Conservative Mormons, much like conservative Catholics, may be starting to realize they are not exempt from the Trump administration’s religious bigotry.
Lawmakers and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may be having a similar realization after the Pentagon, which is led by Christian nationalist Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, excluded the church from its list of recognized religions, along with 179 other faith traditions. The move was apparently a part of the Pentagon’s controversial push to slash the number of religious faiths it recognizes.
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who is Mormon and a staunch Trump ally, was taken aback by the exclusion of his faith from the Pentagon’s list of Christian denominations.
Can anyone tell me why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was left out of the list of Christian churches? pic.twitter.com/t4u6PI29ON
Republican Sen. John Curtis and Rep. Mike Kennedy, also both Utah Republicans who are members of the church, objected to the new classification as well.
Latter-day Saints are among the most patriotic, service-oriented individuals in our country. They are also unequivocally Christian—just look at who is in the name of the Church.
It is unacceptable for a government entity to characterize a faith in a manner that contradicts the… https://t.co/ywqk59ZtRz
— Senator John Curtis (@SenJohnCurtis) June 6, 2026
Amid backlash, Sean Parnell, assistant to the defense secretary, said in a social media post that the reclassification “is not designed to make any claims on the legitimacy of any faith or religious belief, nor is it intended to provide a list of ‘officially approved’ religions.”
The outcry seems to have prompted a reversal from the Defense Department. On Monday, a social media post from the department included a new list with a caption that said the previous one “included redundant and unnecessary labeling, and the mistake has been fixed.”
Last week, a proposed list of simplified faith codes was released to the media. The Pentagon list included redundant and unnecessary labeling, and the mistake has been fixed.
The goal of this effort is to simplify a previously out-of-control “belief” coding system that had… pic.twitter.com/yCsQDhZcGp
The new list’s codes no longer identify which of the recognized faiths are considered Christian, which raises the question of whether Pentagon officials consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a form of Christianity, or if they would simply prefer not to flaunt their beliefs on the topic in public.
The threat of a potential labor crisis at Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium continues to loom just days before the World Cup kicks off, after a union representing more than 2,000 hospitality workers voted to authorize a strike.
The union representing concession workers, servers, bartenders, dishwashers, cooks and other SoFi Stadium workers voted overwhelmingly Friday in favor of a strike. In the lead-up to the vote, union leaders voiced concerns about the possible presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at games, worker compensation and the potential automation of some services using artificial intelligence.
According to a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll released last week, Americans broadly oppose ICE agents being present at stadiums during the World Cup, which is also being held in Canada and Mexico.
The findings are unsurprising, given that ICE agents have garnered comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan and are central to President Donald Trump’s deadly, racist anti-immigrant crackdown. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has vowed that “every single” federal agency will be on-site at the games, “not for immigration, but for terrorist threats.”
The Athletic reported that 96% of union voters voted to authorize a strike, effectively permitting workers to walk off the job at the first game at SoFi Stadium — Paraguay vs. the U.S. — on Friday if a labor deal isn’t reached before then.
The company that operates concessions at SoFi Stadium said it has a “contingency staffing plan” in place, according to The Wall Street Journal. But one of the union co-presidents painted an unflattering picture of how the games could play out if a strike happens — particularly for wealthier attendees.
“I guess soccer can be played” if workers go on strike, said Kurt Petersen, co-president of the local union, in an interview. “But someone paying $100,000 for a suite, and they’re ending up getting bottled water and Doritos, I’m not sure that’s what they’re expecting.”
The Wall Street Journal noted that a strike would be embarrassing for Los Angeles and FIFA:
A strike at SoFi Stadium would be an embarrassment for Los Angeles as it gears up to host eight World Cup matches, the 2027 Super Bowl and the 2028 Olympics. It would also be a black eye for FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, which has advertised high-end food and beverage service in the stadium’s suites while charging thousands of dollars for tickets.
I would argue that a strike would also amount to an embarrassment for Trump and his allies. The president has basically adhered his brand to this tournament, having named himself chair of the 2026 World Cup task force he created and having appointed Andrew Giuliani — Rudy Giuliani’s son — as the task force’s executive director.
A strike stemming in part from his administration’s policies would only add to Trump’s toxic influence at this year’s World Cup.
Usually, it is difficult to tell when a presidency is over. Officially, Jan. 20 every four (or eight) years marks the end of a presidency. But long before that comes the moment when a president loses potency, ceases to be a driving force and is reduced to reaction. It is like the moment when your new car becomes just your car: You don’t know when it happened precisely, but you know it’s in the past.
In the year and half since Trump’s return, it seems everything has changed — except the economy.
In the 2024 election, voters gave Trump what few get in life: a mulligan. Trump received a political do-over. But as the GOP celebrated its 2024 wins, an irrational exuberance took over. It forgot — or never realized — that along with a do-over for Trump, voters gave Republicans a mandate to focus on the stubborn issues of affordability that continue to plague the post-Covid economy. For Americans of all ages, living, eating, breathing and simply going to work is incredibly and increasingly unaffordable, much less doing it all with a family.
Long after Inauguration Day celebrations ended, the GOP kept partying, while the country saw norms shattered, DOGE shuttered and citizens shot by ICE. Then came a war with Iran that has Americans emptying their wallets to fill their gas tanks. Inflation is creeping back up, while Americans’ savings are going down.
In the year and half since Trump’s return, it seems everything has changed — except the economy. It is very hard to say that the president’s second act has improved the lives or financial status of many, unless of course your last name is Trump. His second administration has been a historic misread of a political mandate, and a tragic mistake of a presidency.
