The lawsuit is signed not just by the agency’s acting general counsel and deputy general counsel, but also Benjamin North, who The Intercept reported was hired earlier this year as assistant general counsel.

Related

EEOC Quietly Hired Lawyer Who Crusaded for Cases of Discrimination Against Men — Including His Own

North was suspended as a college student over a rape allegation in a case that he claimed violated his civil rights; he has consistently denied the charges. North went on to do work arguing that Title IX, which prohibits gender discrimination at federally funded institutions, has been used to discriminate against the rights of men.

North’s signature on the new lawsuit against the New York Times could mean he wrote it, said Chai Feldblum, a former EEOC commissioner.

Asked about North’s role, EEOC spokesperson Victor Chen referred The Intercept to the complaint.

The suit comes as part of President Donald Trump’s campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion policies across the country, including his administration’s efforts to use the EEOC to these ends.

The new EEOC suit, filed Tuesday on behalf of an unnamed man whose identity New York Magazine speculated about, alleges that the employee was passed over for a position because he is a white man.

The claimant applied for a job as a deputy real estate editor in January 2025 but, the lawsuit claims, despite meeting all the requirements for the position, he didn’t get it because he “did not match the race and/or sex characteristics NYT sought to increase in its leadership.” Instead, the job went to a multiracial female candidate who the lawsuit alleges was not qualified.

Feldblum, the former EEOC commissioner, was skeptical of the agency’s legal argument.

“There is no actual evidence that he was more qualified than her,” Feldblum said. Of the EEOC, she said, “They’re putting out their best facts in this complaint, and the facts are pathetic.”

Particularly for leadership positions, she pointed out, there are many aspects that go into deciding who is the most qualified candidate.

“Their assertion that she was less qualified than him is based on their view of the facts,” she said. “We’ll see what the facts actually say.”

In a statement, the New York Times said it has merit-based employment practices.

“The New York Times categorically rejects the politically motivated allegations brought by the Trump administration’s EEOC,” said Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha. “Throughout this process, the EEOC deviated from standard practices in highly unusual ways. The allegation centers on a single personnel decision for one of over 100 deputy positions across the newsroom, yet the EEOC’s filing makes sweeping claims that ignore the facts to fit a predetermined narrative.”

Diversity Without Discrimination

The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that the company has “engaged in unlawful employment practices” since at least October 2024 through its diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. It cites the company’s self-published diversity goals, including a 2021 document setting a goal for increasing Black and Latino leadership by 50 percent within four years.

The Times was making “employment decisions on the basis of race and sex to achieve its desired demographic goals,” the lawsuit alleges. “A necessary consequence of NYT’s intent to increase the percentage of non-White leaders would be a decrease in the percentage of White leaders.”

The assertion that the company has engaged in illegal racial and sex discrimination and is making employment decisions solely on those bases “is simply not borne out by the evidence,” Feldblum argued. The EEOC would instead have to have found evidence that hiring decisions were made expressly and intentionally based on such characteristics.

Related

Trump Administration Texted College Professors’ Personal Phones to Ask If They’re Jewish

Instead, the actions the New York Times took are “the most basic, acceptable, legal ways to try to increase diversity in a workplace,” Feldblum said. “There is literally nothing illegal in anything that the EEOC has detailed.”

The only place where the Times could have potentially run into legal trouble, she said, was when it was requiring diverse candidate pools for jobs. But if done carefully, she said, that can follow the law as well — for example, by expanding a pool of candidates without removing any qualified white or male ones.

“One can include diversity as an employer without discriminating against white people,” Feldblum said. 

Kalpana Kotagal, the sole Democratic commissioner on the EEOC after Trump fired the others contra statute, said she voted against authorizing the lawsuit against the New York Times “because I disagree with the substance of the case and don’t believe it’s a good use of scarce agency resources.”

She added that “a commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), without more, is not evidence of discrimination.”

As a reporter at the Times told New York Magazine, “I’m sorry, there are plenty of white guys at the top of the New York Times. Not really something that’s holding you back.”

The complaint comes after EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas directly solicited complaints from white men alleging that they were discriminated against based on their race and/or sex. She has also instructed agency officials to focus on cases that are in line with her personal priorities, which include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” and cases claiming reverse racism have been “accelerated through the process,” the New York Times recently reported, even though staff are struggling to find complaints with merit.

Feldblum argued that the lawsuit is “quite an inappropriate use of EEOC resources.” The agency’s staffing is currently at its lowest level in decades, so any focus on a particular issue comes at the expense of others.

She said, “It is truly a sad day for anyone who cares about civil rights to see what the EEOC is spending its resources on today.”

Correction: May 6, 2026, 9:24 p.m. ET
This story has been updated to correct a reference to Chai Feldblum’s past position at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She is a former commissioner. An errant reference to the law that established the EEOC has also been corrected; it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The post Lawyer on EEOC’s New York Times Lawsuit Has History Battling Discrimination Against Men appeared first on The Intercept.

Many of those watching the horrors unfold in Gaza have hung their highest hopes and deepest frustrations on the world’s apex courts: the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Nearly two years into the war, these judicial bodies have neither prevented atrocities from occurring nor punished perpetrators. Journalists and activists amassed ample evidence documenting war crimes committed by the Israeli military, and yet its soldiers continue to operate in Gaza with impunity. 

It’s a mistake to laser-focus on the ICJ, established by the United Nations Charter to settle disputes between states, and the ICC, which prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. Doing so misunderstands and overemphasizes their role. “The ICC takes up way too much oxygen in discussions of international criminal justice and accountability,” the International Crisis Group’s Brian Finucane told me. The myopia also misses important work happening in national courts. It’s here at the domestic level where Palestinians have the best chance to see justice, as nation-states attempt to fulfill their international obligations through homegrown investigations and prosecutions.

In many ways, the hopes and frustrations lavished on the ICC and ICJ are understandable. “When people think of international trials, they think of Nuremberg and the signal to the international community that these are the most serious crimes that are being perpetrated,” said Jake Romm, a human rights lawyer and U.S. representative for the Hind Rajab Foundation. Gaza is exactly the kind of grave situation for which these courts were founded, and they have not been completely dormant since October 7, 2023. In early 2024, after South Africa brought a case against Israel alleging that it violated the U.N. Genocide Convention, the ICJ issued several rounds of provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, halt military action, and ensure the flow of humanitarian aid. In November that same year, the ICC put out arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (along with three top Hamas commanders) for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.

But the wheels of justice in general turn slowly, and, for Palestinians, it can often feel like the wheels of international justice in particular seldom turn at all. The ICJ likely won’t rule on the genocide case until the end of 2027 at the earliest. And while the prospects of seeing Netanyahu or Gallant in the dock at The Hague were always dim, they look even dimmer after Hungary, a state party to the Rome Statute, allowed Israel’s wanted prime minister safe passage through Budapest, shirking its obligation to arrest him. The ICC also remains embroiled in crisis after its chief prosecutor took leave amid allegations of sexual misconduct, as perennial resource problems and political pressure continue to plague the court and the Trump administration targets the institution with sanctions and other threats. Even special international criminal tribunals, like the ad hoc structures created in the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, are subject to a United Nations Security Council veto, an insurmountable hurdle for Palestinians.

These international courts have surely not met the moment, but they cannot fight for global justice alone, nor were they designed to. Without an independent enforcement mechanism, international law functions as a voluntary system, dependent on states — as both its subjects and principal agents — to carry it out. And, according to associate professor of criminal law at the University of Milan and senior legal adviser to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights Chantal Meloni, the Rome Statute set out “a very clear logic that not every international crime committed everywhere in the world can be under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and states have to take their share of the responsibility to prevent and punish these crimes.”

National courts, on the other hand, often don’t face the same resource constraints and can go after perpetrators up and down the chain of command. The pursuit of justice through domestic courts “involves potentially hundreds, even thousands of potential suspects as opposed to the ICC, which is only ever going to be dealing with a handful of cases,” said Mark Lattimer, executive director at the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights. While states also face their own political pressures, they do not have to perform the ICC’s difficult dance of appeasing its many patrons. Lattimer added that domestic efforts can also “act as a break on double standards” all too present in international courts, especially for countries with a strong, independent judiciary insulated from prevailing geopolitical power shifts and free to pursue the gravest breaches of international law irrespective of the perpetrator’s nationality.

Efforts to activate domestic jurisdiction for international crimes are not new. A growing body of case law has arisen out of extraterritorial prosecutions in the Syrian war, the Balkan wars, various African conflicts, and, of course, World War II. Countries such as Spain and Belgium already had universal jurisdiction laws, which empower national authorities of any country to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes even if they were committed in another country, in place even before the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998.

Lawyers and activists are building on this historical precedent by pushing for domestic jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute allegations of atrocities by Israel’s military in Gaza, the fruits of which have already led to tangible outcomes across several countries. Last month, Belgian authorities detained and questioned two Israeli soldiers on leave at a music festival in response to a legal complaint filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Global Legal Action Network. The episode may have marked the first time national authorities detained Israeli soldiers on suspicion of crimes committed in Gaza, but these “traveling soldiers,” some of them dual nationals, have faced other consequences. In January, the Israeli foreign minister helped Yuval Vagdani, as a vacationing soldier, escape from Brazil after learning that a federal judge there had opened a war crimes investigation stemming from another Hind Rajab Foundation legal filing. (Vagdani has denied the allegations in the filing.)

In addition to filing a complaint with the ICC against more than 1,000 members of Israel’s military, the Hind Rajab Foundation has filed complaints and arrest requests with the national authorities of at least 23 countries. In response to these activities and others, the Israeli government issued advisories for soldiers traveling to certain jurisdictions with legal resources and other advice. “They’re spooked,” said Romm. “National legal systems are coming online to possibly arrest and incarcerate these Israeli soldiers for what they’re doing to the Palestinians for the first time in history.” Though no complaint has resulted in a prosecution yet, these cases will likely continue and may even pick up speed. In July, 30 countries convened by The Hague Group committed to supporting “universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestine Territory.”

Of course, the current political environment in several countries make any investigations of Israeli soldiers impossible, regardless of questions of jurisdiction and prosecutorial capacity. In April, the Hind Rajab Foundation filed an urgent request with the Justice Department to prosecute the Israeli soldier Yuval Shatel under U.S. federal law after learning he was spotted in Texas days prior. According to a press release from the foundation, the filing included a dossier of evidence in support of allegations that Shatel committed “serious violations of international humanitarian law during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.” (Shatel and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment).

Related

Biden Administration Splits on Prosecuting Russia for War Crimes in Ukraine

At the same time, the Hind Rajab Foundation is not naive. The chance of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the Justice Department to investigate its allegations against Shatel seems slim at best, especially since the U.S. War Crimes Act, passed in 1996, laid dormant until December 2023, when the Justice Department indicted four Russians for alleged violations of the federal war crimes statute — the first (and only) prosecution in the law’s 30-year history. The apparent unwillingness to apply the statute elsewhere drew criticism as Israel’s military campaign in Gaza intensified. On October 21, 2024, Justice Department attorneys wrote a letter to Bondi’s predecessor, Merrick Garland, “calling out the ‘glaring gap’ between the department’s approach to crimes committed by Russia and Hamas — versus the department’s silence on potential crimes committed by Israeli forces and civilians.”

The Hind Rajab Foundation’s request aims to close that gap. “There is a discrepancy between what the letter of the law says and how the U.S. is acting,” said Romm. “We filed this because we want them to prosecute, and because they can. They have jurisdiction, and the crimes are very clear.” The Shatel case is HRF’s first U.S. prosecution request, but Romm says it won’t be the last. “All I can say is there will be more,” he told me. “We’re going to try to get everyone we possibly can.”

There is no statute of limitations for the gravest transgressions of international law. For perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, the prosecutor’s sword of Damocles will hang over them for a lifetime. In December, German courts cleared the way for a 100-year-old former Nazi to stand trial nearly 80 years after the end of WWII. “Despite the fact that this carnage has gone on for almost two years now, it’s still, by the standards of justice, in the early days,” said Finucane. “When it comes to atrocity crime accountability, there are very long tails, and these things spool over the course of decades.”

For anyone demanding justice and accountability for Israel’s crimes in Gaza, the message is clear: Let a thousand prosecutions bloom.

The post An Unexpected Path to Hold War Criminals Accountable appeared first on The Intercept.

Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy said under questioning from a defense attorney that he provided language that prosecutors used in the first-ever domestic terrorism case against a purported antifa cell.

The decision to use the language was the government’s, Shideler said.

“I told them what I believed to be an accurate definition of antifa, and they used it,” Shideler said.

The courtroom testimony provided a window into the extraordinarily close cooperation between federal prosecutors and a Washington advocacy group that has regularly argued for government action against left-wing activists.

Shideler himself was the author of a September article titled “How to Dismantle Far-Left Extremist Networks: A Roadmap for the Trump Administration” that called on the Justice Department to take more aggressive action against left-of-center activists. He said he conferred with prosecutors in October, a month before they obtained an indictment in the Texas case.

Related

How Many Members Does Antifa Have? Where Is Its Headquarters? The FBI Has No Answers.

Defense lawyers raised questions about Shideler’s professional home, the Center for Security Policy. The nonprofit think tank was founded by Frank Gaffney, a former Defense Department official under President Ronald Reagan who has routinely been described as an Islamophobic conspiracy theorist. Gaffney’s views on Islam are commonly espoused at Center for Security Policy events.

The center itself has been branded a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a designation Shideler bristled at in court.

“Yes sir, the Southern Poverty Law Center has mislabeled many people as a hate group,” he said in response to questioning from defense lawyer Phillip Hayes.

The nine defendants on trial this month face years or life sentences in prison for a noise demonstration outside ICE’s Prairieland Detention Center on July 4 of last year.

Related

Texas “Antifa Cell” Terror Trial Takes On Tough Questions About Guns at Protests Against ICE

After demonstrators used fireworks in a show of solidarity for the detainees held inside the Alvarado, Texas, facility, local police arrived to confront them. One of the responding officers was shot in the neck.

Shideler testified as an expert witness for the government over the objections of defense attorneys, who were overruled by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee.

In lengthy testimony, he provided a recounting of the history of antifascist organizing that ranged from 1930s Germany to 1980s U.K. activism to the present-day United States. Various tactics used by the Prairieland demonstrators to protect their identities — such as Signal chats, “black block” clothing, and a general “security culture” — were all consistent with antifa practices, Shideler said.

Under questioning from prosecutors, Shideler sought to tie the ideas laid out in anarchist zines recovered from the defendants’ possession with their actions outside the detention center.

Several cooperating defendants have testified that they did not consider themselves members of antifa, defense attorneys pointed out during cross-examination.

They also went on the attack over Shideler’s professional qualifications and his conclusions. Shideler acknowledged that he does not use academic social science methods, does not submit his research for peer review, and relies largely on open-source materials whose authenticity is difficult to verify.

Shideler called Signal a “hallmark of antifa” before adding that he uses it himself.

The antifa trial is Shideler’s first time testifying as an expert witness in a trial, he said. One defense lawyer noted that Shideler was invited to testify about antifa before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October and asked whether his courtroom appearance this week would provide a further boost to his career.

“I guess it will depend how it goes,” he said.

His testimony is set to continue Tuesday.

The post Islamophobic Think Tank Helped Write Indictment Against ICE Protesters appeared first on The Intercept.

National progressives see a chance in Texas to install a new member of the Squad in the place of departing Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett — by electing her pastor.

With Crockett vacating her House seat to run in a competitive — and increasingly ugly — Senate primary, pastor Frederick Haynes III is running to fill her seat. The progressive outfit Justice Democrats endorsed Haynes’s campaign on Wednesday, becoming the first national group to wade into the primary for the Democrat-friendly 30th Congressional District.

The primary in Texas is just a month away, and Justice Democrats views Haynes as one of its first real chances to notch a win for the electoral left this cycle, the group’s spokesperson Usamah Andrabi told The Intercept. The 65-year-old Dallas pastor has already attracted some national attention for his outspoken criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, putting him at odds with many of his peers in Texas and the Deep South, where an open affinity between right-wing Christianity and pro-Israel Zionism is common.

