutinized by audits, investigations, and courts without unearthing any evidence of fraud or tampering that could have overturned the results.

The Georgia search represented an unprecedented intervention by the federal government into local administration. Even more unusually, Tulsi Gabbard, who will step down at end of this month as director of national intelligence, personally oversaw the seizure and arranged for Trump to speak directly to the FBI agents via cell phone after they carried out the operation.

The Trump administration investigations stretch from Arizona, where federal officials subpoenaed computerized records of a partisan review state lawmakers conducted of Maricopa County’s 2020 election, to Puerto Rico, where the Office of the Director of National Intelligence procured voting machines to examine for potential security risks.

The administration’s investigations aren’t entirely limited to 2020. The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter in April to Wayne County, Michigan — home to Detroit — demanding all ballots cast in the 2024 election, which Trump won. But even in that case, to support the request, the Justice Department cited accusations of fraud made after the 2020 election, including a lawsuit that was quickly dismissed after a judge wrote that “plaintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.” Wayne County never handed over the ballots, because it doesn’t have possession of them.

What do the 2020 elections mean for 2026?

The FBI faces challenges in pursuing cases tied to the 2020 election since the five-year statute of limitations that applies to most of the likely charges expired last year. Law enforcement veterans said it is possible that the Justice Department could pursue broader conspiracy charges in the case, but the prospect remains unclear.

FBI Director Kash Patel suggested in April that the Justice Department would soon announce arrests related to the 2020 election, but that has not yet occurred. Officials with the FBI and Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.

John Keller, a former acting head of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section who resigned in 2025 after refusing the Trump administration’s demands to drop corruption charges against then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams, said the administration appeared to be trying to normalize federal investigations of state elections to pave the way for future intervention.

“They are using enforcement directed at the 2020 election as a test run for what they can get away with on Election Day this year, or after, to try and delay certification or invalidate an election” if the results don’t go their way, he said.

Injecting federal law enforcement officials into an ongoing election is a more extreme and serious action than investigating a past one, and it could face stiffer opposition. But it’s clear, at least, that the administration is scrutinizing current elections closely.

Trump last week blasted California’s long vote counting process in its primary election and asserted that Democrats were trying to steal the election and federal authorities were investigating. Last month, Trump also said he was ordering the Justice Department to investigate an error that led to some voters in Maryland receiving ballots for the wrong party in the state’s upcoming primary. State officials in both cases have explained the true causes of the issues and that nothing nefarious was behind them.

Any effort to seize ballots in an ongoing election would create unprecedented new issues, such as a breach in the chain of custody over cast ballots, that could prevent election officials from declaring a winner and throw results into uncertainty.

Catherine Engelbrecht, co-founder of the Texas-based conservative group True the Vote, which has promoted debunked theories about the 2020 election, said she understands Trump’s intentions but believes the 2020 election questions should have been resolved “in the immediate aftermath of the 2020 election.”

“This is not necessarily the way I would have recommended that it would be handled,” she said. “The fact that it wasn’t addressed has left this lingering void.”

In most cases, however, Trump’s claims of voter fraud were addressed in the wake of the 2020 election. Time and again, courts, state investigations, and even the Justice Department concluded that there was no evidence of problems or fraud that would have changed the results.

Engelbrecht said she views the Trump administration’s ongoing investigations as an effort to dig into long-standing concerns about the voting process it wants to address for future elections.

“The past is prologue,” she said. “If we don’t understand what happened, we are doomed to repeat it.”

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Alexander Shur is a reporter for Votebeat based in Wisconsin. Contact Alexander at ashur@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

The post Trump’s investigations of the 2020 election may have more to do with 2026 appeared first on Salon.com.

I’ve had a soft spot for Minneapolis and St. Paul for a long time. It was the only place where I hosted not one, but two stops on my book tour after the publication of “Mechanic Shop Femme’s Guide to Car Ownership,” and where I had the privilege of speaking at Subaru’s DEIB conference. I’ve returned, spending time with friends, exploring neighborhoods, enjoying the parks and marveling at the lakes that seem to appear around every corner.

The Twin Cities are home to a thriving food scene, welcoming people and no shortage of things to do. If you’re planning a visit, here are some of the restaurants, parks and local favorites that are sure to make you fall in love as I did.

Fine dining

Khâluna — I arrived at Khâluna straight from the train station, suitcase in hand, and was immediately blown away. Chef Ann Ahmed’s Lao restaurant is bright and airy, filled with greenery and anchored by a sprawling patio that feels like a natural extension of the dining room.

The menu is packed with fresh herbs, flowers and bold flavors. While nothing I tried packed much heat (I have a high spice tolerance), every dish felt vibrant and carefully balanced. Start with the jeow trio — especially the mushroom jeow. The traditional Lao dipping sauces elevate nearly everything on the menu and taste just as good when you scoop them up with sticky rice.

Among the mains, the pan-seared half chicken with smoked red curry and purple sticky rice was the standout. The rich, fragrant curry sauce tied the dish together and lingered in my memory long after dinner. Don’t skip dessert, either, and if you’re a coffee drinker, order the Lao coffee, served with condensed milk and a sugar cube on the side so you can customize the sweetness to your liking.

(Jodyann Morgan) Main course at Khâluna

Bûcheron — James Beard Award-winning Bûcheron may have softened my love-hate relationship with French cuisine. The intimate restaurant is dimly lit, romantic and undeniably cozy, with tables packed close together. And it’s worth being a little squished to experience the magic. Chef Adam Ritter and hospitality director Jeanie Janas Ritter combine Midwest ingredients with French technique, creating a menu that feels both refined and approachable.

One of the night’s standout dishes was the venison tartare, topped with poached egg yolk and spruce tips and served with rye crackers. The pommes dauphine — crispy, cheesy potato puffs paired with a rich Gruyère dipping sauce — were equally memorable. For mains, the grilled rainbow trout with Carolina Gold rice and espelette-citrus beurre blanc was beautifully balanced, while the butternut squash agnolotti with Madeira foam and ricotta offered a rich, comforting counterpoint.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Sign up for Salon’s free food newsletter, The Bite.

Borough — Located in Minneapolis’ North Loop, Borough occupies a warehouse building that embraces industrial charm with exposed brick, visible pipes and comfortable seating. During warmer months, the patio offers an excellent spot for al fresco dining. The menu is designed for sharing, though a few dishes may tempt you to keep them to yourself.

My favorite was the spicy lobster spaghetti, tossed in chili tomato sauce and topped with bottarga and breadcrumbs for texture. The pan-seared salmon was another highlight, served over zucchini with coconut beurre blanc and curry-chili crisp. Save room for dessert: the dark chocolate budino, topped with salted caramel whipped cream and Biscoff crumble, is rich without feeling overwhelming.

P.S. Steak — Housed in a historic building, P.S. Steak leans into its vintage charm with dark lighting, a crackling fireplace and a distinctly romantic atmosphere. As the name suggests, steak is the main event, with options ranging from dry-aged ribeyes and picanha to A5 Wagyu New York strip, plus add-ons like roasted bone marrow and curry béarnaise.

Despite all the deliciousness, my favorite bite of the meal wasn’t a steak at all. It was the aligot, a gloriously stretchy, cheese-laden French potato dish that’s every bit as decadent as it sounds. If you have time before or after dinner, take a stroll through nearby Loring Park and enjoy one of Minneapolis’ abundant green space.

Brunch

Black Duck Spirits & Hearth — Chef Sawicki blends duck, fire and his Polish heritage into a distinctive Minneapolis restaurant concept. Much of the menu is prepared over a live hearth, and traditional Polish dishes sit alongside inventive creations like duck confit cabbage rolls and pork belly pączki. (Don’t worry — sweet varieties like raspberry and apple pączki are on the menu, too.)

Duck appears everywhere, from the decor to the menu itself. If you’re a burger lover, order the duck burger, made with in-house ground duck and served Oklahoma-style with grilled onions. For maximum duck-on-duck goodness, add crispy duck bacon and a gooey duck egg.

(Jodyann Morgan) Brunch spread at Black Duck Spirits & Hearth

Potsticker MN — For handmade dumplings in St. Paul, head to aptly named Potsticker MN. The restaurant makes eight varieties of potstickers in-house, including kimchi pork, curry chicken, butternut squash and shrimp, and vegan options like tofu with mushroom and kale.

The dumplings may be the star, but they’re far from the only reason to visit. The smoky cucumber salad offers a refreshing contrast, while the pork belly rice bowl is rich and satisfying enough to stand as a meal on its own. Other menu highlights include garlic sauce eggplant, ribeye noodles and General Tso’s chicken. Whatever you order, don’t skip the dipping sauces — there are five to choose from.

Gai Noi — Brunch at Gai Noi checks every box: a lush rooftop filled with greenery, warm service and memorable food. Chef Ann Ahmed’s more casual follow-up to Khâluna features an extensive menu, and gratuity is already included in the pricing.

Standout dishes include the grilled salmon skewers with peanut dipping sauce, crispy pork belly, and any of the restaurant’s jeow dipping sauces paired with sticky rice. The crispy fried tofu, coated in a sweet-and-spicy sauce, is another must-order. Save room for dessert, especially the kanom krok, a crispy round pancake filled with coconut cream that’s lightly sweet and impossible to stop eating.

Fast-casual

Baba’s Hummus House — Baba’s Hummus House is a Palestinian American fast-casual restaurant whose food feels anything but casual. The bright, colorful space offers plenty of seating and a patio for warmer days, making it an easy place to linger.

The menu centers on ultra-creamy hummus bowls served with pillowy pita puffs and topped with everything from falafel to Wagyu shawarma. You’ll also find made-to-order mana’eesh baked in a brick oven, along with sandwiches and salads. The Jinba + Za’atar mana’eesh stood out for its beautifully charred crust, the result of a 72-hour fermentation and a scorching-hot oven.

Don’t miss the batata harra, crispy spiced potatoes served with toum, a punchy garlic-and-lemon dip that’s so good you’ll need to take a container home. Thankfully, Baba’s sells its packaged toum in the café. Before you leave, order a coffee — flavors like rose water, pistachio, and orange blossom tahini offer a refreshing finish to the meal.

(Jodyann Morgan) Jinba + Za’atar Mana’eesh at Baba’s Hummus House

Midtown Global Market and Powderhorn Park — If you’re the kind of traveler who struggles to choose just one place to eat, Midtown Global Market is your answer. The bustling food hall brings together cuisines from around the world under one roof, so you can indulge in a variety of deliciousness.

Standouts include the carnitas tacos and tamarind agua fresca at El Taco Torro, creative pies at Pizza Luna, house-smoked barbecue from Rollin Nolen’s BBQ, and Indian and Nepalese street food from Momo Dosa. Newer additions include Somali restaurant 7 Spices and Trio, which specializes in plant-based soul food.

Once you’ve made the difficult decision of what to order, take your meal a block and a half down the road to Powderhorn Park. Built around a small lake, the park offers plenty of places to sit, eat and watch the ducks glide by. After lunch, take a leisurely lap around the water and enjoy another one of Minneapolis’ charming neighborhood green spaces.

Bars and cafes

Nur House Cafe — If you’re in need of a caffeine break and something sweet, make time for Nur House Cafe. The standout drink on my visit was the triple berry matcha, made with first-harvest organic matcha, house-made berry syrup and vanilla cream. Vibrant green and pleasantly balanced, it was refreshing without being overly sweet.

I was also tempted by the salted date caramel matcha, which may be reason enough for a return trip. Pair your drink with the cardamom spice loaf, a warmly spiced treat that makes an ideal afternoon pick-me-up.

K’kinaco Nikkei & Pisco Bar — Fans of Japanese and Peruvian cuisine will find plenty to love at K’kinaco Nikkei & Pisco Bar. The restaurant celebrates Nikkei cuisine, a culinary tradition that blends Japanese techniques with Peruvian ingredients, and pairs it with a thoughtful menu of pisco-based cocktails and tasting flights.

While the drinks draw plenty of attention, the food deserves equal billing. The shrimp and vegetable tempura was remarkably light and crisp, while the tiraditos — sashimi dressed with vibrant Peruvian sauces — showcased the restaurant’s unique perspective. The mahi mahi ceviche and classic lomo saltado are also worth ordering if you’re looking for a broader introduction to the menu.

(Jodyann Morgan) Shrimp and vegetable tempura

Isles Bun & Coffee — The line outside Isles Bun & Coffee should tell you everything you need to know. The beloved Minneapolis bakery is famous for its oversized, gooey cinnamon rolls, but there are plenty of other temptations on display, including caramel pecan buns, sticky buns and seasonal specialties.

As good as the sweet offerings are, don’t overlook the savory pastries. The cheddar scone was my favorite bite of the visit, striking a perfect balance between rich and sharp. If you’re stopping by during a busy weekend, consider ordering ahead online to avoid missing out on popular items.

Hotels

The Saint Paul Hotel — Overlooking Rice Park in downtown St. Paul, the Saint Paul Hotel delivers old-world elegance with the kind of attentive service that’s increasingly rare. Uniformed doormen greet guests at the entrance, while chandeliers, fireplaces and classic architectural details reinforce the hotel’s historic character.

I stayed in a Landmark King room overlooking the park. The accommodations fit the historic bill and offer a comfortable and convenient home base for exploring downtown St. Paul, with restaurants, parks and the Mississippi River all within easy walking distance.

Guests can dine at The Drake or the acclaimed St. Paul Grill, both located on-site, and room service is available for quieter mornings. If your schedule allows, don’t miss the hotel’s afternoon tea service, which includes live piano accompaniment and fills up quickly.

Hotel Ivy — Hotel Ivy strikes a different note entirely. Bright, airy and modern, it feels designed to help guests exhale the moment they walk through the door. High ceilings, oversized windows and thoughtful service create a sense of calm that extends from the lobby into the guest rooms.

The rooms are polished without feeling sterile, featuring plush beds, large bathrooms and spacious showers. On-site amenities include multiple dining options, a bar and a cigar lounge. After a long day of exploring, I enjoyed unwinding with a margarita and snack at Masa & Agave, the hotel’s Mexico City-inspired restaurant.

The standout feature, however, is Anda Spa. My seasonal body treatment included exfoliation, massage and aromatherapy, making it one of the most relaxing experiences of the trip. Arrive early to enjoy the spa facilities, particularly the hydrotherapy pool and lounge spaces, which are worth lingering in before your appointment begins.

Things to do

Abogados Café & Como Park — Start your morning with a coffee — or, in my case, a Chocolate Mexicano — from Abogados Café before heading to nearby Como Park. The drinks are excellent and make a perfect companion for the short walk to the lake.

Built around Como Lake, the park features a walking path that loops the entire shoreline, along with plenty of benches for soaking up the scenery. I found myself returning several times throughout my trip simply because it was such a peaceful place to enjoy the sunshine, water and green space.

Cooks of Crocus Hill Cooking Class — Cooking classes are one of the most underrated travel activities. You learn a new skill, enjoy a great meal and leave with recipes that can transport you back to your trip long after you’ve returned home.

With two Twin Cities locations and classes covering everything from Indian cooking and sushi to sourdough and knife skills, Cooks of Crocus Hill offers plenty of options. I attended the Favorite Indian Dishes class taught by Chef Ria Mathew and was impressed by how smoothly the large group was managed. Divided into smaller groups, we prepared butter chicken, green pea pulao and palak paneer, then sat down to enjoy the meal together. The experience was hands-on, welcoming and surprisingly relaxing.

Woodhouse Spa — If your pre-vacation manicure or pedicure falls victim to a packed schedule, Woodhouse Spa can help. Located at Rosedale Center, the spa offers nail services alongside massages, facials and body treatments in a calm, welcoming setting.

My wife and I enjoyed a gel manicure and the signature Luxury Foot Retreat pedicure, complete with warm neck wraps and beverages. One especially useful touch for travelers: the spa offers quick-drying traditional polishes, making it easier to get back to sightseeing without worrying about smudges.

Nudie Nubies at The Black Hart — I make a point of seeking out burlesque whenever I travel, and Nudie Nubies ‘ performance made for a memorable night. It’s the longest-running amateur burlesque competition in the country, according to organizers, and has called St. Paul home for years.

Held on the second Friday of each month at The Black Hart, the competition showcases performers with fewer than four years of stage experience as they compete for a prize and a spot in the annual showcase round. The venue’s floor-level performance space can make sightlines a little challenging, but the energy more than makes up for it. There’s also a spacious patio if you need a break between acts.

Pro tip: Bring cash for the cover charge, or plan to use the on-site ATM.

With friends

Bolé Ethiopian Cuisine St. Paul – Ethiopian food is always fantastic, but it’s even better when shared with friends. Walking distance from Como Park is one of three locations of Bolé Ethiopian Cuisine, named after the neighborhood where its owners were born and raised. The menu is extensive, including far more than what you’d typically find in Ethiopian restaurants stateside. Start your meal with Crispy Kitfo, an Ethiopian beef tartar spread on crispy injera, a pillowy, slightly sour, fermented flatbread. Scoop endless variety of stews, vegetables (the highlight of any Ethiopian meal in my opinion), meat, and my new favorite, Asa Gulash, tilapia in a berbere sauce with tomatoes, onions, and herbs, with injera for a meal you won’t forget anytime soon. To try a little of a lot, order the tour of Ethiopian, or Tokkumaa, the pride and joy of the restaurant owners, which layers a number of dishes into a mountain to be enjoyed bite by bite.

Whimstay Rental — When traveling with friends, I almost always prefer a short-term rental to a hotel. The extra space, privacy and access to a kitchen make a big difference, especially on longer trips. Whimstay specializes in discounted last-minute vacation rentals, offering deals on properties booked less than 30 days in advance.

We stayed in a renovated two-bedroom home managed by MINNeSTAY that retained much of its historic charm, including beautiful woodwork, a formal dining room and a spacious kitchen. Outside, a backyard with a fire pit, grill and lawn games made it easy to unwind after a day of exploring. The bed and pillows weren’t my favorite, but the rest of the house more than made up for it.

Pro tip: The walkable neighborhood is close to Black Duck Spirits & Hearth and local shops like I Like You and A Bag Lady.

Fogo de Chão — Fogo de Chão is a fun choice for groups and anyone with an appreciation for Brazilian-style churrasco. The experience begins at the expansive Market Table, where salads, vegetables and side dishes serve to complement what’s to come.

Once seated, expect a steady stream of pão de queijo, fried bananas and tableside-carved meats delivered by roaming gaúchos. Standouts from our meal included the flank steak, pork belly, lamb chops and the restaurant’s honey-drizzled grilled cheese.

Service was incredibly slow during our visit on a busy Saturday evening, but once the meats started arriving, things quickly started looking up.

Can Can Wonderland — Can Can Wonderland may be the most fun you can have in the Twin Cities with a single admission ticket. Entry includes unlimited access to more than 150 arcade games spread throughout a sprawling, art-filled space packed with vintage machines and quirky attractions.

Beyond the arcade, visitors can enjoy mini golf, karaoke, themed events and monthly performances like Queer Circus. After 9 p.m. on weekends, the venue shifts to a 21+ atmosphere, making it a popular nightlife destination.

The food and drink offerings lean playful and nostalgic, with cotton candy, popcorn, loaded milkshakes, cocktails, mocktails and plenty of other treats to keep the fun going between games.

Cannabis

Glass Blowing Pipe Class at Legacy Glassworks — If you’re looking for a hands-on activity that’s a little different, Legacy Glassworks offers classes in borosilicate glasswork, including a pipe-making workshop. While I’ve taken traditional glassblowing classes before, this experience felt entirely different. Instead of working with a massive furnace, participants use small torches, making the process feel more approachable and easier to control.

During the class, I learned techniques like making a glass marble and created a one-hitter to take home. The small class size — no more than seven students — allows for plenty of one-on-one instruction, and the patient, encouraging teaching style made the experience enjoyable even for beginners. Legacy Glassworks also offers a variety of other classes for those interested in exploring the craft further.

Rise Dispensary — Located about 10 minutes from Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, Rise is a convenient stop for visitors interested in Minnesota’s legal cannabis market (just watch out for the large pothole in the parking lot). While recreational cannabis sales are still relatively new to the state, Rise brings experience from operating dispensaries across multiple states.

Products range from Dogwalkers mini pre-rolls, ideal for visitors seeking a smaller, portable option, to RYTHM flower sold in larger quantities for those planning a longer stay. The selection is noticeably smaller than what you’ll find in more established cannabis markets, but that’s reflective of Minnesota’s still-evolving industry. Ordering online ahead of time makes pickup quick and straightforward.

The post Why I keep returning to the Twin Cities appeared first on Salon.com.

Every summer, we celebrate tomatoes in their freshest form: sliced onto sandwiches, layered into caprese salads, piled onto toast. They’re the golden child of the produce aisle, the ingredient that inspires pilgrimages to farmers markets and endless declarations that this is the year we’ll finally grow our own.

But if fresh tomatoes are summer’s darling, sun-dried tomatoes are their moodier, more savory cousin.

They’re concentrated. Intense. A little salty, a little sweet, packed with the kind of umami flavor that takes any dish to the next level, and elevates a flavor profile to make you feel like a pro.

Growing up in an Italian family, there was never a shortage of jars in the pantry. My Nonno and Zii always seemed to have shelves lined with preserved vegetables — roasted peppers, artichokes, mushrooms, and, of course, sun-dried tomatoes suspended in oil. Nothing went to waste. If there was flavor left in the jar, there was still a purpose for it.

