And yet, the comedian did quote Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, from the confirmation hearing earlier that morning. In front of gathered journalists at the Egyptian Theatre in Hollywood, Mulaney introduced his upcoming series “Everybody’s Live With John Mulaney,” which is inspired by his limited series “Everybody’s in LA” from 2024.

Mulaney explained, “Netflix and I discussed this summer not being done with the show, and I was thrilled to do that. It was a total blast and it was one of those shows that neither Netflix nor I really needed to do. I never wanted to host a talk show, and they were getting out of the talk show game. So it was the perfect moment to do this.

“And I just heard Robert F Kennedy Jr. say during the confirmation hearing, ‘I have a nice life and a happy family. I don’t need this,'” said the comedian, reading from his notes.

Although Mulaney is paraphrasing, he did indeed grasp the gist of the opening speech, in which Kennedy Jr. said about his dedication to the nation’s health care: “I know how to fix it, and there’s nobody who will fix it the way that I do because I’m not scared of vested interest. I don’t care. I’m not here because I want a position or a job. I have a very good life and a happy family. This is something I don’t need.'”

After this uncharacteristic foray into newsiness, Mulaney doubled down on his self-deprecating style of underselling his series “Everybody’s Live,” which will air live weekly starting March 12 for 12 weeks.

“We will be live globally with no delay,” he continued. “We will never be relevant. We will never be your source for news. We will always be reckless. Netflix will always provide us with data that we will ignore.

“This will be the one place where you could see Arnold Schwarzenegger sitting next to Nikki Glaser sitting next to a family therapist with music by Mannequin P***y. That’s just a brief sampling of guests. We don’t know if we can lock in Mannequin P***y, but we are in talks with them.

“This is a really fun experiment. Not since Harry and Meghan has Netflix given more money to someone without a specific plan. . . . I think that this show will be something that people will want to tune into live. We will have a host in a suit taking calls from viewers. It’s Netflix’s commitment to embracing the 20th century. There is absolutely nothing new about what I’m doing but, by taking a lot of elements other people have already done and doing them out of order, it feels new and that’s what’s important.

“If we can be one-tenth as popular on Netflix as anything from South Korea, I will have the most successful talk show in world history.”

As with his Los Angeles series, Mulaney will be joined by the delivery cart robot Saymo and actor Richard Kind, who plays a goofier version of himself in the role of talk show announcer and sidekick.

Besides “Everybody’s Live,” the streamer also announced its upcoming slate of movies, TV shows and other programming, using the tagline, “You’re not ready for what’s next,” which some could see as an accurate statement about 2025 overall. A video for the slate features a Netflix hero who takes on the various roles from the streamer’s globally popular shows returning this year including “Stranger Things,” “Wednesday,” “Squid Game” and “Alice in Borderland.”

The Netflix event also afforded the network an opportunity to acknowledge the recent fires still ravaging parts of Los Angeles, that have taken 29 lives and left many without homes and/or jobs.

Mulaney referred to the fires elliptically when discussing last year’s Los Angeles series. “We had a blast,” he said. “We had many comedians who were in town for the festival. We had lots of guests. We had a hypnotist. We had an expert on coyotes in Los Angeles. We had a palm tree expert. We had an earthquake expert. We covered most all natural disasters that take place in California . . . except for one. We just weren’t ready.”

Tina Fey, who had introduced her upcoming series adaptation of Alan Alda’s 1981 movie “The Four Seasons,” said, “It’s nice to be here with you all in person. I love Los Angeles and I wanna thank Netflix for this chance to come in from New York and check on my friends.”

And even before the presentation began, Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria commented to the press, “I feel so lucky that I called Southern California home since I was 9 years old. I love L.A. I love West Coast rap — true story. I still think palm trees are breathtaking and I defend L.A. whenever people talk s**t about it. So that’s why it’s also been so heartbreaking to see what’s happened to this community over the last couple of weeks, and sorry to see that some of you and your colleagues have lost homes and have your lives turned upside down. Between COVID, the strikes, the fires, this town has been through a lot in the past few years, but just like we’ve gotten through everything else together, we will rebuild the [Pacific] Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and all the areas that have been devastated.”

Before leaving, the press was presented with a bag containing a t-shirt with “City of Angels” printed on it and a note that stated proceeds from the item would go to the American Red Cross to “support their critical work in responding to the LA wildfires.”

The post “I don’t need this”: John Mulaney cheekily quotes RFK Jr. while promoting new Netflix live talk show appeared first on Salon.com.

Trump’s widening war of choice against Iran promises to make this even worse by disrupting the global economy and raising the price of oil, gas and other essential products. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman noted, the war’s cost looks much worse when measured in human terms: Replacing the three F-15E jets that were shot down over Kuwait will cost the equivalent of food for 125,000 Americans or health care for 100,000 children over the course of a year.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to brag about the economy, saying there is so much “winning” that people are begging him to stop and the affordability crisis is a “hoax” conjured by Democrats to undermine his MAGA Golden Age. Trump’s solipsistic alternate reality, though, does not change the facts. His approval ratings are at record lows, and a majority of Americans correctly blame him for the worsening economy.

But this is where the story gets more complex, and much more dangerous. The conventional wisdom holds that presidents and the incumbent party will be punished at the polls because of the economy, particularly in midterm elections. On the surface, the GOP’s wave of losses in 2025’s off-year elections would seem to fit that pattern and logic. In reality, matters are much more complicated.

Voters don’t experience the economy in a vacuum. They compare their lives and experiences with their neighbors and peers, the larger community and their sense of the country as a whole. Moreover, the economy is an abstract concept for many Americans, often making their judgments about its overall health wrong, as humans are not purely rational in their political decision-making. A wide range of factors influence voting and other political behavior, such as partisanship, political knowledge, identity, concerns about cultural and social change, media consumption, signaling from elites and personal affinity for a given candidate.

The argument that voters punish politicians for a bad economy also leans heavily on two assumptions that no longer fully hold: that America’s democracy is relatively healthy, and that leaders feel accountable enough to the public to change course — and will leave office when they are voted out. In the Age of Trump and amid rising authoritarianism, neither are guaranteed.

To the contrary, economic insecurity may actually make authoritarians like Trump more compelling to voters. This counterintuitive conclusion, based on new research from Northwestern University’s Center for Communication & Public Policy, has serious implications for how Democrats, the media and the mainstream political class think about elections, and politics more broadly.

The challenge, as explained to Northwestern Now by the center’s founder and professor Erik Nisbet, is that standard measures of democratic commitment are unreliable.

“Traditional surveys typically ask people whether they support democracy or value free expression,” he said. “Decades of research show that Americans overwhelmingly say ‘yes,’ but these self-reported attitudes often do not predict actual political behavior.” 

Some of the study’s key findings, which were published in the journal Perspectives on Politics, are revealing — and timely. Commitments to liberal democratic norms are conditional, not fixed. When people feel financially secure, support for democratic principles increases. When they feel economically disadvantaged, voters are more open to authoritarianism and autocracy, with characteristics including a biased press, weakened checks on executive power and attacks on the rule of law. Perhaps most striking is that for both liberals and conservatives, political ideology mattered less than economic stress and hardship.

Trump and the Republicans may well be punished at the polls in the near term. That’s the good news. The bad news, which Nisbet’s research makes uncomfortably clear, is that a sustained economic downturn doesn’t weaken anti-democratic movements — it fuels them.  

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

America’s extreme — and steadily increasing — wealth and income gap has been politely described as a “K-shaped economy,” a sterile, technocratic term that obscures more than it reveals. What a K-shaped economy really means is an America where the rich and the plutocrats live in their own worlds, walled off, while everyone else is left to struggle. Moreover, in a K-shaped economy, the wealthy as a class have little if any sense of obligation to the common good. They instead use politics and the law to extract more wealth and resources from the American people while making themselves increasingly immune to democratic accountability.

In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats made the democracy crisis and Trump’s authoritarian agenda the center of their campaign. That messaging did not move voters in sufficient numbers to elevate Harris to the presidency.

Nisbet was direct about what this means for Democrats. “The research suggests that messaging focused solely on abstract democratic ideals is unlikely to resonate with voters unless it is tied to their economic concerns,” he said. “Broader electorates require democracy narratives grounded in pocketbook realities.”

Looking to the midterms and beyond, the challenge for Democrats and the anti-Trump resistance is to connect economic pain to the threat authoritarianism poses to regular people’s wallets and day-to-day lives, something Harris and the party failed to do in 2024. The most effective argument is not an abstract one — it’s about corruption. Authoritarians and autocrats like Trump hate democracy because it places limits on their ability to rig the system for personal gain.

The president is a malign actor, a walking-talking moral hazard who is driven by gross self-interest and cares little, if at all, about the harm his actions cause. Like other autocrats and authoritarians, his political project is one of destruction rather than creation. If Trump becomes convinced that he’s politically doomed, he may choose to wreck the economy — and the country as a whole — so that his opponents inherit ruins. 

He has consistently advanced policies that cause measurable harm to the country, and his personality and character show a fascination with destruction and violence. To further sabotage and destroy America’s economy would be Trump’s way of punishing a country and people he views as not deserving of his greatness.  

From those ruins another authoritarian may emerge, one far more dangerous than Trump, with tens of millions of desperate Americans primed and ready to embrace anyone who promises them jobs, healthcare and a better way forward. Desperate people make poor choices.

The post Why many Americans would trade democracy for more money appeared first on Salon.com.

On Sunday, U.S. Central Command said seven American service members have been killed since the start of the campaign against Iran, with the troops dying in retaliatory strikes targeting U.S. forces in the region. The Pentagon said the remains of two previously unaccounted-for service members were recently recovered following earlier attacks on a facility housing American forces, and the latest fatality was seriously injured in Saudi Arabia during an Iranian strike in the region and has now died of their injuries.

CENTCOM Update

TAMPA, Fla. – Last night, a U.S. service member passed away from injuries received during the Iranian regime’s initial attacks across the Middle East. The service member was seriously wounded at the scene of an attack on U.S. troops in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia…

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 8, 2026

The fatalities mark the first confirmed U.S. deaths of the conflict, which began late last month when American and Israeli forces launched a sweeping bombing campaign targeting Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure.

Meanwhile, fighting intensified across the region over the weekend as Israeli strikes hit multiple sites inside Iran, including fuel depots and oil facilities around Tehran, sending thick smoke over parts of the capital. Iranian forces responded with waves of missile and drone attacks targeting Israel as well as U.S. positions and regional allies in the Gulf, further raising fears the conflict could widen.

Iranian officials on Sunday confirmed that Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the slain supreme leader, will assume the country’s top religious and political post. Long seen as a powerful behind-the-scenes figure within Iran’s clerical establishment, Mojtaba has been widely viewed as the most likely successor to his father. His selection marks the closest thing to dynastic succession in the history of Iran’s Islamic Republic.

The succession battle drew sharp warnings from Israel, which said it would target anyone who assumes the position if attacks against Israel continue. Israeli officials have warned that the next supreme leader “will not be safe” if the country continues directing strikes against Israel and its allies.

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

President Donald Trump has also weighed in on the issue, suggesting the United States should have a role in determining Iran’s next leader and warning that any successor could face devastating consequences if hostilities continue.