That stance also marks an apparent difference between him and Crockett. While Haynes is running on ending U.S. military support for Israel and the genocide in Gaza, Crockett has drawn criticism for voting to send U.S. military aid to Israel and taking a trip there as a first-term member of Congress in August 2023 with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Israel Defense Forces. She has similarly faced criticism for accepting campaign support from the crypto industry, while Haynes has called for new regulations on cryptocurrency.

Crockett, who has brushed off some criticism of her record as “intellectually lazy,” says she’s in favor of Haynes’s campaign and endorsed him last month.

“Every leader approaches things differently, and I greatly respect Congresswoman Crockett’s work and approach,” Haynes told The Intercept. “My worldview and my positions are deeply rooted in my community, and the struggles I see those around me experiencing on a daily basis. Our community is justice minded here in Dallas.”

Also running in the March 3 Democratic primary for Crockett’s seat are former Texas state Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway and pastor Rodney LaBruce. To win a primary in Texas, candidates have to receive a majority of votes or compete in a runoff in May.

A pastor for 40 years and a fixture in Dallas, Haynes is the 11th candidate Justice Democrats has endorsed this cycle. The group is backing more new candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections than it has in any other year since its inaugural 2018 cycle, which ushered in now well-known Squad members like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. After major losses last cycle, Justice Democrats says it’s deploying a more aggressive strategy this time, seeking to capitalize on voter frustration with the party establishment.

Related

National Progressives Side With Mamdani in House Race Splitting NYC Left

“We try to be as selective and intentional about the races and candidates we pick and really evaluate their path to victory,” Andrabi said. “We’re hoping we can really, as a movement — but if not, as Justice Democrats — to start this cycle off with some wins.”

In Haynes’s view, “Dems have let us down,” he told The Intercept. “The wolves of hunger, fascism, and injustice are at our door, and what does the Democratic establishment have to offer in response — strongly worded letters? Our community deserves better than this: they deserve leadership that will fight for them with the courage and commitment that this moment requires.”

As the pastor at Crockett’s church, Haynes has been an activist on issues from predatory lending to voting rights. His church holds a legal clinic, hosts a toolkit for congregation members to contact their legislators, and runs programming on food security, economic and environmental justice, and civic engagement. The church website hosts a link to a petition calling for a ceasefire in Gaza led by former Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo.

That activism has also made him a target of the right. In a story last week, Jewish Insider wrote that Haynes delivered “an anti-Israel polemic from the pulpit” the day after the October 7 attacks. In his remarks, Haynes denounced Israeli apartheid.

“The Palestinians don’t have the financial backing from the United States that Israel has, and so they throw their rocks and shoot their arrows,” Haynes said on October 8, 2023, “and Israel is able to bomb them and kill them.”

“You see a much tighter grip on evangelical Christians and churches in the south, particularly ones that represent Republican constituencies, from the Israel lobby and AIPAC,” Andrabi said. But Haynes “sees it as his moral imperative to call out Israeli apartheid and genocide, particularly because so many other Christian leaders have used it for their own benefit and used it to advance their own interests and the interests of right-wing politicians.”

In addition to ending U.S. military support for Israel and regulating the crypto industry, Haynes is running on abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, providing Medicare for All, getting dark money out of elections, and banning congressional stock trading. He’s also rejecting corporate PAC money.

“Every time we choose imperialism abroad, or tax cuts for the wealthy, we are telling working people in our communities that we value their lives less,” Haynes said, citing the notion that a budget is a moral document, often attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. “Every bomb dropped in Palestine is money for an underfunded school, an unpaved road, a mother who has to decide between groceries and insulin. Our tax dollars must go to supporting life in our families at home, not death in other families abroad.”

At age 65, Haynes contradicts the narrative that the battle over the future over the Democratic Party is purely about pitting younger candidates against older incumbents. The gerontocracy in Congress is its own issue, Andrabi said; being represented by corporate interests and right-wing lobbies is another. 

“It is a new generation. But that generation is not necessarily just defined or limited by an age group,” Andrabi said. “It doesn’t do us much good to replace old corporate shills with young corporate shills. The problem is that they’re corporate shills, not just that they are aging.” 

The post He’s Running to Fill Jasmine Crockett’s House Seat From Her Left. He’s Also Her Pastor. appeared first on The Intercept.

The judge had previously ruled that Khalil could not be held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement based on a vague federal statute focused on potential “adverse foreign policy consequences” of his presence in the country. The latest ruling rejected the government’s arguments that Khalil, who missed the birth of his son while in detention, posed a flight risk, much less a danger to the community.

“No one should fear being jailed for speaking out in this country,” said Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University School of Law, who represented Khalil in court, in an emailed statement. “We are overjoyed that Mr. Khalil will finally be reunited with his family while we continue to fight his case in court.”

Khalil’s case is just the latest instance in which federal courts have ruled against the Trump administration’s dogged efforts to detain and deport noncitizens who protested Israel’s war in Gaza, many of them students who are in the U.S. on visas or green cards.

One under-scrutinized federal agency has been crucial to this effort: Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which markets itself as an elite force that targets human traffickers, drug smugglers, and war criminals. But under the second Trump administration, HSI has turned its surveillance apparatus on a different kind of target: noncitizens on college campuses with critical views of Israel.

As it built dossiers on Khalil and others, HSI deployed its full suite of investigative tools and techniques to “identify individuals within the parameters” of President Donald Trump’s executive orders about rooting out purported antisemitism, as one HSI agent explained in an affidavit.

For each target, HSI agents used surveillance tools to build a dossier, which was then passed to the State Department to confirm that the target was, in the eyes of the U.S. government, sufficiently antisemitic to be deported.

To track down protesters for arrest, HSI agents conducted “pattern of life” surveillance, The Intercept found, which meant monitoring targets’ movements and associates. HSI agents executed search warrants on college dorms based on flimsy affidavits, issued subpoenas for financial records and other data, and even put a trace on one target’s WhatsApp account.

“It’s notable that these components, which purportedly focus on threats to national security and public safety, are spending their time hunting down student protesters for their protected speech,” said Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which is suing the Trump administration for targeting pro-Palestinian campus activists. “From what I’ve seen, the government hasn’t made a plausible argument that these students actually pose a threat to the national security of the United States.”

For years, watchdogs have warned that Congress needs to rein in HSI. During the first Trump administration, HSI monitored protest plans, called in aerial surveillance of the George Floyd demonstrations, and helped compile a database of journalists and immigration advocates to target at the border.

When Trump returned to the White House in January, HSI wasted little time in using its broad, fuzzy authority to target and track down critics of Israel’s war on Gaza.

“HSI has a really broad, often unchecked authority that in moments like these can allow them to turn it into a weapon,” said Spencer Reynolds, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, who previously worked as senior intelligence counsel in the Department of Homeland Security.

“The Department does little to promote oversight and accountability of its operations,” Reynolds said of HSI, pointing to the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate or defang DHS’s civil liberties office as amplifying the risks of abuse.

“We’ve seen this happen in the past,” Reynolds said, “and it can result in abusive targeting.”

ICE did not respond to The Intercept’s questions for this story.

HSI sprang into action in late January, after Trump issued an executive order purportedly aimed at antisemitism, according to an affidavit filed by a high-ranking HSI official in the case of Momodou Taal, a Cornell University grad student.

HSI investigators launched a “proactive” review of “open-source information to identify individuals subject to the Executive Order,” wrote Roy M. Stanley III, who leads the counterterrorism unit within HSI’s Office of Intelligence. As part of this review, HSI conducted “targeted analysis to substantiate aliens’ alleged engagement of antisemitic activities.”

In the Knight Institute’s lawsuit, another official, Andre Watson, who leads HSI’s national security division, explained that “HSI Office of Intelligence proactively reviews open-source information to identify individuals within the parameters of” Trump’s executive order.

“The HSI Office of Intelligence is typically focused on identifying actual security threats,” said DeCell of the Knight Institute.

And just because the underlying information is open source, meaning available on the public internet, DeCell explained, “doesn’t mean the government isn’t using more advanced tech as part of its “boil the ocean” approach to surveillance.”

Related

ICE Searched LexisNexis Database Over 1 Million Times in Just Seven Months

In fact, ICE officials’ references to “open-source” searches potentially refer to HSI’s massive database, called RAVEn, said Reynolds, of the Brennan Center. RAVEn uses large-language models to collate material from across ICE’s systems and the public internet, including social media posts and news stories.

For Taal, HSI’s open-source trawl turned up online articles about his participation in Gaza protests and run-ins with the Cornell administration. In mid-March, HSI referred its findings to the State Department, which revoked Taal’s visa the same day, according to other court filings.

After initially filing suit to challenge the revocation of his visa, Taal decided to leave the U.S. in late March rather than risk being detained like Khalil.

Court records across multiple cases reflect this general workflow: HSI agents use surveillance tools to build a dossier — an “HSI Subject Profile,” as Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them in memos.

“There seems to be a two-way street here” between HSI and the State Department, DeCell noted, by which HSI agents provide reports that “support the State Department’s decision to revoke a visa.”

HSI drafted “subject profiles” on Khalil and at least two other Columbia students targeted for their ties to Gaza protests, court records show: Yunseo Chung and Mohsen Mahdawi.

In many cases, Rubio quickly ratified HSI’s findings and ordered the targets should be deported under a rarely used provision for “adverse policy interests.” As in Taal’s case, Rubio signed off on the deportations of Khalil, Chung, and Mahdawi within 24 hours. He even did so in a single letter that gave ICE the green light to detain both Khalil and Chung.

But in some cases, HSI’s intel was a stretch even for Rubio’s staff.

Related

Marco Rubio Is Attacking American Education. International Students Are His Pawns.

HSI’s dossier on Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student, quoted from an op-ed she co-wrote calling on Tufts to “disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel,” the Washington Post reported. The State Department pushed back somewhat, determining the op-ed wasn’t sufficient evidence of antisemitic activity or support for a terrorism organization.

The State Department did not respond to The Intercept’s questions about whether Rubio’s staff had disagreed with HSI’s determinations as to any other targets beside Öztürk.

All the same, based on HSI’s threadbare findings, Öztürk’s visa could still be revoked at Rubio’s discretion, the State Department wrote in a reply memo later filed in court. “Due to ongoing ICE operational security, this revocation will be silent,” wrote John Armstrong of the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs to Watson on March 21. “The Department of State will not notify the subject of the revocation.”

Four days later, as Öztürk walked to a Ramadan dinner, six plain-clothed ICE agents surrounded her, placed her under arrest, and whisked her out of Massachusetts and ultimately to a detention center in Louisiana, where she was held for several weeks before a federal judge ordered her release in early May. 

Mahdawi also won his release in late April, which the federal government has appealed in tandem with Öztürk’s case. Despite HSI agents’ best efforts, Chung has never been detained, and earlier this month a federal judge issued an injunction that prohibits ICE from taking her into custody.

HSI has not just taken lead on flagging people who criticized Israel on university campuses, but also in tracking down and arresting them through various surveillance tactics.

In Khalil’s case, even before Rubio signed off on their findings, HSI placed Khalil under “pattern of life” surveillance, according to an immigration court filing. As an ICE attorney explained, this meant gathering information about Khalil’s “frequent locations, people he associates with, and various other information essential to law enforcement activities.”

When Rubio gave the go-ahead, HSI agents were already parked outside Khalil’s campus apartment in New York City. Despite not having an arrest warrant, they took him into custody and quickly hustled him to a facility in Louisiana.

Related

U.S. Spy Agencies Are Getting a One-Stop Shop to Buy Your Most Sensitive Personal Data

HSI special agents also staked out and arrested Badar Khan Suri, a scholar at Georgetown University, after Rubio determined he should be deported in mid-March. In May, a federal judge ordered his release.

When HSI struggled to locate targets, they used legal processes like subpoenas and search warrants to try to track them down.

In Chung’s case, ICE surveilled her campus apartment for five days and visited her parents’ home in Virginia but still couldn’t find her. So HSI agents sent administrative subpoenas to Columbia — seeking video footage from her dorm building and data showing when Chung swiped in and out of the building over an eight-day period, court records show.

Citing student privacy laws, a Columbia spokesperson would not answer whether the university complied with ICE’s administrative subpoenas, which would not be legally enforceable without a separate court order. “The University seeks legal advice for any type of warrant or subpoena, judicial or administrative,” the spokesperson wrote by email to The Intercept, adding that decisions about compliance “are made by the University after legal review to ensure there is a lawful requirement and, if so, the University must then comply.”

HSI agents also obtained and executed judicial search warrants for the dorm rooms of Chung and another Columbia student on the theory that Columbia was “harboring” them in violation of federal law.

The search warrant application materials, which were unsealed in mid-May, showed an assistant special agent in charge of HSI’s New York office filed a wildly inaccurate affidavit.

The affidavit misstated basic facts and federal law, attorneys told The Intercept, including that Chung, a lawful permanent resident with a green card, was in the country unlawfully.

When Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian woman who grew up in the West Bank, was arrested by New York City cops last spring at a Gaza demonstration at Columbia University, she was not a prominent activist or a recognizable leader in the student pro-Palestine movement like Khalil or Mahdawi.

She wasn’t even a Columbia student or otherwise affiliated with the school. Kordia had gone into the city for the day from her home in Paterson, New Jersey, she says in a lawsuit challenging her detention at an ICE facility in Texas.

Kordia was one of dozens of people arrested the same day in April 2024 that NYPD stormed Columbia’s Hamilton Hall. Kordia was not part of the contingent of students who occupied the hall, but was arrested outside the closed campus gates after police told the crowd to disperse.

All charges against Kordia were later dropped without any court appearances. Her case was sealed, and her name did not make it into news coverage of the protest or onto lists by pro-Israel groups like Betar.

But her low profile didn’t stop Kordia, whose student visa had expired while her green card application was in process, from being targeted by HSI.

Early in March, HSI began investigating Kordia for “national security violations,” according to court records. And agents in HSI’s Newark office threw considerable investigative resources into profiling Kordia.

Related

How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters

HSI agents subpoenaed her financial records, put a trace on her WhatsApp account, and asked NYPD for records about her arrest. They interviewed Kordia’s mother, who is an American citizen; several of her acquaintances; and even the tenants of an apartment Kordia once rented.

In mid-March, the week after HSI agents arrested Khalil at his apartment on Columbia’s campus, they detained Kordia in New Jersey and flew her to the Texas detention center.

After the Department of Homeland Security put out a gleeful statement, Kordia quickly became known as the “second Columbia student” arrested by ICE over Gaza protests — even as Columbia made clear she was never enrolled. It’s a basic error that ICE still can’t keep straight, claiming in a recent press release that Kordia is “another Columbia Student who actively participated in anti-American, pro-terrorist activities on campus.”

Kordia remains in ICE detention thousands of miles from her family. Together with others targeted by HSI because of their ties to protests over Gaza, her case underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to targeting dissent with advanced surveillance tools and federal manpower.

“The government is deploying resources that are purportedly focused on identifying threats” but instead “rounding up students protesting on their own college campuses,” summarized the Knight Institute’s DeCell. “That raises significant First Amendment concerns, and it raises a chilling effect for anyone here in the U.S. on a visa.”

Correction: June 26, 2025
The story was updated to correct that Mohsen Mahdawi was released in late April, not May.

The post Mahmoud Khalil Won His Freedom Despite the Best Efforts of ICE’s Intelligence Unit appeared first on The Intercept.

On Wednesday, Larner testified in court that he had concluded there was no additional forensic testing that needed to be done on the murder weapon used in the 1998 killing. The knife handle had been analyzed for fingerprints, but none had been found; blood on the blade matched Picus.

Larner said he saw no problem with his repeated handling of the weapon without using gloves in the months leading up to the trial of Marcellus Williams, who Larner would prosecute and send to death row for the murder. Now, the retired prosecutor was defending his actions during a one-day hearing held as part of an effort to overturn Williams’s conviction.

“There was nothing to link anybody to the crime on that knife,” Larner insisted.

Williams, who is scheduled for execution in September, maintains his innocence. Until last week, the knife was central to proving his claim.

Williams sought testing of the weapon before his 2001 trial, but the judge denied his requests. DNA testing done in 2016 excluded Williams from handling the weapon. Instead, the results revealed unknown male DNA.

“This case is about contamination.”