Which is why I’m going to teach you how to never pour that delicious oil down the drain again.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Sign up for Salon’s free food newsletter, The Bite.

At the most basic level, it’s a flavored alternative to olive oil. Use it to roast vegetables, drizzle it over pizza, toss it with pasta or dip bread into it. That’s the obvious stuff. The oil has spent weeks absorbing garlic, herbs, tomato sweetness, and savory depth. It’s essentially something between olive oil and olio santo, except it’s a little sweeter and less spicy.

But if you want to take things a step further, here are seven ways to put every last drop to work.

The ready-made salad dressing

Homemade salad dressing is one of those things that sounds more impressive than it actually is.

The formula is simple: oil, acid, seasoning.

Using sun-dried tomato oil as the base instantly makes the whole thing more interesting. Whisk it with red wine vinegar or lemon juice, add a spoonful of Dijon mustard, and suddenly your everyday vinaigrette tastes layered and complex.

It’s especially good on salads that already lean Mediterranean — think mozzarella, white beans, grilled chicken, cucumbers or fresh tomatoes.

The best part is that the flavor is already built in. The jar did the work for you.

That marinade that makes everyone ask what’s different

Marinades are, similarly, all about fat, acid and seasoning.

Sun-dried tomato oil already checks two of those boxes before you even start.

Mix it with garlic, lemon, herbs, and a little salt, then use it on chicken, steak, shrimp or pork. The oil helps carry flavor into the meat while lending a subtle savory sweetness that doesn’t immediately register as tomato.

It’s similar to what pickle brine does for chicken: people notice something special, but they can’t quite identify it. That’s usually a sign you’ve found a good trick.

The eggs that made me feel like a genius before 9 a.m.

If there’s a half-inch of sun-dried tomato oil left in a jar, there’s a very good chance I’m frying eggs in it the next morning.

This is probably my favorite use on the list because it’s almost effortless.

Heat the oil in a skillet, crack in a couple of eggs, and let the edges crisp. The oil perfumes the whole pan with garlic and tomato while adding a subtle richness to the eggs themselves.

If you want to go a step further, add a spoonful of chili crisp to the pan. The combination of spicy chili oil and sweet-savory tomato oil is wildly good.

Serve it over toast and suddenly breakfast feels much more intentional than it actually was. If I close my eyes, I’m on a sun-baked patio overlooking the Adriatic Sea and not semi-rushing my way out the door to work.

The caprese martini for tomato girl summer

Every trend eventually finds its way into a martini glass.

Lately, that trend is tomatoes.

Caprese martinis have started appearing on cocktail menus everywhere, joining the ongoing evolution of the martini from simple cocktail to culinary playground. The ‘90s had green apple and the cosmo, we have tomatoes and cheese. And honestly? It kind of makes sense.

A splash of sun-dried tomato oil can add depth and savory complexity to tomato-forward cocktails in the same way olive brine transformed the dirty martini.

I’m not suggesting you dump half a jar into your shaker. But a small amount can bring a rich, sun-soaked quality to a drink that already leans savory.

For anyone embracing tomato girl summer, it feels like the logical next step. Add a mozzarella ball garnish and a dash of balsamic vinegar, and you’re set.

The focaccia that starts with the bottom of a jar

Few foods are more forgiving than focaccia, and few foods benefit more from flavorful oil.

Instead of using plain olive oil, brush sun-dried tomato oil across the dough before baking. The oil seeps into every crevice, helping create those crisp golden edges that make focaccia so irresistible.

Top it with flaky salt, rosemary, garlic, or even chopped pieces of the remaining sun-dried tomatoes.

The result tastes like something from a neighborhood Italian bakery, even if it came from your own oven.

The mayo upgrade you didn’t know you needed

Making homemade mayonnaise sounds intimidating until you realize it’s mostly oil and a can-do attitude.

Sun-dried tomato oil brings an incredible amount of flavor to the process.

Blend it slowly with an egg, mustard, and lemon juice for a punchy, flavorful homemade mayo, or stir a spoonful into store-bought mayonnaise for a shortcut version. The result is richer, more savory, and infinitely more interesting than plain mayo.

Spread it on sandwiches, use it for burgers, spoon it into wraps, or add it to chicken salad. Almost like with the oil itself, the possibilities are endless.

The secret ingredient for every dip

This is the easiest use of all.

The next time you’re making hummus, whipped feta, baba ganoush, white bean dip, or even a simple yogurt dip, add a spoonful of sun-dried tomato oil.

That’s it.

The oil melts into the dip, bringing garlic, herbs, tomato, and richness along with it. It deepens flavor without requiring any extra ingredients, which is exactly the kind of kitchen shortcut I appreciate most. It’s also a good reminder that some of the best ingredients aren’t the ones we buy specifically. They’re the ones we almost threw away.

The whole point of the “bottom of the barrel” approach is learning to see ingredients differently.

Most people open a jar of sun-dried tomatoes for the tomatoes. The oil is treated like packaging, something useful only until the last tomato disappears. But somewhere along the way, all those tomatoes, herbs, and spices have been quietly flavoring the oil. By the time you reach the bottom of the jar, what’s left isn’t waste at all.

In some ways, it might be the best part.

The post 7 genius ways to use sun-dried tomato oil appeared first on Salon.com.

Early marketing for the film teased a movie in which “there were no safe spaces,” where “every line would be crossed.” (Never mind that a hacky, low-hanging joke about they/them pronouns, like the one in the film’s first trailer, is a line that’s been crossed so many times the chalk has faded.) “Scary Movie” would, apparently, be a return to the button-pushing, tasteless humor that defined a generation but was now outmoded by wokeness. Hear that, snowflakes? The Wayans brothers are coming for your triggers. 2016 is all about real comedy. Save your liberal crap for “The Mindy Project”!

Ah, shoot, that’s right: It’s 2026, and provoking people with inflammatory remarks is a billion-dollar industry. What a shame that no one told the Wayans that so “Scary Movie” could have a shot at actually being good. Though, it’s important to note that the “Scary Movie” franchise was never good, at least not exactly.

(Paramount Pictures) Olivia Rose Keegan as Sara, Cameron Scott Roberts as Jack and Savannah Lee Nassif as Tuesday in “Scary Movie”

The series’ first film is its strongest, weaving together overarching parodies of “Scream” and “I Know What You Did Last Summer” alongside brief send-ups of popular horror films. Though the sequels became progressively worse, each one has a handful of great situational gags — diamonds sparkling through manure recalling the finest, silliest bits in classic spoof films from the late 20th century. Maybe a spoof doesn’t have to be consistently funny or ideologically progressive to be enjoyable, and anyone who demands those things should just close the door and forget what they’ve seen. But you know what they say: When one door closes, a train is about to careen off the tracks and barrel right through it.

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

Crashing into theaters alongside “Scary Movie” this weekend is “Stop! That! Train!,” a spoof that stylistically harkens back to Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker movies like “Airplane!” and “The Naked Gun,” and lands about 50% more punchlines than its horror-skewering opponent. And though it’s also far from perfect, “Stop! That! Train!” shrewdly updates inane parodic humor for the contemporary age, understanding that inclusivity is easier to make funny than being an “equal opportunity offender,” as the Wayans put it.

But as strange as it may sound, “Scary Movie” and “Stop! That! Train!” aren’t competitors so much as they are complements, two parodies that hold each other up when the other starts to lag. Their simultaneous existence indicates a broader trend toward sheer, glorious stupidity that viewers crave when practically everything is either too polished and boring or wilfully obtuse. In a time when everyone — be it civilians, brands or celebrities — is hyper-conscious of how they come off, there’s a refreshing thoughtlessness to these films, a folly so proud and surprisingly well-crafted that it turns right back around to feel clever again. A spoof is only as successful as its dumbest joke, and these two films have plenty to choose from.

In all fairness, “Stop! That! Train!” is working with a home court advantage. Produced by the brilliant team behind “RuPaul’s Drag Race” — Randy Barbato, Fenton Bailey, Tom Campbell and RuPaul himself — “Stop! That! Train!” adapts the humor of the Emmy-winning reality show for the big screen. (A crash course for the unfamiliar: Put together the acronym spelled out by one of the show’s many catchphrases, “Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve and Talent.”) And if there’s anyone who can help translate that humor for audiences all over the country who might not watch “Drag Race,” it’s the man who directed John Travolta’s Edna Turnblad in “Hairspray,” Adam Shankman. With a healthy dose of RuPaul’s signature wit and enough drag queen-friendly lighting to combat Hollywood’s run of dimly lit features, the team revives the disaster spoof with stylish aplomb.

Set aboard a luxurious Glamazonian Express train, the film follows stewardesses Tess and DeeDee (“Drag Race” alums Ginger Minj and Jujubee) during their first day on the job after quitting their gigs at Stank Railways. Little do they and the rest of the train’s crew and passengers realize that their coach is headed straight for a wicked stormaganza that promises to blow the wigs right off their heads, Got2Be glue hairspray be damned.

(Bleecker Street) RuPaul Charles as President Judy Gagwell and Matt Rogers as Press Secretary in “Stop! That! Train!”

The film rings loudly with its apparent elevator pitch — “What if ‘Airplane!’ was set on a runaway train staffed by drag queens and every passenger was either famous or gay-famous?” — but the sound is a pleasurable one. The worse the weather gets, the more delightfully moronic the film becomes. When RuPaul arrives as President Judy Gagwell, tasked with saving the train or seeing her approval ratings plummet, the script begins to sing . . . just before it sinks. RuPaul enters the fold and steals the show, and suddenly, none of the quips and bits can quite measure up to his delivery. But those are champagne problems, and on a Glamazonian Express, champagne is complimentary.

Even when “Stop! That! Train!” falters and the steel of the train tracks starts to shake things too severely, the film is put back on its course by its sheer joy. There’s an undeniably amiable — dare I say important — quality to a film like this hitting theaters now, when an entire subset of American politicians is devoted to pushing and passing anti-drag and transphobic legislation. The sheer existence of “Stop! That! Train!” is a statement more edgy than anything in “Scary Movie.”

Yet, the film pulls off its share of daft, button-pushing jokes, too. President Gagwell is haunted by the memory of a child she ran over with a train while serving in the Railforce, a fake division of the American armed forces. Raven-Symoné, who is not Jewish, appears to deliver one single line playing a Floridian television reporter named Shayna Gefilte-Manischewitz. These things are hilarious because screenwriters Christina Friel and Connor Wright clearly approached the script by trying to make everything legitimately funny, instead of assuming that provocation immediately equates to humor.

But a bigger comedic sin is the belief that viewers will automatically laugh just because they recognize a reference. “Scary Movie” spends the majority of its runtime making broad, humorless gestures at the kind of pop culture that’s been proliferating our lives and screens for the last six years, and thus, feels tired and trite. Jokes about Twitch streamers getting paid to do nothing were funnier the first 1,000 times you saw them somewhere, and even then, they weren’t worth more than a passing snicker. During a bit referencing “The Substance,” which is a ha-ha-funny poking at the accessibility of lip filler, there’s a patently horrible joke about the Epstein files that’s made significantly worse because it’s not just in poor taste, but also makes no sense.

(Paramount Pictures) Anna Faris as Cindy and Regina Hall as Brenda in “Scary Movie”

Several “Scary Movie” scenes read like cobbled-together filler or late-period reshoots. But even the strongest sequences, like the opening scene where Teyana Taylor references her Oscar loss, filmed only a few months ago, can’t buoy those that flatline on arrival. Even more baffling is the shoddy editing. If the Wayans were able to slip in a joke about Taylor, why didn’t they cut a separate quip about horror never winning Oscars, when Amy Madigan won for “Weapons” the same night? At one point, Anna Faris jokes that the film can’t reference “It Follows” because that movie is too obscure. Yet, there’s a direct recreation of a shot from “It Follows” 15 minutes before.

What’s frustrating isn’t that the jokes are terrible. I mean, that’s disappointing too, but it’s not my primary complaint. What doesn’t compute with me is why the Wayans, who finally regained control of their franchise after the Weinstein brothers swiped it out from under them following “Scary Movie 2,” opted to focus on simple provocation over complex comedy. These jokes don’t even come off as ill-intentioned; they’re just not amusing.

The funniest moments in the “Scary Movie” franchise have nothing to do with the casual ableism, rapey implications or gross-out toilet humor proliferating the first five films, and everything to do with the smart character writing. When Brenda (Regina Hall), Cindy (Faris), Shorty (Marlon Wayans) or Ray (Shawn Wayans) landed a punchline, it was because their archetypal characters found themselves in ludicrous situations, played to extremes. Those are the bits that have carried the “Scary Movie” legacy into the present. No one’s rewatching “Scary Movie 2” because they’re dying to see James “Evil Incarnate” Woods play a lecherous priest named Father McFeely. They’re watching because they want to see Brenda say the skeleton looks like Calista Flockhart, or Cindy get KO’d by a black cat. Those scenes are perfect examples of how to make semi-provocative jabs at body shaming and animal violence funny.

(Paramount Pictures) Heidi Gardner as Agent Berger and Damon Wayans Jr. as Agent Underwood in “Scary Movie”

As brilliant as the Wayans brothers can be, they seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s made “Scary Movie” last all these years. Sure, some immature viewers might have glommed onto the edgy comedy of yesteryear. But what people really loved was Faris and Hall, whose characters dominate the meme scene to this day. The film tries to make a tongue-in-cheek commentary about how the “Scream” reboot pushed Neve Campbell to the back burner and focused on a new group of teenagers. But a spoof is under no obligation to turn that one joke into a full narrative as it does by deferring to a younger cast, and only checking in with the franchise’s original players occasionally. The people want Brenda and Cindy, and I’d wager that a hefty chunk of the film’s $54 million opening weekend was from those who were curious about what those characters were up to, and what new GIFs and reaction videos they might produce.

Still, I laughed. Out loud, too, and more than a few times. Were those chuckles overpowered by groans and eye rolls? Definitely. But despite how truly bad — and I do mean bad — “Scary Movie” is, there’s something that remains enjoyable about it. When a joke hits, it hits hard. A spoof film, by nature, is always going to be a bit scrappy. They’re loaded with practical effects and jokes that cost thousands of dollars to produce for a five-second cutaway scene. There’s an odd bliss in that ingenuity, as if I were affected by how high-concept both “Scary Movie” and “Stop! That! Train!” manage to be, despite working with medium-sized budgets and scripts that range from pretty good to this-should-be-burnt.

Perfection has a great marketing team these days. Flawlessness is seen as attainable. But the cinema spoof still kicks dirt all over those concepts, even when it’s awful. Here, excellence is determined by how much fun you can have on set, how ridiculous you can be, and how you can make a joke so completely insipid that it circles back around to being funny again. Those attempts don’t always work, but in an era when everything is picked apart until there’s nothing left, there’s a power in total carefreeness. The fact that “Scary Movie” will almost certainly get a sequel, despite the abysmal reactions, is a great thing. That “Stop! That! Train!” is the first planned film in a “Drag Race” universe is even better. I’ll watch five more — hell, 10 more — of each, even if it’s just in pursuit of that one gut-busting laugh.

The post The cinema spoof will never die appeared first on Salon.com.

Four months later, an obscure Texas startup called America First Refining announced that it had received a nine-figure investment from the Ambanis’ company. The deal puzzled numerous energy investors familiar with the project, which aims to build the first major new oil refinery in the U.S. in about 50 years. The company is run by a serial entrepreneur with a history of bankruptcy and lawsuits alleging fraud. After more than a decade of failed attempts to raise money, blown deadlines and rebrands, it had been floundering.

America First Refining’s unexpected breakthrough came after it forged a previously unreported relationship with Trump Jr., who secretly acquired a stake in the startup, according to records and seven people familiar with the company. The new details reveal the role the president’s son has played in a theme of Trump’s second term: overseas investors with interests before the administration putting money into the Trump family’s business interests.

Over the past year and a half, Trump Jr. has amassed a fortune from stakes in companies ranging from crypto startups to a drone business to a firearms retailer. Some firms tied to the president’s son have received contracts or other support from the federal government, part of what critics describe as a run of Trump family self-dealing. In December, Forbes estimated that Trump Jr.’s net worth had rocketed from roughly $50 million to $300 million since the election. But the Forbes figures were based on the investments that have been publicly disclosed. The America First Refining episode suggests there is much about the family business that remains secret.

The size of Trump Jr.’s stake in America First Refining and what he paid for it remain unclear. Top executives at the startup have also said that they speak regularly with Trump Jr., according to a person close to the company. And after the Ambani investment was announced, Trump Jr.’s personal lawyer took credit on social media for playing a part in the deal.

America First Refining has flexed its Trump Jr. connections during pitch meetings with foreign officials. Early last year, Trump Jr. joined the company’s leadership for a meeting in South Florida with potential investors from Saudi Arabia, according to two people familiar with the matter. Another foreign government official pitched on the project told ProPublica that the company’s team emphasized they had backing from the Trump family and suggested that an investment would help with White House access.

The Ambanis’ investment coincided with the family’s securing major U.S. policy wins that their company, Reliance Industries, had been lobbying for. “Reliance Goes From Trump Foe to Friend With Refinery Pledge,” ran the Bloomberg headline after the deal was announced. Reliance’s intent with the deal was to “smooth out” tensions between the U.S. and India, the outlet reported.

A Trump Jr. spokesperson said that Trump Jr. “has no operational involvement in AFR and is simply a passive minority investor in an American company that aligns with his worldview.”

“The entire premise of this story relating to Don is false,” the spokesperson said, adding, “Don does not interface with the Federal Government on behalf of any company that he invests in or advises.” ProPublica did not find evidence Trump Jr. was aware of refinery executives’ suggesting that an investment would help with White House access.

In response to detailed questions, a spokesperson for America First Refining said, “The claims in this story are false,” but declined to specify what they were referring to. The company’s CEO previously denied wrongdoing in the lawsuits against him reviewed by ProPublica, and the suits were either settled or dropped.

The Ambani family had long been cultivating its relationship with the Trumps. Reliance paid $10 million to the Trump Organization in 2024 as a “development fee” for a project in Mumbai, according to the president’s financial disclosure. (Despite the payment, Reliance has not yet announced a Trump project. Reliance told ProPublica that “the real estate project is real” and “remains under development.”) Ivanka Trump attended Anant Ambani’s wedding party in India that year, where guests were treated to a Rihanna concert. Anant’s father, Mukesh — who is worth an estimated $90 billion and lives in a 27-story home — came to Washington, D.C., for Trump’s second inauguration, posing with the president at a private reception.

At the Private Reception in Washington, Mrs. Nita and Mr. Mukesh Ambani extended their congratulations to President-Elect Mr. Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration.

With a shared optimism for deeper India-US relations, they wished him a transformative term of leadership, paving… pic.twitter.com/XXm2Sj74vX

— Reliance Industries Limited (@RIL_Updates) January 19, 2025

But by the summer of 2025, the family was under attack from the White House. Since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Reliance had reportedly made billions in profits by purchasing vast quantities of Russian oil at a discount. In August, as Trump grew frustrated with his administration’s struggles to bring the war to an end, the president doubled his tariffs on India to 50%. The move was explicitly designed to force companies like Reliance to stop buying Russian oil. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro publicly assailed “India’s politically connected energy titans” for “funding Putin’s war machine,” widely read as a reference to the Ambanis.

Amid this tension, Trump Jr. visited Anant Ambani on his November trip to India. At the end of the trip, Trump Jr.’s personal lawyer commented at a business conference in Miami: “I had a nice closing this morning with Don Trump Jr., who’s flying back from India today.” (The following week, the Texas startup — then called Element Fuels — filed paperwork to create America First Refining LLC. In an email, the attorney, John Willding, told ProPublica that there was “no transaction in India or with an Indian company that I was ever involved with.”)

Anant Ambani, who helps run Reliance’s energy business, personally worked on the Texas refinery deal for months before it was announced, a major Indian newspaper later reported.

As the Ambanis quietly finalized their deal with America First Refining, U.S.-Indian relations appeared to warm. In February, the Trump administration struck a trade deal with India, dramatically lowering tariffs, and also reportedly gave Reliance a license to buy Venezuelan oil. When the Iran war broke out and rocked global energy markets, the U.S. gave India a sanctions waiver to buy Russian crude. (The waiver was later expanded to all countries.)

In response to ProPublica’s questions, the White House said that “there are no conflicts of interest.” Reliance did not answer ProPublica’s questions about Trump Jr.’s and Anant Ambani’s roles in the investment deal, but said in a statement that the company did not receive “any unique or preferential treatment” from the U.S. government.

“There is no connection between Reliance’s investment in AFR and any unique measures associated with general U.S. trade, tariff, sanctions or licensing outcomes,” Reliance said. “The investment was evaluated and approved on its commercial merits, strategic fit and long-term value creation potential.”

In March, President Trump personally announced Reliance’s deal with the Texas startup on Truth Social, thanking the Ambani company for its “tremendous Investment.”

After the announcement, Willding, the Trump Jr. lawyer, shared the news on LinkedIn: “Just so proud to have been part of this one.”

Willding rowed back his claim in an email to ProPublica. “I have never worked for or advised AFR and had zero involvement in their deal with Reliance Energy,” he said. “I simply saw the press release and was excited for them.” America First Refining’s spokesperson called Willding’s comment “moronic and false.”