The competing claims underscore the chaotic power struggle now unfolding inside Iran as the conflict enters its second week, raising fears that the leadership transition — combined with ongoing strikes and retaliatory attacks — could further escalate the war across the Middle East.

[UPDATE: Edited to reflect the selection of Mojtaba Khamanei as the new Supreme Leader of Iran.]

The post Iran power struggle looms as war enters second week appeared first on Salon.com.

Noem, who was removed from her position in Donald Trump‘s Cabinet this week, was the focus of the show’s cold open and weekly news segment. In the former, Noem herself offered a tearful goodbye during a Pete Hegseth press conference on the war in Iran.

“DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has been reassigned under the bus,” Colin Jost as Hegseth said, inviting Ashley Padilla‘s Noem to the podium.

“I just want to make it clear that I didn’t get fired, I self-deported,” she said. “I will not be ending my mission. As I told my plastic surgeon, the work is never done.”

Despite obviously botched DHS operations in Los Angeles and Minneapolis, Noem said she had “no regrets.”

“Like they say, ‘You miss 100% of the dogs you don’t shoot,'” she said. “I think I really nailed it. And by it, I mean my married coworker.”

Jost was also involved in the second roast of Noem. He led off the “Weekend Update” sketch by feigning shock at her firing, asking viewers to “name one to 20 things she did wrong.”

“On some level, I feel bad for Kristi Noem. Imagine being singled out as the worst member of Trump’s Cabinet,” he said. “That’s like someone coming up to you at a party and saying ‘We think you should leave you’re making Diddy uncomfortable.”

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

Jost’s co-anchor Michael Che joined in on the pile-on, taking shots at Noem’s new position with the Shield of the Americas.

“[It’s] a brand new department located on a farm upstate,” he said.

Watch the segment below via YouTube:

The post “Saturday Night Live” comes to bury Kristi Noem appeared first on Salon.com.

Speaking to Maria Bartiromo on Fox News‘ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Sen. Lindsey Graham promised that the Trump admin would extend its attacks in the Caribbean to include a war with Cuba.

Calling Donald Trump the “greatest commander-in-chief of all time,” the Republican senator from South Carolina told Bartiromo that he still believed the war with Iran would come to a swift and neat end.

“If we get in a fight, I want to win it and I want to win it quick,” he said, before holding up a baseball cap that said “Free Cuba.”

“You see this hat? … Stay tuned,” he said. “The liberation of Cuba is upon us. It’s just a matter of time.”

Graham said that the U.S. military was “marching through the world” and “clearing out the bad guys.”

“Donald Trump is resetting the world in a way nobody could have dreamed of a year ago,” he said. “Iran is going down and Cuba is next.”

Lindsey Graham: "If we get in a fight, I want to win it quick. I'm in Miami. You see this hat? 'Free Cuba.' Stay tuned. The liberation of Cuba is upon us. We're marching through the world. We're clearing out the bad guys. Cuba is next." pic.twitter.com/gIommBVScp

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 8, 2026

Trump has been vague on U.S. plans for Cuba, offering ominous threats that the Communist Party of Cuba with “fall pretty soon.” The United States stopped the flow of oil to the country from Venezuela after removing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power. The fuel shortages have hampered the country’s industry and tourism and led to energy blackouts across the island. Speaking to reporters, Trump has said that Cuban leaders will be looking to “make a deal.”

“I’m going to put Marco [Rubio] over there and we’ll see how that works out. We’re really focused on this one right now. We’ve got plenty of time, but Cuba’s ready — after 50 years,” he told CNN this week. “I’ve been watching it for 50 years, and it’s fallen right into my lap because of me, it’s fallen, but it’s nevertheless fallen right into the lap. And we’re doing very well.”

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

Trump had made similar statements a day earlier at the White House. While hosting MLS champion Inter Miami, he said that Rubio was ready to work on ending communist rule in Cuba once the war in Iran has concluded.

“[Rubio]’s waiting. But he says, ‘Let’s get this one finished first.’ We could do them all at the same time, but bad things happen,” Trump said. “If you watch countries over the years, you do them all too fast, bad things happen. We’re not going to let anything bad happen to this country.”

The post “Stay tuned”: Graham promises “Cuba is next” in a global war against “bad guys” appeared first on Salon.com.

Granted, there are (literally) one or two outliers, like Zelda Williams’ perfectly fine 2023 film “Lisa Frankenstein.” But even that movie dilutes Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel to a fraction of its story, reducing all of the text’s thematic resonance to a footnote along with it. And that nuance is critically important. Shelley’s “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” is a story of creation, birth, love, fear, exile and loneliness. A woman’s perspective is inextricable from its text. There’s a good reason why “Frankenstein” is favored in gothic literature curricula over Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”: Shelley’s novel has infinitely more to parse. “Frankenstein” is rich with subtext yet highly accessible. It’s not dense, it doesn’t blabber on and it certainly doesn’t reek of masculine self-obsession. Yet, the bulk of people — down to a fraction of a percent — who have been given the power and financial means to adapt “Frankenstein” have been men.

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

This reality alone makes the existence of Maggie Gyllenhaal’s sophomore feature “The Bride!” something of a marvel. Not only has Gyllenhaal taken the reins from cinema’s patriarchal collective, but she’s implemented a distinctly feminine gaze, as complex and fascinating as the social implications tucked away between the lines of Shelley’s original text. Gyllenhaal has flipped the focus from Frankenstein’s Monster to his female companion, who is destroyed in Shelley’s book before she’s ever given life. James Whale’s 1935 freakquel, “Bride of Frankenstein,” imagined the companion briefly alive, sporting a white-streaked, electric-shocked bouffant before being killed by the Monster moments after her genesis. The Bride didn’t speak. She never even got to clunk and thud her way through any farmhouses or laboratories like a bewigged bull in a china shop. She was a woman functioning as a titillating climactic spectacle, who died with little more than a scream.

Gyllenhaal’s reimagining is the other side of the coin, so ultra-obsessed with giving the Bride (Jessie Buckley) her agency that it frequently forgets there’s a narrative arc happening around her. Across two hours, Buckley’s Bride shoots, kicks, contorts, dances, scrapes, whizzes, licks and screams, all the while coming no closer to her true self than she was at the start of the film. She’s more caricature than character; an idea without a purpose. That’s also the point. “Frankenstein” is largely about the journey to self-actualization and the destruction left in the wake of this ceaseless human pursuit. Shelley’s story is so moving precisely because it’s tinged with firsthand knowledge of the despair that comes with being misunderstood and othered at no fault of one’s own. These facets are also what make her “Frankenstein” so sweepingly unforgettable, and with “The Bride!,” Gyllenhaal isn’t trying to adapt the text so much as she’s eager to replicate the energy of Shelley’s voice.

“The Bride!” is surprising and strange, perplexing and aggravating. At times, it’s downright bad. But through all of its muddled schlock, Gyllenhaal’s film never once loses its distinctly feminine ambition, and that makes “The Bride!” a far more faithful “Frankenstein” adaptation than any made by a man.

Then again, Gyllenhaal is perfectly forthright with her affinity for Shelley’s perspective, opening her film with a small revelation hidden from the trailers. Buckley plays both the Bride and the ghost of Mary Shelley. Shelley’s disembodied spirit is trapped in a beautifully rendered grayscale netherworld, where she harnesses the rage of unfulfilled potential to possess a young woman named Ida (pre-Bride Buckley) in hopes of continuing her tragic tale from beyond the grave. These vignettes are where Gyllenhaal’s directorial eye shines the brightest, and where “The Bride!” brims with promise — just before the first of the film’s several unexplained narrative shifts.

Where this story takes place — which metaphysical realm it’s actually set in — is skimmed over entirely. The viewer can’t understand whether “The Bride!” is set inside of the sequel novel Shelley is crafting in the film, whether Shelley’s ghost has somehow willed a new reality into being, or if we’re just supposed to go along with it and connect the dots ourselves with what little we’re given. It’s a near-catastrophic narrative oversight that, like a handful of other plot holes, reeks of studio meddling by Warner Bros. after early test screenings failed to meet expectations. It would appear that Gyllenhaal’s film has been ironically hacked up and reassembled, but the Frankenstein’d version of “The Bride!” that we’re left with works because it wills itself to. If you can suspend the frustration long enough to meet Christian Bale’s Monster, Frank — himself somehow a real scientific creation, survived from the 1800s, as well as a product of Shelley’s imagination — you’ll manage a decent enough experience with the film.

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

That’s really what “The Bride!’ is best for: the experience. Not since “Cats” has there been a more misguided yet enterprising work of big-budget, intellectual property cinema. Gyllenhaal zips between tones and styles with a ferocious abandon. Even when her film is utterly befuddling, it’s a joy to behold. Few films of this caliber are allowed to take swings so big, and Gyllenhaal delights in raising her audience’s eyebrow before shooting them with a needle full of Botox to make the expression stay frozen in its puzzled place.

Shortly after a young Ida falls to her death — a symptom of her erratic possession by Shelley’s ghost — Frank arrives in 1930s Chicago in search of a companion. The good Dr. Euphronious (Annette Bening) agrees to help this poor, destitute soul. Before we know it, Ida has become the Bride: a walking, talking realization of the Monster’s companion, remixed from her 1935 cinematic progenitor and stricken with verbal outbursts in olde English every time Shelley’s ghost hits her with a “knock, knock.” Before long, Frank and the Bride are on the road and on the lam, invigorating the nation in their path. With a few cop killings under their belts and an increasing lack of shame over their atypical appearances, these lovers-on-the-run light a powder keg and ignite a country repressed by misogyny and corruption.

(Warner Bros. Pictures) Christian Bale as Frank and Jake Gyllenhaal as Ronnie Reed in “The Bride”

There is no shame in Gyllenhaal’s game, and her honest excitement to dabble with references and emotion is refreshing, even when these moments grate. An entire sequence pays homage to the Riot Grrrl movement, where women across America paint themselves up like the Bride and hold men at gunpoint, screaming, “This is a brain attack!” It’s beyond inane and so undercooked that it can’t manage to horseshoe its way back to brilliant, but there’s no other way I’d like it. In referencing punk culture, Gyllenhaal whiffs her mark, which is somehow even more punk. It’s impossible to watch “The Bride!” without thinking about the fact that Warner Bros. poured $80 million into such a bold vision, and that — at least seemingly — a good portion of it remains intact in the final film. Gyllenhaal leans into the bizarro world she’s crafting as it’s taking form. Eventually, the atonal structure becomes the film’s nature. It’s as if “The Bride!” is learning more about how to be a movie as it goes along, just as Frankenstein’s Monster understands the facets of his humanity as Shelley’s novel progresses.

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

Call that a stretch if you like, but I’d argue the film is more meta than its harshest critics will give it credit for. “The Bride!” is a film about being one thing when the world tells you to be another, and — as we’ve already seen with Guillermo Del Toro’s more faithful, Oscar-nominated adaptation — viewers take much kinder to the standard, thousandth retelling of “Frankenstein” than something like Gyllenhaal’s version, which is a truly fresh idea. She reimagines the Bride character with the same wild chaos and directorial scope that this movie swims in; the same initiative with which Shelley wrote her novel.