Last week, a new round of analysis confirmed that Williams’s genetic material was not on the knife, but it could not exclude either Larner or his investigator as the source of the unknown DNA. Whatever DNA might have existed connecting the perpetrator to Picus’s murder was irretrievably lost — thanks to the prosecution’s handling of the evidence.

Now, the contamination itself would be at the center of current elected county prosecutor Wesley Bell’s efforts to overturn Williams’s conviction. According to Bell, the state’s willful mishandling of the evidence before trial had violated Williams’s rights, meaning his conviction and death sentence must be overturned.

“This case is about contamination,” Matthew Jacober, a special counsel appointed to represent Bell at the hearing, told Circuit Court Judge Bruce Hilton.

From the witness stand, Larner sparred with one of Williams’s lawyers, insisting that his handling of both the murder weapon and the case had been aboveboard. A five-lawyer contingent from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office — which had intervened to block a deal between Williams and prosecutors, leading to Wednesday’s hearing — was there to back the former prosecutor. Larner hadn’t mishandled the evidence at all, Assistant Attorney General Michael Spillane told Hilton. Larner’s handling of the evidence without gloves was routine.

To prove Larner’s actions constituted a constitutional error that would make Williams’s conviction untenable, Bell’s office would have to prove the evidence had been mishandled on purpose. And it wasn’t, Spillane said. Instead, it was Larner’s practice was to “not use evidence-saving techniques.”

“It wasn’t bad faith,” Spillane said of Larner’s actions. “It wasn’t even negligent.”

Now, Hilton is tasked with determining whose version of the truth — and of constitutional error — is correct. His decision on whether Williams’s conviction should be overturned is due by September 13, just two weeks before Williams is slated for execution. Should he adopt the attorney general’s reasoning, that execution will almost certainly go forward.

Dan Picus came home from work on August 11, 1998, to find his wife murdered. Despite a wealth of physical evidence found at the scene, including the knife, the investigation quickly stalled.

It wasn’t until months later, after Picus posted a $10,000 reward for information leading to a conviction, that a jailhouse informant came forward claiming his former cellmate, Marcellus Williams, confessed to the crime. Police later secured a second informant, a former girlfriend of Williams’s, who also claimed he’d confessed to the murder, though their stories shifted over time and often conflicted with one another.

Despite the informants’ accounts, none of the physical evidence at the scene tied Williams to the killing. Their testimony, however, was enough to secure a conviction against Williams.

With each of his appeals denied, Williams was twice on the brink of execution, including in 2015 when the Missouri Supreme Court stepped in and ordered DNA testing on the knife. Although the testing revealed the unknown DNA, the court dismissed the appeal. Ultimately, Williams’s execution was reset for September 24.

Meanwhile, Bell’s office had started looking at the case and in January 2024 filed a motion to vacate Williams’s conviction. In addition to the foreign DNA on the knife and the dubious informant testimony, Bell cited issues with the quality of Williams’s legal defense and misconduct by prosecutors whom he argued had struck qualified individuals from the jury pool because they were Black. These factors cast “inexorable doubt” on Williams’s guilt, he argued.

With Jacober, the special counsel, ready to argue the county’s position, the latest DNA analysis — revealing that neither Larner nor his investigator could be excluded from contributing DNA to the knife — had changed the calculation: The weapon, which had been key to proving a wrongful conviction, became useless for identifying the murderer.

Instead, Bell’s office struck a deal with Williams on August 21. The prosecutor would concede constitutional error and take the death penalty off the table if Williams agreed to enter a so-called Alford plea that lets Williams acknowledge a strong case against him while maintaining his innocence; the plea would let him to avoid the death penalty by accepting a life sentence, while retaining the right to challenge the arrangement if new evidence comes to light.

Hilton, the judge, agreed with the outcome, as did Dan Picus, who’d told the court he did not want Williams executed. Hilton was slated to resentence Williams the next day.

Related

Missouri’s Attorney General Is Waging War to Keep the Wrongly Convicted Locked Up

The move sparked the attorney general’s intervention. Bailey’s office ran to the Missouri Supreme Court, arguing that Hilton didn’t have the power to agree to such a deal and, essentially, that Williams should face execution. The court sided with Bailey, ordering Hilton to hold a hearing on Bell’s motion to vacate the conviction as originally planned. Hilton set the hearing for August 28.

Sitting at the witness stand on Wednesday afternoon, Larner cut a familiar figure. Lanky with a long face and birdlike nose, he resembled actor Sam Waterston’s district attorney character Jack McCoy from the original “Law & Order” TV show. Under questioning, he was self-assured and insistent that his cause in prosecuting Williams was a righteous pursuit.

Jonathan Potts, a lawyer working with Williams’s attorneys at the Midwest Innocence Project, asked Larner about the motivations and credibility of the snitches he’d used to tie Williams to the murder.

Each had a history of repeated run-ins with the law, and each had collected $5,000 from Dan Picus in exchange for their testimony. Larner had even advocated for one, a man named Henry Cole, to receive the money months before he’d testified against Williams. Cole came forward “predominately for the reward,” Larner said, “and to tell the truth.”

Larner said he asked Picus to pay Cole in advance after it became clear the snitch’s commitment to testifying was wavering.

“We gave you the money,” Larner recalled Wednesday of his “promise” to Cole. “Please come back for trial.”  

Larner dismissed any notion that anything questionable had occurred. He said the informants were the “two strongest witnesses” he had produced in a murder case during his nearly 32-year career as a St. Louis County prosecutor.

Larner bristled when Potts pressed him about his reasons for striking Black people from the jury pool. Although Larner eliminated all but one Black person from the panel, he insisted he hadn’t run afoul of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that rejecting jurors based on race is unconstitutional.

In his motion to vacate Williams’s conviction, Bell pointed to several instances where it appeared Larner did just that. In one case, Larner rejected a Black man he said “looked very similar” to Williams. Pressed on the instance, Larner doubled down. “They looked like brothers, like familial brothers, not like Black people,” Larner said. “They were both young Black men, but that’s not why they were similar.”

Much of Pott’s questioning focused on Larner’s handling of the murder weapon. Larner said the knife was collected from the medical examiner’s office, carefully packaged and processed for forensics, then repackaged and securely stored. The state then summarily concluded no additional testing would be conducted, Larner said.

Still, it would be more than a year before Williams was indicted for the crime and Larner was assigned to the case.

Larner said he readily concluded that the weapon was “irrelevant” because he was sure the killer had worn gloves. Larner testified that an investigator had told him about the gloves, and Cole, the informant, claimed Williams said he wore a pair during the killing.

Although Bailey’s office has parroted this line, there is nothing concrete to back it up. The second informant, Williams’s ex-girlfriend, said Williams told her that, after the murder, he washed blood off his hands.

Nobody bothered to pin any of it down. Instead, Larner admitted on Wednesday that in the months before Williams’s trial, he handled the knife on at least five occasions without wearing gloves of his own.

Larner’s repeated handling of the weapon before trial came as a surprise to one of Williams’s then-trial attorneys, Christopher McGraugh. Now a circuit judge in the city of St. Louis, McGraugh testified on Wednesday that, back in 2001, it was well known that handling forensic material without precautions could contaminate the evidence. He said that when he handled evidence related to Williams’s case, he’d been required to wear gloves.

Though Larner claimed there was no indication before trial that the defense wanted any additional testing on the knife, court records show otherwise. Williams’s other trial attorney, Joseph Green, who is also now a sitting circuit court judge, testified that when the lawyers learned another piece of physical evidence had been destroyed, they filed a motion to postpone the trial, in part so they could do forensic testing of the knife. The request was rejected.

Larner denied during the hearing that the defense ever sought DNA testing. “Wrong, wrong!” he exclaimed. He said he opposed the defense’s motion to postpone the trial because his case was ready to go.

Judge Hilton had a question of his own for Larner: Could the prosecutor have consented to the defense request? Not without the approval of his boss, Larner said. Besides, there was “no additional evidence” anyone was going to obtain that would prove anything.

Under cross-examination, Spillane, from the attorney general’s office, did his best to prop up Larner’s testimony. In how many of the cases he prosecuted over his nearly 32-year career had Larner handled the evidence after initial forensic testing was done, Spillane asked. Larner replied, “Probably all of them.”

“No one fathomed that the prosecutors would have such disregard.”

Spillane told Hilton that there was no reason to vacate Williams’s conviction. His claims about the racist jury selection and deficient defense lawyering had been previously considered by the Missouri Supreme Court and denied.

The only thing that was new was Bell’s claim that the evidence had been mishandled, he argued, but even that was nonsense — since Bell couldn’t prove the prosecution had contaminated the knife on purpose.

In his closing remarks, Potts recalled how eager Williams was for the knife to be tested. Just as Bell had seen it as a key to exoneration, Williams viewed the knife as an opportunity to definitively prove he hadn’t been at the crime scene.

“No one fathomed that the prosecutors would have such disregard,” Potts said. “For 23 years, the reasonable people in this room thought that was impossible.”

The post His Best Chance to Get Off Death Row Was DNA on the Murder Weapon, but Prosecutors “Contaminated” the Evidence appeared first on The Intercept.

On July 26, Bailey racked up another loss when the Missouri Supreme Court declined to scuttle a hearing in St. Louis County to determine whether Marcellus Williams was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to die in 2001. Bailey had implored the court to stop the August 21 hearing and to clear the way for Williams’s execution in September. While the Supreme Court has declined to delay Williams’s execution, it has at least rebuffed Bailey’s entreaty to grease the wheels.

Bailey’s defeat caps several weeks’ worth of legal volleying between the attorney general, Williams’s lawyers with the Midwest Innocence Project, and St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, who is seeking to vacate Williams’s conviction because he believes it was wrongly obtained. In pushing back against Bailey’s efforts to block Williams’s innocence hearing, Bell and the Midwest Innocence Project argue that Bailey is attempting to rewrite Missouri law to give himself more power.

The flurry of legal activity also underscores Bailey’s apparent determination to fight off claims of wrongful conviction. In the last two months alone, he has not only tried to block Williams from airing his innocence claim at all, but has also sought to keep two recent exonerees, Christopher Dunn and Sandra Hemme, locked up despite court rulings concluding that they should be freed.

Bailey’s opposition to correcting miscarriages of justice is a feature of his tenure as attorney general, but his recent actions have earned new scrutiny and ire from activists, as well as from his rock-ribbed conservative opponent in the attorney general’s Republican primary race.

Speaking at the state Capitol on Thursday, death row exonerees with the nonprofit group Witness to Innocence called on Bailey to reverse course and support the vetting of innocence claims — starting with Williams’s case.

Bailey’s current position is that it is “acceptable to execute an innocent person,” said Herman Lindsey, the group’s executive director. “We’re here to ask for an honest search for the truth. That’s all.”

“This win-at-all-costs mentality does not serve the people of Missouri.”

Shifting Narratives

Felicia Anne Gayle Picus, a beloved former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was stabbed to death in her home in a gated community outside the city on August 11, 1998. When her husband Dan Picus found her, the murder weapon, a knife from the couple’s kitchen, was still lodged in her neck. The house was replete with potential forensic evidence, including bloody fingerprints on a wall and a trail of bloody shoeprints. The kitchen had been ransacked, and closets and drawers upstairs had been opened. Still, nothing of great value had been taken.

Despite extensive physical evidence, the investigation stalled. It wasn’t until months later, after her family posted a $10,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of her killer, that a jailhouse informant came forward with a story about his former cellmate, Marcellus Williams, whom he claimed had confessed to the crime. Police subsequently scored a second informant, Williams’s former girlfriend, who also claimed Williams was responsible.

There were ample reasons to distrust the informants’ accounts, including that both were facing prison time for unrelated crimes, and each had a history of ratting on others to save themselves. Many of the details they offered shifted across questioning and others simply did not match the murder. Nonetheless, Williams was tried and convicted in 2001 based primarily on their waffling and contradictory tales.

Related

Crime Scene DNA Didn’t Match Marcellus Williams. Missouri May Fast-Track His Execution Anyway.

Williams has maintained his innocence and has twice come close to execution. His lawyers requested DNA testing of crime scene evidence prior to his trial, but the court denied it. It wasn’t until the eve of Williams’s execution in 2015 that the state Supreme Court issued a stay and ordered testing of the murder weapon, which ultimately revealed unknown male DNA and excluded Williams as a donor. Still, without considering what impact that evidence might have had on Williams’s conviction, the court reset his execution for August 2017. Again, the execution was halted, this time by then-Gov. Eric Greitens, a Republican, who issued an executive order triggering a little-used Missouri law that allows the governor to empanel a board of inquiry to review a case.

Passed in 1963, the law was designed to protect against wrongful executions. The board, made up of five retired judges, was not yet finished with its work the following year when Greitens left office amid scandal and Mike Parson assumed the job. Over the intervening years, the Midwest Innocence Project provided the board with a host of information to aid its inquiry. Then, in June 2023, Parson abruptly dissolved the board before it could report on the findings of its investigation, which by statute it was required to do. Parson said it was time to “move forward.”

The Midwest Innocence Project sued to block Parson from disbanding the board before it had fulfilled its statutory duty, yet the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the suit earlier this summer. The court ruled on June 4 that the governor had the right to dissolve it as he saw fit.

Sweeping Arguments

While the litigation over the board played out, St. Louis County elected prosecutor Wesley Bell availed himself in January of a relatively new Missouri law that empowers prosecutors to move to vacate a conviction they believe was wrongly obtained. “Public confidence in the justice system is restored, not undermined, when a prosecutor is accountable for a wrongful or constitutionally infirm conviction,” Bell wrote.

The statute directs a circuit judge to hold a hearing and determine whether there is “clear and convincing evidence” of a wrongful conviction. Notably, the law also allows — but does not require — the attorney general’s office to appear at the hearing and question witnesses. To date, three people have been exonerated under the statute, which was enacted in 2021. In each case, the state’s top prosecutor has taken an adversarial stance — and lost. In Williams’s case, Bailey filed a notice in early February that he would be opposing Bell’s motion.

Bell had asked the state Supreme Court to hold off on setting a new execution date until the circuit court has had the opportunity to consider the case. Instead, in June, the court set Williams’s execution for September 24. The attorney general waited until just after the Supreme Court set the execution date to file a motion urging the circuit court judge to dismiss Bell’s motion without a hearing.

Bailey argued that because the state Supreme Court has rejected all of Williams’s previous appeals and has set an execution date, the lower court can’t review the case at all. To do so would “challenge” the authority of the Supreme Court, whose decisions, according to the state constitution, “shall be controlling in all other courts.” Bailey continued, “this Court has no authority to reverse, overrule, or otherwise decline to follow” the high court’s previous rulings, concluding that Bell’s “futile” efforts should be dismissed.

Both Bell and the Midwest Innocence Project responded with briefs arguing that Bailey’s position is absurd. For starters, the law that allows Bell to seek to vacate Williams’s conviction operates separately from the normal appeals process. Importantly, it also doesn’t allow for the attorney general to jump in ahead of a hearing to try and block it from ever taking place. Bailey’s argument is merely an attempt to prevent a hearing before Williams’s execution date, Bell wrote —“an absurd and unnecessary position for the Attorney General to take under the circumstances as a representative of the State of Missouri with a duty as a ‘minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.’”

Williams’s lawyers took aim at Bailey’s attempt to nullify the statute so that it doesn’t apply to people who have appealed their capital conviction and have been denied (which, practically speaking, is most death row defendants) and have subsequently had an execution date set. “The AG’s arguments are as surprising as they are sweeping,” the Midwest Innocence Project argued in court filings.

If accepted, Bailey’s argument could allow the attorney general to seek an execution date as soon as possible after an appeal is denied, foreclosing any potential future relief from a wrongful conviction.

On July 2, St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Hilton declined to take up Bailey’s motion to dismiss the case and instead set the hearing for August 21. Bailey asked the Supreme Court to intervene; it too declined.

“Shock to the Conscience”

Bailey took over as attorney general in 2023, when his predecessor, Eric Schmitt, was elected to the U.S. Senate. Since then, Bailey has aggressively sought to block prosecutors — and judges — from taking action to right wrongful convictions.

He is far from the first top prosecutor in Missouri to try to block a potential exoneration; for at least 30 years the reflexive position of the attorney general’s office has been to oppose innocence claims. And after the law giving the state’s elected prosecutors the right to seek to throw out a tainted conviction passed in 2021, Schmitt was seemingly all-too-eager to oppose the process. Still, as Bailey has been running in a hotly contested Republican primary seeking to secure his first full term in office, he has put those efforts into overdrive.