In June 2025, Willding registered a new entity in Wyoming called TX Fuels, LLC, listing the company’s address as Trump Jr.’s mansion in Jupiter, Florida. In his email, Willding said his “only involvement in AFR was handling the legal paperwork” for the Trump Jr. LLC’s investment in the startup.

Trump Jr. first hired Willding in May 2021, according to interviews the lawyer has given. A corporate deal lawyer in Dallas, Willding has referred to himself as “outside business counsel to the Trump family” and has said he talks to Trump Jr. or Eric Trump almost daily. A former Bill Clinton and Barack Obama voter who fell hard for MAGA, the attorney has installed a portrait of President Trump over the mantel in his living room.

Willding’s practice has boomed during the second Trump administration, bringing the lawyer to Argentina, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. “Everybody in the world wants to do business with the United States right now,” Willding said at a conference in June 2025. “Every company wants to do business with the Trump family.”

There are other fingerprints of the Trump world on the refinery deal.

Howard Lutnick’s firm Cantor Fitzgerald — which his sons took over when Lutnick became Trump’s commerce secretary — is working as the financial adviser to America First Refining, including on the Ambani investment deal, Cantor Fitzgerald announced. (Cantor Fitzgerald declined to comment.)

And the Trump administration played a direct role helping America First Refining find potential foreign investors, according to public comments from the company’s CEO, John Calce. “We have received support from the White House,” he told a local news outlet. The National Energy Dominance Council, led by the interior and energy secretaries, has “helped us with, candidly, introducing us and helping us meet some of these people overseas,” Calce said on an industry podcast.

America First Refining has recently explored going public, according to three people close to the company. That could allow its current investors to start cashing out even if the refinery never gets built — a milestone many energy industry insiders still view as a long shot. Reliance made its investment in the startup at a valuation of at least $1 billion, according to America First Refining’s announcement.

Building a refinery at the Port of Brownsville on the Gulf Coast has been Calce’s mission for a decade. A former Yale offensive lineman, he started his career as a high school football coach after an unsuccessful attempt to make the NFL and now describes himself as a “lifelong entrepreneur.”

The project has been serially delayed, out of money, rebranded and trailed by angry former business partners. At one point, Calce’s companies were being sued simultaneously by eight other firms. In 2022, during bankruptcy proceedings for an earlier iteration of the project, the trustee appointed to impartially oversee the case sued Calce too. The trustee alleged that Calce and other insiders had improperly siphoned away cash and other assets. (Calce denied wrongdoing. The case was ultimately settled.)

During the Biden administration, as the company sought financial support from the Department of Energy, it pitched itself as a climate-friendly green project that would also help “people of underrepresented social demographics” in Brownsville, according to records from that period. The company failed to get enough money from outside investors, and the planned construction was delayed.

By the company’s own estimate, building the refinery will take years and cost $3 billion to $4 billion. Even if it’s built, profitability could be hard to achieve. Many energy investors told ProPublica there’s a reason the U.S. hasn’t seen a major new refinery in decades. “Refineries cost a lot of money and essentially make pennies on the dollar,” said Ed Hirs, an energy economist in Houston. “Wall Street is not going to finance a new refinery.”

Even after the start of the second Trump administration, the company was in jeopardy, according to interviews and documents. It laid off workers last year, and, by late 2025, with delays continuing to plague the refinery, officials at the Port of Brownsville believed the project looked to be dead, according to records reviewed by ProPublica.

That has not stopped Calce and his team from making grandiose claims to the public. Earlier this year, a website went live for another Calce company called Brownsville Energy Storage Terminals. It claims to have a far-flung network of oil storage terminals in places like the Netherlands and Singapore, more than 850 employees and a C-suite of experienced energy executives. But ProPublica could find no evidence that the executives are real people or that the storage terminals actually exist. The phone numbers on the website are also currently listed online as the contacts for a Houston baklava caterer, a Dallas-area taxi service and an OB-GYN office. The numbers are dead.

America First Refining’s political ties, though, may have boosted its standing with Texas state regulators. In February, shortly before the Ambani investment became public, the company sought an extension on its permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Inside the state agency, emails obtained by ProPublica show, officials scrambled to approve the request.

“Need to get this one logged and processed asap,” wrote one official.

“You are going to have to do this one. I will explain why in person in a few,” wrote another. “You can guess if you check out the name.”

America First Refining got its approval the next day. A spokesperson for the Texas agency did not address questions about the emails. “This request was processed quickly due to the quality of information provided,” the spokesperson said.

The post White House targeted Mukesh Ambani. Then, he went into business with the Trumps appeared first on Salon.com.

Looking back, that sequence of events was the first clue that Trump represented the greatest threat to American democracy in its history. Four years later, he proved that he meant every word when he perpetrated the Big Lie and incited his followers to storm the U.S. Capitol to prevent the transfer of power. Six years on from that, the entire Republican establishment now reflexively claims that if they don’t win, the system is rigged and that Democratic victories are, by definition, illegitimate. Furthermore, most of their voters seem to believe it. At this point, it’s hard to imagine what it will take to restore faith in the election system.

The right has been undermining the integrity of the vote for decades, long before Trump came along. It’s one of their defining characteristics. Groups like True the Vote have been calling elections into question for years, focusing specifically on non-citizen voting and spurring the demand for voter I.D., despite the fact that multiple studies have shown that it’s not actually a problem.

The Trump era has taken all of this to a new level by simply declaring that the Democratic Party is corrupting the entire election process on an institutional level. When Trump was confronted with the fact that he’s shown no evidence for any of this by Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press” last weekend, he had a full-blown temper tantrum and stalked off the set. If anyone thought that humiliating performance might cause the Republicans to back away from their spurious claims, they were disabused of that this week.

Trump has his own reasons for pushing this nonsense, separate from the GOP’s long-term goals. He is a malignant narcissist who has established himself as the greatest sore loser in world history. It’s all about his ego, nothing more or less. But his childish inability to accept defeat under any circumstances has shown other Republicans that their long-standing goal of degrading the electoral process in their favor, through vote suppression, racial gerrymandering and other tactics, has a new future. They’ve attached themselves to Trump’s campaign to persuade half the public that the system is rigged despite all evidence to the contrary.

Needless to say, there is no consistency to these claims. If Republicans win, the system was fair. If they lose, it wasn’t. They will even make claims in both directions about the same election. As Salon’s Sophia Tesfaye noted last week, the extended vote count in California, which is actually designed to ensure that every citizen can vote and to make fraud nearly impossible, has right-wing media now wringing its hands over how it’s supposedly undermining democracy. Republicans are simultaneously crying fraud over the Los Angeles mayoral race, where reality-show clown named Spencer Pratt didn’t make the runoff against incumbent Karen Bass, while celebrating that the GOP’s candidate for governor, British-born Fox News commentator Steve Hilton, made the cut and will face Democrat Xavier Becerra this fall. 

Republican pundits and talking heads are running with the concept. As Tesfaye observes, podcaster Megyn Kelly has been saying that voting should be made much more difficult but went even further this week, declaring that “No one is going to trust this outcome if Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt are eliminated from the general election.” Conservative writer Rod Dreher claimed to find it “unlikely” that progressive Democrat Nithya Raman made the runoff in L.A., an overwhelmingly Democratic city, and wrote on X, “The problem is that many, many, MANY of us simply cannot believe it. It seems for all the world like fraud. This matters, & is going to matter more.”

So we have now reached the point when a Republican finishes third in a “jungle primary” in a deep blue city in a deep blue state, during a midterm election under a massively unpopular president, and that makes these people believe the election was rigged. (Voters in deep red states voting for GOP slates across the board in every election is, of course, perfectly fine.)

Top-level Republican elected officials are on board as well. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the California vote “stinks to high heaven” and, when asked for proof, replied, “Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream that it’s impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively that something is wrong here, and that’s a concern. We need people to believe in the integrity of our election system.”

Following Trump’s lead, his deputy, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., fatuously proclaimed that the problem was that “you had wide changes after election night in the results” and that “whether you can prove fraud or not, it does undermine voter integrity in the vote.” It’s hopeless to unpack that word salad, but he seemed to be saying that there may not have been any fraud, but that somehow counting the votes undermines the integrity of the vote.

What a neat trick. These folks perpetuate the myth that there is rampant voter fraud, push the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen and now that their lies and propaganda have made people doubt the integrity of elections, they demand that the rules be changed to make it more difficult to vote and more likely that legitimate votes will be discarded.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

California’s process of counting votes, by the way, is just fine. There is no evidence of fraud, people can vote easily and conveniently, and everything is totally transparent. Who cares if it’s slow as long as they get it right? What’s the damn hurry? The real problem is that that Republicans have created a psychological dynamic in which their voters and supporters just “feel” the system is corrupt because it’s unthinkable that they could lose. They’ve turned nearly half the people in the country into clones of narcissistic sore loser Donald Trump. Making it harder to cast votes and count them accurately isn’t going to solve that problem.

It is worth noting that Steve Hilton, the London spin doctor turned California Republican who officially advanced to the general election this week, told CNN that the count was clean. “We’ve been very vigilant,” he said. “We’ve seen nothing that would give us cause to intervene.” Republicans can “instinctively know,” now, in Mike Johnson’s words, that the election was legitimate.

We’ll be seeing more of this in the fall and undoubtedly a great deal more of it in 2028. Unshackled from logic and running solely on “vibes,” the GOP has found a way to win even when they lose. As a result, American democracy is now on life support.

The post GOP’s bogus claims of fraud pose a dire threat to democracy appeared first on Salon.com.

Because once you understand why MAGA can’t hear those boos, everything else — from the right’s election denialism to Trump storming out of interviews — snaps into focus.

The Knicks had won 13 consecutive games to reach the NBA Finals, the second-longest unbeaten playoff run in league history. They hadn’t lost a game since April 23. Then Trump decided to show up. Chants of “USA” echoed through the arena as Avery Wilson sang the national anthem, but they gave way to boos the moment Trump appeared on the Jumbotron, giving a military salute. The jeers were loud, sustained and unambiguous — the sound of a city that overwhelmingly voted against this man, telling him exactly what it thought of him. Trump was born in Queens, attended Knicks games for years and has long craved the validation of New York crowds. But this time, his presence came with a cost that ordinary fans felt immediately: TSA-style screening, a 10-block security lockdown, a canceled watch party and a “no-bag” policy that turned a playoff game into something closer to an airport checkpoint. The Knicks went on to suffer a frustrating 115-111 defeat to the San Antonio Spurs, snapping their streak, and fans immediately blamed the dark cloud of the Trump entourage.

Perhaps the organizers thought the crowd wouldn’t dare boo during a patriotic hymn. More likely, as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte has brilliantly observed, Trump actively seeks out these adversarial environments. He craves the aesthetic of dominance: the visual optics of him standing tall and saluting while surrounded by his political enemies. If that’s the case — based on MAGA’s reaction — the plan backfired.

The moment the boos rang out, MAGA influencers and accounts on social media spun the boos into cheers with a speed that should terrify anyone who still believes in the existence of a shared factual reality. White House communications aide Margo Martin posted a clip on X claiming, “Chants of ‘USA’ in Madison Square Garden!” The official White House account posted a photo of Trump saluting, captioned, with absolute, unironic authoritarian flair, “King of New York.” Fox News’ official social media account blasted: “‘USA! USA! USA!’ Chants erupted throughout Madison Square Garden during Game 3 of the NBA Finals with President Trump in attendance.”

When asked about it himself, Trump offered his trademark gaslighting: “I think mostly cheers. It was loud and it was very enthusiastic.” Even Trump’s 19-year-old granddaughter was drafted into the delusion, posting on Instagram that “the atmosphere was amazing.”

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, who claimed to be seated diagonally below Trump, went on “Fox & Friends” the next morning and insisted there had been people cheering — “I will challenge anybody on that,” he said — and then pivoted to the remarkable claim that Trump had earned “about half the stadium,” which he described as “pretty amazing” for a Republican in New York City. Fox News watchdog Juliet Jeske quickly caught the network airing an entirely different, deceptive clip from a completely different moment in the game to simulate a positive crowd reaction. On Tuesday’s edition of “The Five,” co-host Jesse Watters tried to downplay the boos. “The reaction was mixed,” he insisted. Trump administration official Monica Crowley, a former Fox News host herself, claimed there was “a HUGE CHEER went up for POTUS along with big USA! USA! chants. Don’t listen to the liars & dingbats.” Fox News contributor and Outkick founder Clay Travis, who was watching the game at home, told reporter Rachel Nichols, who was in the building, that what she heard was not true.

The producers on Fox & Friends aired the wrong clip of Trump being "booed and cheered" during the National Anthem at Game 3 of the NBA Finals. The Fox clip looks like its from a moment during the game. I've included the actual anthem clip that aired last night for comparison. pic.twitter.com/DqP0wqeUOD

— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) June 9, 2026

This is not spin in the traditional sense. Spin acknowledges reality and tries to tilt it. This is something more extreme: the construction of an entirely separate reality in real time, one that rejects the evidence of the senses. This is what the great media critic and cultural analyst Jay Rosen has long called “the post-truth” condition. For MAGA, contrary evidence is not something that prompts reconsideration. It is something that triggers the construction of an alternative explanation.

Selective hearing on this scale is wild, but it is also terrifyingly deliberate. It renders conversation entirely pointless. When confronted with an undeniable fact — in this case, thousands of people booing a sitting president — the healthy human mind adjusts its understanding of reality. The conspiracy brain, however, views the correction itself as evidence of a conspiracy. That reflexive rejection of observable reality is what now defines Trumpism.

It was on full display the very day before the Knicks game, when Trump sat down with NBC News’ Kristen Welker for what turned into one of the most revealing interviews of his presidency. The sit-down devolved when Welker pressed Trump for concrete evidence regarding his claims that election fraud is actively occurring in California. When Welker asked, “Do you have evidence to support that?” Trump centered his arguments around a delayed vote count and called California officials “crooked,” then turned on Welker herself: “They’re crooked just like you’re crooked, your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked.” Rather than provide proof, he attacked the media, accused major news organizations of corruption and eventually terminated the interview, telling Welker, “Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough.”

It was a pathetic display that mirrored his infamous 2020 “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl. When Trump cannot dictate the terms of reality, when he cannot force the person across from him to validate his delusions, he throws a tantrum and walks out.

Look at the recent fallout from the Los Angeles mayoral race. Right-wing media has spent the last week promoting baseless narratives that the election is being “stolen” by progressives. People who absolutely should know better are allowing their motivated reasoning to override basic math, stoking a dangerous fire. The Washington Post editorial board, for example, amplified a baseless claim from right-wing Twitter that progressive challenger Nithya Raman tearfully conceded on election night — a fabrication designed to make her subsequent gains look suspicious. A Washington Times op-ed decried the “statistical impossibility” of the Los Angeles vote count, claiming that “ChatGPT could not find one example in American history of a third-place candidate surging days after an election to overtake second place.”

It is a profound display of performative stupidity. In California, mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day are legally counted as they arrive in the days following. Progressive voters, younger voters and working-class voters historically vote later or via mail. It is not a conspiracy; it is basic civics. Yet, because the initial election night tallies shifted against the conservative candidate, it is automatically branded as “rigged.”

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked by CNN’s Manu Raju to provide a shred of proof for these explosive claims of election fraud, his response exposed the entire intellectual rot of the conservative movement: “Some of these efforts are so diabolical and so far upstream it is impossible to prove. But I think everybody knows instinctively something is wrong here.”

There it is. Instinctively. This is the core of the MAGA epistemic crisis. Evidence either no longer matters or the lack of evidence becomes proof of how sophisticated the conspiracy must be. The feeling of illegitimacy is enough. And because that feeling is rooted in identity and grievance rather than facts, it cannot be disproven.

Trump and his enablers have Pavlov’d their base into believing that they cannot lose a fair election. If they win, the system works. If they lose, the system is corrupt, diabolical and rigged upstream where no one can see it. Trump’s constant crowing about election rigging is his permanent “Big Lie.” He has created a framework where he does not need proof; he can just “see” it. But as the old scientific adage goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And we have seen absolutely none.

It also explains why traditional approaches to misinformation have failed so badly. Fact-checking assumes that people care about accuracy. Debunking assumes that false beliefs are held in good faith. But conspiracy thinking is not a knowledge problem; it is an identity defense mechanism.

The MAGA base does not care to hear the Madison Square Garden boos. They do not care that the Los Angeles vote counting process is legal. They do not care that Trump’s overall approval rating has plummeted to a dismal 27% — the lowest for any president since Richard Nixon the week he resigned in disgrace. Ultimately, however, a movement that reflexively constructs alternative realities whenever reality becomes inconvenient will find itself increasingly isolated from the democratic norms that depend on a shared understanding of what is true.

The boos at Madison Square Garden were not politically significant in themselves. The refusal to hear them was.

The post Why MAGA can’t hear the Trump boos appeared first on Salon.com.

In July 2025, the Webb County Commissioners Court, which serves as the governing body of the county in Texas, approved the start of a process to purchase GPS trackers and dual-facing cameras for use with the Webb County Sheriff’s Office patrol units. As a first step in this process, the Commissioners Court authorized the county purchasing agent to solicit proposals from companies for a 13-month service agreement for 50 GPS trackers, according to county meeting minutes.

In October, the Commissioners Court received 16 of these proposals back from the purchasing agent office, alongside ratings for the contracts in categories like “dash camera capabilities,” “support training and warranty,” “vendor experience and references,” and the financial cost, accounting for both the upfront cost and the recurring fees.

Of the 16 companies that put in their bid, one stands out — but not because it ranked the highest in any of these categories. In fact, the standout proposal from Monarch Tracking didn’t rank the best in any category and was only ranked fourth overall. The Monarch Tracking proposal stood apart from the others because of the strong support it enjoyed from Webb County Judge Tano Tijerina. In Texas, the county judge presides over and votes in the county’s commissioner court, which handles county government administration.

During an October 27, 2025 hearing, when the proposals were being considered, Tijerina immediately launched into a motion to award Monarch Tracking, even asking the other four members of the Commissioners Court to hold their motions so he could do so, as shown on a video of the proceedings maintained by Webb County.

“I’m gonna go ahead and move a motion. I’ve already gone into this extensively. The only one that is from Loredo is Monarch Trucking [sic],” Tijerina said before correcting himself. “They’re the only ones here locally. We’re gonna do this in-house. I think there needs to be somewhere we can just say come in and out. They’re absolutely incredible.”

Tijerina later made it clear that he intended to put trackers in every vehicle the county owned.

“Anything that’s under the insurance of the county, this will be for every vehicle, there’s not going to be any exceptions,” Tijerina said. “This is going to cover our bases all the way through.”

Commissioner John Galo interjected, citing concerns he had about the recurring fees Monarch Tracking could charge, which could cost the county tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, in his estimate. Galo also said that the fact these recurring fees were not accounted for in the purchasing agent’s ranking  “makes me suspicious.”

Tijerina responded that if the motion carried, it would only start the negotiation process, before noting how unusual it was to re-rank proposals for a contract like this.

“For the public, in my eleven years that I’ve been county judge, this is perhaps my third time that I’ve ever re-ranked the proposals,” Tijerina said. “Well, it’s not only the individual, it’s what he’s done, it’s the company. It’s what he’s done, he’s putting commercials out. I mean, it’s really, really impressive.”

The impressive individual that Tijerina was referring to appears to be Monarch Tracking CEO Neal Hill, who has donated $3,364 to Tijerina’s congressional campaign across two donations, according to FEC filings. The first donation occurred in July of 2025, around the time the county began soliciting proposals for a new tracking system, and the second came in October 2025, less than a week before the meeting where Tijerina expressed his strong support for contracting with Hill’s company. As of November 17, 2025, Monarch Tracking was awarded the contract with Webb County, according to government records.

Tijerina officially announced his run for Congress in December of 2025, with the Texas Tribune reporting that he was a top pick for the 28th District in the eyes of the national GOP. Tijerina is running against the incumbent in the seat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, but was a Democrat himself up until December of 2024, switching parties in the wake of Trump’s 2024 win.

“Over the years, I’ve watched the Democratic Party shift further and further to the left and leaving the values that I hold dear to my heart,” Tijerina told Fox & Friends in December 2024. “I’ve always been a conservative, and the radicalization of the national Democrats pushed me away a long time ago.”

Tijerina’s opponent, Cuellar, has had his own ethical issues over the years. In 2024, Cuellar was indicted for allegedly accepting $600,000 in bribes from a government-owned Azerbaijani oil and gas company as well as a bank headquartered in Mexico City. Cuellar’s case, however, never went to trial. Following delays in the late summer of 2025, the case was rescheduled for 2026. President Donald Trump, however, pardoned Cuellar in December 2025, saying the congressman “bravely spoke out against open borders.”

Cuellar regularly ranks as among the most conservative Democrats in Congress, alongside representatives like Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., and Jared Golden, D-Maine. In 2024, Cuellar won re-election by about 5 points in the 28th District. The district, however, was redrawn during Texas’s Republican driven mid-decade redistricting scheme. Under the 2024 lines, Republicans enjoyed a roughly seven-point advantage in the district. Under the new lines, Republicans have about a 10-point advantage in the district.

This part of South Texas has also been a hotly contested political territory in recent elections, with former Rep. Mayra Flores, R-Texas, posting a historic win in the nearby 34th District in 2022, and with Trump himself making gains in the area in 2024. It’s not clear, however, whether the area will swing back towards Democrats in 2026, or whether Republicans will solidify the gains they’ve made there.