When “Frankenstein” was first published without Shelley’s name, and chatter about its author began to spread, an early commentary in the British Critic scorned the dissonance between Shelley’s womanhood and the novel’s monstrous narrative. “The writer of it is, we understand, a female,” the piece read. “This is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel; but if our authoress can forget the gentleness of her sex, it is no reason why we should, and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment.”

While I don’t suspect “The Bride!” will be met with this same revisionist praise later in its life, there is something remarkable about the dual “aggravation” of expectations that Gyllenhaal and Shelley’s works share. They are a testament to making whatever you want to make, no matter how it turns out or is received; of swinging for the fences the second you get the chance, knowing that the opportunity is never promised; of smashing the square peg into the round hole until it breaks through the surface, creating something new altogether. “The Bride!” is a monster of its own making that isn’t trying to earn its exclamation point — it’s declaring it. And as off-putting as it may be, this rebellion from pleasant form is innately, delightfully feminine.

The post “Frankenstein” needed a woman’s touch appeared first on Salon.com.

In the first week of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran, the Trump administration has revealed something extraordinary about how it intends to wage war: not just with missiles and drones, but with narrative control so aggressive it borders on parody. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth‘s turn at running the most powerful military in human history increasingly resembles one of his “Fox & Friends Weekend” segments. He held only the second Pentagon press briefing since October on Monday, two days into the war. That is not a communications strategy — it is the beginning of a cover-up. 

The obfuscation got even worse on Saturday when a reporter quizzed Hegseth aboard Air Force One. “Did the United States bomb a girls’ elementary school in southern Iran in the first day of the war and kill 175 people?” 

“No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran,” Trump interjected. 

“Is that true, Mr. Hegseth, that it was Iran who did that?” the reporter followed up. 

“We’re investigating,” Hegseth demurred, before backing Trump’s assumption. “But the only side that targets civilians is Iran.”   

Even some conservative commentators were unsettled by this exchange. Fox News’ Laura Ingraham called the strike “horrific news” and warned that the military would have to do a better job at addressing it publicly.

As Trump’s war with Iran grows more deadly and continues to widen, the Pentagon’s communications strategy is not even pretending to care about transparency, persuasion or even basic credibility. Since he took office in January 2025, Hegseth has done his best to turn independent journalism into a branch of the Defense Department’s communications office. Meanwhile, the people responsible for explaining military action have behaved less like public officials and more like pundits auditioning for the next viral clip.

The daily Pentagon briefings of the Gulf War era and the CentCom pressers during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were undoubtedly inadequate and often sanitized. And yet it represented a floor which I naively believed democratic accountability could not fall beneath without consequence. That floor has been demolished. 

In October, Hegseth introduced a 21-page set of reporting rules that essentially required journalists to submit their reporting for Pentagon approval before publication. Most major outlets refused. Rather than agree to censorship disguised as “credentialing,” companies including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and even Fox News surrendered their Pentagon press passes.

Their replacements are exactly who you would expect.

Pro-Trump outlets like One America News Network, conspiracy impresarios like Mike Lindell of LindellTV and a rotating cast of MAGA influencers were welcomed into the briefing room and declared journalists. Another granted access was Laura Loomer, who proudly calls herself “President Trump’s chief loyalty enforcer.”

The consequences of this coup are already visible in the public discourse. Americans are being asked to support — or oppose — a military campaign against Iran with almost none of the information required to make that judgment. What is the legal basis for these strikes? Has the War Powers Resolution been triggered, including the requirement that the president officially notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to a military action? What does success look like, and who defines it? What is the escalation threshold — at what point does Iranian retaliation become a pretext for a ground campaign? 

Instead, we are getting messaging in the style of machismo. Rather than make the case on the merits, the administration and its operatives have saturated social media with images and rhetoric meant to trigger patriotic reflexes among the American people. 

On Wednesday, the White House released a video on social media combining real footage of combat operations in Iran with computer-generated clips lifted from a popular combat video game. A day later, another video appeared online splicing together scenes from Hollywood action movies with actual war footage under the caption “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY.” War — particularly one involving nuclear-capable states in the Middle East — is not supposed to look like a highlight reel assembled by a 16-year-old editing gaming clips.

The spectacle reflects a broader transformation underway across the national security apparatus, as Trump’s cabinet increasingly resembles a cable-news panel.

Before being tapped on Thursday to replace Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin spent the week across all of cable news trying to sell the president’s war of choice. Speaking to Fox News, Mullin argued Trump was right not to brief Congress ahead of attacking Iran because “you just simply can’t trust” all of the elected representatives, specifically naming Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. Both are Muslim. In another appearance, Mullin pivoted seamlessly from discussing military action abroad to denouncing immigration policies at home, treating the two issues as part of the same broader struggle for national survival.

Mullin’s cable news appearances offer a revealing preview of what the Department of Homeland Security might look like under his leadership. A former mixed martial arts fighter and plumbing company owner, Mullin speaks like a culture-war combatant and has cultivated the kind of blunt, confrontational style that plays well on television debate panels. He has embarrassingly conflated Iraq and Iran, and backpedaled on whether the U.S. is at war, but he has never shied away from a cable news hit. 

Mullin’s constant presence on television as a defender of Trump clearly endeared him to the president and is at least partially responsible for his nomination to succeed Noem, who was not fired because her policies failed. They are still the policies of the Trump administration. Noem was fired because she became a liability on television, unable to defend the indefensible without embarrassing the president in front of his real audience. She had grown unpopular with Trump’s base, overseeing the decline in support for his signature domestic policy, with Fox News host Tomi Lahren summing up the sentiment by saying in reaction to Noem’s ouster, “Good riddance and hide your dogs.”

After the crisis in Minneapolis, Republican senators trained their criticism on Noem, saying change was needed at the top, and many see Mullin as a steadier hand — meaning he performs better on camera. The department’s actual function is secondary to whether the person in charge can hold their own in a split-screen. Nevermind that Mullin, who, like Noem, also appeared on cable news the day a second U.S. citizen was gunned down on video by a DHS employee, told Fox News that Alex “Pretti was a deranged individual who came in to cause massive damage with a loaded pistol.”

Meanwhile, the administration’s hostility toward independent journalism continues to escalate. The Justice Department has subpoenaed journalist Seth Harp for reporting on the identity of a military official involved in the military incursion into Venezuela, which saw President Nicolás Maduro toppled and, along with his wife, seized and brought to New York to face criminal charges. Officials have also begun invoking the concept of “doxxing” — once used to describe online harassment — to criminalize reporting on immigration enforcement operations carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

The Pentagon’s press restrictions are now the subject of a major lawsuit brought by the New York Times, which argues that the new media policy violates both the First and Fifth Amendments by granting the department “unbridled discretion” over who is allowed to report from inside the building.

When the traditional press corps was finally allowed back into the briefing room this week, what they found looked less like a government briefing than a political rally. Hegseth opened Monday’s conference with a line that perfectly captured the administration’s posture toward the war now unfolding in Iran. “This war,” he said, “will have no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically correct wars.” Where previous administrations at least gestured toward international humanitarian law and democratic ideals, Hegseth openly mocked them. But most shockingly, that contempt extended even to the subject of American casualties.

At the same briefing, the defense secretary referred to weapons that had killed U.S. service members abroad as “every once in a while you might have a squirter that makes its way through.” At a briefing two days later, he lashed out at journalists for reporting on the deaths of American troops. “When a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front page news” Hegseth complained. “The press only wants to make the president look bad.”

According to The Atlantic’s Nancy Youssef, Hegseth’s comments “sent a stunned silence through the briefing room.” Someone in the room, she recalled, said, “That was one of the most insulting things I have ever heard.”

Pentagon reporters are saying that military representatives now refuse to discuss operational details, referring nearly every inquiry to the White House. As CNN’s Brian Stelter recently reported, “virtually everything gets referred to the White House.” 

After begrudgingly acknowledging last fall that Congress had gotten more information from the Pentagon during the Biden administration, Republicans are now reportedly growing frustrated about Hegseth’s inability to message on Iran. 

But Republicans well understand that the people Trump promotes are rarely those with the deepest policy expertise. They are the ones who can most effectively defend the president on television. Hegseth’s path from Fox News host to defense secretary was the clearest example. Mullin’s trajectory now appears to follow a similar arc. This is the logic of the cable news Cabinet applied at scale: governance as content and television performance as the only qualification that actually counts.

The danger is that governance conducted as media spectacle inevitably prioritizes short-term political impact over long-term stability. Crises become opportunities for viral moments. That is the logic currently shaping how the Pentagon communicates about war. And if Mullin’s media tour is any indication, it is the same logic that may soon guide the nation’s domestic security apparatus as well. Trump’s wars — at home and abroad — are being narrated like a reality television show.

The post Trump’s cable-news Cabinet tries to sell a war appeared first on Salon.com.

Only when they return to Ohio, and Fusco lays eyes on his fiancée’s large and well-appointed home, does he transform into Mr. Hyde. Fusco sits her down in the apartment they share to discuss his problem with their relationship: her body. He’s used to dating women who keep it tight, he explains. And Barrett, who works the long hospital shifts required to save people’s lives, isn’t cutting it.

“So I’m trying to like, I don’t know. Somebody who works out all the time and has a different type of, I don’t know,” he stammers. “It’s just someone who does . . . Pilates every day, or someone who’s working out every day. In those situations, it’s hard for me to be like, physically, when we’re in that moment, into it.”

With saintly calm, the too-good-for-him Dr. Barrett packs her things and returns to her peaceful castle.

(Netflix) Jessica Barrett and Chris Fusco in “Love is Blind”

Later, at a couples mixer, Fusco drunkenly brays about how terrible the sex was. Then he tries to seduce his second choice, fellow cast member Bri McNees, by offering to whisk her away to the local Four Seasons and letting her know he has a Charles Schwab account. As he does this, Connor Spies, McNees’ intended, stands a few feet away.

We watch “Love Is Blind” for all the usual reasons. The mess? Sure. Its sense of romantic optimism? Not if you’ve been paying attention! But Chris Fusco’s “I’m just not that into smashing you” speech and boozy peacocking have made him the face of a moment. He’s a grade-A reality TV villain and a gift to content creators, fueling a slew of analyses and clapbacks. One TikTok user posted a video of his Pilates speech being projected onscreen in her psychology class, as a case study.

To women nodding along while reading tales of alpine divorces and ghostlighting filling their social media feeds, Fusco is the typical catch in the increasingly polluted dating pool. And to those who watch “Love Is Blind” while noticing an overall decline in our ability to relate to one another, he’s proof that the show’s matchmaking success rate probably was doomed to decrease over time.

Finding love has never been easy. I say this as someone who never had to deal with modern dating horrors, but has close friends who do, if they haven’t surrendered to heterofatalism entirely. My husband and I watch “Love Is Blind” with one of those nearest and dearest, and we three approach each season like rabid sports fans who are only in it to yell at the TV.

Since “Love Is Blind” was minted at the start of the pandemic, it follows that the further we get from its February 2020 debut, the more frequently antisocial patterns learned during lockdowns are emerging.