While it’s clear that Trump maintains an iron grip on the GOP, what good is that if he does nothing with it to alleviate the hardships of the American people? To date the administration and GOP have offered no economic agenda or ideas for the future. The only thing Republicans on the hill are focused on is giving more money to the Department of Homeland Security — which had already been given so much money it started to buy two private jets, one with a bar and a bedroom.
The president has lost all credibility on the economy, the No. 1 priority of the American public. He has lost control over ending the war. The administration is rudderless. Trump is enamored with being president, yet wants nothing to do with the job. His Cabinet members turn their attention from serving the people to appeasing their boss. Many top officials now hold their jobs in an acting capacity — not just in title but in their emphasis on performance for an audience of one.
Things are bleak for the party in control of all three branches of the federal government.
After giving up on governing, with no vision, the president has turned to what’s simply in his line of sight. Event after unrelated event, speech after rambling speech, he is obsessed with what he perceives as the beautification of his D.C. bubble. He talks about fountains, his arch and ballroom, a repainted reflecting pool, a UFC fight at the White House and a partisan rally for himself after the failure of a planned concert on the National Mall. His appointees propose plastering his face on passports and $250 bills. Banners with Trump’s looming image adorn government buildings in Washington while he rants about not being able to put his name on the Kennedy Center.
Things are bleak for the party in control of all three branches of the federal government. The Democrats seem to offer no discernible plan for the economy or other pressing issues, but when voters want to throw the bums out, not being the “bums” in power may be enough.
The 2026 midterms are on the horizon, and the 2028 presidential race will begin the day after.
In a matter of months, attention will soon move from the White House to the campaign trail, and even successful presidents struggle to keep the spotlight off their potential successors. Candidates from both parties will have a chance to define themselves and offer their ideas on everything from artificial intelligence to taxes to war and peace. America’s next act will be written not in the Oval Office or the halls of Congress, but in the town halls and events across America.
Meanwhile, the second Trump administration is already a lost cause at home and abroad. He has made himself a lame duck president, and is getting lamer every day.
Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising is under increasing political pressure, with bipartisan legislation being introduced to ban or restrict the practice, and states considering bills to deny tax deductions for pharmaceutical advertising expenses.
Expanding optometrists' scope of practice to include YAG procedures is associated with a substantial increase in their utilization, which improves access to vital eye care, especially in rural areas.
Expecting any level of ideological consistency from partisan political actors is a fool's errand; even so, the amount of sheer hypocrisy generated by the Graham Platner scandal is striking.
Some names have been changed to protect the identities of those featured in the story
As a war crimes researcher at the Reckoning Project, my job was to listen to Ukrainians who had fled the occupation. What they had to say reshaped how I understand life in Russian-occupied territories.
El papa León XIV ha estado por Madrid retándose con la Cibeles en sus carros mitológicos, retándose con Bad Bunny en las multitudes postradas, retándose con el propio Dios o con los propios dioses en atención, poder, honores, neoclasicismo y ejércitos. A mí me parece mucho más religioso creer en el papa, en un hombre con poderes o al menos cierta luminiscencia, que creer en el eterno y desasosegante silencio del cielo, al que no sabemos qué decirle y del que no sabemos qué esperar. Los dioses que caminaban por los jardines y los campos de batalla, con la misma pisada de alfombra, ésos son los únicos en los que aún podemos creer. Diría que ni los más creyentes tienen suficiente con un dios postrado en el cielo, en su larga siesta teológica. Necesitamos alguien que camine entre nosotros, con palio o borriquillo, con llagas o botafumeiros, y que nos diga con palabras divinas no lo que quieren los dioses, que ni ellos se ponen de acuerdo, sino lo que queremos nosotros. Los dioses eran tribales cuando éramos tribu, eran guerreros cuando éramos guerreros, eran imperiales cuando éramos o nos creíamos imperio, y ahora son morales cuando somos o nos gusta considerarnos morales. Lo que hace la religión es usar el lenguaje de la magia para justificar cada época. León XIV es tan humano y tan de hoy como Bad Bunny o incluso Pedro Sánchez.
Por todo Madrid como un palacio o un cielo descandados, el papa era otro rey, era otro hombre, era otro dios. León XIV aún me parece tan vulnerable como cuando salió el primer día al balcón de la plaza de San Pedro, que era sólo como su ropa tendida, su túnica volada entre aquellos vapores todavía calientes, como de lavandería, del Espíritu Santo. Lo he visto ante los reyes tocándose mucho la muceta, como si sólo fuera un monaguillo, y lo he visto ante la gente incómodo de expectación, como si fuera una novia tímida. Los papas, antes, iban con armadura, o con el equivalente teológico del contrachapado (incluso Ratzinger era todavía como un blindado escolástico, impenetrable y seguramente inhumano). Ahora, los papas van con el pudor de sus propios lujos celestiales y ceremoniales y con una doctrina que, en realidad, es tan simple y poco barroca que parece budismo o estoicismo (como al principio, claro). Dios va cambiando de siglo en siglo y hasta de papa en papa, porque lo verdaderamente relevante en la religión es lo humano (Jesús es el mejor ejemplo). Es decir, lo terrenal, sea moral o sea político. Si algo tienen en común un papa conservador y un papa liberal es que ninguno se preocupa por la vida de las almas, que ya no son ningún objetivo, que ya no son clientela. Incluso los que más miran al cielo prefieren ocuparse de lo que pasa abajo.