Neither Tijerina’s campaign nor Monarch Tracking immediately responded to Salon’s request for comment.

The post GOP candidate pushed to award a donor with a government contract appeared first on Salon.com.

But before those modest movies became big hits, the first six months of the year boasted plenty of outstanding films to offer viewers fatigued by more of the same. With their bold scripts, memorable atmospheres and breathtaking visual landscapes, these films were enough to conjure some hope for the weary moviegoer. They swung for the fences to prove that all is not yet lost — an idea that, in itself, can feel subversive.

But at the movie theater, it’s the truth: Hollywood still has an interest in funding visionary stories. And even if the resulting films weren’t total five-star knockouts, their big swings helped them stand out from the crowd. By virtue of their creativity alone, these 11 movies have the power to restore your faith in film. Just . . . keep an open mind!

Films are arranged alphabetically by title.

(George Lechaptois) Jodie Foster as Lilian Steiner in “A Private Life”

“A Private Life”

At first glance, one might think the boldness brimming from Rebecca Zlotowski’s “A Private Life” has something to do with the film being Jodie Foster’s first entirely French-speaking role. And though that aspect is certainly mesmerizing, it’s more of a selling point, something to pique the viewer’s curiosity while silently encouraging them to peer deeper to understand exactly why the film is so beguiling — a nosiness that “A Private Life” encourages and rewards at every turn. On the surface, Zlotowski’s film is a stylish murder mystery about renowned psychotherapist Lillian Steiner (Foster), who can’t let go of a nagging suspicion when one of her longtime patients dies unexpectedly.

But as Zlotowski peels away the layers of Lillian’s own psyche, she uncovers the truths that bind us all together, working through neuroses and regrets to establish a universal language by which we can all communicate, even when it seems impossible. If you’re a fan of Brian De Palma or Alfred Hitchcock’s sophisticated suspense, you’ll find few scenes from this year more compelling than Lillian’s trips to the hypnotist, which are keys to solving the mysteries of this film, as well as some of our life’s most difficult puzzles.

“Blue Film”

Often, the biggest cinematic swings can be found in the smallest, most economical films. Such is the case with Elliot Tuttle’s “Blue Film,” a two-hander about a cam boy and escort named Aaron (Kieron Moore) whose client (Reed Birney) leads him into a one-night interaction far deeper and darker than he ever could’ve expected. What sounds like something close to your average gay indie is much more incisive and relentless than one could ever imagine, a film so confident in itself without being cocky that it inversely mirrors its main character’s energy, disarming both Aaron and the viewer. Once those walls are down, “Blue Film” gets to work mining the ego’s fragility and tearing stereotypes limb from limb to peer at the root of their existence. The year may only be half-over, but you won’t see another movie like “Blue Film” anytime soon.

(Music Box Films) Samantha Mathis, Juliette Lewis and Robin Tunney in “By Design”

“By Design”

It’s impossible — at least for me — to talk about “By Design” without acknowledging that it has one of my favorite loglines of any film ever: “A woman swaps bodies with a chair, and everyone likes her better as the chair.” Not only does this single sentence tell you everything you need to know about the film while nodding at its less overtly amusing intricacies, but it also allows the viewer to understand exactly what they’re getting into by pressing play. Juliette Lewis will spend the majority of the film’s runtime inanimate; a chic vegetable that her friends draw lipstick on and talk to, as if she were as normal and responsive as any other day. Fashioning your lead actor as a totem to project your thoughts about apathy and loneliness would be a risky move for anyone other than writer-director Amanda Kramer, who’s made a career out of brazen chicness. But “By Design” isn’t mere style over substance. The film is a distinctly modern rumination on the desire to shut off and watch the world go by, without forming an opinion on the horrors. If only Ashley Furniture offered free lobotomies with every purchase.

(Niko Tavernise/Warner Bros. Pictures) Christian Bale as Frank and Jessie Buckley as The Bride in “The Bride”

“The Bride!”

It may sound strange to say it, but a woman helming a “Frankenstein” riff is bold by its very nature. Only a handful of the adaptations of Mary Shelley’s beloved classic have been directed by women. That’s alarming, considering the novel has a distinctly feminine gaze, discussing othering and marginalization with a familiarity no man (at least not a straight, white one, as is the case with most “Frankenstein” films) could accurately convey. But Maggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!” revels in surprise.

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

The film — where Jessie Buckley plays three characters, each with their own frenzied personality — may be tonally imbalanced and, at times, utterly befuddling. But that’s also what gives the movie its charm, especially considering it’s a big-budget studio production that never had a shot at recouping the studio’s investment, even if it were successful. In our dire age, a little bit of levity can often feel like a wager, staking your bets on an audience’s bandwidth for fun. But if you can put aside its context and view “The Bride!” as a kitschy Halloween affair, a “Scooby-Doo Meets Frankenstein’s Bride” animated special come to life, it’s almost impossible not to crack a smile.

(A24) Robert Pattinson and Zendaya in “The Drama”

“The Drama”

Hinging a film on one big narrative element is already a hazardous decision. A third-act twist or sudden death can change a viewer’s overall perception of a movie in an instant. But alluding to that surprise in the film’s marketing, like “The Drama” did, implies a greater trust in the audience. For his latest film, Norwegian writer-director Kristoffer Borgli was confident that people would rock with his shock — they could handle a controversial, complex plot point being dumped in their lap, not as provocation, but as conversation. It helps, too, that this jolt is delivered by two of the most talented young actors working today, with Zendaya and Robert Pattinson playing a soon-to-be-married couple grappling with a stunning revelation days before their nuptials. Borgli’s deft mixture of punchy dark humor and thorny subjects makes for a distinctly American movie that only a Norwegian could think up. That outsider’s perspective translates to one of the year’s finest films.

“Dreams”

In her second collaboration with Mexican writer-director Michel Franco, Jessica Chastain once again proves herself as one of the most daring yet underrated actors of her generation, leaping into this quietly violent romance about class and power headfirst. As Jennifer, a willful and wealthy socialite who arranges for her paramour, a Mexican ballet dancer named Fernando (Isaac Hernández), to risk crossing the border so they can be together, Chastain exudes the unruliness of all of her best characters. But when their relationship takes a turn in the film’s latter half, Franco and Chastain place supreme confidence in one another, trusting each other to grapple with the prickly political implications of the film’s narrative with sober earnestness. As “Dreams” veers on exploiting prejudice, Franco pans out for a broader view of the carnage our desperation to survive can invoke. “Dreams” may be formally modest, but its ideology is anything but.

(Courtesy of NEON) “I Love Boosters”

“I Love Boosters”

As if releasing a pro-stealing film in a very anti-theft corporate culture weren’t ballsy enough, radical filmmaker Boots Riley grabs everything from the kitchen sink and tosses it into the blender for “I Love Boosters.” There are explosions of vibrant color, a cacophonous main theme, social commentary aplenty, and practical effects so awe-inspiring — miniatures, stop-motion, a wheel of spinning mannequin legs! — that they alone can restore your faith in film. Riley crafting a cogent message about workers’ rights and the price of labor would be a feat in and of itself, especially in a film this fun. But that he’s done it with such singular style and childlike glee is enough to make the audience remember that a movie theater is a hallowed space. On the silver screen, the zaniest ideas can also carry the weight of the world, and it’s hard to understate just how nice it is to free our shoulders of that burden, even for 90 minutes.

(Eric Zachanowich/A24) Anne Hathaway and Michaela Coel in “Mother Mary”

“Mother Mary”

Confining a world-famous pop star to a blustery old house in the English countryside for the entirety of a film seems inharmonious. Shouldn’t Anne Hathaway’s titular Mother Mary be jet-setting on a world tour, or contending with her problems somewhere that feels a bit more apt for someone who’s supposed to be one of music’s biggest stars? Maybe, but fortunately for us, the Chateau Marmont no longer allows guests to perform seances. Instead, filmmaker David Lowery threads Hathaway’s high-caliber performances into his modern ghost story with all the fluid expertise of Mother Mary’s estranged best friend, fashion designer Sam (Michaela Coel). When Mary shows up unexpectedly, asking Sam for the two things she won’t provide — forgiveness and a dress — the pair slowly find their bond regenerating, pulled back together by forces outside their control. Mixing languid conversations with pop spectacle, Lowery finds a middle ground that looks altogether human, with every impulse, bad and good, opening another door to the truth.

(Apple TV) Clark Shotwell and John Travolta in “Propeller One-Way Night Coach”

“Propeller One-Way Night Coach”

In his directorial debut, John Travolta takes a swing so big that it knocks him off his feet and jettisons him into the air — 30,000 feet in the air, to be exact. Travolta’s never been cavalier about his passion for flying and aeronautics, but rarely has he spoken as candidly about the source of that love as he does in “Propeller One-Way Night Coach.” But instead of taking the seasoned actor’s approach to directing, which often translates to stilted, overly macho films that couldn’t bare their heart to save their lives, Travolta opts for total sincerity.

His movie is a remarkable piece of autofiction, retelling his first experience with air travel as if it were a love story. In some ways, it is: In “Propeller One-Way Night Coach,” Travolta works from the point where his affection for flying and his adoration for his family converge, creating an experience that is (and I don’t say this lightly) truly magical. The film may be short and sweet, but its effects are everlasting.

“Stop! That! Train!”

RuPaul’s affection for everything inane, disgusting and gloriously stupid lends itself perfectly to a disaster spoof like “Stop! That! Train!.” But that perfect marriage alone doesn’t automatically make dipping back into the Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker style of spoof comedy feel revolutionary. Refreshing this lagging comedic subgenre are several well-loved “RuPaul’s Drag Race” alums, drag queens who have proven their appeal and talent in the Emmy-winning reality show’s demanding chaos, and are ready for their close-ups on screens across the country. While “Drag Race” is no longer a niche program, the art of drag remains contentious, and giving a wide release to a film like this is both confident and dicey. But that’s the kind of firm statement that the world needs more of right now. And even if the jokes in “Stop! That! Train!” don’t always hit, it’s always admirable to punch above your weight.

(Warner Bros. Pictures) Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff and Margot Robbie as Catherine Earnshaw in “Wuthering Heights”

“Wuthering Heights”

I admit that Emerald Fennell’s adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic novel is a radioactive choice for a best-of list. But I defy anyone to name another film this year that balances spectacle and sweeping romance at the blockbuster level as well as Fennell’s film does. Given a blank check, Fennell brings the world of Brontë’s novel to life — not with staggering realism, as so many other adaptations have, but with fervent fantasy. “Wuthering Heights” looks just as the voracious reader imagines it as they tear through the novel: drafty houses, windy moors, color and texture that bound from the screen. This hyperstylishness may put off viewers who demand complete faithfulness to the source material, but that discomfort is Fennell’s point. Unlike her first two films, “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn,” Fennell isn’t pushing the envelope here with needless psychosexual provocation (Though there is some of that too, but all earned, I’d argue.) Instead, she hopes that the romance and fantasy will work on their own merit to sweep readers off their feet, conveying just how great it can feel to get lost in a great book.

The post The best movies of the year (so far) are experiments in big-swing cinema appeared first on Salon.com.

What is a VPN?

VPNs create a secure, encrypted tunnel between your laptop or mobile device and the wider internet. All your traffic is routed through a remote server, masking your IP address and shielding your online activity from prying eyes. With a VPN, you enjoy greater privacy, safer browsing and the ability to bypass location-based blocks.

But while VPNs do all of that, they don’t fully obscure your online footprint, and they don’t make you invincible. Some VPNs log your user data, while others may slow your connection or trigger security alerts on banking or streaming platforms. And how do you know you can fully trust your VPN provider? Understanding what VPNs offer — and what they don’t — is essential.

Benefits of using a VPN

VPNs offer numerous benefits, with enhanced privacy at the forefront. They mask your IP address and location, making it harder for ISPs, advertisers or governments to track your online activity. VPNs protect sensitive data, such as passwords and financial information, from falling into the wrong hands. This is especially important on public Wi-Fi networks, where risks are high.

VPNs can also unlock region-restricted content. If you’re overseas and trying to stream your favorite Netflix show, you can use a U.S.-based server to make it appear as though you are still located in the United States. The same logic works in reverse: travelers who want a London IP for the BBC iPlayer or a Tokyo IP for region-locked Japanese services can spin one up in seconds.

If you are gaming or streaming, a VPN can hide your activity from your ISP, potentially avoiding network slowdowns. If you are an activist, journalist or citizen living in a country with internet restrictions, VPNs provide access to blocked websites and private communication channels.

Some VPNs offer premium services, such as malware filters, ad blockers and anti-tracking tools, further enhancing online privacy.

What VPNs don’t solve

While VPNs offer real protection, there are trade-offs users should weigh carefully. Encrypting data and routing it through remote servers can slow your connection and increase latency, especially during peak hours or if the server is far away.

Cost is another factor to consider. Reliable VPNs are subscription-based, and prices may increase over time — many providers’ introductory rates jump significantly at renewal, so it’s worth checking what you’ll be paying after the first term. Some providers offering free or low-cost services may skimp on encryption or log your activity. Some even monetize your data through ads or third-party sales. Using a low-quality VPN provider can expose you to the same risks you’re trying to avoid.

Device compatibility may also be an issue. Some smart TVs and gaming consoles don’t support VPNs directly and require complex router-level setups that are difficult for novice users. If you live in a restrictive country like China, Russia or Iran, using a VPN can carry legal consequences. Even if you live elsewhere, VPN providers may be subject to government data requests.

VPNs aren’t magic shields. They don’t prevent you from accidentally sharing personal information online, protect you from phishing links or stop you from being tracked through cookies and browser fingerprinting.

Understanding these limitations is important because VPNs are not a one-click fix for online privacy.

When using a VPN makes sense

There are clear scenarios in which the benefits of using a VPN far outweigh any drawbacks. If you travel frequently or are a digital nomad, VPNs should be an essential part of your life. You are likely to connect to public Wi-Fi in airports, hotels and cafes, and encrypted connections are crucial for protecting personal data and preventing snooping.

Likewise, if you are a remote worker or handle sensitive information, such as financial records, client data or proprietary documents, it is essential always to use a VPN. A VPN adds an extra layer of security, especially when working outside a corporate firewall.

If you are concerned about ISP surveillance or throttling, consider using a VPN. In some cases, ISPs monitor browsing traffic or throttle the bandwidth of high-volume users. A VPN masks your activity, helping maintain your speed while keeping your browsing habits private.

If you live outside the U.S., VPNs are a lifeline to home. Whether accessing stateside news, streaming services or banking platforms, VPNs help you get around any geo-restrictions when abroad.

For those living in a restrictive internet environment — whether due to government censorship, workplace firewalls or other restrictions — VPNs let you bypass blocks and access the entire internet. For journalists, activists and citizens living in repressive regimes, VPNs are a critical tool for secure communication and access to information.

In these cases, the tradeoffs of using a VPN, such as slower speeds, costs or setup complexity, are minor compared to the protection and autonomy VPNs provide.

When using a VPN might not be necessary

VPNs offer important privacy and data protection, but they’re not essential for everyone. If your online activity is low-risk, you avoid public Wi-Fi and stick to trusted websites, a VPN may not be necessary. For casual users, the extra layer of encryption may slow down connection speeds without providing meaningful benefits.

Cost is another factor to consider. Premium VPNs come with subscription fees that can increase over time. Free or low-cost VPNs may log your data, serve you ads or offer weak encryption, giving the illusion of security and privacy when, in fact, they provide neither. If you live in a jurisdiction where VPN use is restricted or monitored, using a VPN could land you in legal hot water.
It’s also important to understand what VPNs can’t do:

• Prevent you from voluntarily sharing personal information on websites or apps
• Protect against phishing scams or unsafe downloads
• Block all forms of online tracking (e.g., cookies, browser fingerprinting)
• Guarantee anonymity if you access accounts or services
• Replace antivirus software

For some users with limited exposure or needs, jumping onto the VPN bandwagon may offer more drawbacks than benefits.

Choosing the right VPN

A good VPN strikes a balance between security, speed and reliability. When choosing a VPN, start with strong encryption. Look for providers that use modern, strong protocols like WireGuard or OpenVPN. A strict no-logs policy is essential, ideally one verified by recent independent audits. Your VPN shouldn’t track your activity or store your data. It’s also good policy if your VPN operates out of a privacy-friendly jurisdiction, outside invasive surveillance alliances.

Performance is also important. A good VPN server network ensures low latency and faster speeds, especially when gaming or streaming content. Reliable and responsive customer support can also make a significant difference when troubleshooting issues.

Reputable VPNs offer transparent pricing, trial periods and money-back guarantees. Avoid providers that use vague terms or have hidden fees, and always check the renewal price, not just the introductory rate. Additional features such as a kill switch, multi-device support, ad blockers, anti-tracking tools and malware filters are also nice-to-have options.
When selecting the right VPN for you, choose a provider that aligns with your privacy needs and digital habits.

Comparing pros and cons

Below is a quick-reference summary of VPN pros and cons:

Pros

• Masks your IP address and location
• Encrypts data to protect sensitive information on public Wi-Fi
• Bypasses geo-restrictions to access content abroad
• Avoids ISP bandwidth throttling for streaming or gaming
• Provides access to blocked or censored content
• Offers extra features like ad-blocking and malware protection
• Critical for users in restrictive environments

Cons

• May slow down connection speed due to encryption and server location
• Free or low-quality VPNs may log data or sell your data
• Reliable VPNs require paid subscriptions, with prices that typically jump at renewal
• VPN use can be restricted in certain countries
• Some devices require a complex setup
• Doesn’t prevent unsafe user behavior or all kinds of online tracking
• Not a substitute for secure browsing habits or antivirus software

Frequently asked questions

Does a VPN make me completely anonymous?

A VPN does not guarantee complete anonymity. VPNs mask your IP address and encrypt your traffic, but websites still can collect data on you through cookies, browser fingerprinting and account logins.

Will a VPN protect against all online threats?

A VPN cannot protect you from all online threats, such as eavesdropping attacks, fake Wi-Fi hotspots or IP-based tracking. VPNs also can’t protect you from phishing scams, malware, weak passwords or data leaks from compromised websites. You still need to invest in antivirus software, use strong passwords and maintain safe browsing habits.

Is using a VPN legal in my country?

VPNs are legal in most countries, but not all. They are legal in the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and most countries in Europe. However, they are banned or heavily restricted in countries such as China, Russia, Iran, Belarus and North Korea. If you use a VPN in these places, you could incur fines or other legal consequences.

Do free VPNs provide absolute protection?

Most free VPNs do not provide absolute protection and come with significant drawbacks, including weak encryption, data logging and intrusive ads. Some even expose users to malware. While a few reputable free options exist (Proton VPN’s free tier is the standout), if you plan to use a VPN daily, consider opting for a subscription model.

Does a VPN significantly slow down all internet usage?

A VPN can, in certain circumstances, slow down internet usage. If you are using a remote server located far away, or are gaming or streaming content, you may see some latency. Utilizing a nearby server and high-quality providers with modern protocols, such as WireGuard and NordLynx, can optimize your speed.

Conclusion

VPNs offer privacy and security, but they do have tradeoffs. Slower connection speeds, higher costs and limited protection against specific online threats are genuine concerns. Not all VPNs are created equal, and using a low-cost or free version may actually increase your risks.
Ultimately, whether a VPN is right for you depends on your digital habits and the level of online exposure you have. If you travel frequently, use public Wi-Fi, handle sensitive information or live in a location with restricted internet access, the benefits may outweigh any drawbacks. But if your online activity is limited and low-risk, a VPN may offer little to no value.

The key is to assess your own needs: Consider what you want to protect and what you are willing to pay. If you are unsure, start with a VPN that offers a free trial or money-back guarantee. Test it out risk-free and decide if a VPN is the right tool for you.

Salon has affiliate partnerships, which means we may get a share of the revenue from purchases made through links on this article.

The post Pros and cons of using a VPN appeared first on Salon.com.

Online privacy in the U.S. is shrinking. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act still risks torrenting users. ISPs throttle bandwidth during streaming or torrenting. Increased surveillance from government and corporations raises privacy concerns. VPNs help by masking IPs and encrypting traffic, making monitoring harder.

VPNs unlock global content by bypassing geo-restrictions and accessing international sites. They also protect users’ data on public Wi-Fi, like at cafes or airports, from hackers.

In this guide, we’ve reviewed and curated a list of top VPNs that balance performance, privacy and ease of use, tailored to the unique challenges and needs of Americans. Our list of top VPNs for U.S.-based users in 2026 evaluates providers against several criteria, including a robust server network both stateside and abroad, reliable access to major streaming platforms such as Netflix, Hulu and HBO Max, fast connection speeds, strong privacy policies, jurisdiction in privacy-friendly countries, and advanced security features such as ad-blocking and split tunneling.

Best VPNs at a glance

The best VPNs for the U.S.

The following list presents the five best VPNs for U.S. users, along with the features that distinguish each.

Best overall VPN: NordVPN

Pros and cons

• Pros: Fast and secure; excellent for streaming and public Wi-Fi.
• Cons: Price hikes when renewing, limited split tunneling on Android.