The convenience technology that got us through the pandemic also made it easier than ever to avoid other people. Delivery apps reduced the need to leave the house for groceries and other supplies. Apps also facilitated no muss sexual encounters; nobody wanted to catch the virus, or feelings. This has been the case since the dawn of mobile devices and algorithmic personalization, but forced separations may have turned curt, unexplained goodbyes into a perceived relationship norm. The “Sex and the City” generation was left agog at their heroine being dumped via Post-It note; today, Carrie Bradshaw is just as likely to be abandoned by a suitor dropping their text thread without explanation.

Others try to resume them by picking up that chain months after they’ve left a date on read — or ghostlighting, as it’s been dubbed.

But then, a little frustration at a cowardly lack of social etiquette is better than, say, a date abandoning you in the middle of a wilderness hike, i.e., the alpine divorce.

(Netflix) Chris Fusco in “Love is Blind”

Pandemic technology reliance fostered an expectation of a frictionless existence, including in our romantic lives. Many of us are still figuring out that being around other people doesn’t work that way – and there’s no better evidence of how harsh that lesson can be than watching “Love Is Blind” in its later seasons.

Mind you, smart women and men were making foolish partner choices ages before young men flocked to Andrew Tate, whom Fusco casually namedrops to McNees. In ye olden times, hapless manchildren genuflected before Erik von Markovik, aka Mystery, the high priest of the “seduction community” profiled in 2005 in Neil Strauss’ bestseller “The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists.” Mystery and his kind mainstreamed the practice of negging, which speculates that insulting a woman is the key to piquing her interest.

But that was when people were obligated to inconvenience themselves by leaving their creature comforts to rawdog the same air as strangers in bars. The simultaneous rise of social media and consumer apps removed that complication. Tinder’s 2012 launch moved the mating hunt onto our phones, and now single servings of strangers can mosey right to your doorstep. As for those less inclined to submit to some digital catalog call, there are and have always been chatrooms, forums, and online gaming communities enabling like-minded people to gather without meeting in the flesh.

“Love Is Blind”’s gamification dangles the promise of a deeper emotional connection, which was especially appealing when lockdowns closed community third spaces and further cemented TV as a dominant cultural hub.

For a few couples, its premise has worked. Season 1 matched Lauren Speed-Hamilton and Cameron Hamilton. Season 4 united Tiffany Pennywell and Brett Brown; their marriage is still going strong, as are those of fellow participants Chelsea Griffin and Kwame Appiah, and Bliss Poureetezadi and Zack Goytowski.

(Netflix) Emma Betsinger and Mike Gibney in “Love is Blind”

But the show’s marriage track record petered out since, coinciding with a reported rise in global loneliness that hasn’t abated since the world reopened — that, and the mainstreaming of casual misogyny. You may even recognize manosphere dictums sprinkled within otherwise normal-seeming conversations on “Love Is Blind” — comments equating dominance with male desirability and drawing a correlation between a man’s annual salary and his masculinity. Or defining a solid relationship as one where a woman isn’t too much of a bother.

Witness the tortured love story of Emma Betsinger and Mike Gibney. Betsinger is a childless-by-choice adoptee, concerned that her potential children might inherit the cancerous skin condition that required her to undergo multiple surgeries. Gibney, who has never lived with a woman, wants a womb of his own. He proposes to her, intending to change her mind while assuring Betsinger and her loved ones that he isn’t pressuring her. Then he ditches her at the altar.

Day trader Alex Henderson confuses his betrothed Ashley Carpenter with a shifting backstory involving frequent moves and overlapping dating histories, all attributed to his “nomadic lifestyle.” In the same argument where he issues a veiled suggestion that Carpenter abandon her job, he blames his lack of sexual initiation on her menstrual cycle.

Meanwhile, Brittany Wicker says yes to Devonta Anderson soon after they begin dating, but when he discovers she said yes to her wedding dress before they met, he finds that scary and clingy. The slightest hint of conflict sends him marching off in a silent funk, actually. When they call off the wedding, Wicker chooses to see that decision as a relationship pause, while Anderson bids her farewell by saying, “We will be in touch,” with the soulless formality of a Truth Social post sign-off. (“Thank you for your attention to this matter.”)

(Netflix) Brittany Wicker and Devonta Anderson in “Love is Blind”

Survey after survey places statistics behind anecdotal testimonies about our inability to romantically connect. A January 2025 report from the Survey Center on American Life found that 57% of single men and 54% of single women feel pessimistic about finding a suitable partner, although there are more single young men (59%) than similarly unattached young women (44%). You’ve no doubt read about the male loneliness epidemic, but more recent findings by Pew Research Center show that young women are equally as lonely, with 16% of men and 15% of women reporting feeling “lonely or isolated all or most of the time.”

Some theorize that women more effectively cultivated their alone time during the pandemic, choosing to develop new skills or prioritize self-care.

Of course, based on what Henderson, Gibney, Anderson and Fusco claim, it’s not that they lack for a social life but, rather, a similarly disposed person who offers none of the conflict inherent to any relationship with a real live human.

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

Against all odds, Season 10 yielded two marriages. Christine Hamilton and Dr. Vic St. John got engaged so quickly and exhibited so little tension that people called them adorable but boring or, worse, ringers. They were spared the unease of the Cabo San Lucas couples retreat and sent to Malibu instead due to budgetary restrictions and their lack of triangular tension.

Their relative normalcy, and that of fellow marrieds Amber Morrison and Jordan Faeth, is a soothing contrast to the textbook Fusco fiasco and the rest of the season’s red flag bearers. But it’s getting increasingly apparent that this experiment’s purpose isn’t to see whether love is blind, but whether there’s any hope of finding it at all. In America, we should say.

The good news is that the show’s format has been replicated in many other countries. Our domestic selections may be going the way of Fusco, but I hear Sweden is for lovers. Maybe I need to watch that version to find out.

The “Love Is Blind” 10th season reunion episode debuts at 6 p.m. PT/ 9 p.m. ET Wednesday, March 11, on Netflix.

The post Why the “Love Is Blind” experiment was doomed from the start appeared first on Salon.com.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth found that Lake’s leadership of the U.S. Agency for Global Media violated federal law because she was never formally nominated or confirmed to the position. The judge said Lake’s role failed to meet requirements under both the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

The ruling invalidates actions Lake took while running the agency between July and November 2025, including sweeping staff reductions and operational changes that sharply curtailed Voice of America’s operations.

Voice of America, which broadcasts news globally in multiple languages, has long served as a U.S. government–funded international news outlet intended to counter disinformation and promote independent journalism abroad.

During Lake’s tenure overseeing the agency, layoffs and contract cuts significantly reduced VOA’s workforce and programming, leaving only a small portion of its broadcasts operating. Critics argued the changes undermined the organization’s journalistic mission and weakened a key instrument of U.S. global media influence.

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

The lawsuit that led to the ruling was brought by several VOA journalists and employees who were laid off during the restructuring. They said the decision represents an important step toward restoring the agency’s independence and mission.

The judge’s ruling effectively nullifies Lake’s decisions during the period in question, though the immediate operational impact on Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded broadcasters remains unclear.

Lake criticized the ruling and said it would be appealed.

The U.S. Agency for Global Media oversees several international broadcasters, including Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, which provide news to audiences in countries where independent media may be restricted.

The post Judge voids Kari Lake actions at Voice of America appeared first on Salon.com.

This summer, that vision becomes reality as Soul & Smoke, the beloved casual BBQ joint from Evanston, Illinois, expands its flagship location—turning a once-humble smoke shack into a destination for refined, fire-driven dining.

“The current form of Smoke was the result of a pandemic pivot” says co-owner and sommelier Heather Bublick who runs the business with her husband Chef D’Andre Carter. “This [expansion] is our full vision of Soul & Smoke.”

Their journey hasn’t followed the usual path. They bought the building in February 2020, just weeks before lockdowns shuttered the world. What was meant to be a fine dining concept celebrating seafood, vegetables and meats fresh from the fire morphed into a laid-back pick-up spot with four picnic tables. But that pivot didn’t stop them. Soul & Smoke grew into three brick-and-mortar locations in Chicago, became a staple vendor at Soldier Field and Northwestern’s stadium, and launched a line of condiments.

At the helm are two chefs who met at Moto, the Michelin-starred pioneer of haute cuisine. Their expertise shows in every detail. Soul & Smoke’s centerpiece: rare A.N. Bewley smokers imported from Texas, a true rarity in the Midwest. Fan favorites like smoked duroc rib tips, pound-cut brisket, and stacked sandwiches with soul-soothing sides—mac and cheese, cornbread, collard greens—will stay on the menu.

But after dark, the space transforms. Chef Carter’s culinary artistry shines in dishes like smoked Harrison farm chicken and seafood platters, featuring a standout smoked octopus that he’s especially proud of. There’s even the legendary Moto brisket cigar — once exclusive to their catering menu — now available to the public. Foodies in Chicago know the story: Carter’s mentor, Homaro Cantu, hailed by The Guardian as “the most inventive chef in history,” inspired this iconic dish.

“We’ve been doing [the Moto brisket cigar] for a long time,” says Bublick. “Keeping the memory of Moto alive, keeping the memory of Homaru alive after a tragic ending, to have this still be in Chicago, was important to both of us.”

Bublick curates an exceptional wine list featuring BIPOC and women-owned wineries, adding another layer of thoughtful intention. Diners choose their own adventure—whether self-serving via QR codes or enjoying the attentive guidance of servers—reflecting a flexible, modern approach that also honors Soul & Smoke’s no-tipping policy.

Every choice at Soul & Smoke is intentional, including where they call home.

“We’re in the historic Fifth Ward,” says Bublick. “It’s formerly a red line neighborhood in Evanston that suffered from disinvestment. Evanston was the first city in the U.S. to launch a reparations program directly addressing the harm that was caused in this neighborhood and it was a factor on why we picked it.”

Their building — a century-old barn once owned by the Robinson Bus Company — carries deep history. Founded by Leon G. Robinson Jr., who began by driving Head Start kids to school, it eventually became the largest Black-owned transportation company in the country. Purchasing the building from the Robinson family felt like an opportunity to honor and extend that legacy of service.

“When we looked at where we were going to open this restaurant it certainly would have been easier, faster to find a second generation spot in downtown Evanston or downtown Chicago,” says Bublick. “But it seems so disingenuous to pick up and move to another neighborhood when our roots are here. D’Andre has always been really passionate about being an example to the kids in this neighborhood. We want to show them that success can happen here too.”

Their drive for excellence and the ambition to challenge what fine dining and BBQ mean comes with a deeply personal motivation: their two young daughters.

“We’re in Soldier Field, we’re in these environments but we don’t ever know how long that’s going to last,” says Bublick. “Making sure that they are able to come along for the ride and see Soul and Smoke at every stage is really important to us.”

The post Barbecue, but make it fine dining appeared first on Salon.com.

Determined not to be left behind in the contest for maximal self-ownership, Donald Trump was up early on Saturday morning to issue, even by his standards, an incoherent stream-of-unconsciousness Truth Social post. It came complete with classic Trump moves: upside-down run-on sentences, the leaders of unidentified nations (no doubt holding back tears) saying “Thank you President Trump” and a self-canceling proclamation that Iran had “surrendered to its Middle East neighbors” and was now “THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST,” but was also, somehow, unlikely to surrender or collapse “for many decades” into the future. I’m not much good at the poker table, but I believe that’s called a tell.