El papa León XIV es el único dios que vamos a ver por aquí, andando y hablando con su paso de terciopelo, y yo creo que Madrid ha aprovechado eso. Madrid ha sacado a su papa como a su torero pálido y gótico, como a su rey pálido y gótico, como a su poeta pálido y gótico, como a su revolucionario pálido y gótico, que para todo eso ha dado el Madrid de la fe, de los motines y de los manteamientos. La religión, como la política, siempre es humana, y la teología se diluye en los magisterios o iconografías personales igual que la ideología. Es imposible que el Dios de Abraham, el de Jesús, el de Torquemada, el de Abascal y el de Prevost sean el mismo. Es tan evidente como que no son el mismo PSOE el de Pablo Iglesias, el de Felipe González, el de Sánchez y el de Madina. La continuidad a través de lo heterogéneo, incluso de lo contradictorio, o aún más, de lo inmoral, eso debe de ser la fe o eso debe de ser la militancia. En el PSOE, ahora mismo, es como si estuvieran pasando un papado de los Borgia. Sánchez es una especie de antipapa socialista, con el brazo secular de Leire Díez y su misa negra en el Primavera Sound, donde ha querido exorcizar el Juicio Final que se le acerca, o conjurar, entre su curia y sus cruzados, otro intento de milagro o de venganza.
Es imposible que el Dios de Abraham, el de Jesús, el de Torquemada, el de Abascal y el de Prevost sean el mismo"
El último que vio a Dios barbado y flamígero creo que fue Elías, y desde entonces hemos necesitado profetas, mesías, gurús, predicadores con convulsiones, santos de estampita y papas de papamóvil al que le acercan bebés para que los roce con la mano de madera y el manto folclórico, como si fuera la Virgen del Rocío (la magia de contacto es aún más antigua que los dioses). Es así, tiene que ser así, porque me parece que ni el más creyente termina de creerse a un Dios totalmente ausente, indistinguible del azar y del silencio. La religión es la justificación mágica de cada época, la legitimación sobrenatural de cada época, sea una época de crueldad o de compasión. O sea, es un poco como la política, que cada vez se parece más a la fe o al fanatismo. Vamos cambiando de Dios casi tanto como de presidente del Gobierno, o al menos los que sigan creyendo en los dioses o en la política.
León XIV ha estado por Madrid, ha paseado él a Dios como una florista pasea los nardos, por la calle de Alcalá, o Dios lo ha paseado a él como al león mitológico o heráldico que ahora lo representa, lo encarna o lo vigila. A mí me sigue pareciendo que tiene mucha más fuerza la confianza en lo que pueda hacer un hombre, en lo que pueda inspirar un hombre, que la confianza en el rezo, en la tradición o en el milagro de agua bendita. No seguimos a los dioses, a sus mandamientos ni a sus teologías, que enseguida pueden cambiarse en concilios o en matanzas, como si fueran comités federales del PSOE. Todo es muy humano, seguimos sólo a personas con razones, carisma, poder, magia o luminiscencia. Seguimos incluso a falsos profetas, que parece mentira porque ya sabemos perfectamente cómo son, salvo, se diría, en el reguetón y en el PSOE. El caso es que los dioses ya no hacen ni significan nada por sí solos y la política teológica tampoco. Lo único que nos queda detrás de la magia, de la fe o de la política es la moral. Como Sánchez y sus acólitos desconocen el concepto, sólo confían en la pura magia de sangre. Hasta el inofensivo Primavera Sound parecía, con él, las negras fogatas y telas de un aquelarre.
The world is heading into another period of “dangerous heat”. This is according to a new UN report, warning that “it’s nearly certain that global temperatures over the next five
Senate Republicans demurred last week at the chance to rein in President Donald Trump’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, despite indications that the slush fund is not as dead as the Justice Department has claimed. Even more troubling, the GOP opted not to touch the less blatantly corrupt part of Trump’s settlement with himself. Under the terms of an addendum from acting attorney general Todd Blanche, the Internal Revenue Service is “forever barred and precluded” from auditing the president, his companies, or the sons that joined him in attempting to shakedown the agency for $10 billion in a lawsuit against the government he leads.
Importantly, the one-page ban includes any ongoing audits that may have already begun. It also specifically applies to all tax returns filed before the settlement was put in place last month. This would cover those filed in April, which cover Trump’s first year back in office. And as even a cursory review of the Trump family’s alleged ongoing profiteering shows, any number of fraudulent claims could potentially slip through the cracks if the IRS is forbidden from reviewing any of those filings.
Any number of fraudulent claims could potentially slip through the cracks if the IRS is forbidden from reviewing any of those filings.
The slush fund itself is widely seen as a vessel for Trump to pass out cash to supporters who claimed they’d been unfairly targeted by federal investigations. Some tax experts recently told Politico that while Trump wouldn’t be getting money from the fund himself, he would potentially have still been responsible for a tax bill costing hundreds of millions of dollars. But the language of the broader settlement argued that the fund is “not taxable income as to Plaintiffs, who receive no economic benefit from this Settlement Agreement.”
In truth, there’s a potentially massive economic benefit from the settlement via the follow-up provision Blanche later added. As The New York Times has noted, an IRS audit launched in 2020 could have resulted in Trump owing $100 million or more for double-dipping on certain tax breaks. Simply causing that to go away would be a massive boon to the president and his businesses, let alone any other audits that may or may not have been underway behind closed doors. After all, the IRS has had a policy since the post-Watergate era began to automatically audit the president and vice president’s tax returns.