Sandra Hemme spent 43 years in prison for a murder she did not commit before a state judge in June vacated her conviction and cleared her for release. In response, Bailey launched a monthlong campaign to keep her locked up — including by having an underling call the Department of Corrections and tell the prison warden not to release her, all in violation of a court order. Hemme was finally released on July 19, after Judge Ryan Horsman said that if she was not freed within hours Bailey would have to personally appear in court or face a charge of contempt.

Related

Missouri’s Attorney General Is Waging War to Keep the Wrongly Convicted Locked Up

In May, a pair of lawyers from Bailey’s office fought St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Gabriel Gore’s efforts to exonerate Christopher Dunn for a 1990 murder he has long sworn he did not commit. The attorney general’s office lost the fight, and the circuit judge vacated Dunn’s conviction last month. Bailey then deployed the same tactics he had in Hemme’s case — including calling the DOC — in an effort to keep Dunn from being released from prison. After the Missouri Supreme Court’s intervention, Dunn was finally released on July 30.

Bailey’s decision to make opposing innocence claims a feature of his office is a bold, if not questionable, choice. Advocates across the state have decried his actions. Peter Joy, a law professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told CBS News that Bailey’s efforts to keep Hemme locked up were “a shock to the conscience of any decent human being.”

And it appears that Bailey’s stance is also confounding to fellow conservative MAGA Republican Will Scharf, Bailey’s opponent in the state’s GOP primary on August 6. Practically speaking, there isn’t much daylight between Bailey and Scharf. Still, Scharf — a former federal prosecutor who was part of the team representing Donald Trump in his immunity case before the U.S. Supreme Court — told St. Louis’s Spectrum News that he wouldn’t try to block the release of a person who’d demonstrated their innocence in court. “It’s a clear and convincing evidence standard for someone to essentially prove that they’ve been wrongly convicted,” Scharf said. “I think that’s an appropriately high bar.”

The post Despite Missouri AG’s Best Efforts, Man Condemned to Die Will Get Hearing On His Innocence Claim appeared first on The Intercept.

On Monday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued a coveted endorsement of state Sen. Joe Baldacci in the primary race, prompting angry protests from the three other candidates in the race to replace outgoing Democratic Rep. Jared Golden.

In response to the endorsement, the Penobscot County Democratic Committee — in Baldacci’s home county, which includes the city of Bangor — will vote Saturday on a measure to condemn the endorsement. The language of the proposal, which was put forward by former Maine state Senate President Charles Pray, denounces the endorsement as being in “total disregard and willfully ignoring” local party rules that bar the Democratic state and county chapters from backing a candidate in a primary.

“With the DCCC deciding to throw itself into the mix here, truthfully that just kind of aggravated me,” Pray told The Intercept. “I’m going to support whoever wins the Democratic nomination, but I just think it was an unfair position on their part of trying to dictate or trying to boost up a candidate. Point is, let the people decide. Let the voters in the primary make that determination.”

Pray, who previously worked in the Clinton and Obama administrations and described himself as “a progressive moderate with liberal tendencies but conservative perspectives,” has personally backed State Auditor Matt Dunlap in the race, but said his pique at the DCCC’s endorsement isn’t about any one candidate.

Related

Democratic Leaders Wanted to Control the Maine Senate Race. Their Pick Just Dropped Out.

“This has nothing to do with Joe — I think all four of them have an equal chance,” Pray said. “It’s a primary, and, by the way, our state party rules and our county rules are that the party organization cannot endorse or support a candidate.”

A spokesperson for the DCCC said the group was focused on winning in the general elections and beating back President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“It’s imperative that Democrats must take back the House to hold Trump accountable and deliver on what truly matters to voters,” said the spokesperson, Viet Shelton. “That’s why we are proud to announce our latest round of Red to Blue candidates who span the ideological spectrum, are authentic voices in their districts, and are best positioned to win in November.”

Four-Way Race

The race to replace Golden — who announced in November that he would not seek reelection — is being closely watched nationwide ahead of the midterm elections. Whoever takes the Democratic primary will square off against Paul LePage, a brash, plainspoken businessman and Republican former governor whose time running Maine was marked by proto-MAGA far-right populism.

Baldacci is facing off against Dunlap, who is also a former Maine secretary of state; Jordan Wood, a longtime Democratic fundraiser and political operative; and Paige Loud, a social worker and first-time candidate. In the wake of the DCCC endorsement of Baldacci, the other candidates in the race took aim at D.C. Democrats for picking a side.

“It’s undemocratic for national establishment Democrats to put their thumb on the scale in any primary,” Dunlap said. “Just like in certain other races across Maine this year, they won’t decide this one — the people of Maine will.”

With Dunlap picking up endorsements from Our Revolution, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and other progressives, Baldacci — who enjoys name recognition as the brother of former Gov. John Baldacci — is widely seen as the establishment candidate in the race. Reached by phone Thursday, Baldacci declined to comment on the Penobscot County party proposal condemning the endorsement, but said he was glad to have the backing of Democrats in Washington.

“I’m pleased that they did it,” Baldacci said, referring to the endorsement. “My understanding is they based it on polling to determine who is the best candidate to run against LePage.”

Wood said the DCCC move demonstrated the problems with Washington party politics.

“The fact that the national Democratic Party would come in and try to decide this primary literally weeks before we vote is just another example of how broken our Democratic leadership is,” he said.

A Pan Atlantic Omnibus poll in March put Baldacci well ahead of his opponents, but there is little in the way of recent polling to indicate a current popular favorite in the race. Following the stunning collapse of Gov. Janet Mills’s bid for the U.S. Senate — despite the backing of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — against populist insurgent Graham Platner, not everyone in Maine sees the DCCC as the best political oracle to follow.

“It’s annoying that the DCCC thinks they know better than Mainers,” said Loud, the left-leaning social worker. “We just saw the DSCC’s endorsement of Janet Mills, and we all saw how that turned out. I don’t think they have the finger on the pulse.”

Update: May 7, 2026, 5:12 p.m. ET
This story has been updated to include Jordan Wood’s experience as a political operative.

The post Maine Dems to Vote on Condemning DCCC Interference in House Primary appeared first on The Intercept.

It’s the 6:30 p.m. ET broadcasting block on Wednesday, and Tony Dokoupil, the shiny new host of “CBS Evening News,” is explaining away the killing of three journalists in Gaza even as a ceasefire deal apparently remains in place.

That does not seem to matter much to Dokoupil, who before landing this plush gig at Bari Weiss’s CBS News was best known for hassling the writer Ta-Nehisi Coates for his “extremist” belief that apartheid is morally wrong.

Dokoupil opens the news read already at a distance: “Turning to one of the deadliest days in Gaza since October’s ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, an Israeli airstrike today killed three journalists.” 

He continues by accepting, without skepticism, Israel’s framing of what should be a clear violation of the terms of the ceasefire: “Israel said it was targeting a group operating a drone affiliated with Hamas,” Dokoupil says. “One of those journalists, Abed Shaat, has worked for CBS as a photographer. His colleagues described the 30-year-old as a brave person doing dangerous work. He was married just two weeks ago.”

It’s a blink-and-you-miss-it sleight of hand that tells you exactly where the priorities of the news regime at CBS lie. First, there’s the tone, which exudes calmness about the fact that a co-worker has been killed doing his job. Dokoupil states that Shaat died in an Israeli airstrike targeting “a group operating a drone affiliated with Hamas,” the implication being that Shaat was either working with Hamas or was a little too cozy with Hamas, a means of justifying his killing. Finally, Dokoupil uses the distancing language of “[Shaat’s] colleagues” – making clear that the host of “CBS Evening News” is certainly not among them.

It was just the latest low for a host who has struggled to find his footing and his audience. Dokoupil’s viewership numbers have been in the tank, with the number of eyeballs down 23 percent in his first five days on air, compared to a year ago with anchor Norah O’Donnell. Viewership was not much improved in Dokoupil’s second week; “CBS Evening News” remained a distant third behind ABC and NBC’s evening news shows. (Perhaps that’s why Dylan Byers, every media boss’s favorite stenographer, landed the unattributed scoop Thursday night that “Evening News” drew 6.4 million viewers on Monday, said to be its largest audience since 2021.) Dokoupil’s first official broadcast was marred by gaffes, and his January 6 show featured a fawning package on Secretary of State Marco Rubio that featured the utterly surreal lines: “Marco Rubio, we salute you. You’re the ultimate Florida Man.” (The White House rapid response team approvingly shared the clip.)

Higher up at the network, there have been multiple rounds of reporting that Weiss, CBS’s new editor-in-chief, isn’t so much a manager or a journalist as the person tasked with courting the capricious approval of President Donald Trump. Weiss, who answers directly to David Ellison, infamously caused a Streisand effect by pulling a “60 Minutes” story about Venezuelan men deported to a notoriously violent prison in El Salvador hours before it was set to air because there was no on-camera comment from the Trump administration. The story finally aired Sunday with no substantive changes — and without the all-important on-air administration voice. 

Coming to us from a Ford assembly line in Dearborn, Michigan, on January 13, Dokoupil landed a marquee interview with Trump himself. With the sound of loud machinery in the background, the president didn’t bother to conceal his disdain. In response to a question about Iran, Trump seemed to imply that Dokoupil, a convert to Judaism, has dual loyalty to Israel.

“I don’t know where you come from and what your thought process is, but you’ll perhaps be very happy,” Trump said.

His subtext doesn’t appear lost on the host, who responded, “What do you mean by that?”

Later on, Trump disciplined Dokoupil again, this time in reference to his decision to greenlight David Ellison’s acquisition of CBS-owner Paramount Global. “You wouldn’t have a job right now,” Trump tells the anchor. “If she [Kamala Harris] got in, you probably wouldn’t have a job right now. Your boss, who’s an amazing guy, might be bust, OK? … You wouldn’t have this job, certainly whatever the hell they’re paying you.” At the interview’s close, Dokoupil attempted to save face, saying, “For the record, I do think I’d have this job even if the other guys won.” Without missing a beat, Trump responded, “But at a lesser salary.”

For all this taking it on the chin, Dokoupil and Weiss’s righteous reward was the White House threatening to sue over the interview.

“CBS Evening News” with Tony Dokoupil demonstrated its obsequiousness by publishing “five simple principles” ahead of the new host’s debut. The “principles” are condescension for the Americans they claim to love all the way down. “We love America. And make no apologies for saying so,” reads one. Another proclaims: “We work for you.” (You quite literally do not.)

Principle number three is “We respect you.” Its description reads in part: “We believe that our fellow Americans are smart and discerning. … We trust you to make up your own minds, and to make the decisions that are best for you, your families and your communities.”

This babytalk for idiots is a common thread running through the new era of “Evening News.” Dokoupil comes to us live from Real America — a stunt dubbed the “Live From America” tour — including the American Sign Museum in Cincinnati and a diner in the West Loop of Chicago. In Chicago, the broadcast includes a segment where the host takes the L train from the Loop to West Garfield Park to bring attention to the “death gap,” or life expectancy disparities, between neighborhoods.

As the train rumbles along, Tony looks out the window, affecting introspection, while his voiceover rolls: “Even on a snowy day, we could see a change from the train window,” he says, like a space alien seeing a city for the first time. At the end of the January 16 half-hour at a steel plant in Pittsburgh, which featured a “LESSON IN BIPARTISANSHIP” (in other words, a segment with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman and Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, both of Pennsylvania), Dokoupil all but waves a Made in USA American flag to show his love for the common man.

In concluding his second week on January 16, Dokoupil signs off by giving himself credit for a job well done. “What a privilege it’s been to hear from so many of you, to hear what matters in your lives. … We put some of your big questions in front of this country’s biggest leaders.” To underline the point that he really is one of us, he then appears to go perhaps a bit off-script. “I’m gonna talk to these steel workers,” he says. “You wanna trade jobs? This one’s not as easy as it looks! I’ve been learning that.” In an unintentionally comedic moment, multiple steelworkers respond “Yes.” 

Three weeks into his new job, it’s unclear who this incarnation of “CBS Evening News” is even for. Despite Weiss’s best efforts, the answer is not the White House, as Dokoupil can’t even succeed in flattering Trump. One possible answer is the old and the infirm: During every single commercial break I watched, multiple pharmaceutical ads ran, sometimes back to back, saying more about the state of America than Dokoupil ever could. 

All this capping about love of country, and the host’s own posturing, speaks to an ambition of reconnecting with Americans who have lost faith in the media. Considering what we know about the Ellisons and their support for Trump, it’s not hard to imagine that the show’s new spin is an effort to reach MAGA America. But that’s a miscalculation at best and a dangerous slide to the right at worst, one that risks alienating the liberal viewership that still believes in institutions like CBS.

MAGA adherents already have Fox News serving as de facto state TV news, and the disenfranchised among them have drifted so far outside any kind of consensus reality that they have embraced more fringe, far-right-wing outlets like One America News Network or the MyPillow guy. They are no longer “gettable” as an audience.

Weiss and Dokoupil would be much better served if they tried seriously to retain the viewers they had, rather than chase imagined, untold millions of disillusioned Trump voters looking to come in from the cold. It speaks to a real confusion about who “CBS Evening News” is really for, if the true goal, as stated, is to grow its audience. But if the actual goal is to remake an authority in news into a platform for nakedly broadcasting Weiss and Ellison’s political views, it’s already a roaring success.

The post “CBS Evening News” With Tony Dokoupil Is a Right-Wing Show for Absolutely No One appeared first on The Intercept.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has made it his mission to put Dr. Anthony Fauci in prison.

Last month, the chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee subpoenaed Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who led the nation’s response to the Covid pandemic, to answer still more questions related to the origins of the disease.

Related

Rand Paul’s Attack on Anthony Fauci Chills Scientific Debate Over Gain-of-Function Research

Paul insists the novel coronavirus was the result of the National Institutes of Health having funded gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology — essentially that the virus was created in a lab in China and unleashed on an unsuspecting public.

Fauci has maintained that while the mostly likely source of the Covid-19 virus was animal-to-human transmission but that we cannot know for certain. Paul thinks he deliberately misled the public about the coronavirus’s origins and called him to testify before the Homeland Security Committee based on supposed new evidence that comes from Fauci’s diaries.

Over 7 million people worldwide have died from Covid, with about 1.2 million of those deaths occurring in the U.S.

While the quick work to produce a vaccine undoubtedly saved many millions of lives, that level of loss is difficult to account for and has certainly taken an emotional and psychic toll on the world since. We, the public, deserve answers about what went wrong during that time and how our governments are preparing for similar outbreaks in the future such that they can prevent the loss of so much life.

That is not what Paul and his Fauci subpoena are focused on. Instead, Paul sunk his libertarian teeth into a xenophobic conspiracy theory that reinforces his ideological priors: too many government agencies that spend too many public dollars.

It’s the same reason Paul avoids the real, persistent public health crisis underlying huge spike in deaths in the U.S. from Covid — and a host of other diseases: the lack of universal healthcare.

Did the virus come from a lab in Wuhan? I certainly don’t trust Paul’s ideologically infused takes, but I’ll leave it for others to decide.

To focus on it at the exclusion of all other public health policy, though, is clearly a mistake. It’s learning the wrong lesson from the Covid pandemic.

The United States remains the only “developed” country without universal healthcare coverage.

The insurance companies and for-profit medical system insist that this is the best system to provide people with the best healthcare, but during early days of the Covid pandemic, its limitations came into stark relief. The pandemic put so much stress on our system that resulted in shortages in staff, and a decreased quality of care for those infected with virus, and all others who needed care.

Underlying medical issues exasperated Covid deaths. These are exactly the types of chronic illnesses that people suffer from because of a lack of preventative care or a failure to get treatment because of prohibitive costs — respiratory diseases, heart conditions, blood pressure issues.

Related

Network of Right-Wing Health Care Providers Is Making Millions Off Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, Hacked Data Reveals

It’s notable that some of the greatest successes of Covid policy arose not from private health insurers acting on their mandates for profit, but rather by mandates and funding from local, state, and federal government. Acts of Congress forced healthcare insurers and providers into covering certain services. When testing became a feasible method of helping to prevent the spread of Covid, federal funding made it far more widely available — even for the uninsured, with the government providing reimbursement for healthcare providers who tested those without coverage.