NordVPN offers lightning-fast connection speeds, an intuitive, easy-to-use interface, and best-in-class privacy protection. It features advanced encryption protocols, a no-logs policy and seamless streaming, making it an ideal choice for browsing on the go. Its user-friendly design and reliable performance set it apart from other VPN providers.

NordVPN stands out as the best overall VPN for U.S. users, offering lightning-fast speeds, a sleek, intuitive interface and robust privacy protections. With advanced encryption, a no-logs policy and seamless streaming, it’s ideal for secure browsing on the go. Its user-friendly design and reliable performance make it a top choice for mobile security.

• App experience: The app is intuitive, featuring a Quick Connect button, an interactive server map and seamless integration across multiple devices.
• Streaming performance: Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and Apple TV+ with minimal buffering and 4K playback.
• Privacy and security features: Has AES-256 encryption, Threat Protection, a kill switch, Double VPN, NordWhisper stealth protocol and Dark Web Monitor.
• Speed and performance: Excellent speeds on both Wi-Fi and mobile data, with only 3% speed loss due to its proprietary NordLynx protocol.
• Pricing and plans: Starts at $4.59/month for a 12-month Basic plan, or $3.39/month on the 2-year Basic plan. Renewal rates are higher.
  

Summary: NordVPN has top-tier privacy protection, fast connection speeds and an easy-to-use mobile app.

Best suited for: Users who value privacy, fast streaming and a comprehensive set of security tools.

Visit site.

Best for streaming: ExpressVPN

Pros and cons

• Pros: Excellent for streaming and travel; fast, stable connections.
• Cons: More expensive than competitors, fewer customization options.

For reliable streaming capabilities, ExpressVPN is a great choice. It reliably works with all major streaming platforms, including Netflix, Disney+ and Hulu. Its vast network of high-speed servers ensures smooth, buffer-free viewing no matter where you are. It also features strong encryption and an intuitive interface, making it ideal for accessing geo-restricted content while maintaining privacy.

• App experience: Sleek and easy to use, one-tap connection and a user-friendly interface that integrates easily across devices. An excellent choice for beginners.
• Streaming performance: Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and Apple TV+ with optimized servers and buffer-free 4K streaming.
• Privacy and security features: Utilizes AES-256 encryption, features a kill switch, split tunneling and a strict no-logs policy.
• Speed and performance: Fast on both Wi-Fi and mobile data, with low latency thanks to its Lightway protocol.
• Pricing and plans: $4.99/month on a 12-month Basic plan or $3.49/month on a 2-year Basic plan. Advanced and Pro tiers add password manager, identity monitoring, eSIM data, dedicated IP and other extras.

Summary: ExpressVPN combines smooth streaming with strong privacy backed by its proprietary Lightway protocol.

Best suited for: Travelers and streamers seeking a high-performance VPN.

Visit site.

Best value: Surfshark

Pros and cons

• Pros: Unlimited devices, great value
• Cons: No free plan, occasional server congestion

If you are looking for an affordable plan with unlimited devices, Surfshark is the right choice. Its sleek app delivers reliable performance and strong security, making it a good choice for families or travelers. Surfshark offers fast connection speeds, ad-blocking and a no-logs policy, seamlessly combining budget-friendly pricing with premium privacy protection across all platforms.

• App experience: The app is clean and intuitive, and has a one-tap connection and biometric login. Setup is easy, as is switching servers.
• Streaming performance: Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and Apple TV+. Streaming is smooth, with almost no lag.
• Privacy and security features: Utilizes AES-256-GCM encryption, has a kill switch, ad/tracker blocker and supports MultiHop and GPS spoofing.
• Speed and performance: Strong, consistent speeds on both Wi-Fi and mobile data, with WireGuard protocol for fast streaming.
• Pricing and plans: Starts at $3.19/month for a 12-month plan, or $1.99/month on the 27-month promo (24 months plus 3 free).
  

Summary: Surfshark is a reliable, budget-friendly USA VPN service that supports an unlimited number of devices and delivers strong performance.

Best suited for: Budget-conscious users and families seeking secure access across multiple devices.

Visit site.

Best for privacy: Proton VPN

Pros and cons

• Pros: Unlimited free data, strong privacy protections
• Cons: The free plan doesn’t include streaming and limits you to one device

Proton places a strong emphasis on privacy and security. It operates under a strict no-logs policy, meaning it does not store user activity, connection timestamps or IP addresses. This policy has been independently audited and verified by Securitum for four consecutive years, most recently in August 2025. All of its software is open-source, allowing third parties to inspect its code and verify that it performs as advertised.

• App experience: Clean, intuitive interface with a one-tap connection, integrates easily across devices.
• Streaming performance: The free version doesn’t support streaming, but paid plans work with Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and Apple TV+.
• Privacy and security features: Utilizes AES-256 encryption, features a kill switch, an ad blocker and a robust no-logs policy.
• Speed and performance: The free plan can be slow during peak hours, but paid plans offer fast and reliable connections.
• Pricing and plans: The free plan includes unlimited data, no ads and access to servers in 10 countries. Paid plans start at $4.99/month for VPN Plus annually, or $2.99/month on the 2-year plan.

Summary: Proton VPN offers a free plan with unlimited data, backed by strong encryption and Swiss privacy laws.

Best suited for: Users who value privacy and those seeking a trustworthy, no-cost VPN.

Visit site.

Best for simplicity: CyberGhost

Pros and cons

• Pros: Optimized servers for streaming and gaming; simple, intuitive interface
• Cons: Fewer advanced options than competitors, some speed drops on distant servers

If you’re looking for a VPN app that is simple and has a clean, easy-to-use interface, CyberGhost is a great choice. CyberGhost’s global servers make streaming and browsing effortless, even for novice users. It also features strong privacy protections and reliable performance, making it ideal for those who want top-notch security without complexity.

• App experience: The app is straightforward to use, with a one-tap connection and biometric login.
• Streaming performance: Netflix, Disney+, Hulu and Apple TV+, with minimal buffering.
• Privacy and security features: Uses AES-256 encryption, with a kill switch, ad/tracker blocker and a strict no-logs policy based in Romania.
• Speed and performance: Solid speeds on both Wi-Fi and mobile data, with more than 11,000 servers to reduce congestion during peak hours.
• Pricing and plans: Starts at $1.75/month for a 2-year plan (26 months including 2 free). The 6-month plan is $6.99/month and the monthly plan is $12.99. Generous 45-day money-back guarantee on long-term plans.

Summary: CyberGhost is an excellent app for beginners with clear server labels for streaming, gaming and torrenting.

Best suited for: Streamers and anyone who wants a plug-and-play VPN.

Visit site.

Why people in the U.S. need to use a VPN

People in the U.S. face vulnerabilities that a VPN can help mitigate. Public Wi-Fi networks, like those found in coffee shops, airports and hotels, are security nightmares. A VPN encrypts all the data sent to and from users’ phones, shielding them from hackers who might be trying to steal it.

Streaming is another reason to use a VPN. VPNs enable users to bypass geo-restrictions and access all content on streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max. If users are traveling to foreign countries or live in one that restricts content, VPNs can unlock these platforms.

Likewise, for gamers, a VPN can help reduce lag by connecting to servers in other regions, resulting in smoother gameplay. For torrenting and peer-to-peer file sharing, a VPN can safeguard users’ identities and activity, making file sharing safer and more secure.

VPNs also mask users’ IP addresses, which means that internet service providers can’t track their browsing or sell their data to advertisers. A VPN also adds a layer of protection against government surveillance by both encrypting internet traffic and routing it through secure servers, often located in different countries.

VPNs are no longer a luxury for people in the United States. They are essential for anyone who wants to secure their data, stream content freely and browse the internet without worrying about being tracked.

Frequently asked questions

Is it legal to use a VPN in the United States?

Yes, it is legal to use a VPN in America. However, in some countries, VPN use is restricted or banned, so be sure to check local laws when traveling. Also keep in mind that using a VPN to hide illegal activity, such as torrenting copyrighted material, remains unlawful under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Which VPN has the most servers in the U.S.?

CyberGhost leads the pack with over 1,400 servers in the U.S. NordVPN offers more than 1,970 U.S. servers and ExpressVPN provides access to servers in over 20 U.S. cities (but does not disclose its server count).

Will a VPN stop ISP throttling?

In most cases, yes. VPNs encrypt traffic, making it difficult for internet service providers to detect and throttle specific activities, such as streaming. But if an internet service provider throttles traffic in response to data caps, a VPN can’t stop that.

Can I watch U.S. Netflix abroad with a VPN?

Yes. Most major VPNs unblock U.S. Netflix if users are outside of the United States. Just connect to a U.S.-based server and log in to Netflix. Performance may vary depending on server load.

Is a free VPN safe to use in the U.S.?

Most free VPNs come with trade-offs: limited bandwidth, slower speeds, ads and questionable privacy practices. Proton VPN’s free tier is a rare exception as it is safe, doesn’t log user data and offers decent speeds. It’s usually not great for streaming, however.
To get the most out of a VPN, we recommend opting for a paid version.

Do VPNs protect me from government surveillance?

VPNs encrypt all internet traffic, which makes it harder for third parties, including government agencies, to monitor activity. However, no VPN can guarantee complete anonymity, especially if users are logged into personal accounts or using identifiable services.

Can I use a VPN on multiple devices?

Yes. Most paid VPNs offer multi-device accounts. Surfshark allows unlimited connections, NordVPN supports up to 10 and ExpressVPN supports 10 on Basic (12 on Advanced, 14 on Pro). Users can also install a VPN on their router to protect all the devices connected to their network.

Will a VPN slow down my internet speed?

Users may notice some slowdown when connected to a VPN, as data is routed through remote servers. However, some VPNs, such as ExpressVPN, minimize speed loss to less than 10 percent, making them excellent choices for streaming and gaming.

Can I use a VPN for torrenting in the U.S.?

Yes, but users should choose a VPN that supports peer-to-peer traffic and has a firm no-logs policy. NordVPN, Surfshark and Proton VPN have dedicated servers for torrenting. Keep in mind that sharing copyrighted material violates U.S. law.

What’s the difference between a US VPN server and a VPN with a US IP address?

A U.S. VPN server is physically located in the United States. A VPN with an American IP address may be a virtual server hosted outside the United States, but it still assigns users a U.S.-based IP address. Both allow access to U.S. content, but physical servers may offer better speeds.

Free vs. paid VPNs

If you are considering a free VPN, be sure to examine the VPN’s performance, reliability and potential drawbacks. Free VPNs often come with limitations, including data caps, fewer server locations and slower speeds. Some even have intrusive ads and may sell user data.
But if you are looking for a free VPN, Proton VPN stands out for offering unlimited data, strong encryption, a no-logs policy and an ad-free experience. Proton is a reputable, privacy-focused company.

However, paid VPNs offer a significantly better user experience, with faster speeds on both Wi-Fi and cellular networks, as well as reliable access to streaming services. They also provide advanced privacy features, including kill switches, ad and tracker blockers and split tunneling. Paid plans also support multiple devices.

While a free VPN may suffice for occasional use, paid VPNs offer a far superior experience. Many heavy users in the United States need a VPN with the speed, security and flexibility, and a paid VPN can offer that.

How to choose the best VPN in the United States

When selecting a VPN in the United States, start first with server coverage. Look for VPNs that offer servers across multiple states, as coast-to-coast coverage means better speeds and more reliable connections, especially if users plan to stream or game. VPNs like NordVPN and CyberGhost have thousands of U.S. VPN servers. If you’re streaming from the East Coast, a New York VPN server can improve performance. Likewise, West Coast users may benefit from a Los Angeles VPN for faster speeds.

Streaming support is also essential. While all major VPNs unblock Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ and HBO Max, ExpressVPN and Surfshark consistently bypass geo-restrictions, delivering smooth streaming playback.

If users plan to torrent, game or make video calls, speed and reliability are crucial. VPNs that utilize modern protocols, such as WireGuard or Lightway, offer faster and more stable performance.

Privacy protection is also essential. Select a VPN that offers a verified no-logs policy, strong encryption and features such as a kill switch and DNS leak protection. Proton VPN and NordVPN have undergone independent audits to confirm their privacy claims.
Finally, look at the price and device coverage. Many VPNs offer multi-device or family plans. Surfshark allows for unlimited simultaneous connections, NordVPN supports up to 10 and ExpressVPN supports 10 to 14 depending on tier. Balancing these features will help users find a VPN that fits their needs and usage habits.

Our recommendation

Among our top contenders, NordVPN stands out as the best overall VPN for U.S. users. It combines fast speeds, advanced security features and an easy-to-use app. Whether users are browsing on public Wi-Fi or streaming movies overseas, NordVPN delivers excellent protection at a reasonable price.

If streaming is the priority, ExpressVPN is recommended. With servers in over 100 countries and a strong reputation for working with popular streaming services like Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max, it’s ideal for travelers and those seeking to access content that is typically blocked.
If cost is the primary concern, Surfshark is an excellent choice. It combines unlimited devices, strong privacy and an intuitive interface, all at a lower price than its competitors. It’s ideal for families or users with multiple devices.

All of these VPN providers offer 30-day money-back guarantees (45 days for CyberGhost on long-term plans), allowing users to test them and determine which one works best before committing. Whether extra privacy is needed, access to blocked content is desired or users want to protect their data when traveling overseas, these are top choices for anyone seeking a VPN for America.

Our testing methodology

We tested the major VPN apps using consistent speed benchmarks and real-world scenarios to ensure our recommendations reflect actual performance. We measured download and upload speeds, as well as latency across multiple U.S. server locations and over Wi-Fi, LTE and 5G to simulate home and public usage. We evaluated streaming performance and P2P behavior by running downloads and streaming concurrently to observe throttling and buffering.

Each VPN was installed on iPhone and Android devices, as well as Mac and Windows PC, and on select smart TV platforms, when available. We evaluated app design, ease of use, connection setup, switching servers and support options on each platform for usability by both novice and advanced users.

We also analyzed each VPN’s core claims and security safeguards. We examined no-logs policies, verified independent audits and assessed advanced security features, including leak protection, kill switches and encryption protocols. We also evaluated a company’s jurisdiction and its past transparency reports to identify any potential privacy risks.

Our hands-on, multi-device approach to evaluating which VPN performs best for U.S. users provides users with up-to-date and trustworthy guidance on which VPN is right for them.

A note on copyright and torrenting

It’s completely legal to use a VPN in the United States, however, if users are torrenting copyrighted material without permission in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, using a VPN won’t exempt them from liability if they are caught. Law enforcement can still compel companies to hand over user activity if they believe a crime has been committed. Bottom line: VPNs protect privacy, but not legal risk, so use them responsibly.

Salon has affiliate partnerships, which means we may get a share of the revenue from purchases made through links on this article.

The post Best VPN in the US for 2026: Fast, secure, and streaming-ready appeared first on Salon.com.

AI companies have been working tirelessly to stuff generative and agentic AI into every nook and cranny of our online lives. These might be helpful, anodyne retail chatbots; they also might be utter menaces like Google Docs’ Gemini pop-up. (It’s hard not to feel undermined when the AI is asking what changes it should make to a sentence I haven’t finished typing out.) The question of whether these interventions are good — and yes, I am aware that they can be turned off — is almost beside the point: The companies forcing generative AI into everyone’s life are shifting the Overton window to normalize using AI in the one place where, at least for those not using it for accessibility, it has no reason to be: personal interactions.

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

Last week on “The View,” co-host Sunny Hostin mentioned using ChatGPT to make notes to her husband “nicer.” Veteran tech journalist and podcaster Kara Swisher, sitting in for Joy Behar, had some choice words for her, namely, “Do you not have friends [you] can do that with?” When Hostin enthused that she has “a PhD in ChatGPT” and regularly uses the LLM for personal and marital counseling, Swisher held up a warning finger: “Please don’t do that.”

The broader discussion was about the influx of high-profile influencers and Hollywood celebrities — Demi Moore, Reese Witherspoon, Mel Robbins, — who appear to be spokespeople for GenAI and have been using their sizable platforms to deliver a message that’s half doomsaying, half cheerleading. Women need to get on board with GenAI tools or risk being left behind. Also, it’s empowering! Just ask Robbins, who peppered a recent Instagram post sponsored by Microsoft Copilot with feminist-lite language while urging women to share their financial records with the AI. Or Sheryl Sandberg, whose Lean In Foundation now hawks AI to women; in March, Sandberg joined the board of directors of Nscale, a British data-center startup.

The value proposition of generative AI is that it streamlines the process of communicating by skipping connective thought processes. Without what’s called cognitive friction, using tools like ChatGPT yields fluency without a grounding in knowledge; writing in The Walrus, Sheldon Fernandez likens it to building a house on sand — it looks great in the moment but won’t hold up for long.

Earlier this year, a mother I know read one of her son’s school assignments and felt a surge of disappointment: “It didn’t sound like him at all, and when I asked him about it, he explained that it was an overdue assignment and he needed to get it done fast,” she said. Recalling that she grew up being warned away from copying off someone else’s test because “cheating is only cheating yourself,” she sounds glum. “They’re learning that people who don’t cheat are suckers.” This is borne out by reports from within higher education, where the use of AI is often not considered cheating at all.

For someone already using AI in school or the workplace, using it everywhere, for everything, is also frictionless. A June 2025 MIT paper mentioned by Fernandez studied a group of students writing the same essay, with one using an LLM, one using a search engine, and one using just their brain. It found that “83% of participants who used generative AI could not recall a single quote from their own essay, whereas 89% of participants who did not use AI assistance were able to do so.” Other studies of students have concluded that reliance on LLMs is associated with procrastination, memory loss and diminished academic performance. Human brains function on a pretty strict use-it-or-lose-it policy: When they’re not engaged, they start to atrophy.

“Each time I rely on AI to think through a problem, my own critical thinking muscles are getting a bit weaker,” wrote Ines Lee in a 2024 Substack dispatch titled “Oops, I’m becoming codependent on AI.” “It’s sort of like outsourcing your workout to someone else and expecting to get stronger. Muscles — physical and cognitive — just don’t work like that.”

But AI use can also affect processes we don’t necessarily think of as load-bearing, like the trust in our own abilities that naturally develops over time. Cary, 45, started to use LLMs at her workplace because doing so was heavily encouraged; a year or two later, she found herself struggling to write a remembrance of her father for his memorial service. She’d never worried about it before, but suddenly, the task of pulling something both heartfelt and coherent from her seemed overwhelming: “It was like, Do I even remember how to do this?”

The awareness that reliance on GenAI has cognitive impacts (and can be addictive) means that we’re now being told how to stop relying so much on it. Create dedicated “thinking spaces” in your home or workplace. Give yourself 30 minutes of thinking on your own before hitting up Claude. Track how you feel when you’re using an LLM for something just as easily done without one. It’s not that these aren’t helpful reminders. The issue is that they accept the premise that AI is so necessary, so all-seeing and so inevitable that we’re using it even in situations where our knowledge and experience have always been sufficient.

And this is a problem, given that large-language models might, at this point, be best known for being sycophantic flattery machines. The stories of chatbots being so affirming of human feelings that they end up as accessories to suicide are outliers, but studies of chatbot interactions with humans have all pointed out that they prioritize agreeability, if not actual sycophancy.

Whenever I type a question — say, “How common is chatbot sycophancy?” — into Google, it responds with what seems like an excess of enthusiasm: “Great question!” Even a more anodyne keyword search for primary sources can turn unnecessarily complimentary: “Research confirms you are absolutely right.” (Again, I am aware that these features can be turned off and, again, that is beside the point.) Like most women and a whole lot of men, I’ve lived most of my life being told how not-enough I am, continually reminded to notice how much I lack and also notice the things I can buy that will make me lack slightly less. So when my Google searches treat my request for info about sitcom intros of years past like splitting the atom, I get suspicious.

Lindsey Hall’s recent viral essay “I stumbled across my boyfriend’s ChatGPT and it ended our relationship” is an example of how many people are willing to farm out their thinking for no reason other than, well, why not? Hall describes stumbling on the ChatGPT logs of her boyfriend of 5 months and finding that he had asked the LLM to decide, based on the concerns he input, whether he should continue their relationship.

“[H]e laid out his doubts in clipped, almost clinical fragments: my lifestyle, my sensitivity, my past, my van, my online writing, my eating disorder history, my cats . . . I was, in short, being methodically assessed.” This activity itself isn’t new: People frequently work out the big picture of romantic compatibility by listing pros and cons, and the discovery of such a list is a recurring trope in sitcoms and rom-coms. But seeing herself reduced to raw data by ChatGPT hit very different for Hall: “It was like accidentally reading someone’s diary, except the diary was a f*cking robot — predisposed to agree with him, ready to take his cruel thoughts and shape them into something that sounded reasonable.”

There’s no evidence that well-known women using social media and public appearances to sell their audiences on GenAI have any ill intent, or that they’re shills for AI companies. But given what we do know makes it worth asking, as Swisher did, why their support is so unquestioning — and why they frame it as empowering without mentioning the many ways in which it’s the opposite. (Let’s remember that the last tech Witherspoon hyped to women was NFTs.)