Life is too short to spend much of it troubled by the unbelievable stupidity of the people supposedly in charge of this country. We give each other these lectures, right? Stay hydrated, touch grass, see your friends, tell the people you love that you love them. Still though: How did we get here?

Unfortunately, there’s a real war happening to real people, including more than 150 children who were apparently killed when a U.S. missile struck a girls’ school in southern Iran on Feb. 28. So let’s get back to Hegseth, a classic example of the MAGA-sphere’s sociopathic inability to perceive other people as real or other perspectives as potentially legitimate. He somehow managed not to start pumping iron or drop to the stage for push-ups during his press appearance rather than using words, those known tools of the woke mind virus and trans agenda. It might also have been a tell for the “secretary of war” — now in charge of a war that isn’t a war — to loudly insist that the greatest military power in the history of the world is “winning” against an adversary with one-fourth its population, severely damaged military and civilian infrastructure, and an economy crippled by sanctions, mismanagement and environmental crisis. Who was he trying to convince?

First and foremost, of course, there’s the only audience that matters: Hegseth’s boss at the top of the worm-eaten executive branch, the guy whose skin appears to literally be rotting off his frame and who claims not to have “the yips” about using ground troops in a war of indefinite duration that was launched on invented premises with constantly shifting objectives.

Another Hegseth target was surely the mainstream media, which has been purged from the Pentagon and has been so badly burned by this administration’s relentless lies that it’s now disconcertingly reluctant to cheerlead for a war the public doesn’t want. (We can of course exempt Bari Weiss and CBS News, still boldly chasing the pseudo-centrist, pro-MAGA “vibe shift” that expired six months ago.) And let’s not forget the spineless but increasingly restless Republicans in the House and Senate, who can see the mounting daily cost of Trump’s Iran war — which by now could easily have funded the Obamacare subsidies they voted down — and who already fear an electoral Waterloo in November.

If Hegseth were capable of self-awareness, we might suggest that he was striking macho-man poses on the deck of a sinking ship in an effort to convince himself that his personal brand, along with the rest of the MAGA enterprise, wasn’t headed straight for the historical dumpster. Let’s put it this way: This recycled Fox News frat boy, whose bottomless stupidity and moral emptiness make the now-cashiered Kristi Noem look like a nuanced thinker, seems to be experiencing doubts he cannot quite suppress. If that’s how it’s going, then “America” isn’t winning anything, regardless of what does or doesn’t happen in Tehran.

We shouldn’t skate past the loaded question that lies beneath the surface of Hegseth’s bluster: Is the U.S. truly in the driver’s seat for this misguided war, or did Trump and his underlings get lured into this conflict by Bibi Netanyahu? Different things can simultaneously be true here; it’s not exactly a yes-or-no question. American neocons have longed to take down the Iranian regime since the early years of that nation’s Islamic revolution, and Trump’s decision to go to war represents an unexpected victory for foreign-policy hawks like John Bolton, his now-despised first-term national security adviser. Netanyahu has urged every American president since Bill Clinton to do this, and until now they have all resisted. That said, the increasingly toxic hard-right Israeli government and its relentless American supporters, as I wrote last week, have exercised a persistent long-term distortion effect that has reshaped U.S. policy and both political parties, and is only now starting to be decoupled.

It would be foolish to make confident predictions about what will happen in this war, except to say that nearly all potential outcomes are likely to create much bigger problems down the road. I make no claims to military expertise, but here’s my sophisticated meta-analysis of what actual military experts say: Nobody knows anything. There’s a cautious consensus that U.S. and Israeli forces are now playing beat-the-clock against a possible missile gap: They hope to destroy Iran’s extensive arsenal of ballistic missiles before the U.S., Israel and the Gulf states start to run out of expensive Interceptor missiles and other air-defense tech, which may or may not be in short supply.

You can find experts who argue that the semi-decapitated Iranian regime is close to collapse and searching for an exit strategy right next to experts who argue that Trump and his advisers have blundered into a Heffalump trap lovingly constructed from their own arrogance and moral blindness — with lots of help from Netanyahu — and will soon need to make excuses for another U.S. humiliation on the global stage. Many Salon readers, and many Americans in general (if we go by opinion polls), are likely to find the latter scenario disturbingly plausible.

But we don’t need to know exactly what will happen in this war to conclude that it was a bad idea, based on bad premises, that will lead to more bad things. As for the pundits and think-tankers and accused thought-leaders who once seduced themselves into supporting George W. Bush’s post-9/11 wars and are now repeating the exercise, like traumatized mice returning to the spot in the maze where the cheese used to be, what is there to say? The intellectual class has never been immune to the pathological American conviction that history is bunk.

There’s a painful well of comedy to be mined, as observed above, in the Trump administration’s ‘roid-ragey, AI-slop-infused war propaganda. In this case, the war itself is propaganda, a desperate effort to shift the narrative away from the Epstein files, the massively unpopular ICE crackdown and the stagnating economy, among other symptoms of the regime’s political implosion. None of this is entirely new: Since at least the Vietnam era, America’s attempts to project strength on the global stage have often looked like embarrassing weakness. But the shameless bigotry, delusion and narcissism of the MAGA regime acts as a force multiplier, revealing and accelerating the declining empire’s worst tendencies.

If military experts are perplexed about how things are going in the Middle East, foreign-policy experts are not. A survey of 949 international relations scholars conducted by researchers at William & Mary and the University of Georgia found that nearly 87 percent opposed the U.S. decision to attack Iran, while 81 percent believed the attacks would “probably” or “definitely” make the U.S. less secure. Financial markets have declined sharply since the war began while crude oil prices have spiked, from less than $70 a barrel to more than $90. More to the point for Donald Trump, gasoline prices in the U.S. are now higher than they were before the 2024 election, which might give him the “yips” in a way that the deaths of human beings never will.

American war-planners, it would seem, never considered the possibility that Iran would respond with “a massive and escalating bombardment” of its Gulf neighbors, which George Washington University scholar Marc Lynch describes as a clear and coordinated strategy meant to inflict “global economic pain to build pressure for a cease-fire.” Autocratic leaders of the prosperous Gulf states, Lynch writes, viewed Trump as a friend but now feel a “sense of betrayal” that he launched a war alongside Israel without consulting them, threatening their perceived “immunity from regional politics” and leaving them open to “catastrophic fallout” no matter how the war ends. Those sultans and emirs and sheikhs are learning “that the United States cannot be relied upon to protect them,” a historical lesson that counts double when you’re dealing with Donald Trump, who has no actual friends and no loyalty to anyone.

Trying to look manly and tough when your entire regime, from the top on down, consists of shifty characters with a wide range of obvious personality disorders might seem like a categorical error. But it’s a core principle of MAGA ideology, which teaches believers that there is no truth and that any level of cowardly and shameless behavior in service to the leader is a show of strength.

There’s no point in trying to catalog all the excuses Trump’s minions have offered about why they started this war and what its goals are. Plan A was threadbare, and they never had a Plan B. His followers don’t care, and the rest of us are inured to the endless lies. On Friday, Trump demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” landing the phrase on the front of the New York Times. Shortly afterward, Karoline Leavitt explained that away as a metaphor: Maybe the Iranians would somewhat surrender, sort of unconditionally, without knowing they were doing that. These pathological losers are making America look like a failed state before the whole world, which might be funny if it weren’t terrifying.

The post Behind Trump’s war fever lies profound weakness appeared first on Salon.com.

Trump and his handpicked team of the worst people you can imagine (his incompetent, mewling kakistocracy) are gleefully attacking women, immigrants, universities, public education, scientists, LGBTQ+ folks and our historic allies, as well as nonpartisan experts in economics and governance and foreign affairs — everything, in fact, that has made America creative, prosperous and secure.

It’s gotten so dire under Trump that good people of all sorts are leaving the country in numbers not seen since the Depression.

Another obvious irony is that MAGA’s self-styled supreme leader of this Christian white nationalist movement is no Christian. As a serial sexual predator, a habitual perpetrator of fraud, the most relentless liar on the planet and a lifelong supplicant of Mammon, Trump is by every measure anything but a follower of Jesus Christ. (While we are pointing out incongruities, it should be noted that with his very weird daily troweling-on of pancake makeup, he’s also only rarely “white.”)

As reported by Jonathan Larsen on his Substack, “The F**king News,” some U.S. military commanders have been telling their troops that the war on Iran is a Christian war. So it is more than fair to critique these so-called Christian leaders.

It hardly seems worth taking the time to pick apart Trump’s performative Christianity. He’s the guy who hawks Bibles and yet cannot name even one line of scripture he admires. (It’s too personal, you see. Oh, and he’s “probably equally” both an Old Testament and New Testament guy, 50–50.)

As a cultural Christian — I’m the grandson of a minister and was raised Presbyterian, and was active while our daughters were young — I’m not given to quoting scripture. Religious belief is personal, and I don’t appreciate it when people evangelize to me or, you know, try to write their beliefs into public policy. But this passage from Proverbs (6:16–19) is uncanny suited to our moment:

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflicts in the community.

A quick check online shows that versions of that have been floating around in various online memes for some years. (For instance, back in 2019, Marco Rubio, then a Florida senator, was attacked by Trump supporters for posting the passage without comment.)

In the version I saw recently, above the verses is a photo of Trump, showing off some of the haughtiest eyes you’ve ever seen (imagine one of those tough-guy official portraits inspired by his mugshot, or the glare he gives a reporter who dares to ask him a real question). But, gosh, the manchild leader of the everyday American found himself a millionaire at the age of eight, so I guess he has an excuse for overall haughtiness, compared to the likes of you and me. He simply never learned better.

I may be only a cultural Christian, but as an old friend told me recently, she could go for more cultural Christians these days.

The post Trump’s misguided “Christian” war is anything but appeared first on Salon.com.

Estefany Rodriguez Florez, a Colombian journalist with the Tennessee news outlet Nashville Noticias, was taken into custody Wednesday during a traffic stop in Nashville, according to court documents and statements from her attorney. ICE officials say the arrest was part of an enforcement operation tied to alleged visa violations.

Rodriguez, who has lived in the United States for about five years, has a valid work permit and has been pursuing legal residency through her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Court records filed by her lawyer say she also sought asylum after previously receiving death threats related to her reporting in Colombia.

Her attorney’s emergency court filing contends Rodriguez was not shown a judicial arrest warrant at the time she was detained, and instead only received an immigration notice to appear before ICE. Advocates argue the arrest undermines journalistic independence and could chill coverage of immigration issues.

ICE officials have defended the detention, telling reporters Rodriguez was arrested under an “administrative warrant” and that she will receive due process in immigration proceedings. The agency also asserts her visa had expired.

Rodriguez’s work for Nashville Noticias has included reporting on police, community and immigration issues affecting the region’s Spanish‑speaking population, and supporters say her arrest could send a troubling signal to journalists covering similar beats. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists condemned the arrest and called for her release so she can continue her work.

🚨 NAHJ denounces the detention of Nashville reporter Estefany Rodríguez.

Rodríguez has lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. since 2021 while pursuing political asylum.

Journalists must be able to report without intimidation.

Read more: https://t.co/5YAIlAwmBV pic.twitter.com/PMWSKD5wNG

— NAHJ (@NAHJ) March 6, 2026

Her detention has prompted advocacy from press freedom and immigrant rights organizations, including the Committee to Protect Journalists, which urged authorities to release Rodriguez and ensure protections for reporters.