This is to say nothing of a federal program to speed along a Covid vaccine and rush its distribution — the key to creating enough immunity to weaken the virus and lower death rates. For those who got Covid, antiviral medication, which could drastically reduce symptoms and prevent hospitalizations and even death, was available for free thanks to federal funding. In the first two years of the pandemic, around 6 million people took the drug without paying a thing.

In 2020, the American Public Health Association released a policy statement that began: “The COVID pandemic adds a new sense of urgency to establish a universal health care system in the United States. Our current system is inequitable, does not adequately cover vulnerable groups, is cost prohibitive, and lacks the flexibility to respond to periods of economic and health downturns.”

This remains true, as the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress continue their assault of existing forms of federal healthcare spending.

While Paul is focused on trying to place Fauci in prison for not confirming a conspiracy theory, more people are being crushed by the weight of medical debt due to our inadequate system, more people aren’t getting the care they need because of the costs, and more people are dying.

Related

CDC Didn’t Tell New York About Resident on Hantavirus-Plagued Cruise

The fight for universal healthcare coverage remains a vital one, as the uncertainty of when we could face another pandemic looms over us all. The longer the delay, the more unprepared we become for what’s next.

Whatever Fauci said from his perch at the National Institutes of Health about the virus’s origins, the fact of the matter remains that the government’s interventions during the Covid pandemic were overwhelmingly lifesaving. Its biggest failure — then as now — was the inability to provide healthcare coverage for all Americans.

There should be accountability for whatever role the government played in the Covid pandemic, but let’s be clear that deaths spiked in large part because of the failures of our healthcare system to cover all Americans, not because of what Fauci said in his diaries.

The post Fauci’s Diary Isn’t the Key to Why Covid Ravaged the U.S. — Our Broken Healthcare System Is appeared first on The Intercept.

A few days before my best friend’s execution date in 2006, prison administrators granted me one last chance to see him in a legal visit. We discussed his concerns about the humaneness of the lethal injection that would kill him. I will never forget his terrified look.

The day of his execution, I paced my cell hoping for the best. Without access to a telephone, my only method to monitor if or how my friend had died was through radio reports from members of the media who were allowed to witness his final breath.

News reports have historically allowed us as a society to monitor our government when it exercises its greatest power: ending a person’s life. But the state of Indiana has decided to inhibit that public access by banning members of the media from attending executions — unless the condemned person chooses to give a reporter a spot that could instead have gone to their relatives or friends. An appellate court upheld the ban this week. 

Prison officials in Indiana claim the media ban is mainly about respecting the dignity of the condemned person. But the idea that there could ever be dignity in state-sanctioned killing of a perfectly healthy human is ludicrous within itself. That would be the case even if executioners eschewed cruel and unusual methods. But they don’t, even when the media is watching. 

Angel Nieves Diaz continued moving for half an hour after receiving an injection of a drug that was supposed to paralyze him during a Florida execution. It took Arizona officials two hours to kill Joseph R. Wood. He had to be injected with 14 doses beyond the dose that was supposed to cause his death. 

Byron Black yelled, “It’s hurting so bad,” five minutes into a botched execution in Tennessee. John Marion Grant began convulsing and vomiting during his execution in Oklahoma. Prison officials had to enter the death chamber multiple times to wipe away and remove the vomit. The entire time, Grant was still breathing. Just last month, Tony Carruthers lay on a Tennessee gurney for more than hour moaning and bleeding as executioners struggled to find a vein. The execution was eventually called off by government officials.

These are only a few of the botched executions that lack “dignity.” This week, a federal appellate court upheld a decision blocking Alabama from using nitrogen gas to kill Jeffery Lee. Suffocating and asphyxiating on one’s own vomit seemed like a bridge too far. 

As a result of the barbarity of these events, it’s not far-fetched to wonder if Indiana officials have an ulterior motive. Perhaps the media ban has nothing to do with preserving the dignity of the condemned and is instead about obstructing government accountability and public oversight. 

Executions in this country were once highly public affairs. Often held in town squares, any member of the public could attend. In the 1830s, government officials began to enact laws that made executions private events. 

This was not because 19th century executioners were moved to protect the dignity of the condemned (who were disproportionately Black). It was an effort to halt a growing capital punishment abolitionist movement. A significant number of Americans found the public spectacle disgusting.

The same is occurring today. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, support for capital punishment in America has decreased from 80 percent in 1994 to 52 percent in 2026. This division necessitates transparency — otherwise, the only nongovernment actors able to tell the public the truth are dead.

The “dignity” playbook is a well-worn one that I know well as an incarcerated journalist. As a result of restrictions placed on media access to prisons, prisons have become unjustifiably cruel, less humane and more difficult to monitor. Restricting press freedom erodes human rights and constitutional safeguards and blinds the public to the kinds of cruelty and abuse depicted in HBO’s Oscar-nominated documentary “The Alabama Solution.” 

The film was made possible not because officials granted access to outside journalists, but because incarcerated people risked (and endured) severe punishment to document their reality with contraband phones. 

It’s not the first time surreptitious reporting methods revealed the real motives behind media restrictions. In 1906, a reporter in Minnesota ignored a ban on media executions and sneaked in to watch a condemned man spend 14 minutes gasping for air before he strangled to death because the rope used to hang him was too long – he hit the floor when dropped and needed to be raised back up. 

Related

False Testimony Sent Tony Carruthers to Death Row. Tennessee Wants to Kill Him Anyway.

As appellate judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi wrote in a dissenting opinion in the Indiana case, “A government exercises its greatest power when it ends a person’s life. As I see it, such severe and irreversible punishment on behalf of ‘the people’ must be observable to comply with the Constitution.”

Lifting the media ban is the only dignified thing Indiana can do, not only for the condemned but also for the people being asked to fund irreversible punishments.

The post Indiana Banned Press From Executions for “Dignity.” It Actually Serves Repression. appeared first on The Intercept.

Tom Steyer, a hedge-fund billionaire and philanthropist, won the group’s endorsement on Monday. Our Revolution said its decision to back Steyer was driven in part by the shakeup over Rep. Eric Swalwell’s exit and fear that if progressives fail to consolidate around a candidate, they’ll hand the gubernatorial seat to a Republican.

“While yes, he is a billionaire, and that’s a real and important concern, it’s equally important to recognize how he’s used his wealth and power,” said Our Revolution Executive Director Joseph Geevarghese.

Steyer, he said, is the candidate most ideologically aligned with his group’s pledge to fight corporate power in politics — and the most likely to win.

“The worst thing that could happen is a Republican winning,” Geevarghese said. “Strategically, Steyer and his campaign is best positioned to make sure that does not happen.”

When California voters cast their ballots in the June 2 primary, the two leading candidates will advance to the general election — no matter their party affiliation. Since January, polling has shown two Republicans candidates — former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco — in the lead. President Donald Trump endorsed Hilton earlier this month. 

Related

Swift Swalwell Fallout Suggests the Democrats Have Finally Learned From Epstein

Left-leaning voters remain split across a wide Democratic field, with Swalwell and Steyer as frontrunners until last week. Swalwell pulled ahead in some polls in March, before dropping out of the race and resigning from Congress last week amid a series of allegations of sexual assault and harassment. 

Since Swalwell’s exit, Steyer has risen in polls, along with former Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif. But with Republicans still leading, progressives are now grappling with how best to achieve their policy priorities in a pool of candidates from which a clear favorite has yet to emerge. 

Geevarghese said that Steyer aggressively sought Our Revolution’s endorsement throughout the race. Porter also sought the endorsement, but hasn’t pulled ahead or demonstrated a clear path to victory, Geevarghese said. 

Porter, a progressive who flipped a Republican seat in Orange County campaigning on fighting corporate power, faced backlash last year after videos surfaced of her yelling at a staffer during a television interview. While she has the longest progressive record in office of the Democratic candidates in the field, left voters haven’t necessarily been convinced by her campaign. Porter has been endorsed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., former New York Rep. Mondaire Jones, Emily’s List, End Citizens United, and several California unions, but has hovered behind behind Hilton, Bianco, Swalwell, and Steyer in recent polling. 

“We do have a concern about whether she would be the stronger candidate in the field to consolidate for progressives,” Geevarghese said. He added that even before the implosion of Swalwell’s campaign, Our Revolution would not have supported Swalwell.

After previously having coalesced around Swalwell, some allies of Gov. Gavin Newsom are now considering backing another more moderate Democrat, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra. Becerra has also risen in polling since Swalwell’s exit. 

Related

Why Is Billionaire Tom Steyer Running for President?

Steyer has spent $120 million of his own money on ads for himself, more than any other campaign in the country this cycle, Politico reported. While he’s been mostly known in politics for his advocacy on climate change and a failed 2020 presidential bid that cost him more than $300 million, Steyer has leaned heavily into economic populism during his gubernatorial bid. He says he will support a wealth tax and has called for billionaires and corporations to pay more in taxes. He has also focused much of his criticism on Trump. 

One policy shift since his failed presidential campaign is Steyer’s position on single-payer health care. 

“In 2019, I didn’t think we needed single-payer health care,” Steyer said in a campaign video earlier this month. “Boy was I wrong, and boy was Bernie right. I’ve looked at the data. We don’t have a choice. For us to provide health care to everybody who needs it, we’ve got to go to single-payer. And there’s no other way.”

Geevarghese said Our Revolution, which counts the most members in California after New York, sees the race as an opportunity to elect someone who will both push back on Trump while advancing an aggressive progressive policy agenda at the state level. The group is also backing a Sanders 2020 campaign alum to run California’s insurance system, and working to pass a proposed state tax on billionaires via ballot measure. Steyer is the candidate most aligned with those priorities, Geevarghese said. 

“He’s been a partner in the movement,” Geevarghese said. “Most billionaires have used their wealth and privilege to lock in the status quo. And Tom has done the opposite, right? He is actively using his position to upset the system.” 

Steyer has given millions of dollars to philanthropic ventures over the years, including funding research on sustainable energy and launching a PAC to help elect candidates running on fighting climate change. Steyer has also faced criticism for benefiting from policies meant to help billionaires pay lower taxes and having an investment firm with money in the Cayman Islands, a known tax haven. 

Our Revolution is Steyer’s first major endorsement from a national progressive group. He’s also been endorsed by the California Teachers Association, another progressive advocacy organization called Courage California, and four Democratic state assembly members. 

“We stand a risk of giving California to the Republicans. And that would be the worst outcome possible,” Geevarghese said. “Democrats could do themselves in here and be their worst enemy.” 

The post Progressive Group Founded by Bernie Sanders Endorses Billionaire for California Governor appeared first on The Intercept.

The risks are real. Customs and Border Protection agents have the authority to examine travelers’ devices. In June, for instance, federal agents denied a Norwegian tourist entry to the U.S. after looking through his phone. (Authorities claim they turned him away for admitted drug use; he says it was over a meme depicting Vice President JD Vance as a bald baby.)

Immigration and Customs Enforcement have already started targeting travelers, with agents in plain clothes forcefully detaining a mother in front of her young daughter at San Francisco International Airport on Sunday after a tip from the Transportation Security Administration.

If you’re flying, take these steps to reduce the likelihood that your sensitive information is compromised at the airport.

Don’t Bring Your Usual Devices

The only surefire way to keep your devices from being searched and seized is to simply not bring them with you on your trip. If you can’t leave them at home, consider mailing them to and from your destination.

Related

Marine Detained in Minneapolis Says Feds Copied His Phone Without a Warrant

Another option is to leave devices that contain sensitive information at home and instead bring throwaway travel devices you’re willing to have searched or confiscated. This doesn’t need to be an expensive proposition. You can reformat and repurpose an old phone or tablet, or purchase refurbished older models that are comparatively cheap. Then buy a temporary SIM card or eSIM so that you’re not using your usual number. Remember to let contacts know that for the duration of your trip you’ll be reachable at a different number.

Create a travel account for these devices. You can do so by starting a fresh account in the App Store or Google Play. This should ensure that if you’re forced to log into your device by authorities at the airport, the only information they’ll find is data you’ve put on this specific piece of hardware. CBP agents are supposed to only be able to look at data that’s local on the phone.

If you have anything sensitive in your accounts (say, emails from confidential sources) or anything you believe federal agents could consider damning (such as party pics or memes), be sure not to sync your apps, files, and settings onto your travel devices.

Disable Biometrics and Power Off

Regardless of whether you opt to bring your usual devices or specialized travel burners, take these steps to lock down your devices.

Related

Washington Post Raid Is a Frightening Reminder: Turn Off Your Phone’s Biometrics Now

First and foremost, disable any biometrics, like using your face or fingerprint, to unlock your phone. Instead, set up a unique and random alphanumeric passcode; eight characters consisting of random digits and numbers is a good start. Be cautious of entering your passcode in open view of surveillance cameras. Use one hand to shield your screen and the thumb of your other hand to put in your passcode. Consider using privacy screens on your devices to further diminish the chance of wandering eyes noticing things that are none of their business.

When going through security checkpoints, turn your devices completely off. Don’t just put them to sleep — fully shut them down. Though having a locked device is better than having it be unlocked, turning it off is best, as this makes it much harder for data to be forensically recovered from your devices.

That means you’ll need to obtain paper copies of boarding passes, rather than rely on digital versions stored in a device wallet or via your airline’s app.

If you’re asked to unlock your devices, you can say “no.” But doing so may result in being delayed and hassled, and your device could be confiscated. You should receive paperwork attesting to the confiscation and establishing chain of custody (this is called CBP Form 6051D, or a custody receipt for detained property). As the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, it may be months before your devices are returned — or even for an indefinite period of time if agents believe there is evidence of a crime.

Delete Files and Log Out

To practice what’s known in security circles as “defense in depth,” it’s best to think of your digital security as an onion: If an outer layer is peeled off, you want there to be a good second layer to minimize the damage to the core. To that end, assume that even if you have a strong passphrase and have powered off your device, someone may still be able to find a way in. Your travel devices should, therefore, minimize the amount of sensitive information they store. In that case, even if someone manages to break through the outer layer, the information exposed would be trivial.

If you use a password manager — a specialized app that securely stores your passwords — put it into a “travel mode,” limiting the passwords it will reveal for the duration of your trip. Remove access to sensitive accounts that you very likely won’t have a reason to need to access during your travels; for example, removing your work email if you’re going on vacation, or leaving and deleting sensitive Signal chats, like local ICE watch groups.

Log out of or delete apps you won’t need while traveling. You can reinstall and log back in when you are safely away from the airport. Remember to remove them once again when you’re on your way back — and keep in mind that this may lead to some apps deleting your history.

Finally, be sure to prune your contacts to remove any that are sensitive, such as sources, if you’re a journalist. If you have sensitive materials on your devices that you’ll need to access during your travels, use a tool like Cryptomator to encrypt them and upload them to a cloud drive, then delete the files from your devices. You can download them when you reach your destination.

These extra steps are undoubtedly a bit of a pain, but any inconvenience would pale in comparison to the potential damage if sensitive information is disclosed during your time in the airport.

The post How to Keep ICE Agents Out of Your Phone at the Airport appeared first on The Intercept.

In the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, local health workers have been battling the devastating virus without adequate supplies, testing materials, or international support. The outbreak is further complicated by the rare strain of the disease, known as Bundibugyo, that standard field tests often miss and for which there are no vaccines or therapeutics. At least 62 people in Congo and one in Uganda have died according to WHO, but experts say this is likely a significant undercount due to the outbreak emerging in a remote, war-torn region.

“The outbreak had a big head start, and we’re still behind, but under the leadership of the Government of DRC, we are catching up,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, told journalists on Wednesday, after a visit to the epicenter of the outbreak. African health officials say that it might take nine months or more to get a handle on the outbreak.

Experts say Trump administration policies — like dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development and withdrawing from WHO — have undermined global health security and negatively impacted the response to the outbreak. The U.S. had been the largest provider of humanitarian assistance and health sector support to the Democratic Republic of Congo, funding more than 70 percent of humanitarian work there, according to a 2025 report from Physicians for Human Rights which noted the aid cuts have “severely harmed” public health and humanitarian efforts, including infectious disease control. The Trump administration has reportedly even barred some U.S. health officials from communicating with counterparts at WHO.