The more that the likes of Robbins and Sandberg and Witherspoon warn that women miss the AI train at their peril, the more it seems like the new Leaning In. Women recruit women into a molding themselves to a corporate structure that wasn’t built for them, tell them that structural workplace inequality is actually just insufficient personal investment, and turn negativity away at the door. Meanwhile, the men founding and running AI companies continue to prove how little they value women as fellow humans: They’ve knowingly perpetuated body anxiety in girls in order to capitalize on it; they’ve let their AI chatbots sexualize and exploit minors; they’ve said, out loud and approvingly, that their technology will erode the cultural and political power of women. If there’s a reason these women are intent on convincing women to adopt (but not question) this technology, I’m all ears. But so far, they’re promising things that they not only can’t deliver, but also can’t articulate.

The post You don’t need AI to write a love letter appeared first on Salon.com.

In the early days of the war, Trump insisted that the situation would be resolved in four to five weeks. As a result, energy industry analysts said that if Trump’s assertion proved true, the U.S. and global economies might be able to quickly return to the prewar status quo in terms of oil and natural gas prices.

The Iran war, however, is now well into its third month and the price of oil remains elevated well above prewar levels due to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, even with the release of oil from strategic petroleum reserves around the world. There has also been significant damage to oil and natural gas infrastructure across the region, meaning that even an immediate end to the war would not result in a near-immediate ramp-up of production to prewar levels.

David Victor, the director of the Deep Decarbonization Initiative at the University of California, San Diego, said that in his analysis, even if the war ended tomorrow and the Strait of Hormuz was fully open, “we’ve already locked ourselves into disruptions that will probably last for at least three to six months.”

Prices, Victor explained, wouldn’t necessarily stay around their wartime highs for that whole time period. Rather, the end of the war would have a delayed impact on energy markets for the same reason the beginning of the war did: it takes time for such a change to work its way through global supply chains.

(Photo by Elif Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images) Oil prices continue to surge amid US/Israel-Iran war on June 8, 2026. The futures price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, closed at $72.48 per barrel on Feb. 27, the last trading day before the attacks, and experienced sharp fluctuations following military actions by the US and Israel against Iran.

“When the war began, there was a huge amount of oil at sea already,” Victor said. “The Saudis and others knew that the crisis was on its way, so they started pumping more and putting more out into the market, and so it’s taken a while to work all that off.”

Victor pointed out that there were plenty of other long-term impacts the U.S. and global economies will be stuck dealing with beyond just high oil prices. Inflation in general has risen as a result of high fuel costs and Victor explained that there are signs of a broader economic slowdown. Certain sectors, like travel and tourism, have also been disproportionately impacted by soaring jet fuel prices and industries like electronics manufacturing have been seriously impacted by both the high cost of fuel and also the rise in the price of fossil fuel byproducts, like helium.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Victor explained a longer war could still result in more significant demand destruction as well, which is when high prices or shortages force people to do with less of a commodity, and sustained high prices create an incentive for people to become more efficient. He used the example of the 1970s oil shocks as an example.

“We saw oil prices go up by a factor of three almost overnight, and it triggered economic recession,” Victor said. “There were a lot of other things going on in the economy as well, but it also triggered a massive push to find ways to remove oil from uses where oil had substitutes, a lot of that is done now in the global economy, and to become radically more efficient.”

Max Pyziur, the director of research programs at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, told Salon that the window for a quick recovery from an energy perspective has passed, but warned that there is another, potentially steeper, economic cliff looming.

In March, the International Energy Agency announced the release of 400 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserves of member countries. While a release of this scale takes time to play out and though different countries release oil at different rates, Pyziur said that he expects this release to run dry by the end of the summer, roughly 12 weeks from now. In the meantime, he explained, prices will likely remain elevated, but not in an unprecedented way.

“Once we get past these strategic oil reserves, we might be seeing $150 per barrel of oil. That’s when things become more acute,” Pyziur said.

Given the U.S.’s status as a wealthy nation and its large domestic production of oil, Pyziur said that he wouldn’t expect outright shortages here, though poorer countries and those with less domestic production may suffer from them. Rather, he expects high oil prices to manifest into even higher prices for gasoline, jet fuel and other petroleum products. After the end of the petroleum reserve released at the end of the summer, Pyziur said he would expect another economic inflection point in the next six to eight months, when acute shortages of other products that transit the Strait of Hormuz.

“There are already acute shortages in natural gas, and there are also shortages in fertilizer and helium. If this isn’t curtailed within six to eight months, you’ll see challenges,” Pyziur explained.

The post Trump has locked in high gas prices for summer — and maybe longer appeared first on Salon.com.

The investigation examined potential criminal violations of the Clean Water Act by the multistate mining operations largely run by Justice’s son, Jay, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter.

The criminal probe was a significant escalation in the yearslong effort to police serial pollution offenses by Virginia-based Southern Coal and dozens of affiliated mining operations controlled by the family. In the past decade, Southern Coal and other Justice corporations have racked up tens of thousands of alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and have been sued repeatedly by state and federal prosecutors over their failure to properly follow environmental laws at their mining sites.

The investigation shuttered by the Trump administration was a joint effort by prosecutors and investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Western District of Virginia to probe whether the incessant violations of antipollution laws had risen to the level of criminal behavior, people familiar with the matter said.

People familiar with the investigation told ProPublica that prosecutors believed they had a strong case. They initially had the blessing of Robert Tracci, President Donald Trump’s top official in the Western District of Virginia, to move forward.

But in recent months, as prosecutors battled the Justice companies in court over subpoenas for records, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General shut down the probe. At the time, Todd Blanche still headed the office, before assuming the role of acting attorney general in April.

“They were told ‘pencils down,’” a person familiar with the investigation said.

That prosecutors were even conducting a criminal investigation is noteworthy, people said, because the DOJ only charges a dozen or so criminal Clean Water Act cases each year. It is rare for top DOJ officials to derail a criminal investigation initiated by career officials at such an early stage, people familiar with the case said.

“I’ve never heard of that happening before,” said former federal prosecutor Rick Mountcastle, speaking generally about DOJ protocols. Mountcastle spent 24 years as a prosecutor in the Western District of Virginia. “There shouldn’t be some sort of untouchables list of people who are immune from enforcement.”

The move is part of a pattern of behavior at the top echelons of the DOJ to push cases against Trump’s political adversaries and ease up on allies.

Environmental enforcement against large polluters has plunged under the second Trump administration. Just days after inauguration, the administration reassigned top career environmental lawyers at the DOJ, including those overseeing the Southern Coal case, to work on the president’s immigration crackdown. At the beginning of the year, Blanche personally ordered prosecutors to stand down from cases against diesel emissions cheating.

Steven Ruby, an attorney for the Justice companies, said they became aware of the criminal investigation earlier this year.

“Ultimately the finding of the inquiry by the government was that there wasn’t any evidence to pursue criminal charges,” Ruby said. “There’s never been any intentional wrongdoing by the companies.”

While objecting to the subpoenas in court, the company simultaneously convinced the DOJ to drop the case, he said.

“The Justice companies — because Sen. Justice has been governor and because he’s now a senator — are singled out and put under a microscope, and there’s news coverage of violations and consent decrees and compliance actions,” Ruby said. “But the fact of the matter is that those kinds of issues exist throughout the industry.”

Current and former government officials familiar with the companies’ environmental record called them routine bad actors.

Spokespeople for the EPA and the Western District of Virginia referred questions to the DOJ. Justice’s senate office did not respond to questions.

“There is no case to be made here for a criminal investigation,” Emily Covington, a DOJ spokeswoman, said in an email. “Any career prosecutor who would paint a criminal case as strong is simply a deep state prosecutor continuing to push the priorities of the Biden administration.”

The deputy attorney general’s office is routinely involved with reviewing cases, she added. The office determined that this case was not consistent with the Trump administration’s priorities, she continued, and it was more appropriate to resolve it through the less punitive civil process. “The bottom line is that this was a politically motivated prosecution for a case that can and should be resolved civilly,” she wrote.

The Justice family runs a sprawling coal mining enterprise that extends across the South. Estimates of its fortune fluctuate. Forbes tallied Jim Justice’s net worth to be as much as $1.9 billion until 2021; more recently, it declared him “broke” and facing $1 billion in debt. But environmental groups have accused his companies of misrepresenting their assets to avoid paying environmental penalties.

Ruby said company finances seesaw because coal is a “boom and bust” industry.

Justice, who was first elected governor of West Virginia as a Democrat, announced he had become a Republican at a Trump rally in 2017. Trump backed Justice’s bid for Senate in 2023, amid a contested GOP primary. Justice went on to win the seat, helping Trump clinch a GOP majority in the Senate.

Coal mines often leach dangerous chemicals like arsenic into waterways and are required to strictly monitor pollution discharge and keep it under certain limits. The family’s companies have settled many accusations of environmental violations by agreeing to pay fines and invest in better pollution prevention without admitting or denying culpability.

In recent years, however, the company has repeatedly flouted regulators and the legal process. Jay Justice has been a no-show at court hearings involving Clean Water Act violations in the past, and in 2024 a judge in Alabama issued a civil contempt order against him for his repeated failure to respond to those lawsuits. Ruby, the Justice companies’ lawyer, attributed the violations in that case to surrounding facilities the family does not own. The case is now in mediation.

A number of recent legal proceedings have laid bare the extent to which the Justice companies may have knowingly violated environmental laws, a key threshold for bringing a criminal matter.

Such allegations surfaced in a 2023 civil case brought by the Justice companies’ former chief of environmental compliance Robert Fowler. In the suit, Fowler claimed that Jay Justice blocked him from spending the money necessary to comply with environmental laws, including making court-ordered payments and repairing equipment. As a result, according to emails disclosed in the lawsuit there were at times complaints of near-daily violations of permit water requirements.

In a resignation letter and in subsequent court filings, Fowler said he was concerned the circumstances exposed him to “potential civil and criminal liability.” Fowler declined to comment.

The Justice companies denied Fowler’s accusations. The Justice companies believe the government’s criminal investigation was based primarily on Fowler’s claims, which Ruby dismissed as the allegations of a “disgruntled” former employee.

Last month, a jury in Alabama found that the Justice companies had made false representations to Fowler about his role, but it did not award him the millions of dollars in damages he demanded in his lawsuit. The judge has yet to enter his final ruling.

In the DOJ’s aborted investigation of Southern Coal, prosecutors and federal agents had begun to gather evidence, scrutinizing testimony in the Justices’ various civil trials, and had approached former employees seeking information. Government attorneys also sent subpoenas seeking further documentation, said those familiar with the probe, a move that was opposed by the company’s lawyers.

People familiar with the case said Justice Department attorneys were ready to fight the Justices’ lawyers over the subpoenas.

But before they could move forward, Blanche’s office shut it down.

The post Trump administration killed criminal investigation of GOP senator’s coal companies appeared first on Salon.com.

So it’s no surprise that the famously incompetent Donald Trump appointee recently claimed to be “simplifying” the military’s religious coding system, but only ended up sowing unnecessary confusion and rancor. Even more entertainingly, the move backfired — which was obviously more about Hegseth’s Christian nationalist inclinations than efficiency anyway. In his eagerness to marginalize people of non-Christian faiths, Hegseth accidentally exposed a major MAGA myth: that there’s a coherent, much less peaceful, way to impose their theocratic views on the country. On the contrary, any effort to turn this into a “Christian nation” is destined to reveal the deep divisions between Christian factions, one which are only concealed now because of the secularism Hegseth so despises.

To recap, for those who missed the furor: the Department of Defense used to recognize 211 separate religious designations for service members, which help shape everything from chaplain services to what marker is put on a tombstone. Under the guise of “streamlining” services, this number was reduced to 31. Anyone who looked at the new list, however, could see that Hegseth’s unsubtle goal was signaling the superiority of Christians to everyone else. The new list gives Christians 21 subcategories to choose from, but Jews, Muslims and other major religious groups only get one option, ignoring the diversity within those faiths. Atheists, humanists, Wiccans, pagans and other belief systems that the Christian right believes are demonic, were erased entirely.

Sadly, none of this is surprising. Protestations to the contrary, Hegseth has barely concealed his hostility to recognizing that anyone non-Christian could be a legitimate American, much less an honored military service member. What did seem to shock some people, however, was that Hegseth also kicked members of the Church of Latter-day Saints out of his Christian tribe. While all other followers of Jesus, from Quakers to Catholics, were officially designated as variations of “Christian,” Mormons did not enjoy the Christian label.

Mormon leaders should have seen this coming. White evangelicals don’t hide their belief that Mormons have no right to call themselves “Christians.” In May at Rededicate 250, the Christian nationalist event backed by the Trump administration in Washington D.C., there were a couple token Catholics and one Jew among otherwise evangelical-led speaker list, but no Mormons were invited. On the contrary, many speakers are anti-Mormon, including Trump ally and Southern Baptist megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, who has repeatedly called the Latter Day Saints a “cult.”

Despite this, most Mormons have continued to align themselves with the MAGA movement, foolishly believing they’ll be part of the “Christian nation” that white evangelicals envision, one which will expressly exclude atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, and other religious minorities. Mormons have a lot in common politically with white evangelicals, which is why the two groups overwhelming vote Republican. Despite their massive theological differences, Mormons share their racial attitudes with white evangelicals, being both very white and cultivating a culture that protects white privilege. Both groups also push far-right views on gender and family, mandating heterosexuality, female submission, and abstinence until marriage. Because of this, Mormon leadership tends to think they’ve earned their spot as insiders in the Christian nationalist camp.

So there was a widespread anger when Hegseth reminded Mormons that they’ll never be part of the evangelical-led Christian nationalist in-group. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a practicing Mormon, spent the weekend as he often does, having a social media meltdown, but in this case, it was aimed at fellow Republicans instead of his usual progressive targets. His fellow Utah Republican and Mormon, Sen. John Curtis, also complained on X, noting “Latter-day Saints are among the most patriotic, service-oriented individuals in our country.” 

Of course, the same thing could be said of Jews, atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. — all the non-Christian minorities that Hegseth was unsubtly snubbing in his religious “simplification” scheme. Being brave or patriotic doesn’t matter to Christian nationalists. The ultimate goal is to exclude all non-Christian people from being full American citizens. What Hegseth accidentally did, however, is reveal that a whole lot of self-proclaimed Christians are also on the chopping block. Once the principle of religious discrimination against non-Christians is established in American law, the next step was always going to be reclassifying huge swathes of Christians as non-Christians, so they can be marginalized, too.

White evangelicals, who are the driving force behind Christian nationalist ideology, are only about 13% of the population. In order to get enough political power to push their agenda, they have to convince — fool, really — huge numbers of other Americans into thinking they’ll be included in this Christian nationalist vision. For now, that means sucking it up and pretending to be enthusiastically aligned with Catholics, Mormons and even non-churchgoing MAGA types like Trump himself, under a “Christian” identity that is shaped around demonizing atheists and religious minorities as outsiders.

But, as religious freedom activists point out, once the purge starts, the circle of who is considered an insider tends to shrink. If this is going to be a Christian nation, eventually the leaders will have to decide which flavor of Christianity it will follow. It can’t be all of them, because there’s some pretty serious theological differences that invariably bleed into politics.

This has already been demonstrated with the conflict over the Iran war. Hegseth and his evangelical allies like pastor Franklin Graham have pushed a “God of war” who “hates” non-believers. In contrast, Pope Leo XIV has denounced war, especially unprovoked wars. Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, can try to paper over this conflict, but make no mistake, evangelicals would love to push the Catholics out over this, and will, the second it’s politically viable. 

Right now, the defense secretary is backpedaling, though apparently by removing the “Christian” designation from various religious groups entirely, rather than let Mormons call themselves Christians. Because they’re so thirsty for political power, Mormon leaders, including Sen. Lee, are accepting this compromise and ignoring that Hegseth still won’t call them Christians. But in playing these games, Hegseth gave the whole thing away.

Christian nationalists need the Mormons and their votes, so they’ll pretend to be friends for now. But should the day come that the Christian nationalists get the power they desire, they won’t stop at stripping non-Christians of their full rights. They’re coming for other Christians, too. This is why the nation’s founders instituted religious freedom — they witnessed how Europe was torn apart by wars waged between different flavors of Christianity. It could happen here, too, and worse, aided by Christian voters who delusionally believe they won’t be kicked out the second white evangelicals get their chance.

The post Pete Hegseth’s Mormon diss explodes a MAGA myth appeared first on Salon.com.

At a moment when many Americans struggle to imagine how our democracy can improve, Maine’s Democratic and Republican primaries offer a reminder that structural reform not only works, but can become a better form of politics as usual.

Maine voters adopted RCV in 2016 after two crowded, chaotic races in 2010 and 2014 elected Republican Paul LePage — a pugnacious Trump before Trump — to the governor’s mansion without anything resembling majority support. Determined to preserve the state’s tradition of supporting independents, while also solving the spoiler problem such candidates could create, Mainers approved the reform through a statewide initiative.

The establishment fought it. Voters had to battle to preserve a reform they demanded. But today, ranked choice voting is part of the furniture. Voters get the benefits of robust candidate fields without having to cast complicated strategic votes or worry that a polarizing candidate will slip into office with a narrow plurality.

As voters select nominees on Tuesday for governor and a competitive congressional seat that could help determine control of the U.S. House, candidates across the spectrum are demonstrating just how deeply RCV has become woven into the state’s politics.

Under Maine’s system, candidates compete to be the first choice, but must also appeal to all voters as a viable second choice. This spring, Democratic gubernatorial candidates Shenna Bellows, Troy Jackson and Hannah Pingree announced that they would rank each other on their ballots and encouraged supporters to do the same. Former Maine CDC director Nirav Shah also urged voters to consider ranking him second if he was not their first choice.

The same dynamic has blossomed within the GOP. Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert Wessels announced that he would rank Jonathan Bush second. “Jonathan and I closely align on the solutions to fix our government and our economy,” Wessels said. Then, during a debate, David Jones and Ben Midgley announced an alliance of their own.

That would have been almost unthinkable pre-RCV. Now, there is room for coalition building, not just old-school negative politics. This change is especially striking given Maine’s history. After the state adopted RCV, LePage questioned its legitimacy. In 2018, when Democrat Jared Golden defeated GOP incumbent Bruce Poliquin in the state’s 2nd congressional district (which Donald Trump has carried three times), Poliquin sued unsuccessfully to overturn the result.

Now, just as Democrats have encouraged voters to rank candidates in the same lane, Republicans are forming alliances, seeking second-choice support and competing more widely for every vote. RCV is the new normal. Now, the debate is how to compete within the new system that voters successfully demanded.

That may be the most powerful measure of a reform’s success. The incentive structure has changed in Maine, and with it, the way that candidates campaign. Just as voters wanted.

The effects can be seen everywhere. Labor unions and advocacy groups have embraced ranked endorsements, encouraging supporters to back multiple candidates rather than just one. On debate stages, candidates still draw distinctions with one another, but they also compliment their opponents and highlight areas of agreement. Recent polling found that most primary voters planned to rank multiple candidates in the crowded governor’s race. Big majorities said the ballot was easy to understand – the same result found in every poll of Maine voters over the last several years.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

That is how reform works. It becomes ordinary. Americans searching for reasons to believe that we can repair our democracy should pay attention to Maine today, and not just for the controversy surrounding Democrat Graham Platner in the U.S. Senate race. The rules of politics really can change. Voters can demand something better. When smart reforms prove that they deliver stronger campaigns and majority winners, they can become the new normal.

That’s real hope amid this dangerous, uncertain moment. Reform is possible. What begins among a core of determined activists can quickly become the way democracy works.

The post Ranked choice voting is working in Maine. It can work everywhere else too appeared first on Salon.com.

Memoir is challenging for many reasons, with the decision of how much intricate detail of one’s life and work to include at the top of that list. It’s a difficult line to walk if you want to be a decent human being — obviously, people writing tell-all memoirs understand that they’ve decided to open all the doors and air all the dirty laundry, no matter how it impacts people on the periphery. People want dirt, and it’s easy to give it to them.

Thayil does not do any of this in “A Screaming Life,” but he also does not avoid difficult subjects, including the disintegration and breakup of the band in 1997, as well as the death by suicide of his friend, Soundgarden lead singer Chris Cornell, in Detroit in 2017. The book follows a loose but kinetic structure that keeps moving forward, and as the reader progresses through the story, you might find yourself gingerly turning the page to the next chapter, dreading the inevitable moment when the band learns of Cornell’s passing. Thayil tells the story by bringing the reader along with him as he first hears the rumors and then has the news confirmed. It isn’t histrionic; it is honest, and it is awful — but those are the accurate emotions.

Thayil told Salon, “I wasn’t initially comfortable with being more intimate or in any way that would be confessional as I understand memoirs to be somewhat, right? And I didn’t feel like I owed that to anyone. At some point, I thought, well, maybe I owe it to myself. Maybe it’s interesting to get some perspective on the achievements and the gains and the loss. I thought maybe I owe that to our friends.”

Of course, those friends include other famous Seattle musicians, both the ones still present and the ones who left the planet. Thayil brings the reader with him as he experiences learning about Kurt Cobain’s death while on the road in Europe with Tad, another band from the Seattle scene. And, of course, there was also the passing of Mother Love Bone singer Andrew Wood, who had been Chris Cornell’s roommate and dear friend. You can’t tell this story without revisiting all of those events, and Thayil does so with respect and care.

It’s also unusual to get to hear these stories from the perspective of a Seattleite who was an essential part of that music scene. This isn’t a journalist writing about someone whose music they listened to and maybe spoke to once. These people were someone’s bandmate, roommate, and friend, and Thayil’s ability to convey those feelings and that grief had to be difficult to retell and get on the page. It feels exceedingly generous. It is also heartbreaking as Thayil looks back at Cornell’s life and work and berates himself for not seeing what he feels were clues to Cornell’s mindset: “I feel like I let Chris down by not seeing the look in his eyes, or not hearing a tone in his voice—not being able to read it.”