We already know some of what was likely in the most recent filings, thanks to a mix of mandatory disclosures and excellent journalism. Trump revealed in a federal disclosure form last month that he’s engaged in massive stock trades since January, including millions of dollars’ worth of shares in businesses that have benefited from his decisions as president. (White House spokesperson Kimberly Benza said last month in a statement to The Associated Press that “neither President Trump, his family, nor The Trump Organization plays any role in selecting, directing, or approving specific investments” and that they “receive no advance notice of trading activity and provide no input regarding investment decisions or portfolio management.”)
Meanwhile, Trump’s sons who were co-plaintiffs in the suit, Don Jr. and Eric, have also been very busy in the last year and a half making business deals that appear to have benefitted from their father’s position in multiple ways. All told, according to The New York Times’ Editorial Board, Trump, and in turn his businesses and family, “used the office of the presidency to make at least $1.4 billion.”
Tellingly, the audit addendum has nothing to do with the direct subject of Trump’s original case against the IRS. He and his sons claimed that the IRS had gravely injured them in allowing a contractor to leak the president’s returns, along with those of other public figures. But the leak happened during Trump’s first term, and the culprit was already prosecuted for stealing the documents. To ban the IRS from undertaking any current or future audits based on a theft that’s already been punished simply makes no sense.
None of this should excuse lawmakers from turning a blind eye to the apparent corruption on display
There are a few silver linings. The Justice Department said in a statement last month that the breathtaking scope of this quasi-legal tax shield “is only with respect to existing audits, not future.” Likewise, as MS NOW analyst Lisa Rubin has noted, Blanche may not have had the authority to tell the IRS what to do in this case. Unlike the main settlement, the addendum wasn’t signed by any Treasury Department officials, and the Justice Department can only settle matters that have been referred to it for prosecution or defense.
Most hopeful is the decision from a federal judge to re-open Trump’s IRS lawsuit after first agreeing to dismiss it. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said that she intended to determine whether the settlement “is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the Court.” She was already concerned that Trump appeared to be both the plaintiff and defendant in the case and now means to examine whether the settlement was “premised on deception.”
None of this should excuse lawmakers from turning a blind eye to the apparent corruption on display. The president has already shown that he believes himself to be beyond the reach of the law. In trying to shield his family’s businesses from any scrutiny, Trump has now attempted to place himself above one of the only two constants in this world: death and taxes.
As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ramps up his Senate campaign against James Talarico, he and his party have dug in to “othering” the fresh-faced Democrat. Paxton’s reference to his opponent as “Talafreako” pretty much sums up the GOP’s Manosphere-coded attack strategy.
Adhering to the script, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller has alleged that Talarico is the Democrats’ “first transgender Senate candidate.” Others have dubbed him Gaydo O’Rourke — a reference to failed 2018 Democratic senate candidate Beto O’Rourke. (This malicious queering of Talarico has been undercut somewhat by photos that circulated of him and his girlfriend). With the dignity that befits their offices, President Donald Trump and Paxton held up images comparing the former schoolteacher to Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Neuman.
Republicans doing opposition research are likely going to fixate on one quality that distinguishes him from nearly every other non-Black Democratic candidate in the 21st century.
Transphobic, homophobic, sophomoric and, yes, Tofu-based taunts will undoubtedly gain traction among some sectors of Texas’ conservative electorate. But in the coming months, Republicans doing opposition research are likely going to fixate on one quality that distinguishes him from nearly every other non-Black Democratic candidate in the 21st century. That’s because James Talarico is a seminarian.
His pursuit of a Masters of Divinity (which is temporarily on hold during his candidacy) creates a seemingly irresistible target for his Republican detractors — not because of his religion, but because of how he engages critically with religious text and theory and then stumps about it on the campaign trail.
To understand why this mix is so volatile, we need to understand what happens in the hothouse atmosphere of a theological seminary — and I want to be clear that I mean any seminary, be it Presbyterian (such as Talarico’s), Pentecostal, Jewish, Southern Baptist, etc.
Seminaries are where the intellectuals of any given religious faith wrestle with the meanings of their sacred texts with fierce energy, depth, creativity and intensity. Seminaries are also places where religious intellectuals sometimes get into big doctrinal trouble. Early in my career, when I was a biblical scholar, I taught at various Christian and Jewish seminaries. What stunned me was how often students and faculty would drift, or even charge, into discussions that even their co-religionists might consider heretical.
It is not uncommon for theologians to be expelled from their own institutions for assorted crimes of heresy. It happens at Southern Baptist seminaries, Presbyterian seminaries, Evangelicalseminaries, a seminary associated with the Restoration Movement — and those are just cases that didn’t get swept under the rug, as most of these incidents are. When what is said in a seminary gets beyond the campus gate, it tends to bewilder laypersons. Put it this way: If Paxton were a seminarian he too would probably have expressed a mess of seemingly strange and unpopular ideas.
But Paxton isn’t a seminarian, now is he? Talarico is, and true to form he has articulated theological precepts that might strike outsiders, especially ones with little formal religious education, as sacrilegious.
He has interpreted Scripture in a pro-choice direction, suggesting that the gospel of Luke validates that a woman must consent to give birth. Talarico says he believes God is non-binary — a claim that his conservative critics gleefully quote and re-quote. Only a license to frack the earth under every research university in America could make them happier.
Talarico may be voicing orthodox precepts of his mainline Presbyterian faith. Or maybe he’s veering off-script. None of that matters to GOP operatives. What interests them is a theology that, if properly framed, will sound blasphemous to Evangelical ears, and ideally to other ears as well. Republicans have already smeared him as demonic, a heretic, the antichrist and a servant of Moloch. And we’re just getting started.
In my opinion, Talarico shouldn’t let this change his approach. After all, his identity as a white Bible-thumper is what radically distinguishes him from his Democratic forebears who haven’t won a Texas statewide office in more than three decades.