In the face of criticism of a U.S. failure to quickly respond to the Ebola outbreak, State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott lashed out at WHO and heaped praise on his boss. “The security concerns in the area – which President Trump has taken unprecedented steps to address – and the WHO’s delay in informing the world of concerns until May 15 has had an impact,” he told The Intercept.

Related

Ebola Outbreak Rages After Trump Gutted Global Health Safeguards

Public health experts say Piggot’s response exposes a fundamental confusion about how authorities combat infectious disease. “It reveals a lack of understanding about how international health regulations work and what a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ actually is,” Margaret Harris, a former senior WHO official and a medical doctor who responded to Ebola outbreaks in West Africa in the mid-2010s and Congo in the late 2010s, told The Intercept.

On May 5, WHO issued an alert of a high-mortality outbreak in Congo’s Ituri Province, which included deaths among healthcare workers. On May 14, blood samples were finally analyzed across the country, in the capital, Kinshasa. A day later, the analysis confirmed Bundibugyo virus disease, a strain of Ebola.

Dr. Mohamed Yakub Janabi, the WHO Regional Director for Africa, explained that affected nations are the lead actors. “WHO does not declare. It’s the member states who declare,” he told The Intercept on Thursday. “On the 15th, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda declared. On the 16th, we declared the presence of Ebola, and on the 17th, Director-General Tedros declared this as a ‘public health emergency of international concern.’”

Dr. Marie Roseline Belizaire, WHO Africa’s Director of Emergency Preparedness and Response, further explained that under the well-defined protocols, states have the obligation to declare an outbreak after which the WHO informs the rest of the world and begins providing support. “There is a clear, well-defined methodology and it is clearly outlined in the international health regulations,” she told The Intercept.

The response is markedly quicker than in some previous outbreaks. During the 2014–16 Ebola crisis in West Africa — when more than 28,000 people were infected and more than 11,000 died in the largest ever outbreak of the disease — WHO became aware that Ebola was spreading in Guinea in March 2014 but did not declare a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” until almost five months later.

Related

CDC Didn’t Tell New York About Resident on Hantavirus-Plagued Cruise

Blame for any lag in response is not the fault of WHO, argued Harris, noting that USAID previously supported NGOs and healthcare workers in rural communities on the front lines of such outbreaks. “Dr. Tedros declared it without even calling the emergency committee together, so he wasted no time once they had information about the extent of the outbreak and the fact that clearly it had been running silently for a long time,” said Harris. “But the silence of the outbreak is not something you could lay at the feet of WHO. You lay that at the feet of a very fragile health system in the middle of a conflict that the rest of the world should be doing something to stop.”

The number of suspected Ebola cases in Congo has been reduced from over 1,000 last week to 116 as teams work through a backlog of tests. Experts say many suspected cases turned out to be malaria. This large number of people with untreated malaria demonstrates, they note, the chronic healthcare deficiencies in the region and a need for a comprehensive focus on public health there.

“We also need to remember that Ebola is only one health threat among many that these communities face,” said Tedros. “One of the things I heard from the community leaders is that they worry that the response to Ebola may take resources away from the health and humanitarian services they rely on for their many other needs.”

The Trump administration has faced scrutiny for pouring money into an Ebola quarantine and treatment center for infected Americans being built in Kenya, as a group of distinguished physicians, nurses, public health professionals, and humanitarian workers, including former top officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called for Americans exposed to Ebola to be brought home for treatment. “We are deeply concerned by reports that the United States government is pursuing a policy under which American citizens with Ebola exposures requiring quarantine, isolation, or medical care would be transferred to a facility in Kenya,” they wrote in a letter to Congress, noting the “profound legal, ethical, and human rights concerns associated with preventing American citizens from returning home for care or diverting them to third-country facilities.”

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio doubled down on plans to bar Americans with Ebola from being treated in the U.S. “We cannot and will not allow any ‌cases of Ebola to enter the United States,” he said.

“It really sends the wrong message — that it’s a terrifying thing that you can’t possibly allow to arrive at your borders,” said Harris. Kenya has never experienced an Ebola outbreak, making it a perplexing choice of location for a treatment facility.

The U.S. could have set up a facility in Congo, Harris said, which has the most experience and expertise, having stopped 16 previous outbreaks. Or it could bring its citizens home for treatment and quarantine.

“If you’re going to not treat U.S. citizens on-site in DRC, bring them back to the U.S.” said Harris. “You’ve got one of the best health systems in the world, and you’ve got some of the brightest and best in the world in your country. So why aren’t you mobilizing them and showing that America is truly great?”

The post Trump Administration Tries to Shift Blame for Ebola Response appeared first on The Intercept.

Staffers at the beloved agency were kept in the dark about why their supervisors were ordered to cap scores. In audio obtained by The Intercept, however, a top regional director said the directives came from top officials in Washington, including the budget office led by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought.

Don Striker, a veteran agency leader who oversees parks in Alaska such as Denali National Park, said the new performance review process was crafted outside the NPS.

“To the extent that they continue to do things that many of us feel are the reign of terror, that deliberately impact our morale in hopes that they’ll drive us out, that’s OMB and that’s OPM, right?” Striker said, referring to Vought’s Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management. “And that’s what the performance thing came under.”

“Ultimately,” Striker went on, “it was not in the hands anymore even of the National Park Service political leadership or the Department of the Interior political leadership.”

NPS officials told supervisors to limit the number of 4s and 5s they give to employees, on a 1-to-5 scale. The period over which employees were evaluated was also compressed to 90 days, the minimum allowable under the law, after changes imposed by Washington.

When the directive to limit high scores was handed down in December, some employees had already received their annual ratings. In response, some supervisors downgraded scores — occasionally with a note recognizing the original, higher score.

Employees in Alaska and California said their parks’ supervisors decided to respond to the mandate by handing out 3s across the board.

“It’s just another method of trying to bring morale down,” said one NPS employee, who asked for anonymity to protect their livelihood, of the new performance review standards. “A lot of people came into the government to do good work. They didn’t come into the government to compete with others on who is the best across multiple parks with different missions.”

In an unsigned statement, the National Park Service did not address Striker’s comments to staffers.

“Consistent with OPM’s government-wide performance management guidance, we are working to normalize ratings across the agency,” the agency said. “The goal of this effort is to ensure fair, consistent performance evaluations across all of our parks and programs.”

“Willing to Shoot Hostages”

At one point during the town-hall-style meeting in Anchorage last month, Striker worried aloud that his comments might be leaked.

The performance review overhaul had already set off a firestorm among NPS employees, who have generally considered themselves relatively insulated from layoffs thanks to their agency’s popularity.

While higher numerical ratings of 4s and 5s can lead to employee bonuses, several NPS staffers who spoke with The Intercept said they were more concerned that keeping scores down was a way of making layoffs easier.

At the meeting, agency officials cast the directive as an effort to tamp down on bureaucratic grade inflation. More than 60 percent of federal employees received a 4 or 5 on their performance reviews, according to a 2016 Government Accountability Office report.

The Interior Department has said that the new directive is meant to “normalize” ratings and thus “ensure fair, consistent performance evaluations across all of our parks and programs.”

Striker echoed that in his comments to NPS employees in Alaska, who were gathered both in person and through teleconferencing.

The agency was trying to “baseline” performance ratings, Striker said, “to make sure that we’re consistent, not just within our individual work groups.”

Related

Trump Fired Park Rangers — But Not the Ones Who Tend to the White House

Employees who spoke with The Intercept on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs said that many staffers have been doing the work of two or three colleagues over the past year, thanks to a round of resignations and layoffs of probationary employees inspired by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency.

As Striker was questioned about the directive to shorten the period over which performances were evaluated, he acknowledged that the 2025 review process had been a “cluster.” He grew more defensive when asked what he was doing to represent Alaska employees of the NPS in Washington, arguing that it was best not to provoke decision-makers.

“People back in D.C. are willing to shoot hostages,” he said. “That’s a phrase that I’ve heard. Let’s not put ourselves in that breach. It’s just not worth it. It’s just not worth it.”

“Don’t Let The Door Hit You”

Striker said his message for employees frustrated by the performance review process was: “Get over it.”

The consequences of resisting directives from Washington could be dire, he said.

“Literally, I do not want to sugarcoat this,” he said. “You can either do the job, or don’t let the door hit you in the butt. That’s where we are as an organization. I would rather you not offer yourself up, to put yourselves in that position.”

At times during the town hall meeting, employees chortled and interrupted Striker.

“It was definitely pretty tense at times,” said one employee who attended the meeting. “People were pretty frustrated with the way the employee evaluation had gone.”

Broader Change

In June, the Office of Personnel Management instructed federal agencies to ensure that they do not give out a “disproportionate” number of high employee ratings.

In December, the outlet Government Executive reported that the office was preparing to expressly limit the number of top scores.

Critics of President Donald Trump’s administration say the rollout of the new ratings system at the Park Service could herald broader changes across the federal government.

“The National Park Service is enforcing this with great vigor, which is surprising and disappointing given how many staff the National Park Service has lost in the last year, and how overworked the staff currently are,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “The idea that people can only get basically satisfactory performance reviews is bad management. It’s not true, and it’s terrible for morale.”

The post Trump Admin “Deliberately” Tanking Morale to Get Parks Staff to Quit, Official Says in Leaked Tape appeared first on The Intercept.

The crypto industry is putting hopes for its revival in a long-awaited bill, under debate in the Senate, called the Clarity Act, which could open the doors to Wall Street investments.

But there is one thing ironically standing in its way: Trump’s giant crypto haul.

The naked self-enrichment has turned crypto into a prime example of presidential corruption.

The result is that even crypto’s most staunch Democratic allies will find it hard to back a crypto wishlist like the Clarity Act, which will need support from at least seven Senate Democrats to overcome a filibuster.

Take crypto stalwarts like centrist Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., the chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, who issued a statement demanding that any crypto bill include ethics provisions to stop Trump’s crypto profiteering.

With the industry poised to spend tens of millions more on the midterm elections, however, Gillibrand and other centrist Democrats may yet be tempted to sign off on window dressing instead of a crackdown, said crypto critics.

Related

This Commission That Regulates Crypto Could Be Just One Guy: An Industry Lawyer

“Sen. Gillibrand and too many of her colleagues prioritize and spend enormous time pushing crypto’s special interest agenda, which is to get legitimized by the weakest possible law and regulated by the smallest, most underfunded, least capable, and most capture-able financial regulator,” Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of the nonprofit Better Markets, said in a statement last Monday. “That is presumably because the crypto industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in campaigns to buy friends and attempt to get crypto’s special interest agenda enacted.”

Gillibrand has dismissed those criticisms. In a statement of her own last week, she expressed her desire to both advance the bill and crack down on Trump.

“We cannot let self-dealing destroy an opportunity to strengthen consumer protections, crack down on illicit finance, and expand economic opportunity for the millions of Americans our financial system has left behind,” Gillibrand said. “The time to act is now — and that must include ethics reforms that prohibit members of Congress, the president, and their spouses from cashing in on their office.”

Declining Sector Hangs Hopes on Clarity Act

For crypto, the numbers are sobering. Bitcoin soared from roughly $60,000 just before Trump’s election to about twice that by October of last year. Since then, it and other digital assets have cratered. Bitcoin now trades back around $63,000 a token.

Related

Trump Is Rewriting History to Justify His Sketchy Pardon of a Crypto King

The market’s gyrations did not stop Trump and his family members from profiting handsomely off the $TRUMP meme coin and other ventures. His roughly $1.4 billion of crypto profits last year meant that he cleared more than the largest publicly traded company in the industry, Coinbase, according to crypto commentator Scott Melker. The White House has defended Trump’s crypto windfall as legal, a point even his critics concede is likely true.

Crypto’s fortunes now appear to hinge largely on whether Congress passes the Clarity Act, which is intended to create an overall regulatory framework for the industry.

“If the bill passed, you would probably see a bump for the industry,” said Mark Hays, the associate director for cryptocurrency and financial technology at Americans for Financial Reform and Demand Progress. “So much of crypto rides on sentiment, and if the bill were passed and signed into law, you would likely see an increase in prices just based on that sentiment alone.”

One sign of how much of the industry is placing its bets on Congress came in a recent quarterly earnings call held by Coinbase. Analysts asked the company’s executives several times how the Clarity Act would affect their bottom line. The company’s executives said that it could mean that Wall Street, which has been reluctant to dive headlong into the industry, will finally start to spend on crypto.

Passing the law, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said, would “just unlock a lot of institutional capital that’ll flow into the space broadly.”

That is one of the outcomes that crypto skeptics fear most. If crypto becomes integrated with the economy rather than a speculative sideshow, they say, it risks taking down the entire system in a crash.

Democrats Holding the Keys

The only thing standing between crypto and its top priority are Senate Democrats. The House of Representatives, where crypto needs only a bare majority, already overwhelmingly passed last year a version of the Clarity Act with Democratic support. In the Senate, however, there are enough Democrats to block passage of the law with a filibuster. The question is whether they will.

Crypto needs to win over seven Democrats to beat a filibuster, or eight if Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remains absent due to illness.

Progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., have expressed broad concerns that the law could lead to the next financial crash. Centrists like Gillibrand, meanwhile, have voiced narrower concerns. One of their biggest hang-ups with the legislation, they say, is the question of whether it will rein in Trump’s crypto ventures.

Gillibrand occupies a powerful position in the party: She serves as the caucus’s top fundraiser as chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And she has positioned herself as a leader in Clarity Act negotiations, despite not serving on the relevant committees.

Asked last month about the negotiations over the bill at the Aspen Ideas Festival — a cozy gathering of politicos and business executives in the Colorado mountain town — Gillibrand said she was working hard to overcome the ethics obstacle.

“We’re working hand in glove with Republicans,” Gillibrand said. “We’re negotiating with staff from the White House so that everyone is clear about what the bill is going to say, and we’re going to do our best to land that plane.”

Gillibrand’s public statements have repeatedly telegraphed her desire to see some version of the legislation passed. Gillibrand says it is urgent to get consumer protections on the books. Observers say the urgency may also be motivated by the industry’s massive campaign war chest.

Related

AIPAC, AI, Crypto, and Gambling Are Hiding Their Big Election Spends

Over one-third of the corporate money spent on this year’s elections so far has come from the crypto industry, according to a recent report from the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen. That amounts to $189 million, including $82 million routed through a single industry super PAC called Fairshake, which is backed by Coinbase.

Rick Claypool, the research director for Public Citizen’s president’s office, said that as chair of the DSCC, Gillibrand is keenly aware of crypto’s campaign spending potential.

“I’m sure it’s top of mind,” Claypool told The Intercept. “Part of the whole goal of the corporate crypto spending is to make sure that lawmakers in general, but also in particular those who are in fundraising, leadership positions, think of the industry before they think of voters.”

Other Democrats tipped as maybes on the bill include Sen. Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland and Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who last month nudged other Democrats on the banking committee to vote for a draft of the bill, along with a swath of the caucus’s more centrist members.

What Ethics?

It’s unclear what sort of ethics restrictions Republicans and Democrats have been working on behind closed doors.

The final text of the bill has yet to drop, despite a promise from Bitcoin evangelist Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wy., that it would be released over the July 4 weekend. The industry’s deadlines for passing the law keep slipping. Its best chance may be to secure passage before the Senate leaves August 10 for an extended period of work in their home states.

Hays said senators should ignore the industry’s artificial deadlines. His group recently released a poll suggesting that most voters are concerned about the crypto industry’s influence in Washington.

“Yes, Democrats are looking over their shoulder, but I think they should be reading the room and saying, ‘Wait a second, is this really a priority?’” Hays said. “Or, is this the kind of pay-to-play politics that have gotten so many voters frustrated in the first place?”

Correction: July 13, 2026, 8:59 a.m. ET
An earlier version of this article stated that Donald Trump disclosed his $1.4 billion in income from crypto last week; it was disclosed on June 30.

The post Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Wants to Save Crypto — But Trump Windfall Is a Political Obstacle appeared first on The Intercept.

A provision tucked near the end of the GOP’s massive budget bill — at page 1,081 of the 1,082-page text circulated late Sunday — would double the maximum prison sentence for leaking tax returns to 10 years and increase possible fines from $5,000 to $250,000 per violation.