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

Rodriguez remains in ICE custody as her case moves through federal court, where attorneys are pressing for her release and arguing that constitutional rights were violated in the handling of her arrest.

The post Reporter detained for speaking Spanish in Nashville appeared first on Salon.com.

Days before Storrie’s episode, The Athletic announced that Minnesota Wild defenseman Quinn Hughes — fresh off besting Team Canada to win Olympic gold with the U.S. men’s hockey team in Milan — would join Storrie on the show before heading over to appear on “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” on Monday.

In another reality, Hughes’ cameo would have been viewed as a nice tip of the hat to the world of “Heated Rivalry,” a romantic drama about hockey players from rival teams – one Canadian, one American – falling in love. But in this darkest of timelines, Hughes and his brother, Jack, were caught in a widely circulated video showing them partying with FBI director Kash Patel and laughing as Donald Trump made a dig at the U.S. women’s hockey team, who also won gold.

“I must tell you, we’re gonna have to bring the women’s team, you do know that?” Trump said after inviting the men to visit the White House. If he didn’t, he added, he’d “probably be impeached.” At this, America’s hockey dudes laughed dutifully and dude-ily, unaware of how disgusting people would find this tidbit of locker room talk.

None of this should have been Connor Storrie’s problem. But the “Heated Rivalry” of it all provided an opportunity for reputational laundering nobody at NBC or with Team USA could pass up.

So on “SNL,” as Storrie’s monologue winds down, we see the Hughes brothers take the stage to polite applause and a few hoots. A little banter ensues, making way for the real surprise guests: fellow Olympic hockey champions Megan Keller and team captain Hilary Knight. The audience roars as Keller and Knight flank Storrie before Knight jokes, “It was gonna be just us, but we thought we’d invite the guys too.”

“We thought we’d give them a little moment to shine,” Keller adds.

See what “SNL” did there?

An uncritical viewing designates this as another “all’s well that ends well” gag. Whether it came together after producers took stock of the rising fury or was planned all along is irrelevant; we’re supposed to appreciate that “SNL” made a show of giving all the gold medalists their deserved spotlight. Regardless of the media’s outsized focus on the men’s victory (“The Boys of Team USA,” crows a Free Press headline prominently featured on CBS News’ website) and this brazen example of how women’s sports accomplishments are relegated to a lower status that men’s, Lorne Michaels is once again here to remind us that the whole mess is laughable and all things are equal.

After all, this is men’s hockey’s first team gold since 1980’s “Miracle on Ice.” And the women? “The last time we did that was two whole Olympics ago,” Knight deadpans.

So yet again, Michaels and the “Saturday Night Live” producers placed an up-and-coming performer in the role of scandal laundering.

I’d argue Ayo Edebiri got a rawer deal in 2024 when she was pressed into setting up former GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley, who opposed marriage equality and transgender rights, with a joke about Haley’s refusal to cite slavery as the Civil War’s primary cause. Even so, Storrie has to figuratively shine up a team of athletes who probably never watched his show in front of the millions of fans who ardently do.

(Will Heath/NBC) Hudson Williams and Connor Storrie on “Saturday Night Live”

Michaels has long responded to criticisms about “SNL” being left-leaning (which it has been, historically) or humanizing odious far-right figures (which it does more often these days) by claiming that his show is politically neutral.

If neutrality equals toothlessness, I have no rebuttal to that assessment. “Saturday Night Live” has never demonstratively risen to the challenge of satirizing Trump or any of the treacherous absurdity he’s foisted on us. Even when Alec Baldwin capitalized on his celebrity to poke at Trump’s orange peel during his first presidency, it wasn’t up to the task. The show has offered even less of a challenge during this more unhinged second administration.

But the Olympic hockey incursion on a night that should have entirely belonged to Storrie is an apt metaphor for the show’s constant slips and stumbles on what it thinks of as political middle ground. Keller and Knight were rewarded with proximity to Storrie and the best punchlines, but neither Quinn nor Jack Hughes had to indicate in any way that they had joined America’s president in slighting them.

“Saturday Night Live” will always be a safe space for politicians who don’t mind laughing at themselves. That includes objectively horrendous people. Anyone lampooned with a scintilla of brutality knows that an appearance can temporarily inoculate against accusations of humorlessness. In the worst cases, it gives the audience one last chance to laugh in someone’s face before they vanish into obscurity.

For this reason, one of the smartest moves Sarah Palin made was showing up during one of Tina Fey’s dead-ringer impressions to mark the end of her time as a vice presidential candidate. This season, Fey dropped by to impersonate freshly ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Who knows, she may reprise that role this weekend when Ryan Gosling hosts.

But I wouldn’t put it past Michaels to persuade Noem herself to pop in and lay a few aw-shucks jokey-jokes on we, the people. Like everyone else in Trump’s circle, she is just human after all . . . of those Immigration and Customs Enforcement kidnappings and killings she oversaw.

Olympic athletes, in contrast, are meant to be apolitical figures representing their home nation’s highest ideals. The circumstances leading to this PR black eye for the men’s hockey team are anything but – and a sharper, braver comedy show would have done a smarter job of acknowledging that while moving the biscuit across the ice.

“Saturday Night Live” hasn’t been that show for some time – probably not since the last time the men’s hockey team won gold. But its ineffectual japing, and Michaels’ inability to help himself when it comes to normalizing repugnant behavior in the name of chasing the zeitgeist, makes it a popular stop on the image rehab express. Since Quinn and Jack’s mother, Ellen Hughes, did her part by dropping by “Today” in her capacity as a USA women’s hockey player development consultant, so must her sons make the NBC rounds.

Despite their enthusiastic appearance at the State of the Union address – the women’s team was also invited but declined, citing scheduling conflicts –  I’m guessing the men’s team does not want history to remember them as Trump acolytes. Some have offered their version of repentance for their behavior, while Jack Hughes, a center and alternate captain for the New Jersey Devils, could only muster a “You’re in the moment” excuse when The Athletic asked him about the situation. “It is what it is now,” he said a couple of days before his “SNL” appearance, “but we have so much respect for the women’s team, they have so much respect for us. We’re all just proud Americans and we’re happy that we both swept the Olympics.”

Others have asked for the public’s grace, including women’s hockey champion Abbey Murphy, who addressed the controversy on a recent Barstool Sports hockey podcast episode by saying, “We never felt anything bad from them . . . it’s sad they even have to apologize for anything.”

Regardless, the U.S. men’s hockey team became synonymous with the standardized misogyny from which “Heated Rivalry” offers a refuge.

Bringing Keller and Knight onstage somewhat sweetened the awkward position in which the show placed Storrie, but it doesn’t entirely ameliorate the White House’s intrusion into both hockey teams’ Olympic glory. Instead, the bit reduced a palpable slight to just another funny slip-up.

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

Did any of this take away from Storrie’s “Saturday Night Live” debut? In the main, not so much. “Heated Rivalry” stans applauded the actor’s good-natured handling of the situation and flipped over the unannounced but entirely expected appearances by his co-star and best friend, Hudson Williams.

Not much else about the episode was as memorable as these treats, which means “SNL” successfully washed the dirt of another scandal out of our newsfeeds yet again,

The part that continues to stink is that the show used both an actor who portrays a queer hero and women’s excellence to scrub away our indignance without requiring their male counterparts to lend any muscle at all. That Quinn and Jack Hughes agreed to be the butt of the joke by simply standing there is enough in the show’s non-partisan judgment. But without their presence, the audience would have understood that Olympic gold shines just as brightly when women hockey champions are wearing it, especially in the pleasing glow of a much-adored star like Storrie.

“Saturday Night Live” airs at 8:30 p.m. PT/ 11:30 p.m. ET Saturdays on NBC and streams the next day on Peacock.

The post “Saturday Night Live” has a middle ground problem appeared first on Salon.com.

The funeral service drew an extraordinary lineup of national figures, including former presidents Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton, along with former vice president Kamala Harris and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Civil rights leaders, elected officials and thousands of mourners also attended the service honoring Jackson’s decades-long fight for racial equality, voting rights and economic justice.

Jackson, who died last month at 84, rose to national prominence as a protégé of Martin Luther King Jr. before launching his own influential civil rights campaigns and two historic presidential runs in 1984 and 1988. His work helped build what he called the “Rainbow Coalition,” a political movement aimed at uniting marginalized communities and expanding political participation.

The service, held at a large church venue on Chicago’s South Side, featured speeches, music and personal tributes that reflected Jackson’s influence on generations of political leaders and activists.

Obama delivered one of the most notable tributes, crediting Jackson’s political activism with helping inspire his own career and urging Americans to continue the civil rights leader’s work.

“Each day we’re told to fear each other,” Obama said during the service, warning against political forces that divide Americans and undermine democratic values. He called on the audience to follow Jackson’s example and “step up” to build a more just society.

Other speakers echoed those themes. Biden praised Jackson’s determination and commitment to social justice, while Clinton recalled Jackson as someone who pushed political leaders to address inequality and expand opportunity for disadvantaged communities.

Civil rights leaders also emphasized Jackson’s global influence and grassroots organizing. Throughout his career, Jackson advocated for voting rights, education access and economic opportunity, often traveling internationally to support human rights efforts and political negotiations.

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

By the end of the ceremony, speakers framed Jackson’s legacy as one rooted not only in protest and activism but in coalition-building and political participation.

As mourners celebrated his life, many said the causes Jackson championed — from voting rights to economic equality — remain central challenges in American politics today.

The post Leaders gather to honor the life and legacy of Jesse Jackson appeared first on Salon.com.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump suggested new targets were under consideration and said the U.S. could expand its campaign against Iran.

“Iran, which is being beat to HELL,” Trump wrote, adding that the country “will be hit very hard.” He said areas and groups “that were not considered for targeting up until this moment in time” were now being evaluated for potential strikes.

The comments come as fighting continues to escalate across the Middle East following Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, last month. The attacks triggered retaliatory missile and drone strikes by Iran and widened the conflict to include U.S. military involvement.

Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has rejected Trump’s demand that the country agree to “unconditional surrender,” calling the idea unrealistic and vowing Iran would continue to resist U.S. and Israeli attacks.

Missile launches and airstrikes have continued across the region in recent days, targeting military facilities and infrastructure in Iran and Israel. The growing conflict has raised fears of a wider regional war involving neighboring Gulf nations and U.S. forces stationed throughout the Middle East.

The fighting has already caused significant casualties. Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations said more than 1,300 Iranian civilians have been killed since the conflict began, though the United States and Israel dispute Iran’s characterization of some strikes.

Regional tensions also spilled beyond Iran and Israel. Several Gulf countries have reported intercepting Iranian missiles and drones, and airports and other infrastructure across the region have faced temporary disruptions amid security concerns.

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

So far there has been little sign of diplomacy. Trump repeatedly said the conflict could end if Iran agrees to surrender, while Iranian leaders dismissed that demand and accused Washington of escalating the war.

With both sides hardening their positions and strikes continuing across the region, analysts warn the conflict could expand further unless diplomatic efforts emerge to de-escalate the fighting.

The post Trump: Iran will be “hit very hard” soon with new strikes appeared first on Salon.com.