He will need to make a compelling theo-political case to Latino Catholics (who comprise roughly 18% of Texas’ population) and Black Protestants (who comprise 8%). My hunch is that while the latter will be generally receptive to his progressive religious message, serious work needs to be done among the former. (As for Latino Evangelicals, Talarico’s candidacy is probably a lost cause). The challenge will be to find convincing ways to weld his religious beliefs, whose electoral vulnerabilities are being amplified by Republicans, to his extremely popular anti-corruption, anti-billionaire, and affordability agendas.
Can it work in ruby red Texas? God only knows. But I do know that relentless mockery of Talarico’s beliefs by members of the GOP belies its claim to be the faith-friendly party. Its reverence for “religion” is really about reverence for conservative Protestantism (including strategic collaborations with traditionalist Catholics, Mormons and Orthodox Jews). All other creeds, including non-Evangelical forms of Protestantism such as Talarico’s, are treated as inferior, un-American and unworthy of governmental favor.
No matter what the fate of Talarico’s candidacy, it will prove, yet again, how parochial, self-serving and disingenuous the Republican Party’s efforts to put God back into American public life actually are.
La gente a la que le gusta Bad Bunny, que aprecia su música, que se ha pasado más horas en Ticketmaster para conseguir su entrada de las que disfrutará en el concierto, la que soltó una lágrima cuando Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio convirtió la Super Bowl en una fiesta del orgullo latino, todas las mujeres feministas que disfrutamos del reguetón, las que cantamos orgullosas “yo perreo sola”, toda esa gente ha salido a defender la Casita de Bad Bunny con toda la gracia de su retórica. No porque la Casita estuviera o les pareciera bien, porque de hecho ha sido un error lamentable, sino porque pensaban que Benito Antonio es un buen tipo. Y que si Bad Bunny es bueno entonces la Casita tiene que serlo también.
Is such language to be no longer permitted when discussing serious matters with meaningful consequences? As all adults should know, the ability freely to engage in sometimes difficult discussions with one another—especially peers—is part-and-parcel for a society in which civil and religious liberties exist and thrive. The recent decision of the PCA’s Rio Grande... Continue Reading
The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education recently announced it would freeze enrollment in Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library, a literacy initiative that offers one free book per month for children from birth until five years old. More than 20 states provide full or partial funding for the program, which claims to have donated over 300 million books to kids in the U.S. and elsewhere. The beneficiaries includes 170,000 Missouri children, but the state’s Republican-dominated legislature decided to cut the program’s funding from $6 million to $2 million.
As a teacher and author for children, I know the consequences of these cuts are all too clear. I have witnessed firsthand what it looks like when children do not have access to books. Such a drastic cut to such an important service is more of the same as far as this country’s continued acts of political and economic violence against its own citizens.
The impact of access to books is also a symbolic one.
The impact of access to books is also a symbolic one. I grew up in a working-class household and could feel, at a young age, that my family’s socioeconomic status did not measure up to that of many of my peers. We lived in a small walk-up apartment in Brooklyn; we spent most weeks surviving paycheck to paycheck. While many of my classmates and friends were in similar (or worse) positions, others enjoyed vacation homes, their parents’ new cars, and all manner of resources not available to the rest of us. Those kids could afford educational and enrichment opportunities. We had to hope and pray for many of the same chances — or settle for free alternative, if there were any.
But while my family did not have much, we did have books. Though my parents read little, they made sure the bedroom I shared with my sister was stocked with stories. We often devoured several books a week, having to resort to rereading them if we finished them before our next trip to bookstores or libraries (another institution currently under attack). Had Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library been available in the 1980s, there is no doubt my parents would have taken advantage of this program. And while families of any income can participate in Parton’s initiative, as with any universal social program those with the least will suffer from cuts the most.
It is a certain kind of person who sees early and easy access to books as a bad thing. Part of my role in schools involves visiting classrooms for teaching observations. I will never forget one school I was assigned to observe in rural Wisconsin. I sat at the teacher’s desk as he picked up the autobiography of Pakastani activist Malala Yousafzai. I expected each student to grab their own class copy so that that they could read along with him—so that they could huddle over the book at their desks, feeling its pages and connecting with the words in ways that every reader understands.
Some children had their own copies, likely furnished by their parents. But most did not. Instead, the teacher read his one copy aloud, while those without a book stared at each other, kicked each other under their desks, doodled in their notebooks, picked at their fingers, and participated in any other distraction they could think of – all because they simply could not see the words on the page.
Teachers (and our wallets) can only do so much – we are not magicians.
To be clear, that teacher was one of the most effective and engaging teachers I have ever known; he did the best he could with what he had available. I later learned that his school district did not offer its schools a budget for class sets of books. But to this day, I wonder what sort of opportunities those kids were given to develop a love of reading (if any).
Teachers (and our wallets) can only do so much – we are not magicians. To read books, children need access to them – the same type of access that Missouri is poised to take away from its own communities, and the effects can be observed in all corners of schooling.
The state’s decision comes at a perilous time for children’s literacy. According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, also known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” reading scores for high school seniors fell to their lowest since 1992. Surveys have found that high school students are assigned fewer and fewer books to read. Children are reading, and especially for fun, less than ever. And schools’ overreliance on technology is likely to be exacerbated by the looming disaster that is AI.
Through no fault of their own, our children, our books, are in crisis. Free book programs should be considered a necessary component to all communities – like clean water and sanitation. Instead, Missouri’s decision to cut a beloved free book program, and any other state that follows suit, is only contributing to the challenges we currently face.