(Koh Hasebe/Shinko Music/Getty Images) (L-R) Chris Cornell, Matt Cameron, Kim Thayil, Ben Shepherd

There was no great drama around the breakup of Soundgarden; there was a press release with a measured, careful statement, and then the band was no more. If you weren’t a big fan at the time, you may have barely noticed. But if you were following the band, you’ll remember how it seemed to arrive out of nowhere, at the end of two years of touring, including the 1996 Lollapalooza outing. Sometimes bands break up for one specific or large reason, and sometimes it is a chain of events, seemingly unrelated, or not visible from the outside. In the case of Soundgarden, it was the latter, and by the time the reader reaches that part of the book, it’s not difficult to understand why it happened.

“A Screaming Life” is roughly chronological — it borrows the current music memoir trend of small, short chapters which are sequenced using some kind of connective device — and unlike some other books that use this strategy, Thayil’s memoir does a great job of not just moving the reader forward, but making sure that the reader has the information they require to understand the current moment. You don’t arrive at a chapter and then find yourself needing to frantically page backwards to try to find the previous reference to a person or event, because it will already be present.

Want more from culture than just the latest trend? The Swell highlights art made to last.
Sign up here

A good example of that is how Thayil tells the story of what became the grunge “supergroup” project Temple of the Dog, which included Chris Cornell and drummer Matt Cameron, as well as Pearl Jam guitarists Stone Gossard and Mike McCready, PJ bassist Jeff Ament, and some vocals from a new guy named Eddie Vedder. Thayil talks about how Chris Cornell was writing songs after Andy Wood’s death by overdose in one chapter, tying it to an explanation of how Wood’s death inspired Cornell to follow his creative example: “There was a switch that flipped after Andy died, and Chris became more courageous in his risk-taking. His natural ability to write cool songs around his melodic ideas was now fortified with the courage to take creative risks and to approach his guitar playing and songwriting in new ways,” is how Thayil explained it. But then Pearl Jam exploded, Soundgarden had also taken a step up on the ladder, “grunge” was a thing, and A&M Records was going to make the most of something they already had in their catalog. None of this happened exactly in sequence, but the book ties it together cleanly and accurately.

(Courtesy of HarperCollins) Soundgarden

Credit for the continual attention to threading the story consistently should also go to Thayil’s co-author, Adem Tepedelen, for juggling a multitude of facts and information and introducing them in a sequence that’s easy to understand and comprehend, whether the reader is someone who saw Soundgarden at the Central back in the day, or discovered them from their older sister’s records when the band returned for their second round in 2011. Kim Thayil is a highly intelligent and cerebral individual — there was a running joke on the old Soundgarden fan mailing list about Thayil’s use of “ferrivorous” in 1996’s “Never The Machine Forever” — and his humor, intelligence and dry wit are present on every page. It feels like he’s sitting there and talking to you.

What was in the water in Park Forest, Illinois? This locale has produced Kim Thayil and Soundgarden co-founder, bassist Hiro Yamamoto, as well as Sub Pop co-founder Bruce Pavitt and legendary Geffen A&R rep Tom Zutaut (who signed Guns N’ Roses, Mötley Crüe, Def Leppard, and many others). This is a memoir, and Thayil spends a reasonable amount of pages opening up about his family of origin, his childhood and the place he grew up. He attributes much of his personal and professional success to the people he grew up with.

In 1986, Bruce Pavitt was just a music-loving guy putting out a cassette zine and writing a column in Seattle’s bi-weekly music paper, “The Rocket.” He loved Soundgarden and was the one who invented their “total fu*king godhead” tagline when he used it to describe the band’s live show. In the book, Thayil admits that the band had built a strong live reputation, enhanced by Chris Cornell’s habit of appearing onstage shirtless. But instead of quietly (or even loudly!) explaining why their live shows were so great, Thayil has another theory: “I can’t help but think that at least a little of our popularity was fueled by a lot of people in our scene doing MDMA.” (Many things can be true at once, Kim!)

Kim Thayil holds grudges. Not in a bad way, but in a very normal human way, and he shares them throughout the book. Frankly, it’s kind of delightful to be in on them, even when they’re anonymous (although you could probably figure out which unnamed Australian New Wave band locked Soundgarden out of their shared dressing room at the 9:30 Club during the band’s SST days). Thayil wants to get things right — he explains that he was the person thinking about Soundgarden’s legacy after the band broke up in 1997. Once the record company stopped caring, the band had no online presence, and you couldn’t even buy a Soundgarden T-shirt if you wanted to — and these minor but not unimportant reassertions of the truth are tied into that mindset.

(Jim Dyson/WireImage/Getty Images) Kim Thayil and Chris Cornell

If you think this is an exaggeration, Thayil begins correcting the record on page four, where he explains why some people believe a band called the Shemps was an early version of Soundgarden, because there’s a photo on the internet of the Shemps that features both Chris Cornell and Hiro Yamamoto. The only problem with that is that while Cornell, Thayil and Yamamoto all individually took turns playing in the Shemps to make money, that version of the band never performed in public. This is one example of many.

Discovering in the course of this book that Kim Thayil has synesthesia — a condition where one sense triggers another — was a huge aha moment. Suddenly, so many Soundgarden songs and visuals made sense, like “Room A Thousand Years Wide” (for which Thayil was the lyricist). Thayil’s synesthesia manifests as him having color and shape associations with words and letters (among other elements), meaning that letters, sentences or phrases have their own color palette. He explains in the book that “. . . I could often advocate on behalf of arrangements or songs or decision making within songs based on the colors and shapes a certain passage evoked.”

When speaking to Salon, Thayil generously explained what colors he saw in Soundgarden’s “Jesus Christ Pose”: “The word ‘Jesus’ is orangish, with brownish and reddish tones. ‘Christ’ is similar, but a little bit more yellow. And ‘Pose’ is very blue with some purples in there. So it’s the words, it’s letters and numbers.” He explains that he didn’t even know what this condition was, or that it was a condition, until the ’90s, but in the book he explains that it was like this for him since he was a child.

Unless you were living in Seattle in the late ’90’s, the WTO conference held there in November of 1999 and the accompanying protests — known to some as “the Battle of Seattle” — may have just skirted your consciousness. That week, downtown Seattle was cordoned off because protestors had taken over the streets surrounding the convention center, and some activists had broken the windows of a Starbucks nearby.

There was one big problem with this: Kim Thayil was going to be playing guitar in front of an audience for the first time since the breakup of Soundgarden, as part of the NO WTO Combo, featuring Dead Kennedys frontman Jello Biafra as well as Krist Novoselic, a musician that played in “a big old band whose name I can’t remember at the moment,” as Biafra introduced him on the night, and there was no way local Soundgarden fans (including your columnist) was going to miss this.

This was achieved by taking a roundabout way into downtown, listening to the college radio station (then KCMU, which later became KEXP), which kept informing listeners that if you had a ticket to the show you were “allowed” to be in that area and that you should just go despite the drastically increased police presence; in the book, Thayil explains that he and the other musicians also ran into multiple police barricades on their way to the show.

This is the type of milestone that would probably only be important to local Soundgarden fans in Seattle, but not necessarily matter to a wider public, much less make an appearance in this book. “I think the fact that we made an album out of that, the fact that the event was documented required some inclusion, certainly, in the story,” Thayil tells Salon. “Plus, Jello Biafra was a bit of a hero of mine in the late ’70s. When the single came out, “California Über Alles,” I thought, oh my God, I love the way he sang. I love the fact that it was political and it was hardcore. And yeah, the Dead Kennedys were a big deal in my late teens. And so, the opportunity to work with this guy who held Alternative Tentacles Records and so many — my record collection, so much of it is due to him. And so, I thought it was important that I do include that.”

According to Kim Thayil, Soundgarden (and later, Pearl Jam) drummer Matt Cameron is a literal saint, halo and everything. That is not just his opinion; that is backed up by comments and anecdotes from people like producer Jack Endino (“Jack loved Matt’s drum sound and thought it was a gift to him as an engineer.”). But Thayil’s description of why Cameron decided to join Soundgarden (and not accept the many other offers he potentially had, at least in Thayil’s mind) ends up being a great description of what made Soundgarden different and special, in an environment where there were many different and special bands just hanging around: “. . . he liked the challenge we posed as songwriters and as personalities . . . He genuinely liked the material, and he liked the way we were ascending, building our audience and growing creatively and commercially. And I think he trusted the kind of people we were . . . We may have been cranky, but we were also decent people . . . He just saw us as principled.” No one has defined Soundgarden better than that.

Thayil told Salon, “You know, sometimes you remember some of the dickish things your friends or your bandmates do, but the overall picture is like, wow, they’re just kind of sensitive and generous. And that’s the case with all my bandmates, and everyone’s done things like that. I think there’s a triumph.”

“A Screaming Life” will have you wanting to go back through your records and dig out music you hadn’t heard in years, and in other cases, go looking for releases you may not have been aware of (such as the NO WTO Band, as well as “Live On I-5,” a compilation of concert recordings from the band’s heyday). Thayil’s memoir will absolutely encourage readers to listen again, or listen deeper, or even listen for the first time, and that’s really the highest praise you can give a rock and roll memoir. It’s the entire point.

The post Kim Thayil’s “A Screaming Life” will make you hear Soundgarden differently appeared first on Salon.com.

Summer is a strange season in adulthood.

Recipe: At-Home Ceviche Tostadas

The post Summer has another flavor appeared first on Salon.com.

Pulte’s grandfather, at one point one of the wealthiest men in the world, built a Fortune 500 company and gave tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to charity before his 2018 death. He was also friends with Doug Coe, died in 2017 after decades leading the secretive, controversial Fellowship Foundation that built and sustained a global right-wing network including dictators, lobbyists, and corrupt millionaires largely united against labor, LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights.

Better known as The Family, The Fellowship runs the National Prayer Breakfast and the congressional residence on Capitol Hill called C Street.

Pulte’s father, Mark, like others of the patriarch’s progeny, has kept a hand in the grandfather’s work, including funding religious charities with Fellowship ties.

It’s not clear whether Pulte’s grandfather, after whom he’s named, passed on any of his Fellowship relationships to his grandson.

If Pulte is personally connected to The Fellowship, he’d hardly be alone in the administration’s upper ranks.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio used to live at the C Street townhouse, as did Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the United Kingdom, former “Apprentice” producer Mark Burnett, is a regular at The Fellowship’s National Prayer Breakfast.

That said, I found no public indication that Pulte has direct, personal ties to The Fellowship. Coe died in 2017 and even before that, Pulte’s philanthropy focused primarily on giving cash to individuals rather than charities pushing the theocratic vision common among Fellowship recipients.

But Pulte also claimed to have been uniquely close to his grandfather, Coe’s close friend.

It’s not surprising that the Pulte family, based in Michigan, has ties to Fellowship insiders and funders. The Fellowship has had a strong presence among Michigan’s wealthy for decades.

But the ties extend beyond overlapping at religious charities in the orbits of Michigan philanthropists. Pulte had a significant personal relationship with Coe, who hobnobbed with presidents of both parties and leaders of nations around the world.

A 2019 tribute after the elder Pulte’s death, in a publication of one of his charities, said:

“Bill had a global vision rooted in his deep faith in Jesus Christ. He connected his vision and faith, joining with other philanthropists and leaders (including former President George W. Bush in Washington, D.C. for prayer breakfasts where they prayed together for world peace.”

In an interview just last month, Rabbi Jack Bemporad recalled “we used to go to Doug’s place,” presumably referring to Coe’s Arlington, Va., home.

Bemporad was a collaborator with the elder Pulte on a project of profound personal importance: Crafting a prayer for peace so universal it would foster world peace. (It has yet to achieve progress toward this aim.)

Coe assembled a group of eight to craft it, so the finished prayer would be inclusive enough to be universally unifying. (The group is pictured in the screengrab at the top of this article.)

The tallest figure, to Pulte’s immediate right, is A. Larry Ross, a Fellowship spokesperson and past board member. Ross was one of the key figures I identified a few years ago as part of The Fellowship’s radicalization of Mike Lindell.

The smiling group of eight at some point found themselves at odds with each other over their unifying prayer.

According to Bemporad in his interview last month, the elder Pulte took his idea for a prayer to Clark Durant, an occasional Republican candidate and former vice president at Hillsdale College, an oasis for theocratic right-wing academia. Durant brought in Coe. Coe brought in the others.

Some on the team of eight felt the prayer should be Christian. Pulte and Bemporad, the rabbi, did not, Bemporad says. “[T]hat was something that divided us.”

They worked on it for more than a year, with weekly prayer group meetings. (You can read the final prayer at Bemporad’s website.)

Whatever divide arose between Coe and Pulte apparently wasn’t deep or permanent.

Fellowship spreadsheets I obtained several years ago list Pulte as attending the 2015 and 2016 prayer breakfasts, one year with his wife.

The 2016 spreadsheet identifies who invited each guest, and the Pultes were invited by Coe.

Back home, Pulte’s circle included another Coe disciple, a Michigan business leader named Mike Timmis, who facilitated Fellowship mission work known as Cornerstone Development in Uganda. The Fellowship liaison backed by Timmis helped lead a parliamentary prayer group that ultimately enacted the death penalty for LGBTQ+ people there.

Timmis and Pulte helped get Cornerstone Schools off the ground in Michigan in the early 1990s. Durant, who knew Coe, approached both of them for help.

The 1991 articles of incorporation list Durant, Timmis, and Timmis’s wife as incorporators. Timmis and Durant raised $1.2 million. Pulte kicked in the final $22 million, according to a story told by Mark Pulte.

The elder Pulte, Mark’s father and grandfather of the incoming acting intelligence director, poured “tens of millions” into the schools over the years, reportedly. (He also sold a home to Timmis’s son — another disciple of Coe’s — after building a development in Ave Maria, Fla., when Timmis’s son chaired the board of Ave Maria University.)

By ten years in, The Fellowship itself had begun donating to the schools, tax records show. The Fellowship’s 2002 tax filing shows $2,000 going to Cornerstone Schools.

In 2003, someone at The Fellowship appears to have confused Timmis’s Cornerstone Schools in Detroit with Timmis’s Cornerstone Development in Uganda. Another $2,000 is listed for Cornerstone Schools that year “to assist the inner city schools in Uganda,” which is what Cornerstone Schools does in Detroit and Cornerstone Development does not do in Uganda’s inner-city schools.

By 2005, the regular $2,000 Fellowship donation to Cornerstone Schools in Detroit was back. And by 2012, two generations of Pultes were involved. Bill Pulte’s father, Mark, appears on the board that year.

Outside of Michigan, there’s little sign of Pulte family financial involvement in Fellowship endeavors. Pulte’s grandmother, who’s still living, has donated reliably to Republican political campaigns, but her only notable Fellowship recipient is Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), who got $1,000 in 2010, years before The Fellowship flew him to Uganda to bolster allies there under international pressure for their LGBTQ+ death penalty.

Pulte the grandson hasn’t donated to any prominent Fellowship candidates. If anything, the younger Pulte’s donations veer more toward the bombastic right. There’s a distinct gap between grandfather and grandson donations.

The older, ecumenical Fortune 500 billionaire donated more than $30,000 in 2012 to committees supporting Mitt Romney. They were his last. The next donation by a William Pulte came in 2019, when only the grandson of that name was left. He gave $35,000 to the Trump Victory committee.

There is one intriguing thread that leads to a largely invisible Fellowship leader said to be influential with Michigan Republicans and, allegedly, unnamed Democrats.

In his 2022 book, Timmis wrote about a Fellowship associate named Charles McLeod. “He is responsible for bringing reconciliation to the Democrats and Republicans in the Michigan legislature and in the US Congress,” Timmis wrote.

In practice this suggests that McLeod doesn’t have what most workers would recognize as a real job. Supported by unnamed donors, he offers encouragement and religious-based morale boosts to politicians or their mutual benefactors.

As I’ve written before, McLeod is connected to Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI). Moolenaar said in 2024 that McLeod, Coe, and Timmis taught him “this idea of devoting my life as a follower of Jesus, his teachings, to being available for his purposes.”

That puts McLeod at the heart of The Fellowship’s Michigan nexus.

The Pulte connection to McLeod is a charity called Angels’ Place. Pulte and his wife began supporting it in the early 1990s. Multiple Pultes have served on the board and the family foundation continues to support it.

The Fellowship, too, has donated to Angels’ Place. More to the point, the address The Fellowship listed for Angels’ Place in a 2007 tax filing was McLeod’s home address. That address has also shown up in Michigan obituaries advising mourners how to donate to The Fellowship on behalf of the deceased. (McLeod’s wife, too, has been a paid associate of The Fellowship, according to federal campaign disclosure forms.)

Whoever’s supporting McLeod’s activities — whatever they might be other than supposedly bringing reconciliation to Republicans and Democrats — they appear to have money to spare.

In 2003, McLeod’s patrons funneled more than $100,000 through The Fellowship to compensate him. In 2024, the most recent year for which tax forms are available, McLeod was paid $180,507, making him The Fellowship’s highest-paid associate.

Bill Pulte, the 38-year-old now prepping to run America’s entire intelligence community, doesn’t have any direct connections I could find to Pulte, Timmis, or other Fellowship leaders or organizations. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) did not respond to a request for comment.

But, especially in Pulte’s new position, The Fellowship could be just a phone call away, given its intense focus on relationships with global leaders, and given Pulte’s ostensible closeness to his grandfather. The Fellowship already has a history of working with and inside the State Department.

That closeness between grandson and grandfather became public as part of an extraordinary battle over the leadership of the Pulte patriarch’s company, after he had stepped aside.

The Pultes were pissed when new leadership began moving the company out of Michigan, to Georgia, in 2013. That’s what multiple business outlets reported in 2016, when the elder Pulte, grandson tagging along, tried to push out the company’s president.

What the business press didn’t report was the timing of another issue much tighter than the three-year lag after the move.

In mid-March of 2016, Pulte Homes (now PulteGroup) President and CEO Richard Dugas was taking a public stand on religious freedom. Against it, it might appear to some on the right.

Dugas spoke out against a state bill to allow discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, according to an article in Atlanta’s Saporta Report on March 17, 2016.

Four days later, Pulte summoned Dugas to a meeting. To Dugas’s surprise, Pulte had brought his grandson. The press release from the board about their meeting didn’t say anything about religious freedom. It was all about the move to Georgia and various other simmering issues. It didn’t explain the timing.

Then, on April 4, 2016, Pulte wrote to the board, seeking to push Dugas out.

It’s possible the religion bill had nothing to do with it. The senior Pulte, after all, had for decades worked ecumenically with a wide variety of people.

On the other hand, The Fellowship, too, celebrates diversity — sometimes via lip service — while simultaneously advancing the conceit of a legal or moral right to discriminate based on religion.

Whatever the cause, the turf war churned up inside information about Pulte and his grandson.

The younger Pulte alleged in one suit that, out of his grandfather’s 39 heirs across two generations, he was the only one “recruited” to work in the company and “the only descendant to receive an inheritance from his grandfather.”

The suit also claimed that the elder Pulte was for years “a valued member” of his grandson’s venture-capital firm. And that the two partnered to combat urban blight in Detroit and elsewhere, “a project he [Pulte] started with his Grandfather.”

His grandfather, Pulte said in 2021, was also “very involved” in his countertop company.

The following year, Pulte even produced a slim volume annotating some of his grandfather’s sayings and quotations. Some of Pulte’s annotations might give pause to those already worried about him overseeing America’s intelligence community.

Three years later, Pulte seems to have rejected fully some of his grandfather’s principles.

“Humility is a sign of self-confidence,” he wrote in 2022, three years before joining the Trump administration. “Humble leaders can accomplish more than egotistical leaders.” Pulte has not publicly advanced this principle recently.

At other points in the book one can spot glimpses of Pulte’s coming transition from a Pulte grandson to a Trump mercenary.

“What actions can we take today that are genuine, good, whole, and abiding by God that can result in good outcomes instead of hate-filled vindictiveness?” wrote Pulte, yet to become famous attacking Trump’s enemies, with bad outcomes.

This was in response to his grandfather’s quotation: “You can never succeed when you have hate on your mind.” The grandson added a caveat that effectively rejected the late patriarch’s thinking.

The exception that Pulte claimed may have come in handy later, while serving Trump. “I think there’s something to be said, and I know he would agree, which is if somebody hit you, you got to hit him back.”

One accusation revealed in Pulte’s suit may resonate today, as even Republicans recoil at Pulte’s utter lack of experience relevant to overseeing America’s sprawling intelligence community.

A former PulteGroup board member told the Detroit Free Press in 2021 that many board members “didn’t think his experience was extensive enough” when his grandfather installed Pulte on the board. After his grandfather died, Pulte was kicked off the board.

At the time, Pulte told the newspaper he wasn’t interested in politics.

“I tell people, don’t bait me into politics,” he said. “I stay apolitical for everything I’m doing right now.”

The cover of his book touts his grandfather’s credo of God first and family second. But today Pulte is known for putting Trump first, ginning up prosecutions against officials who sought to hold Trump accountable. None have yet borne fruit.