Boosting penalties for leakers may seem an odd fit for a budget bill, much like the “nonprofit killer” provision that was recently nixed without explanation. Because of their tenuous relationship to fiscal matters, the provisions potentially aren’t allowed under the rules for Congress’s budget reconciliation process.

Just don’t ask the main proponent of increasing the penalties for tax return leaks, Republican Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri, if these provisions were appropriate to include.

“Wish I could be helpful, but that’s a question for the Senate parliamentarian,” replied Smith’s communications director, J.P. Freire, by email.

Last session, Smith sponsored a stand-alone bill with identical proposed changes to the tax code that passed the House of Representatives last year but failed to advance in the Senate. Smith is one of President Donald Trump’s main surrogates on Capitol Hill for the budget bill and is also chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, which included his proposal about tax record leaks in its section of the budget bill.

Critics wonder whether increasing prison sentences for journalists’ sources is the best use of legislators’ time as the White House works with House Republicans to push the budget toward the Senate. The proposal would also increase criminal penalties for those who “print or publish in any manner” leaked tax return information, although prosecutors looking to go after journalists and outlets directly would face constitutional hurdles under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedent.

“Of course, tax information is highly sensitive and there are legitimate reasons to protect financial privacy,” wrote Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, in an email. “But there are also times when it’s highly newsworthy — for example, when a president keeps secrets about his finances and business dealings abroad, or when powerful politicians and billionaires evade taxation.”

“There is no need to drastically heighten existing penalties, which, as far as I know, have been largely effective deterrents aside from cases where whistleblowers felt compelled by their consciences to expose impropriety.”

Republicans’ fixation on tax return leaks focuses on one person: Charles Littlejohn, who pleaded guilty in January 2024 to leaking Trump’s tax returns to the New York Times and a cache of tax return data for thousands of wealthy individuals to ProPublica.

Related

He Leaked Trump’s Tax Returns. Will Biden Protect Him?

In its report advancing Smith’s bill last summer, the Ways and Means Committee made Littlejohn the main character and Trump a pitiful victim. During Littlejohn’s trial, Republican members of the committee wrote to the federal judge to demand that he spend five years in prison, the maximum under the current statute, instead of 10 months as recommended by the federal sentencing guidelines.

Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden nominee, did as Republicans suggested and sentenced Littlejohn to the five-year maximum, which he is currently appealing.

But for many Republicans, Littlejohn got off too easy.  

“Given the lack of deterrence created by the law as is, as well as the concern that such an unprecedented data breach could result in such a disproportionate charge and sentence, the Committee felt it was necessary to increase the penalties,” reads the committee report about Smith’s bill.

But 10 years is the kind of prison sentence beyond that given to many people convicted of crimes, like possessing child sexual abuse material and certain firearms offenses, said Christopher A. Wellborn, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“Do we really need to have imprisonment for up to 10 years on something like this?” Wellborn asked.

During his sentencing, Littlejohn’s attorneys argued that he leaked the tax return data “out of a deep, moral belief that the American people had a right to know the information and sharing it was the only way to effect change.” But just like the Espionage Act, the tax code’s leak provisions have no public interest defense.

“Leakers’ motives, and whether their disclosures serve the public good, should at least be a mitigating factor,” Stern said. “Whistleblowers should not be treated the same as malicious actors. Lawmakers and judges should focus on stopping tax evasion by the rich and powerful, not on disproportionate punishments for whistleblowers who expose how existing law is failing Americans.” 

The proposals to stiffen penalties for tax return leakers are part of Republicans’ budget bill, which is currently advancing through the reconciliation mechanism. Under the so-called “Byrd rule,” named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, matters that are “extraneous” to the budget and fiscal matters cannot be enacted via reconciliation.

Earlier this month, the leaker provision was scored as having “negligible” impact on revenue by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

“That will hurt Republicans’ arguments” under the Byrd rule, predicted Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, who has studied reconciliation and the Byrd rule, which is applied by the Senate’s parliamentarian.  

In 2021, for example, the parliamentarian nixed Democrats’ attempt to increase the federal minimum wage in a reconciliation bill, ruling that any impact of the change on the federal budget was “merely incidental” to the underlying policy intent, which violates the Byrd rule.

All of the Republican budget bill’s proposals regarding tax leaks — to increase the maximum sentence, increase the maximum fine, and a third proposal that “clarifies” that each leak is a separate violation for each taxpayer whose information is disclosed — are likely “Byrdable,” according to Kogan, especially the increase in prison sentence.

“Slapping on a jail sentence is about punishment for offenses, not about changing dollars and cents coming in or out of the government,” Kogan wrote. “Of the three parts, I feel that this is least defensible under Byrd.”

“But if I were the Parliamentarian and doing my best to advise based on precedent, I would nix all three of these.”

The post Why Does GOP Budget Bill Focus on Punishing People Who Leak Tax Returns? appeared first on The Intercept.

Billionaire Jeff Bezos’S Washington Post on Wednesday cut one-third of its staff, including around 300 members of the newsroom, a journalistic bloodbath that marks a shift from the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” era back into darkness.

Defenders of the executive team’s decisions have cited declining subscriptions and revenue as the reasons why the company needs to tighten its belt. But for Bezos, who could leverage his net worth, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $250 billion, to run the paper at a loss for generations to come, these cuts to a trusted news organization are an ideological, rather than commercial, choice — and the Amazon founder is more responsible than anyone for the change in the Washington Post’s fortunes. 

After promising Post employees that he’d take a hands-off approach to the newsroom and let journalists do their jobs when he bought the Post in 2013, Bezos dramatically changed course in late October 2024 when he killed the paper’s planned endorsement of Kamala Harris for president over Donald Trump. That made Bezos, and the Washington Post itself, enemies of the liberal audience the newsroom had been cultivating for a decade and beyond. More than 200,000 people canceled their subscriptions in the wake of Bezos’s intervention, a massive loss of revenue for an already struggling business. 

Reporters at the paper could see what was coming and appealed to readers not to punish the newsroom. “Please don’t cancel your subscriptions,” wrote Amanda Morris, a disability reporter who resigned from the paper last May, in a prescient post. “It won’t impact Bezos — it hurts journalists and makes another round of layoffs more likely.”

Morris was right. Unsubscribing has had no effect on Bezos’s appeasing of Trump, and he has continued to go out of his way to flatter the 47th president. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s 2025 presidential inaugural committee, and Bezos attended the ceremony, one of a murderer’s row of tech billionaires who stood near the president on the dais in the Capitol rotunda, flanked by other Silicon Valley titans like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai. 

One month later, in February 2025, Bezos restructured the opinion section along explicitly ideological grounds, writing in a memo to staff: “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” 

It’s paying off. On Monday, two days before the layoffs, the billionaire welcomed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to his Blue Origin spaceport in Florida for a mutual backslapping affair — highlighting yet another Bezos business that’s benefiting from public money in the form of a Space Force contract worth more than $2 billion, which was announced last April. Hegseth posted on X that the company was “building The Arsenal of Freedom.”

Bezos replied that it was a “huge honor” to have Trump’s war chief to visit. “The whole team here was energized by your visit, and we’re excited to be doing our part to bring high-tech manufacturing back to America. Thank you!” he said.

Related

Apple Workers Are Livid That Tim Cook Saw “Melania” Movie Hours After CBP Killed Pretti

There’s always more than enough money to go around, except if you’re a working journalist. Amazon’s “Melania” debuted on January 30, just days before the layoffs; the documentary reportedly paid the first lady around $28 million of its $40 million budget, leading former executive Ted Hope, who helped start Amazon’s film division, to wonder: “How can it not be equated with currying favor or an outright bribe?”

The Washington Post isn’t the only newsroom to see the right-wing politics of its owner lead to backlash and a loss of revenue followed closely by cuts. At the Los Angeles Times, a similar dynamic played out after billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong declined to allow the paper to endorse Kamala Harris on October 22, 2024, just three days before Bezos did the same. 

Subscriptions dropped by the thousands, though not to the extent they did at the Post; in October 2025, as ownership sought a $500 million investment, they reported $50 million in losses attributed primarily to the time period after the non-endorsement. The LA Times has been hit with extensive layoffs in the newsroom, another example of employees paying the price for ownership playing at right-wing politics. 

Related

Bari Weiss Is Doing Exactly What She Was Installed at CBS to Do

This rightward turn, with job cuts framed as a necessary evil to tighten up a floundering business, was also on display at CBS News, where Trump ally David Ellison appointed conservative ideologue Bari Weiss to run the show after his media company Skydance bought the network last fall. One of the first orders of business was cutting staff, which came a month after the purchase.

In each case, the driving forces appear to be the political priorities of billionaires and their desire to avoid Trump’s wrath and curry his favor — while massively benefiting their bottom line with media mergers and lucrative government contracts. Soon-Shiong’s multibillion-dollar fortune is built on the health care industry, particularly on drugs he’s developed like Anktiva, which rely on FDA approval. Ellison is shamelessly ingratiating himself to Trump for more media merger approval, a strategy that’s working for the whole family: Patriarch Larry just led a bid to take over American operations of TikTok with the president’s blessing.

Bezos in particular has an interest in keeping Trump happy. The president won’t hesitate to punish enemies or the disloyal by yanking federal contracts, and AWS, Amazon’s web services division, relies on the government for billions of its annual revenue. The relationship between the White House and Amazon has already sparked outrage, especially over AWS’s contracting with ICE for more than $140 million, but money in the bank speaks louder than protests against one of the world’s largest and most ubiquitous companies. 

Amazon continues to rake in hundreds of millions annually — at least — in federal dollars through its cloud contracts, not only for ICE, but also in agencies and departments across the government. While there’s no solid number for the average annual value all these contracts amount to, it’s enough that AWS was able to promise $1 billion in savings to the federal government in 2025 through a cloud updating and consolidation deal through the end of 2028. 

Those staggering profits add insult to injury for Bezos’ now-former employees at the Post, who could have kept their jobs in perpetuity if the billionaire valued the Fourth Estate as much as he’s claimed. Former editor David Maraniss told the New Yorker that Bezos “bought the Post thinking that it would give him some gravitas and grace that he couldn’t get just from billions of dollars, and then the world changed. Now I don’t think … he gives a flying fuck.”

The newsroom lost, effectively, its entire sports section on Wednesday, its photo desk, as well as most of its arts coverage. Promises to “restructure” the Metro desk with major cuts will leave Washington, one of the most important cities in the world, with a greatly diminished ability to report on the capital.

International coverage also sustained major losses. Despite immense public interest in covering conflicts in the regions, the Post’s Cairo bureau chief tweeted that she was laid off, along with “the entire roster” of Middle East editors and correspondents, and the Ukraine bureau was also reportedly axed. In one particularly stark example, reporter Lizzie Johnson was reporting from the front lines of the Ukraine war in Kyiv — with no dependable heat, power, or running water — when she was laid off. “I have no words,” Johnson posted to X. “I’m devastated.”

This is a crushing blow for the journalists who have lost their jobs. It’s also a real loss for the public at large. But despite his lofty blustering, the good of the public doesn’t matter to Bezos, nor to his ally in the White House. A rigorous, adversarial news media is not in the best interest of the ultra-wealthy and could perhaps even act as a check, however small, on their unending ambitions. Bezos has already reaped the material awards of this administration and will continue to — a few hundred livelihoods be damned.

Billionaires are only benevolent until they’re not, and they certainly can’t be trusted to “save” the news when their self-interest is at stake. The Washington Post layoffs only reinforces the need for a media that isn’t controlled by the capricious whims of the superrich, but one that serves the good of the public. Otherwise, we’re on our own.

The post The Bloodbath at Washington Post Is All Jeff Bezos’s Fault appeared first on The Intercept.

“Take a picture of a bus, if you see one, because it’s the last one you’ll see here in Cuba,” my taxi driver said. We were headed into Havana in his Chinese electric car during a trip I made to the island earlier this month.

The car is a novelty on Cuba’s crumbling streets, which are crowded with bikes and electric motorcycles and flanked by new solar parks and in-demand diesel generators. It’s also a lifesaver now more than ever amid a near-total oil blockade that has plunged the island’s residents into a profound state of uncertainty, fear, and hopelessness.

As the Trump administration starves Cuba of fuel in an attempt to force political and economic change on the island, conditions on the ground have grown more dire than I’ve ever witnessed in the 11 years I’ve been traveling there — including several years working as a journalist during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the country’s tourism-dependent economy was brought to a standstill.

Signs of the oil blockade are everywhere you look. Street corners are turning into trash dumps, transportation is prohibitively expensive, inflation is climbing, food is rotting in ports and refrigerators, and access to running water is intermittent, at best. 

A friend will not get to see his child be born, as his wife — one of many Cubans with dual Spanish citizenship — has flown across the Atlantic to give birth in Spain due to the dire state of Cuba’s state-run hospitals, once among the region’s best. 

Another friend with severe cataracts, who had undergone months of tests and lab work ahead of a surgery finally scheduled for February, learned the week before that it had been postponed indefinitely. Now, she can no longer see out of her left eye.

A third friend saw the cost of the wedding for which he’d been saving up for years double from one day to the next, as prices soared when the small reserves of fuel his vendors had got down to the last drops.

The Trump administration’s wager that depriving Cuba of oil would either provoke a mass uprising, browbeat the island’s authorities into subservience and a change in leadership, beget a free-market paradise — or some ill-defined combination of the three — is just the most recent in a series of “maximum-pressure” actions Secretary of State Marco Rubio has devised in an attempt to dislodge Cuba’s rulers from power, a longtime goal for him and for many Cuban Americans. 

Related

Pentagon Reveals Attacks in Latin America Are Just the Beginning

This campaign has been ongoing since Trump’s first term, when Rubio, the president’s de facto secretary of state for Latin America, helped restrict Americans’ ability to travel and send money to the island; cut off Cuba’s access to international finance; shutter the U.S. Embassy in Havana; and deploy dozens more sanctions over everything from hotel contracts and cruise lines to banking and investment, most of which were kept in place under the Biden administration. 

Now, in Trump’s second term, the maximum-pressure strategy for which Rubio has taken full credit has accelerated into full gear. Not only has the administration coerced Venezuela and Mexico, until recently Cuba’s two largest fuel suppliers, into halting oil shipments to the island, it has also pressured Central American and Caribbean countries to drop their medical services contracts with Cuba, privately encouraged regional neighbors to sever diplomatic ties with the country, and stopped issuing most visas for Cuban nationals, including for family reunification, scientific and business exchanges, humanitarian parole, and other purposes.

In part due to these sanctions, the island’s economy is projected to shrink by more than 7 percent in 2026, while over the past several years, Cuba’s infant mortality rate has nearly doubled, and some 20 percent of its population has left.

And yet, the Cuban people — adaptive, proud, and resilient as ever — have found ways to eke out a living on the island, despite being subjected to the longest and most comprehensive U.S. sanctions regime anywhere on Earth and stymied by insufficient Cuban government efforts to kickstart an outdated economy.

Thousands of private businesses, which have also been hamstrung by Trump’s oil siege, continue to sell imported, even American, goods, albeit at prices that are exorbitant for the majority of the population. Community projects, churches, and civil society organizations organize ad-hoc soup kitchens to feed the most vulnerable. Foreign governments, even those that have buckled under U.S. pressure like Mexico, continue to send vital aid to the island, as do U.S.-based activists, religious groups, and Cuban Americans.

Despite limited access to the most basic supplies, engineers are rolling out new solar infrastructure faster than any other country in the world, electrical technicians are restoring the country’s collapsed power grid even quicker than before, doctors are saving lives against all odds, and Cubans are inventing workarounds to conditions that seem totally unworkable.

Trump’s gambit is to once again make the island dependent on the United States by simultaneously engineering state collapse while controlling the resources entering the country’s nascent private sector. This strategy will only exacerbate rising inequality on the island by drawing clear lines around who gets to live and who is condemned to die.

Related

What Does Trump Want With Cuba?

As the president floats “taking over” Cuba by means “friendly” or not — amid secret negotiations rife with speculation, misinformation, and trial balloons — it’s those who depend the most on public services to survive, rather than well-connected, middle-class entrepreneurs, who will have no other choice but to seek refuge on U.S. shores or perish before making it that far, if the state collapses.