As a writer for children, I often visit schools to talk with kids about the importance of reading: “No one can take away your ability to read books,” I often say. What I don’t tell them is that there are so many groups, from politicians to legislators to self-proclaimed “parents’ rights” groups who are trying to do exactly that. If students become readers, they will know exactly what these people are trying to take away from them: Their ability to navigate the world as socially literate, informed, and empathetic citizens. Books, and access to them, is one of the few aspects of childhood that holds the potential to feel fair and equal. Is it any wonder that those currently in power wish to do away with it?
Going into November’s midterm elections, Democrats have put together a strong message that the prices of food, gas, healthcare, housing and utilities are too high and that Americans need to elect members of the party who take their financial struggles seriously. And that message has been working. Since President Donald Trump was elected in 2024 and embarked upon a term that has unsettled even those of us who were expecting the worst, Democrats have consistently overperformed in special and off-year elections.
Democrats may be walking blindly into a buzzsaw and risking giving away the advantage they have established over Republicans.
Given the party’s edge on this important metric, unless Democrats suffer a significant reversal in public opinion over the next five months, they should be considered likely to take control of the House after nearly four years in the minority. But preserving the party’s momentum rests on persuading voters that Democrats will take seriously the issue of affordability for everyday Americans. Our future success, including our hopes to reclaim the White House in 2028, will depend on us showing that we won’t just promise, but we will deliver.
But on one important issue, I fear Democrats may be walking blindly into a buzzsaw and risking giving away the advantage they have established over Republicans on who cares more about working Americans. The issue is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guarantees Americans that their bank accounts are insured up to $250,000. Some Democrats have bought into the idea that there needs to be a dramatic expansion of those federal banking insurance subsidies, and they are joining Republican supporters of the industry’s push. The legislation was introduced by Sens. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., and Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., and currently it is being debated in the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, which would expand federally-backed deposit insurance guarantees for business transaction accounts from the $250,000 cap to as much as $5 million, is being sold as protection for “Main Street.”
But that’s far from the truth. More than 99% of Americans’ bank accounts are already fully covered by the FDIC’s $250,000 cap. It’s been quite some time since a good survey was done, but in 2016, JPMorgan Chase reported that the median small business held an average daily cash balance of just $12,100. There is little in the legislation, then, for most small business owners.
Indeed, the biggest beneficiaries of this legislation would be large corporations with treasury departments that are staffed to manage cash positions of this size. Those corporations already have plenty of options today to insure their accounts and to pay for those options themselves. Under this bill, they would instead get coverage backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
That is to say, those corporations would get coverage backed by you, by me and by every other American taxpayer. The legislation was also written to benefit all but a handful of the largest banks in the country, including more than a dozen with more than $100 billion in assets each.
We lose when the party is seen as too cozy with Wall Street and other wealthy supporters.
By guaranteeing deposits at such a scale, the federal government would be stripping banks and large depositors of any incentive to manage risk, thus recreating the “moral hazard” that helped drive the savings and loan crisis that cost taxpayers more than $120 billion. That crisis followed the 1980 deposit insurance coverage hike. This bill would subsidize wealthy depositors and banks by socializing the risk of the next bailout onto every American taxpayer.
The above is the economic argument against this bill. Now let me give you the political argument. Democrats win when we deliver our economic and affordability message. We lose when the party is seen as too cozy with Wall Street and other wealthy supporters. That perception of doing the bidding of the banks and not Americans struggling to make ends meet should make Democrats think twice about this legislation.
We see from the elections Democrats have won since 2024 that middle-class Americans are trusting us to make their lives more affordable. Voting to put those same Americans on the hook for the next bank bailout would be a horrible way to repay that trust.
Democrats must not risk hurting their winning message on the economy by passing a giveaway for banking lobbyists and their wealthy clients.
A group of three families, on behalf of their transgender children, and two transgender young adults, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in New York seeking to block a subpoena from the Justice Department for NYU Langone to release their medical records and other personal information to the government. The filing is only the most recent in a slate of lawsuits led by trans kids and their families across the country, from Maryland to California.
The timing of these lawsuits is notable as they come in and around Pride Month, a period intended for the celebration of queerness and to honor hard-won battles for social and legal acceptance. Instead, trans children, and their families, are living in fear and using time, energy and resources to protect themselves from the state for the perceived transgression of merely existing.
The timing of these lawsuits is notable as they come in and around Pride Month, a period intended for the celebration of queerness and to honor hard-won battles for social and legal acceptance.
The government’s objective in its subpoena, which bids hospital representatives to appear in court before a grand jury in June and present documents “sufficient to identify each patient” who as a minor received gender-confirming care of any kind dating back to 2020, appears to be twofold: to deny healthcare to trans kids, by, among other things, citing billing to insurance companies as “fraudulent”; and to intimidate healthcare providers from providing gender-confirming care to transgender patients at all.
This tactic appears to be working as trans healthcare centers and clinics around the country shutter, making care increasingly hard to access. “In addition to concerns about how the government might use private health information, parents said they fear that their children’s records will be held up as part of an investigation that ultimately aims to deny them medical treatment,” The New York Times reported Tuesday.
While the DOJ told the Times that it does not respond to requests for comment on grand jury subpoenas or activities, the Times also reported that “[t]he government has said it is acting on the behalf of patients and families as it investigates whether health providers and drug companies have illegally promoted off-label use of medications or used fraudulent billing practices to secure insurance coverage for gender-related treatments to minors.”