And while Pulte’s star rises — for however long it lasts — Trump’s presidency has hit his family and the charitable endeavors his grandfather built.

In March of last year, two months into Trump’s second term, Mark Pulte discussed how the family’s Pulte Institute for Global Development at Notre Dame goes to Washington to “educate our government how they can make the world a better place, where their foreign aid money should be going, where it shouldn’t be going.”

The institute works with governments and private entities to fight poverty and improve health and education. A month after the interview, Trump funding cuts forced the institute to lay off two thirds of its staff.

Update: Substacker Greg Conners spotted an eyebrow-raising early intersection between Trump world and the Pulte family.

The notorious bidding war for a Palm Beach estate between Trump and Jeffrey Epstein involved a third party. It was Mark Pulte, who veered off from the Pulte home-building business to focus on luxury properties. As Connor notes, Pulte, father of Trump’s appointee, outbid Epstein and was the one who actually bid up the price Trump ended up paying.

This post originally ran on Jonathan Larsen’s Substack. Read the original post here.

The post Bill Pulte’s family has ties to “The Family,” secretive Christian org with vast political influence appeared first on Salon.com.

“The Promise” marked the latest sonic iteration for Cornell, who committed suicide after Soundgarden’s Wednesday night show in Detroit. But this soundtrack song was hardly a surprising departure. Cornell lived what felt like a million musical lifetimes in his 30-plus-year career because he possessed the kind of versatile voice that gave him musical options outside hard rock.

“My history of singing has always probably been closer to a David Bowie approach than, for example, an AC/DC approach,” Cornell told Spin in 2014. “I never thought of myself as being the singer that wanted to create an identity and then stick to that. As a child, I was this record collector/listener that would sit in a room and listen to the entire Beatles catalog alone, over and over and over again.”

He added, “I think that affected my vocal approach because there were four singers in that band, and I never knew who was singing what. I was a little kid; I didn’t really care. I thought that’s what rock music was and I thought that’s what making an album was: You sang in the style and with the feel that the song was asking for.”

Still, Cornell was one of the few hard-rock singers who didn’t need a Plan B. As the frontman of Soundgarden, he steered the band’s dense amalgamations of classic rock, heavy metal and psychedelic rock with fearless gravitas. He’d slide from feral yowls to somber intonations, often in the same song, capturing the band’s roiling disquiet. Soundgarden was lumped into the grunge movement almost by default, but the band transcended this niche in large part because Cornell pushed it into more classic territory.

If anything, Cornell felt like the glue that held together Soundgarden’s disparate sonic textures and personalities together. That was one of his strengths as a band frontman — a fact that became clear when he moved on to front Audioslave, a group comprised of Rage Against the Machine’s instrumentalists. Cornell corralled Audioslave’s towering hard rock into something both fresh and timeless by being a typically expressive vocalist: passionate and wary, cathartic and subdued.

Unlike many of his peers who had to work around unique or unorthodox voices, Cornell was a naturally charismatic singer with acrobatic range. Although open about his influences — namely, he was an avowed acolyte of the Beatles and Led Zeppelin — Cornell absorbed what he learned from these greats and spun this into his own strengths. It’s difficult to call someone so popular underrated or underappreciated, but Cornell’s presence was easy to take for granted, since he was such an ingrained part of rock ‘n’ roll culture.

Yet Cornell’s studious, malleable approach to music also made him a natural for moving beyond pure hard rock and into movie soundtrack work. He showed off a stunning, blues-influenced delivery — a torch singer’s croon, really — on “Misery Chain,” a duet with Joy Williams on the “12 Years a Slave” soundtrack. Cornell brought a rugged touch to “You Know My Name,” the theme of the 2006 James Bond movie, “Casino Royale,” and turned in a dusky, haunted vocal performance on the Golden Globe-nominated “The Keeper.”

Best of all, however, is “Sunshower,” a lost classic on 1998’s “Great Expectations” soundtrack. The psychedelic-tinged acoustic pop song boasts one of Cornell’s most commanding and naked vocal performances:  “When you’re all in pain/ And you feel the rain come down,” he sings, his voice cracking with anguish. “Oh, it’s all right/ When you find your way/ Then you see it disappear/ Oh, it’s all right.” “Sunshower” is both comforting and despairing; Cornell gives into emotional pain, while also reminding himself that these feelings are temporary.

As this song underscores, Cornell’s solo work was rewarding for listeners in entirely different ways — bare and vulnerable and often so intimate that it felt like an intrusion to listen. (His 1999 solo album, “Euphoria Mourning,” is a particularly underrated collection.) But Cornell flourished with this approach, especially when performing live. Like another one of his idols, Elvis Costello, he embarked on marathon solo shows, where he could cover favorite songs (John Lennon’s “Imagine,” Led Zeppelin’s “Thank You”), tell stories and dip into different corners of his catalog. For some artists, acoustic shows are a necessary evil; Cornell, however, was comfortable being alone.

About the only solo departure that didn’t work was “Scream,” a widely derided, electro-leaning 2009 album produced by Timbaland. The lukewarm reception had less to do with Cornell’s performances, however, and more to do with biases against rockers going pop. And this didn’t hurt his career: All told, Cornell dominated mainstream rock radio throughout the ’90s and well into the 2000s, making him as much the patriarch of modern heavy and hard rock as Eddie Vedder, and the late Kurt Cobain and Layne Staley.

In fact, as Salon’s Gabriel Bell pointed out, “Cornell’s death marks the passing of yet another voice and face familiar to those who grew up witnessing the profound changes rock music underwent in the early 1990s.” It’s shocking and jarring that another one of these familiar icons is gone, especially in the midst of what appeared to be a successful Soundgarden tour. The band was due to headline Friday night during the sold-out Rock on the Range festival in Columbus, Ohio.

On my Facebook page, no two people were posting the same Cornell-associated song, another testament to the breadth and depth of his career. Yet whether performing snarling hard rock or plaintive acoustic folk, Cornell exuded melancholy, anxiety and desolation via his voice. Even early on in Soundgarden’s career, when his fondness for Robert Plant was most evident, Cornell sounded like an old soul, his angst coming from a deep, unknown place. He was a great singer because of his empathy — an innate characteristic that can’t be taught, but something he possessed in spades.

The post Chris Cornell’s talents transcend the grunge genre he helped create appeared first on Salon.com.

Of course, in the atomic age, wars between imperial great powers, as in World War I and World War II, are no longer truly conceivable. Still, over 80 years of great-powerdom, this country has fought a remarkable number of wars, some for endless years, without a single victory (not one!), which is no small … well, I can’t use the word “accomplishment,” but feel free to add whatever word you think might be appropriate.

From the Korean War in the early 1950s (at best a draw) to Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) in the 1960s and 1970s, a distinct loss (despite the slaughter of literally millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, as well as 58,000 Americans); from the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, both of which ended in dismal defeat (in Afghanistan, after 20 years of combat), as did the full-scale Global War on Terror launched by President George W. Bush; and, in the era of Donald Trump, from the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean (where more than 60 random boats have been blasted out of the water) to the bombing of Somalia and Nigeria, and now the devastating air and naval war on Iran, the U.S. despite all its weaponry, has proven incapable of actually impressing its will on lesser powers in what might by now be considered an all-American militaristic tradition.

Phew! I’m already out of breath!

Mind you, all of those anything-but-victories happened while the Pentagon budget rose to nearly the trillion-dollar mark, almost three times the military budget of China, the next great power on this planet of ours. (And keep in mind that Donald Trump has been demanding that Congress add another half-trillion dollars to that budget, which, if the senators and representatives were ever to agree, would put the U.S. in another universe of military expenditures from any other country on Earth). And yet, you wouldn’t be wrong if you pointed out that the more this country has spent on its military, the more disastrous its warmaking has become. Go figure!

So don’t think there’s anything new or particularly striking about Trump’s visibly failing war against Iran. In fact, the present situation couldn’t have been more predictable (not that anyone bothered to tell the president). Once upon a time, it seemed as if Trump knew something about the dangers of imperial warmaking. After all, in his first term in office, other than a brief military fling in Syria against Islamic State fighters, which he quickly abandoned, declaring ISIS defeated (which of course it wasn’t), he stayed remarkably clear of warmaking. And within months of returning to office in 2025, he was already claiming that he had ended eight wars. (He hadn’t.) And yet today, from the Caribbean (and with Cuba now seemingly in his gunsights) to the Middle East, King Trump seems to be a committed warmaker through and through.

And perhaps it’s not just the U.S. that seems so capable of making but never winning a war. After all, Russia’s more than four-year-long war in Ukraine is by now a first-class disaster for Vladimir Putin, with hundreds of thousands of dead Russian soldiers and increasing devastation delivered by Ukrainian drones to Russian oil facilities and the like. (Of course, it’s also a full-scale calamity for the Ukrainians.)

In that context, consider China the smartest imperial power on planet Earth today. Other than a few border clashes with India years ago, it has grown in power in every way without having to make war a significant part of its arsenal (so to speak). Yes, it has indeed built up that military arsenal (including its nuclear one) in significant fashion, as any great power on this planet would undoubtedly do. But despite threats against the island of Taiwan and those brief clashes with India, unlike so many imperial powers of the past (and present), China has generally stayed remarkably clear of war-making.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Its leaders, it seems, have learned the necessary lesson about such conflicts (at least in our present version of an imperial age). In an era when lesser powers can nonetheless arm themselves effectively with the most modern drones and missiles, among other things, warmaking simply never seems to work out well. And, oddly enough, in his first round as president, Donald Trump indeed seemed to have learned just such a lesson. In those years, the U.S. engaged in no significant warmaking, but explain it as you will, he came back to power in January 2025 in a different mood entirely (moods being the Trumpian reality in big-time fashion).

As “our” president took on Iran recently, I couldn’t help thinking about that antiwar song of the Vietnam era that began with the phrase “War, what is it good for?Absolutely nothin’.”

Someone should tell “our” president that before… well, who knows what, but nothing good is likely to happen, that much for sure! In the context of Trump’s war with Iran, consider him, in fact, the president of decline and, of course, confusion. The only question, really, is what he’s likely to take down with him.

The post The more America spends on war, the worse it gets appeared first on Salon.com.

I’ve been there during the annual commemorations, and it’s a very moving experience. If you’ve seen movies like “The Longest Day” or Saving Private Ryan,” you have some idea of what it was like, but when you personally come in by boat and sail along the coast near the beaches where the Allied troops landed 82 years ago, it really hits home. It must have felt like a suicide mission but they did it anyway. There were more than 10,000 casualties among the Allied troops who stormed the beaches that day, with about 4,400 killed, 2,500 of them Americans. The best estimates of German casualties are between 4,000 and 9,000 killed or injured.

Ever since, the people of France and Normandy have shown their gratitude for America’s sacrifice. They gave the U.S. a perpetual concession for the cemetery where most of those fallen Americans are buried. Every year, local people come along and rub beach sand into the marble headstones so the names of those U.S. soldiers can still be read. There are plaques and memorials everywhere; the war and the Nazi occupation still seem present, even to younger generations who have lived among these memories their whole lives.

In normal circumstances, when American dignitaries come to Normandy for the anniversary to pay their respects, it’s a solemn but proud occasion. It was arguably one of the finest moments in American history, a true act of courage and sacrifice for the greater good, at great risk to U.S. troops and the British, Canadian, Polish, Norwegian and Free French allies who fought alongside them. American leaders usually take that moment of deserved honor and gratitude to pay homage to the dead and wax poetic about the values and the ideals for which they died.

Ronald Reagan gave perhaps the most famous Normandy speech on the 40th anniversary of D-Day in 1984, now remembered as “The Boys of Pointe du Hoc.” Many D-Day veterans were present on that day to hear Reagan say, “These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war. Gentlemen, I look at you, and I think of the words of Stephen Spender’s poem: You are men who in your lives fought for life … and left the vivid air signed with your honor.” We need not admire him politically to agree that Reagan was good at that sort of thing.

Barack Obama was equally moving on the 70th anniversary in 2014, saying, “What more powerful manifestation of America’s commitment to human freedom than the sight of wave after wave after wave of young men boarding those boats to liberate people they had never met?”

This year marked the 82nd anniversary, and almost no one who was there in 1944 is still with us. Thankfully, America didn’t send Donald Trump over there to rant about the 2020 election or show the French pictures of his glorious ballroom. Instead, we sent Hegseth, who was at least as bad. Actually, he was worse. I think most of the world knows what Trump is by now, but some may still have believed that he was an anomaly who may still have some sane people around him. If so, Hegseth quickly put that thought to rest.

For reasons known only to himself, Hegseth gave a speech in which he drew a bizarre analogy between the Allied soldiers who stormed the beaches at Normandy to fight the Nazis and the “dangerous ideologies” (meaning those carried by immigrants, we must suppose) that are now storming the “beaches in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria.” He asked, “When will European capitals do something about that invasion, or is it too late? I pray not, and I believe not.”

Hang on a minute: Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in this fantasy scenario? And what does any of that have to do with the Allies liberating occupied Europe from the Germans, who are, the last time I checked, also Europeans? Is Hegseth suggesting that the French were wrong to have welcomed the Allied anti-fascist “invasion” of a continent that was, at the time, being “defended” by the Nazis?

Let’s just chalk that part up to bad speechwriting and hope that whichever 20-something MAGA toady was responsible for that tortured analogy will soon dispatched to another job that has nothing to do with history, oratory or nuclear weapons. We understand Hegseth’s intentions perfectly well. Like the rest of the MAGA crowd around Trump in this second term, he’s a xenophobic, racist Christian nationalist. Also like the rest of them, he’s taken it upon himself to lecture berate Europe over its immigration policies in the name of saving “the West.” Using the D-Day anniversary to do it is just chef’s kiss, I’d have to say.

Did his speech go over well? It did not. Perhaps the best retort, among many, came from distinguished English historian Simon Schama, who described Hegseth’s words as “a special kind of loathsomeness: a blend of historical deafness, grotesque stupidity and comically ludicrous self-importance. As if the little people’s rage against immigration somehow is superior to the war against the Third Reich and entitles this comic book nobody to lecture the actual heroes.”

As it happens, Hegseth wasn’t alone in offending the entire Western world, which he purports to revere. The day before that embarrassing gaffe, Vice President JD Vance decided to lecture the U.K. on its immigration policies as well, commenting on a now-notorious murder case in England in which the perpetrator was a Sikh man and the victim was white. Unsurprisingly, Vance hadn’t done his homework: Both men involved in that crime were British by birth.

A couple of days later, former Border Patrol generalissimo Greg Bovino, the scourge of Minneapolis who sported that fancy, fashy overcoat and fade haircut, appeared in Portugal at a “Remigration Summit,” where he was the star attraction. As Salon’s Andrew O’Hehir wrote this weekend, “Bovino represents the MAGA soul — perhaps we should say the MAGA Geist — which is not just kinda-fascist but deeply and enthusiastically fascist, not just curious about the legacy of Nazism but achingly, passionately eager to revive it.” He’s not the only one.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

What fabulous representatives these are of the country that Europe once looked upon with gratitude and respect: clownish, crude and stupid all at once.

Hegseth told those gathered at the D-Day ceremony that “America will lead — and we must — but capable allies must be right there with us, shoulder to shoulder, in the breach, when it matters,” clearly suggesting he doesn’t think that they’re capable or will show up. That’s some irony, considering that he and the rest of the Trump administration are right now clearly considering abandoning those allies to a Russian threat and bailing out on a war in the Middle East. How fatuously un-self-aware is it to tell people in another country that “peace is not wished into being, it is bought with purpose, with honor and with strength. The men who landed on these beaches knew this; the question we ask ourselves is, do we?” I don’t know about Europe, but clearly the United States of America in 2026 does not.

The post Leave it to Pete Hegseth to ruin D-Day appeared first on Salon.com.

For a movie defined by this nowhereness, it’s all the more telling that the filmmakers took pains to let us know exactly where we are. Throughout the film, the audience is reminded repeatedly that the furniture store where this all starts is at the corner of Capitol and McKee, in San Jose, California, in fall 1990. The corner of Capitol and McKee is a very real intersection, with two very real strip malls bordering it on either side, that look very similar to the strip mall with Cap’n Clark’s Ottoman Empire as tenants. (Though it takes place in San Jose, the film wasn’t actually shot there; the producers used exteriors and sound stages in British Columbia, a common shooting location due to tax incentives.)

After “Backrooms” had an astonishing (and record-breaking) $80 million debut weekend, the mediaverse is beset with hot takes about what this cryptic horror movie, the debut from 20-year-old auteur Kane Parsons, is really about. Maybe screenwriter Will Soodik is trying to tell us this is a  movie about psychology? After all, the movie opens with a scene from Clark in his therapist’s office. Or wait, maybe it’s just “about memory — and bastardized versions of memory,” as Brianna Zigler writes in Entertainment Weekly. Or is it simply about “trauma and the mysterious workings of the unconscious,” as New York Times critic Beatrice Loayza says? Or, as one Redditor argues, maybe “the backrooms are a representation of all the different paths in life we could take.” 

But after repeat viewings, I don’t think “Backrooms” is really about any of these — or at least, not entirely. There are clues in the film that suggest that at its core, Backrooms is a story about the tech industry — and a cautionary one, too.

The “Backrooms” universe may not exist in our plane, but its entrance is in San Jose, California. The film revels in languid establishing shots of the Santa Clara Valley, with the hilly Diablo Range in the background. Down in the backrooms twilight zone, there’s a glitchy-looking wall splashed over with distorted “McKee Road” signs. While the ad for the in-universe furniture store Cap’n Clark’s Ottoman Empire plays, a phone number with a South Bay area code flashes in a supertitle. (You can try calling — it turns out to be a fax machine line that’s connected to the film’s marketing campaign.) The film’s Silicon Valley setting is clearly a very deliberate choice by the filmmakers – and something they remind us of, repeatedly, through such cues.

(A24) Chiwetel Ejiofor in “Backrooms”

But it’s not just that the movie takes place in Silicon Valley (or, at least its exterior — the backrooms themselves exist in null space). It’s the time and the place that the movie occurs, too: fall 1990, an auspicious moment in tech history. At this point in history, ARPANET – the precursor to the internet — was largely a communications tool for universities, research institutes, and government-funded laboratories. About eight months later, in August 1991, the World Wide Web was formally announced, and by 1993, it became massive and public. 

But even before the modern internet came to be, techies and sci-fi writers were already imagining what the web was going to look like. “Neuromancer,” one of the defining cyberpunk novels, was published in 1988; that book imagines an interconnected, virtual reality world you can traverse by “jacking in.” Indeed, well before the internet formally came to be, writers like William Gibson imagined that cyberspace would be something three dimensional and navigable, with a certain internal architecture to it — albeit a distorted one compared to the real world. 

In other words, the internet is a “faulty copy of reality.” That’s not my quote — that’s exactly what protagonist Clark says of the backrooms, though he might as well have been speaking of the internet: it’s a place that feels like a human creation, but which has been mutated by bots, AI and the demands of capital. In 2009, Christine Smallwood wrote an article for The Baffler in which she pontificated as to what the internet would look like, if it were made physical.  

I wish the internet looked like Matt Damon, or like lines of light written by an invisible hand in the night sky. I wish it sounded like tinkling bells and xylophones. I would be sad if it sounded like techno, but I’d get used to it. It turns out, though, that it looks like a warehouse of space junk, and it sounds like an industrial-strength air-conditioning system. Beyond the screen, the internet looks like everything else. It looks like money.

Smallwood’s prediction prefigured what the backrooms look like: A warehouse of junk with an HVAC system, that looks like every other cynically, expedient commercial building that looks more as though it were printed than designed. 

Perhaps you can see how the metaphors between the backrooms and the internet itself multiply from here: Like the backrooms, one can lose oneself forever in the internet. Like the backrooms, one can find faithful representations of human behavior, and unfaithful representations. One can, on the internet, even encounter trolls akin to the golem versions of real people that we see in the film. 

Likewise, it’s telling that the backrooms mythos originated on the website 4chan, the shadowy anonymous image board that has multifariously spawned incel and alt-right culture, the QAnon conspiracy, and a $90,000 objet d’art. 

There’s one other big clue that this is all just a huge metaphor for the internet, and that has to do with the company in the film, Async. Phil, the dorky and faintly sinister middle-aged employee of Async, explains to Mary that his company used to make MRI machines. But now, the company has devoted itself to studying the backrooms — which, he explains, might be the biggest discovery in human history. 

That hyperbole is similar to how Silicon Valley’s techno-optimists talk about their industry. At various points in history, tech scions like Zuckerberg, Musk, Jobs, or Altman have variously claimed that AI, or the internet, or the metaverse, or crypto, or whatever’s the tech du jour, is the biggest thing ever. From the 1980s to the 1990s, plenty of technical companies (like Async) were pivoting towards computing and away from whatever it was they did before. Nintendo was a playing card company that switched to video games. Nokia manufactured rubber products like galoshes until pivoting to telecommunications. Samsung originally sold dried fish and groceries. The fictional Async is merely following the same trajectory. 

If the backrooms are a metaphor for the internet, it’s certainly an unsettling one. Protagonist Clark loses himself in it, transforming into an unapologetic narcissist surrounded only by facile representations of humanity. That’s pretty accurate to what the internet is doing to a lot of us these days. 

The post Wait, is “Backrooms” actually about Silicon Valley?  appeared first on Salon.com.