Two weeks from today will mark the 23rd anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq; it brings a profound feeling of déjà-vu for me.

On the night of March 19, 2003, I sat at home watching the news — tense, sad and angry. I held pen and paper in my hand, ordering my children to be quiet as they moved between playing and watching the screen. I had skipped dinner with them and my wife, and it was not yet bedtime for the little ones.

We were watching CNN. Like other American networks, they had positioned cameras on the rooftops of the Al-Mansur and Palestine hotels in Baghdad.

At first, the feeling was eerie; the cameras peered into a city with dimmed lights, shrouded in silence.

Then, at 8:35 p.m. Eastern time (4:35 a.m. in Baghdad), the Athan al-Fajr, or dawn prayer, suddenly rose from the darkness of the Baghdad feed. From the numerous mosques along the Tigris, the sound on the TV was a layered, overlapping chorus of multiple mu’adhins. It was melodic and haunting, even as the world waited for the “shock and awe” to begin.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in New York and Aaron Brown, on the ground in Baghdad, acknowledged the sound directly:

Blitzer: “Aaron, right now, we’re not hearing air raid sirens. We’re hearing the call to early morning prayers, the first prayer of the day for Muslims. Maybe I’ll be quiet for a second and you might be able to make it out behind me. Just listen for a second.”

Brown: “As you look at Baghdad, it is eerie… you don’t see any sense of panic in the city, any sense of movement in the city, or frankly any sense of war in the city.”

About an hour later, as the first strikes hit, Brown highlighted the surreal nature of this split-screen reality: “It is hard to imagine what it would be like to live in this city at a time like this, to know what had happened and what is likely to happen.”

When President George W. Bush appeared live, nearly an hour later, CNN used a “picture-in-picture” format, which was still somewhat unusual. On one side was the president’s face; on the other was the live, active bombardment of Baghdad.

Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq had just expired.

Bush declared: “At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.”

I stayed awake all night. My children were eventually put to bed, but my wife stayed up to watch with me for a few hours, her expression stoic.

It was too late for me to send reports for the following day’s edition of Asharq Al-Awsat, my London-based Arabic-language newspaper. Communication was not as advanced as it is today; the paper did not yet have an online edition, and we still used the telephone for routine contact.

When I went to my Washington office early the next morning, I saw parts of Saddam Hussein’s defiant speech, in which he declared: “The criminal, reckless little Bush and his aides committed this crime that he was threatening to commit against Iraq and humanity.”

My boss in London usually called me right after the daily reporters’ meeting, which drew up a blueprint for the day’s coverage.

When I picked up the phone, I began to weep loudly, repeating: “Al-Tatar dakhalo Baghdad” (“The Tatars have entered Baghdad”)

I must explain that the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols (or Tatars) remains a traumatic event deeply engraved in the Arab and Muslim mind as a definitive historical defeat. My boss was no less saddened, but our deadlines would not wait and we began to construct our coverage of the invasion.

During the period between that initial attack and the U.S. ground invasion, I covered press conferences at the White House and the State Department, and also experienced personal encounters, or perhaps confrontations, with Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Powell had just returned from New York after his now-infamous presentation to the U.N. Security Council, where he held up a small vial of white powder to illustrate the alleged danger of Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons. “My colleagues,” he insisted, “every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” We now know that all of that was false, to Powell’s everlasting shame.

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

I was one of five Arab correspondents invited to meet with Secretary Powell in his office. While seated to his immediate left at a conference table, I asked a question that clearly irritated him. He looked at me directly and said, “Your questions seem to be more about Islam; this has nothing to do with religion.” His tone remained civil and diplomatic, but the underlying friction was clear.

By that time, I had already reached the conclusion that the Bush administration’s  “War on Terror” was, in many ways, a military campaign against Muslims in general

The following week, I interviewed Condoleezza Rice at the White House, alongside another Arab journalist. Rice was a primary architect of the Iraq invasion, famously warning about Saddam’s supposed nuclear program: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

I irritated her as well by “playing the race card.” I implied that, as a Black woman, she was an unlikely choice to lead the call for the invasion of a country in what we used to call the Third World. I also mentioned that Black American soldiers would certainly be among the casualties.

My déjà-vu experience today derives from that same kind of “shock and awe.” Indeed, the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran is much larger than the initial stage of the Iraq war. Another American president is declaring, on dubious or threadbare evidence, that another Muslim country is endangering U.S. security.

The tragic cycle of history feels poised to repeat itself. America has eliminated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just as it eliminated Saddam Hussein two decades ago, but just as much uncertainty hovers over what lies ahead. This current escalation suggests that the U.S. war machine is once again ignoring the human cost of “decapitation strikes,” as we saw with the apparent American missile strike on a Tehran girls’ school. For someone who wept at seeing the modern Tatars enter Baghdad, the prospect of a similar fate befalling Tehran is more than a strategic policy shift. It is the return of a recurring but never-banished nightmare about one civilization attacking another, driven by blind hatred.

The post Trump continues the “war on terror”: First Baghdad, now Tehran appeared first on Salon.com.

I spent a week in the city while attending SEMA, the massive automotive trade show that takes over the Strip each year. Between work obligations, I made it my mission to explore some of the restaurants, hotels and experiences that make Vegas such a playground for indulgence — from perfectly cooked steaks and inventive contemporary Indian dishes to standout sushi counters, lavish brunches and a few well-earned spa escapes along the way.

Where to stay

The Cosmopolitan — One of the few hotels on the Las Vegas Strip with balconies, The Cosmopolitan was positively buzzing when I arrived. Body-themed art hangs throughout the property, some far more risqué than I expected, much to my surprise and delight. Customer service felt a touch cold and impersonal — not entirely unexpected at a hotel this busy.

My room was large, with a sectional sofa, two TVs and a balcony overlooking the pool with partial views of the Strip. The bed was wonderfully comfortable, though the shower in the spacious bathroom had a faint moldy smell. Like most hotels on the Strip, you have to walk through the casino to reach the rooms, but here rideshares and taxis share the same pickup location, which makes coming and going much easier.

Pro tip: Stock up on water before checking in; Fuji bottles in the room cost $18 each.

Four Seasons — Of all the hotels I’ve stayed at in Las Vegas (at least six by my last count), the Four Seasons is easily my favorite. There are plenty of reasons why — excellent service, comfortable beds and convenient pickup and drop-off right out front — but the real draw is the tranquility. There’s no casino floor to walk through and no lingering cigarette smoke. Instead, it feels like the calm eye of the storm, a peaceful retreat amid the chaos of the Strip.

This was my second stay, and somehow it was even better than the first. The hotel sits within Mandalay Bay, so if you want to gamble or explore the larger resort, everything is just a short walk away. Inside, you’ll find a lively lobby, two restaurants — including Michael Mina’s Bourbon Steak — an onsite spa and a pool, more than enough to keep you occupied.

Breakfast at the Veranda restaurant was a highlight: fluffy eggs topped with caviar and bacon that was shatteringly crisp (make sure to ask for it that way). On weekends, the restaurant also offers an impressive all-you-can-eat brunch that’s well worth checking out.

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

Dinner

(Chaya Milchtein ) Tawa charred octopus at Tamba

Tamba — Walking into Tamba, you’re immediately struck by the opulent decor and warm welcome from the host. High ceilings and plush seating make the space feel dramatic yet comfortable, but despite all that visual spectacle, the food ultimately steals the show. Every bite was so memorable that I’m still thinking about the meal months later.

The cuisine is described as contemporary Indian, though that label hardly captures the range on the menu. There’s an abundance of seafood — from oysters and sashimi to caviar and zambazushi, the restaurant’s playful take on nigiri (the only dish I wasn’t completely sold on). The depth and complexity of the cooking shine throughout. I started with hamachi topped with Asian pear and serrano, finished tableside with a tamarind ponzu. My favorite dish of the night followed: tawa-charred octopus served with cauliflower purée, fennel and crunchy rice for texture, all brightened with yuzu-lime chaat aioli and an orange glaze.

For the main course, I enjoyed a classic — butter chicken — alongside a poached lobster tail in a green coconut masala with Mexican chili and coriander-mint purée. Fragrant basmati rice and a generous basket of naan rounded out the meal. The naan selection alone is worth exploring, ranging from classic plain and garlic cilantro to more adventurous versions like goat cheese with togarashi and black truffle with fleur de sel. If you somehow have leftovers, don’t worry. They warm up beautifully.

PRIME Steakhouse — Tucked behind the fountains at the Bellagio, PRIME Steakhouse is an old-school, white-tablecloth restaurant with polished service and a perpetually packed dining room. If you’re lucky, your table will overlook the famous fountain show — a spectacle that somehow makes an already indulgent steak dinner feel even more special.

We started with the seafood plateau royale, piled high with oysters, sashimi, lobster claws, shrimp and tartare, all incredibly fresh. Then came thick-cut, tableside-smoked bacon glazed with maple and peppercorn alongside a fig-topped heirloom tomato salad. For the main course, the steak was the clear star — perfectly cooked and served with classic sides like mashed potatoes and broccoli. If you’re debating between steak and seafood entrees here, go for the steak and don’t look back.

Pro tip: Not far from PRIME is a “secretive” speakeasy called the Vault. I didn’t make it this time, but it’s on my list for the next visit — a place where the atmosphere and watching bartenders craft elaborate (and very expensive) cocktails are part of the draw.

Komodo — There are restaurants you visit for unforgettable food, and others you go to for the atmosphere. Komodo leans more toward the latter, though the menu still offers plenty to enjoy.

Guests enter past rows of hanging Peking ducks and through velvet ropes into a dark, buzzing dining room. The menu skews Asian fusion, with sushi, dim sum, wagyu and — unsurprisingly — Peking duck as the centerpiece, served with pancakes, hoisin and scallions. The duck isn’t carved tableside, but it’s flavorful and still makes for a dramatic centerpiece.

Be sure to end the meal with the banana pagoda, a playful dessert presented in a chocolate box that’s smashed tableside for a bit of theatrical flair. Cocktails arrive in equally fun glassware and pack a serious punch.

Standout sushi

Mizumi — I first dined at Mizumi a few years ago, and the meal was so memorable that I had to return. While this visit didn’t quite reach the same heights, it was still a wonderful experience.

This is unmistakably a fine-dining restaurant, with the price tag to match. The dimly lit dining room centers around a dramatic waterfall feature that adds to the romantic atmosphere. Several dishes leaned heavily on truffle, so keep that in mind if you’re not a fan.

Nigiri is where Mizumi truly shines. A specialty soy sauce is poured tableside before the sushi arrives. Some pieces are classic — simply fish and seasoned rice — while others are dressed with gold, caviar and flowers for an extra touch of luxury. I especially enjoyed the sweet shrimp and Hokkaido uni served over cold somen noodles. Hokkaido uni has a deeper, more briny umami flavor than the Santa Barbara variety often served when the type isn’t specified.

Another standout was the braised wagyu short-rib skewer from the robatayaki menu, a melt-in-your-mouth bite. Mizumi also offers a surprisingly extensive vegetarian menu, something you don’t often see at restaurants of this caliber.