The DOJ has based its investigations into gender-confirming care for trans youth in the Northern District of Texas, which is home court for a notoriously reactionary and partisan chief district judge, Reed O’Connor, and therefore “a venue favored by conservatives,” Reuters explains. In the past, O’Connor has taken initiatives to quash legal recourse for the subjects of his rulings, such as Rhode Island Hospital, which has been treating trans minors. “He…issued an injunction claiming to prohibit the hospital from seeking relief in the federal courts that oversee Rhode Island under threat of contempt. And he barred the hospital from ‘aiding and abetting’ any other party that might ask for help from these courts, including the children whose rights will be trampled by disclosure of their records,” Slate reported in May.
In basing its investigation in the Northern District of Texas, the department can file requests for subpoenas — for medical records and private patient information in other states — in O’Connor’s court. This, as Slate reporting describes, is part of the DOJ’s wider attempt at “forum shopping key cases to MAGA judges across the country who are much more likely to reward underhanded tactics.” It’s a breach of the sanctity of state laws, variations of which have been an important part of this country’s legal framework.
The Justice Department has made the case that part of its investigation involves looking at trans healthcare providers’ use of off-label drugs, arguing this could be either fraudulent or illegal. Yet as the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality explains, off-label use is both “legal and common.” (For instance, Trazodone, while originally intended to treat depression, is often prescribed for other conditions, such as insomnia, bulimia, alcohol dependence or diabetic neuropathy.)
This is all to say that this administration is not just failing to take care of our most vulnerable populations, but it is actively targeting them. The fact that vulnerable children and their families are compelled to sue the federal government in an effort to have their constitutional rights honored says everything we need to know about this current political landscape.
“Every week there’s something new,” one teenager targeted in the Rhode Island Hospital case, who was only identified by their first initial because their family has faced harassment and threats in the past, told WBUR. “One week, they try to ban care. Another week, you find out that they want to know your personal information.”
It is the job of any well-functioning democracy to protect children and other vulnerable groups. As a trans man, navigating the progressively hostile and reactionary medical, political and legal landscapes demands an enormous amount of energy, not to mention it produces a great deal of fear and anxiety — and I am in my 40s. I cannot imagine how much this state targeting of trans youth is derailing the lives of children who want and deserve nothing more than to simply be kids.
When Platner first threw his hat in the ring last year, there was a reasonable argument for his candidacy — here was a political outsider with a fresh perspective who represented a new generation of political talent for Democrats.
But everything we have learned about Platner over the past several months suggests that he is a moral and political trainwreck, with enough skeletons in his closet to fill a graveyard.
Platner has been caught in so many lies that it’s difficult to take anything he says seriously.
Indeed, since Platner announced his candidacy last year, there has been an unceasing drumbeat of scandals about him. He filled a Reddit message board with sexist, racist and off-color comments. He has exaggerated his working-class background and appears to have spent most of his life living off handouts from his parents. But above all, there was the revelation last fall that he had gotten a Nazi Totenkopf tattoo on his chest two decades ago — and by his account only realized it was a Nazi tattoo in the fall of 2025, as he began his campaign for the U.S. Senate.
In recent days, the stories about Platner have taken on a darker, more troubling hue. Last week, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times revealed that soon after his marriage in 2023, Platner was caught by his wife sexting as many as a dozen women. His profile page on Kik, an anonymous social media site often used for dating, was still active.
Then on Thursday, The New York Times published an account of three former girlfriends of Platner who described him as volatile, unfaithful and physically threatening. One woman, Lyndsey Fifield, a conservative activist, reported that during an argument, Platner “twisted her arm behind her back, shoved her into a bedroom and held the door closed from the other side so she couldn’t get out.” Another former romantic partner, Jenny Racicot, who is a Democrat, said of Platner, “This person does not respect women.” The Times spoke with several other women Platner dated who spoke well of him, including that “they felt safe with him” and remain friends with him to this day. Platner on Thursday told MS NOW’s Chris Hayes that “some allegations” in the Times’ article “are simply not true,” specifically, “anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was.” Platner did acknowledge that he spent a good amount of time “struggling, not being a good boyfriend, certainly self-medicating with alcohol.”
Fifield also told the Times that Platner had joked to her about his Nazi tattoo — contradicting his denials — and even produced a screenshot from a group chat in August 2025 of her talking to friends about the Nazi emblem. Platner has said he didn’t know about the tattoo’s Nazi origins until months later.
Platner has been caught in so many lies that it’s difficult to take anything he says seriously. And every time Platner is caught, he makes the same excuse: that he was in a dark period after he returned from serving in Iraq. While one can sympathize with Platner’s post-war experiences, this justification for his past behavior should not and cannot excuse a pattern of consistently bad behavior that dates back years and was occurring as recently as a few years ago.
Yet none of these revelations have pushed congressional Democrats to call on Platner to stand down. In fact, some are rallying around him.
According to Rhode Island liberal Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the latest reports about Platner’s behavior toward women “seems like a lot of nothing.”
Where will Platner’s numbers be in November after five months of GOP ads hammering him?
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., called Platner’s behavior “wrong and toxic,” but that’s not stopping him from appearing at a rally with Platner in Maine this weekend. When asked earlier in the week about Platner, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has publicly endorsed him, offered a classic whataboutist defense: “Is he a saint? I guess not. I don’t know too many saints here”
Even New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who led the charge against former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken when he was accused of sexual impropriety, has refused to condemn Platner, telling reporters, instead, “We are still going to win Maine.”