Despite these dire circumstances, Cubans are increasingly optimistic that a negotiated solution with the U.S. that avoids military action and tangibly improves quality of life on the island — not entirely dissimilar from the one President Barack Obama pursued a decade ago — might be possible.

While Rubio has disputed recent reports that the U.S. only seeks to remove Cuba’s president and keep the rest of its power structure intact, he also indicated he may be open to gradual, economic reforms on the island, as opposed to the maximalist, unconditional political changes he has long demanded — a red line for Cuban authorities. To prevent outright humanitarian collapse, the administration has authorized fuel sales, including from Venezuela, to Cuba’s private sector — some of which are already arriving — and sent humanitarian aid to hurricane-stricken eastern Cuba through the Catholic Church.

Cuban authorities — with their backs up against the wall and no assurances that a Russian crude oil tanker barreling toward the Caribbean won’t be intercepted by U.S. Coast Guard cutters off the island’s northeast coast — have responded to U.S. pressure by releasing political prisoners, loosening restrictions on private enterprise, and making important, if long-overdue, overtures to Cuba’s diaspora to reconcile with their homeland. Rubio has responded that these changes aren’t “dramatic” enough and the island needs “new leaders,” while other administration officials prepare indictments against Cuban leaders and threaten that the switch from negotiation to military action could be imminent.

No matter what agreement, if any, ultimately emerges between the two governments, what’s clear is that the Cuban people want a deal — whether economic or political — to happen now, not later. As the situation on the ground becomes increasingly unsustainable for the Cuban people, that may mean leaving in place for the time being the regime that Trump has promised to topple and allowing fuel to flow once again in exchange for a few meaningful concessions, even if further-reaching reforms get pushed down the road.

As prominent Republicans grow concerned about the potential for humanitarian catastrophe and a migration crisis brewing just off U.S. shores, nothing is stopping Trump from achieving the deal with Cuba he has always wanted — one that’s hammered out, as Rubio has said, by “mature and realistic” negotiators on both sides who understand the country “doesn’t have to change all at once.”

With tensions continuing to mount, military preparations underway on both sides, and Trump assuring he’ll be turning to Cuba “very soon,” it’s more urgent than ever that an agreement — the contours of which are still not publicly known — be reached as soon as possible. Countless Cuban lives may very well depend on it.

The post U.S. Oil Blockade Could Condemn Cubans to Die Without a Deal appeared first on The Intercept.

Rocks vs. Chips

When monsters square off, they are quick to showcase their asymmetrical superpowers.

Take Godzilla, for instance. Thanks to U.S. atomic testing in the Pacific, the dinosaur-like sea creature has explosive, radioactive breath that can destroy everything in its path. His archenemy Rodan, meanwhile, is a pterodactyl-like bird that can fly at supersonic speeds, a skill useful in avoiding atomic bad breath. Since the 1960s, the two giant monsters have duked it out across a series of Japanese films, causing much mayhem in the process.

Originally the product of Cold War fears of nuclear peril, these archetypal monsters can stand in for the principal geopolitical antagonists of today. Like their monster kin, China and the United States have very specific and complementary superpowers. China controls the majority of critical minerals in the world, with a special focus on rare earth elements. The United States has a technological edge when it comes to the most sophisticated semiconductors needed for artificial intelligence applications.

Put bluntly: China has the rocks, and America has the chips.

With these superpowers on display, the two countries have clashed in a series of trade negotiations, tense military standoffs, and high-level political meetings. They are engaged in a prolonged tug-of-war not to save the world — as in some comic-book universe — but in the service of their own national aggrandizement and transnational greed. While they dicker, the world slouches toward bedlam.

A Pause in Hostilities

When President Donald Trump met with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing in mid-May, the exchanges were unexpectedly cordial. The two countries had been engaged in an on-again, off-again war of tariffs since Trump had begun his second term, a conflict that threatened to spiral out of control. At the same time, the Chinese were deeply concerned about the impact of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran on international stability, given spiking oil prices and their ripple effects on the global economy.

Yet, at this meeting in China, the two leaders converged on a common goal of “constructive strategic stability.” In order to forge this condominium of superpowers — a G2 — Trump was willing to delay arms deliveries to Taiwan. He also greenlighted the sale of sophisticated (though not the most advanced) Nvidia computer chips to China. In turn, China agreed to increase its purchases from the United States, including 200 Boeing aircraft and $17 billion of agricultural goods each year through 2028.

Related

Anthropic Says We Must Stop Authoritarian AI. But What About Its Authoritarian Investors?

The hoopla surrounding the summit, generated by press offices on both sides, obscured the reality that the two countries completed few concrete bilateral deals. Trump did not secure long-term access to the critical minerals that China controls — specifically the rare earth elements that are essential to U.S. high-tech manufacturing and sophisticated military hardware — and the tech giants that accompanied Trump on the trip didn’t win any major concessions in the form of enhanced access to the Chinese market. Meanwhile, China failed to alter U.S. security policy in the Asia–Pacific region. The leaders of the new G2 might be expected to rethink or rework the global rules of the road, but this was not on the agenda in Beijing.

Still, the two superpowers stepped off the path of escalating confrontation. Perhaps more importantly, Trump has seemingly abandoned his earlier goal of decoupling the United States from the Chinese economy, which, along with ratcheting up containment of the “strategic competitor,” had become something of a bipartisan imperative.

For the time being at least, the world’s superpower monsters are not laying waste to the landscape around their feet. Given how much firepower they command, that’s no small achievement. The battle, however, continues to rage further afield in the mineral world.

Grabbing the Rocks

Rare earth elements, or REE, aren’t rare. But it can be quite difficult to extract any of these 17 unusual metals from their surrounding ores. The United States used to be the world’s leading extractor and processor of these resources, from a mine in California near the Nevada border. But that was back when REE were mostly used for such products as black-and-white televisions. The environmental damage caused by the extraction and processing — as well as the labor costs involved — impelled the United States, over time, to outsource operations to China. 

By the time REE had become indispensable to the manufacture of very powerful magnets used in everything from wireless iPhone chargers to the F-35 fighter jet, China was controlling upward of 60 percent of the extraction and 90 percent of the processing. It has filed more patents for the latest processing techniques than any other country. It has also expanded beyond digging up its own territory and, through its Belt and Road Initiative — a globe-spanning collection of interconnected infrastructure projects — secured access to mines overseas.

Related

Rio Tinto’s Madagascar Mine Promised Prosperity. It Tainted a Community.

In Tanzania, for instance, an Australian firm Peak Rare Earths discovered what may well be the largest untapped supply of REE in 2010. This is exactly what the United States and its allies had been looking for: ore that can be extracted and processed outside of China. Except that last year, the Chinese firm Shenghe Resources bought the Australian company — and the rights to the Tanzanian deposits — for a little more than $100 million. China is further cornering the market by importing ore from rare earth mines in Myanmar, exploiting new deposits in Brazil, and eying Malaysia and Indonesia for potential processing operations.

To guarantee access to the minerals that both the Pentagon and U.S. industry need, the Trump administration has ramped up the exploitation of U.S. REE deposits. Mountain Pass, the California mine previously shuttered after environmental lawsuits and Chinese outsourcing, restarted production in 2012, but it still couldn’t compete against China, which had flooded the market with REE to drive down prices. Last year, the Pentagon acquired a majority stake in MP Materials, the company that owns the mine, which now produces over 10 percent of the global supply of REE.

Trump has also pumped money into USA Rare Earths, which is developing the Round Top mine in Texas, which promises to rival the REE production of Mountain Pass. Even with an accelerated timeline, however, the new mine won’t start production before 2028. Meanwhile, the administration is playing the field: pouring money into a REE processing facility in Arizona, contracting with a similar operation in France, and hammering out supply contracts with a mining firm in Australia. This frenzied activity may lessen dependency on China but not eliminate it.

And it’s not just rare earth elements. China controls 95 percent of magnesium production, over 80 percent of tungsten, over 70 percent of graphite and silicon, and three-quarters of cobalt — minerals that are critical to pretty much all modern manufacturing. On the processing end, China is the leading refiner of 19 out of 20 of the most coveted minerals, with an average market share of 70 percent. And instead of being reliant on its control of raw materials and processed ores, China is also in command of the downstream production. For instance, it’s responsible for 94 percent of the manufacturing of the most powerful magnets that go into cars, computers, and medical equipment.

The new rush for “critical raw materials,” many of them essential for building out the infrastructure of a “clean energy” transition but also indispensable for the entire range of advanced military products to which the United States is addicted, has sharpened the competition between China and the United States throughout the mineral-rich Global South. Those countries generally see China as a willing provider of capital and finance. They view Trump — who has dismissed so much of the Global South as “shithole countries,” deported huge numbers of their citizens, and subjected nearly all of their governments to punishing tariffs — with considerable skepticism.

How long will it take for the United States to catch up and neutralize China’s mineral superpower? In the best-case scenario, America will only be able to meet half its need for rare earth elements by 2028, and it currently produces less than 1 percent of those powerful magnets. Until America catches up — or forges partnerships with other countries to meet its demand through initiatives such as the U.S.-led Pax Silica — China will be able to pinch off the supply of those key minerals more easily than Iran can close off the Strait of Hormuz.

Controlling the Chips

Silicon Valley has long been a byword for innovation: Apple’s iPhones, Google’s search engine, Facebook’s social media platform. But the heart of Silicon Valley was, at least originally, made out of silicon. Chips made the valley. In the 1980s, Japan produced semiconductors that were superior to anything American companies could get to market. Competition spurred Silicon Valley to leapfrog over Japan.

The chip-designer Nvidia began in the 1990s as a supplier of graphic processing units, or GPUs, for the video game industry. These Nvidia chips became, literally, the brain behind Microsoft’s Xbox. Later, they came to power Sony’s PlayStation 3, signaling that Silicon Valley had definitively surpassed its Japanese competitors.

Then Nvidia began developing the kind of hardware necessary for the next big tech revolution: artificial intelligence. The first major AI platform available to the public — ChatGPT — was built on the foundation of Nvidia’s next-generation GPUs. Suddenly, Nvidia was the most sought-after supplier and the most valuable company in the world, now worth more than $5 trillion.

Related

AI’s Imperial Agenda

It’s one thing to corner the market on the graphics necessary to play “Grand Theft Auto” or make the special effects of the 2021 “Godzilla vs. Kong” movie look terrifyingly real. It’s quite another to create the building blocks of the AI technology that is creeping into every corner of the economy, not to mention the military.

To maintain its economic and military edge, the United States has placed controls on the export of Nvidia’s most advanced semiconductors to China. It’s no surprise that, over the last six years, the People’s Liberation Army attempted hundreds of times to acquire those precious chips. To prevent China from producing their own, the Dutch also placed restrictions on the export of the machines used to print the chips.

There are two challenges to this strategy of restriction. The first is that, despite its name, Silicon Valley doesn’t actually manufacture the vast majority of these fancy computer chips. For more than 90 percent of advanced semiconductors, the world depends on Taiwan. It’s as if another monster has appeared on the scene with a superpower that can bring both Godzilla and Rodan to their knees.

The United States harbors a fear that the Chinese response to their chip dependency will be simply to invade Taiwan and take over its semiconductor industry. For its part, the Biden administration pushed through the CHIPS Act to re-shore computer chip manufacturing, which is turning Arizona into a real Silicon Valley. Intel and Taiwan’s TSMC are among the more than 75 firms building factories there, which will require considerable water (in a desert) and produce tons of “forever chemicals,” the synthetic compounds that do not break down naturally, polluting the environment and accumulating within people (amid a growing population).

Given Russia’s failure to seize Ukraine and the inability of the United States and Israel to achieve regime change in Iran, China is not likely to attempt a takeover of Taiwan any time soon. Instead, it has pursued a different approach, and this is the second problem with a restriction strategy. Prevented from acquiring Nvidia’s best chips, China is pouring money into making its own chip sector the best in the world.

Those considerable state investments produced a Sputnik moment in January 2025 when the Chinese company DeepSeek released its ChatGPT competitor. The big breakthrough, however, was behind the scenes: China was able to use its own domestically produced chips to create comparable AI results at a cheaper cost.

Private sector expenditures on AI in the United States still exceed China’s investments by a considerable margin. But the Trump administration’s cuts in science funding and restrictions on work visas will handicap U.S. technological progress for years and possibly decades. China, meanwhile, will likely have machines ready to produce what its AI models need by 2030, the target date Beijing has set to close the advanced chip gap.

The Sequel

Both China and the United States have landed a number of punches in their monster battle. The Trump administration has maintained export controls on its most advanced chips and has created a blacklist of Chinese companies it accuses of working with the People’s Liberation Army, including the car company BYD and the tech firm Baidu. China has retaliated by putting two American and 14 European companies on its own blacklist for the “dual use” of rare earth elements for both civilian and military applications. These come on top of Chinese export restrictions imposed in 2025 on seven rare-earth metals and an announcement that five more elements will be added in November.

These tit-for-tat exchanges might suggest that the two sides are evenly matched. And that may have been the case a decade ago. Today, however, despite its iconic status and devastating powers, the American Godzilla looks pretty wobbly. Trump’s fixation on cutting government and his failure to staff the remaining positions with competent officials has meant that the effort to deny China the most sophisticated chips has been compromised. Simply put, the Commerce Department has failed to enforce the export restrictions on U.S. companies, and thousands of those powerful chips have likely made their way into Chinese hands.

Even without government incompetence, the United States would be hard-pressed to maintain its advantage. The bottom line: China will be able to make its own chips sooner than America can acquire its own rocks.

The real superpower that China possesses, in other words, is its government’s ability to marshal resources to make the technological leap forward and maintain a substantive defense of its own material advantages. Thanks to this superpower, as Evan Osnos points out in The New Yorker, “China produces at least 70 percent of the world’s drones, electric vehicles, lithium-ion batteries, and solar cells.” So confident is China in this superpower that it has recently rolled out a sodium-ion battery that needs none of the critical minerals of the lithium battery that powers electric vehicles. Beijing is thus negating its own mineral advantages. Instead, the Chinese government is relying on its industrial prowess to prepare for a world where rocks no longer rule.

The Biden administration tried to copy this superpower with the CHIPS Act and the additional targeted subsidies of the Inflation Reduction Act. Trump, too, has attempted to pursue a similar industrial policy with investments in critical minerals alongside scattershot tariffs and export controls. But he has also weakened the underlying superpower of government action through funding cuts and mass layoffs at critical government agencies. As a result, a lot of the shots that the Trump administration fires at China are actually blanks.

If this were a film, Godzilla would be teetering on the edge of a precipice, harried by a triumphant Rodan. In the final shot, Godzilla would live to fight another day, setting the scene for a sequel.

In real life, the United States is wasting billions of dollars on a war in Iran, the Trump administration is laser-focused on stuffing its own pockets from insider deals, and U.S. universities and companies are hemorrhaging funds and talent. At the same time, China is cornering the global market on renewable technology and consolidating its trade and investment relationship with the nearly 150 countries in the Belt and Road Initiative. The newer superpower seems to be making better use of its superpowers.

Related

“Don’t Look Up” Is as Funny and Terrifying About Global Warming as “Dr. Strangelove” Was About Nuclear War

Another great movie trope is enemies quickly morphing into friends when faced with an existential threat. Godzilla and Rodan eventually team up to fight King Ghidorah, a hydra-like extraterrestrial beast with three heads. Is it too late for China and the United States, inveterate frenemies, to do the same in response to the very terrestrial threat of climate change?

It would certainly make for a Hollywood happy ending. But the Trump administration, insisting that carbon emissions are no problem, is attempting to reenergize the country’s fossil fuel sector. And despite its buildout of renewal energy infrastructure and its expanding exports of solar panels and wind turbines, China remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, especially coal.

Let’s face it: Monsters are going to be monsters. If they’re not fighting each other directly, they’re laying waste to the environment and poisoning the communities that live atop precious resources. In the world of entertainment, Godzilla and Rodan learn how to use their superpowers for good when a planet-wide emergency pushes the monsters together to fight against an external threat.

The real world faces just such a red alert. Our monsters, however, just keep doing monstrous things.

The post The Dawn of a New Cold War appeared first on The Intercept.