Put aside the hypocrisy of national Democrats, who have long preached the idea of believing women when they claim sexual harassment or violence; none of this makes sense from a political standpoint. Recent polling suggests Platner has a narrow lead over Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
In a political environment that heavily favors Democrats and in a state that has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, Democrats should be well-positioned to flip the Maine seat from red to blue. And this is the polling situation today, before Maine voters have fully digested the latest Platner scandals. Where will Platner’s numbers be in November after five months of GOP ads hammering him? That’s not even taking into account the very real possibility that more scandals will emerge. Quite simply, even if one thinks that Platner is a unique political talent — and there isn’t much evidence that he is — why take the risk?
Sticking with Platner is not only a dangerous political move, but it also opens up Democrats to charges of hypocrisy, especially when they attack Republicans for sticking with morally and ethically flawed candidates like Ken Paxton in Texas. And after all, if there is one party that should care about how a man treats women, both in public and in private, it’s Democrats. It’s not as if Republicans have much of a leg to stand on with President Donald Trump as their standard-bearer.
In an ideal world, Platner would recognize that he is a flawed candidate who is putting the Democrats’ chances of flipping the Senate in significant danger. But he appears more focused on his political aspirations than doing what’s best for the Democratic Party. His staff would tell him the same thing, but they seem more focused on covering up for his sins than doing what’s best for the party.
That’s why it’s incumbent on national Democrats to demand Platner drop out of the race, either before or after Maine Democrats go to the polls next week. They can look to Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who, even though she dropped out of the race, is still on the ballot. Or they can look to recruit the runner-up in the competitive Democratic primary for governor. At least that person will have been vetted by the media. But considering how politically vulnerable Collins is, the mood of the electorate and Maine’s Democratic tilt, seemingly anyone would be a better option than Platner and his heavy baggage.
Heading into November with Platner as their nominee risks Democrats losing both the Maine Senate race and their souls.
The Florida Legislature convened for a special session this week and passed Gov. Ron DeSantis proposal to put a gradual elimination of homestead property taxes on November’s ballot. As a legislator who represents a vibrant, diverse community in South Florida, I could not in good conscience support this measure. I voted “no” because the math does not add up and Floridians deserve honesty, not political theater.
Florida is already one of nine states in the United States without an income tax.
On the surface, getting rid of such property taxes might appeal to Floridians across the political spectrum. We all deserve affordability and the ability to make ends meet without taking on crushing debt or working multiple jobs just to stay afloat. Like Americans across the country, the people in Florida face an affordability crisis as the cost of groceries, housing, healthcare, gas and other everyday expenses continues to skyrocket.
Every single person in the communities I serve is feeling the pressure of rising costs, and I take that seriously. But this resolution does not solve that problem — it shifts it. It takes the financial burden off property owners and quietly drops it on the backs of renters and the most vulnerable communities we serve.
Republicans across the country, including many here in Florida, have talked for so long about lowering taxes or eliminating taxes that they seem to have forgotten that taxes pay for things that people need and that getting rid of taxes in such a haphazard way will cause pain for individuals and local governments across the state.
Under this measure, local governments across the state, including those in Miami-Dade County and across South Florida, stand to lose billions in revenue. That revenue pays for police and fire protection, public health services, infrastructure and the community programs that working families count on. The state’s constitutional prohibition on cutting first responder funding changes the basic fiscal reality: When you eliminate a tax base, someone else pays. And there’s no solution in place to make up for this massive loss and the impact it will have on communities and residents’ daily lives.
My district is home to hardworking families, seniors on fixed incomes, renters who will never see a dime of this tax break and small business owners who are already navigating an extremely difficult economic climate. They are not asking for a constitutional amendment that most benefits the wealthiest homeowners. They are asking for real, targeted relief that addresses the actual affordability crisis without gutting the services that keep our communities safe and functioning.
Property tax reform that is sustainable, equitable and helps the Floridians who need it most would get my support, but that’s not what this plan is.
When you eliminate a tax base, someone else pays.
We can expect Gov. DeSantis and his allies to paint this resolution as “cost saving,” but if the state’s voters approve the constitutional amendment in November, the shift in tax burdens will hit many Floridians’ pocketbooks hard.
Florida is already navigating the aftermath of devastating hurricane seasons the past few years, with communities still rebuilding and local governments stretched thin. To introduce a structural revenue shock of this magnitude, one that disproportionately benefits high-value homeowners in wealthier zip codes isn’t just bad policy but a choice about whose recovery matters.
Just like the hype that surrounded Donald Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill last year, we have seen this playbook before: A headline-grabbing tax cut gets framed as relief for everyday families while the fine print tells a different story. The president, for example has focused on the law’s provision on allowing certain tax filers who get paid tips to not pay taxes on them, but the law overwhelmingly benefits the country’s wealthiest Americans.
DeSantis wants to do away with home property taxes. Florida cities are alarmed. But special districts are more so. Mosquito abatement districts which receive all their funding from property taxes. Welcome back malaria!
Similarly, the exemption headed to Florida’s ballot helps those with the highest-value homes while, say, a senior renting a modest apartment would see nothing. A working family leasing a home would see nothing as the county budget that funds their children’s after-school programs, their neighborhood’s road repairs and their emergency services absorbs the blow.
Extreme anti-tax strategies like this are anything but “fiscally responsible.” The hidden cost is paid in crumbling roads, understaffed fire stations and shuttered public libraries — the very infrastructure that holds communities together. When revenue is deliberately starved from local governments, it isn’t abstract bureaucracies that suffer. It is the elderly neighbor who can no longer afford the ambulance response time that doubled, the child whose school lost its reading specialist and the small business owner whose street floods every rainy afternoon because the drainage system went unrepaired for a decade. A community that guts its own foundations doesn’t liberate its people — it auctions off their shared future to the highest bidder, leaving everyone else to pay the real price.
Login