(Chaya Milchtein) Fish of the day at Omakase Kyara

Omakase Kyara — Head off the Strip for a relaxed but flavor-packed omakase experience at Omakase Kyara, which also happens to cost less than many of the Strip’s high-end sushi counters. If possible, grab a seat at the sushi counter. The chef is hilarious and does a great job explaining each course, which makes the experience both educational and entertaining.

From the moment you’re greeted with a warm finger towel, the service is attentive without feeling overly formal. Diners can choose between two omakase menus, with optional nigiri add-ons, late-night alternatives and à la carte selections.

The meal begins with seasonal vegetables dressed with dashi and soy, followed by a presentation of the whole fish you’ll soon be eating. What follows is a steady stream of beautifully plated courses, served at a comfortable pace. Freshly grated wasabi is prepared tableside, a small touch that makes each bite even more memorable.

Shows and experiences

“O” by Cirque du Soleil — Named for the French word eau (water), “O” is a breathtaking production built around acrobatics, swimming and diving. The performance unfolds in the air, on stage and in a massive pool, meaning there’s something happening everywhere you look.

I enjoyed the La Grande Expérience, which includes a behind-the-scenes introduction to the show where guests can meet performers and ask questions before the performance begins. The package also includes comfortable box seating and light snacks like popcorn and macarons, plus the welcome perk of skipping the long entry lines.

The show itself is spectacular. The stage doubles as a pool, and some of the performers — particularly the divers — are Olympic medalists, utilizing their skills to pull off stunning feats throughout the production. While the show loosely follows a story, I didn’t always find it easy to follow, though that didn’t detract from the experience.

(Chaya Milchtein) A scene at “O” by Cirque du Soleil

The Awakening at Wynn Las Vegas — There’s dancing, illusions, puppetry and acrobatics on full display in “The Awakening,” a visually striking production at Wynn Las Vegas. Despite the scale of the show, it wasn’t as full as I expected, making the ticket price feel like a bit of a steal.

The story itself is relatively easy to follow: a heroine travels through different realms in an effort to restore balance, all while audiences are treated to impressive choreography, elaborate costumes and inventive stage effects.

The round stage is surrounded by comfortable theater seating, creating strong sightlines from nearly every angle. If you’re booking tickets, aim for seats near the bottom of the center section for the best views — though the theater’s layout means there really aren’t any bad seats in the house.

SEMA Fest — I was in Las Vegas for another reason besides this article: SEMA, one of the largest automotive industry trade shows in the world. While the main show is strictly limited to industry professionals, it opens to the public on its final day and wraps with SEMA Fest, a lively festival that’s well worth attending if you’re in town.

The event features live concerts, food vendors and an incredible display of custom-built cars. Expect to do a lot of walking — comfortable shoes are a must — but the sheer variety of vehicles and exhibits makes it easy to spend hours exploring.

It’s a dream destination for car enthusiasts, builders and DIYers, though even casual visitors will find plenty to enjoy. Bring a roomy bag for all the swag being handed out, and keep an eye out for deals: many companies sell products at steep discounts rather than ship them home. You might find everything from tires to dash cams at surprisingly low prices.

Spa escapes

Four-Hands Massage at The Spa at Wynn — The Spa at Wynn has an old-school glamour that feels slightly dated, but it’s still a lovely place to unwind. There’s plenty of space to relax, along with a whirlpool, showers and small snacks and beverages (try the chocolate-covered cranberries).

The real draw here is the four-hands massage. Instead of one therapist, two work on you simultaneously, moving in synchronized rhythms for a 50-minute treatment that gives you 100-minutes worth of massage. It’s deeply relaxing — and notably thorough, with attention paid to areas like the glutes that many massages skip. I left feeling completely pampered and ready for a nap.

Red Flower Hammam Experience at Sahra Spa, Salon & Hammam at The Cosmopolitan — Sahra Spa features bright, modern facilities that guests can (but aren’t required to) enjoy fully nude, including a large whirlpool, steam rooms and a cold misting room (which was unfortunately closed during my visit). Arrive early if you can — the relaxation areas are well worth spending time in before your treatment.

I opted for the Red Flower Hammam Experience, a luxurious take on the traditional bathhouse ritual. The treatment takes place on a heated marble table inside the hammam and begins with a thorough cleansing before moving into an invigorating exfoliating scrub. Clouds of soap bubbles and cascading buckets of water follow, along with a coffee scrub and deeply moisturizing mask before a short sauna session to let everything absorb.

The result is both intense and deeply relaxing — a perfect reset after the constant energy and bustle of Las Vegas.

Facial at the Four Seasons Spa — Much like the hotel itself, the spa at the Four Seasons is a tranquil escape from the noise of Las Vegas. I’d previously enjoyed a pedicure here, but this visit called for a facial.

When I book a facial while traveling, I’m not looking for heavy extractions or intensive treatments — just hydration and relaxation. The Four Seasons spa delivered exactly that. By the end, my skin was glowing, and the treatment felt like the perfect reset after indulging in everything Las Vegas has to offer.

Cannabis lounges

Dazed Consumption Lounge — Inside the Planet 13 complex is a playground for cannabis enthusiasts, complete with a tattoo shop, pizza counter, dispensary and (alcohol) bar. Walk through a telephone booth at the back and you’ll enter the Dazed Consumption Lounge, a psychedelic space with LED lights, music and plenty of seating that feels more like a social club than a typical lounge.

Guests can indulge in several ways, whether with a joint, an infused beverage or by renting one of the lounge’s devices, like the Stündenglass Gravity Infuser (my favorite). It’s a fun way to try some of the pricier gadgets without committing to buying — or cleaning — one yourself.

Skip the dispensary beforehand if you’re headed to Dazed: outside products aren’t allowed even when they come from the onsite dispensary. And don’t over-order — Nevada’s consumption lounge rules mean you can’t take anything home, though you can stop at the dispensary in the same building on your way out.

Pro tip: Smoking elsewhere in Vegas often means sneaking a quick puff or relying on a vape. Edibles are a low-stress alternative. If that’s your plan, grab some KANHA edibles from the Planet 13 dispensary on your way out. The rosin belts were a favorite; at 25 milligrams, I only needed one to be comfortably elevated.

Cookies Flamingo Dispensary — If you’re looking to pick up flower, edibles or other cannabis products without long lines or overwhelming menus, check out Cookies on Flamingo Road. The shop stays open late, the budtenders are friendly and the selection strikes a nice balance between variety and simplicity.

Cookies carries popular brands like STIIIZY and Wyld alongside its own house offerings. It’s an easy stop to grab what you need and get back to the rest of your Vegas plans. Online ordering is also available for a faster pickup.

The post Steaks, sushi and the softer side of Vegas appeared first on Salon.com.

During the 2016 campaign the country was still dealing with fairly regular terrorist attacks from followers of ISIS, and despite Trump’s professed disdain for the leadership that took the U.S. into Afghanistan and Iraq, it was clear when you listened closely to him that he was contemptuous of their apparent unwillingness to take the gloves off. He was never some kind of peacenik. After all, Trump confessed to being a big fan of torture, casually saying, “Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your a*s I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. It works. And if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us.” 

He repeatedly stated his belief that the U.S. should have “taken” Iraq’s oil. His supposed isolationism was nothing more than a crude way of differentiating himself from the decisions of his predecessors. 

Trump was talked out of military action by his advisers more than once during his first term, and he seemed more or less content with ordering assassinations and limited bombing strikes. But there was one big decision he made in 2019 that telegraphed and previewed his true beliefs about warfare: his pardoning, over the strenuous objections of the military brass, of service members and contractors accused of war crimes.

One was known to shoot at unarmed civilians to “make them afraid” and was serving a 19-year sentence for ordering the murder of two unarmed Afghan villagers. Another was awaiting trial on charges of killing a suspected Afghan bomb maker. Then there was the Navy SEAL who had been accused and acquitted of murder but was convicted of posing with a mutilated corpse of an Iraqi soldier. Over the objections of top SEAL commanders, Trump reversed his demotion and invited him to a Christmas party at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump made his philosophy known in October 2019 when he tweeted, “We train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!” At the time, it seemed odd that he tagged “Fox & Friends Weekend” co-host Pete Hegseth in the post. But Hegseth had been publicly and privately lobbying for the pardons, and he and Trump had a meeting of the minds on the subject.

Aside from all Hegseth’s character flaws and a lack of experience that should have disqualified him for the job, it was largely that episode that horrified so many political observers when Trump nominated him as defense secretary. Here was someone who openly supported war criminals, defended the barbarity at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and believed torture to be justified. 

Now that Trump has finally let his warmongering flag fly the way he always wanted to, we are seeing exactly how dangerous this partnership may end up being. 

Hegseth’s intentions as secretary were never secret. Since his confirmation he has crusaded to rid the Pentagon of “wokeness,” by which he means any desire for diversity, intolerance of racism and bigotry, and adherence to the rules of war. He has purged the military’s top brass of many of its Black and women officers, and he took an ax to the Judge Advocate General’s office, which administers the military justice system. All of this was done in service of his aim of returning the Pentagon to a “warrior ethos” — which is really nothing more than a simple-minded call to be more macho and violent. The fact that he chose to rename the Defense Department as the Department of War should settle any dispute about his worldview.

Now that Trump has launched a growing war with Iran, which he seems convinced will result in Middle East peace — something he announced he had achieved with the Gaza ceasefire deal — we are about to see how this warrior ethos works in practice. 

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

From the carnage inflicted on Indigenous and enslaved peoples to barbarity in the Philippines during the Spanish-American war — celebrated repeatedly by Trump during the 2016 campaign — and the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, America has plenty of blood on its hands. Atrocities have been a feature of warfare since time began. But over the centuries, humans developed rules of warfare designed to, at least in theory, minimize the blood-letting. Since the horrors of the 20th-century’s two world wars and the development of technology that can deliver mass injury and slaughter, it has become more important than ever. 

America used to at least give lip service to the rules of war, if only for the self-serving reasons that it would protect their own troops. But Trump and Hegseth’s overwhelming hubris seems to preclude even that as a concern, with the defense secretary callously dismissing the deaths of American service members and the president shrugging off the possibility of reprisals on American soil. 

On Feb. 28, just as the war had started, an airstrike hit an elementary school in the Iranian town of Minab, near the adjacent naval base operated by Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. More than 175 civilians were reportedly killed, many of them children.  According to the New York Times, the available evidence suggests it was a U.S. missile that hit the school. The administration says they are investigating. 

No one has implied this was a targeted attack. One assumes that it was a mistake resulting in “collateral damage,” as the military likes to call it. But it is a perfect example of the kind of stories we are going to start seeing juxtaposed with Hegseth’s grotesque rhetoric in these first few days of the war. He has cheered the conflict as having “no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.” The Israelis, he said, are “good partners, unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.” Hegseth’s irresponsible commentary will have the effect of robbing the U.S. military of any benefit of the doubt, as it well should. 

America had already squandered most of its moral authority with the Iraq debacle, and Trump’s paeans to peace notwithstanding, it’s clear that we’ve now embraced a mercenary foreign policy in which there are no rules nor restraint. The president said as much in January when he was asked by the New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers. “Yeah, there is one thing,” he replied. “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” 

It appears he meant it.

The post Trump and Hegseth are writing their own rules of war appeared first on Salon.com.

In his June 1974 review of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s book, “All the President’s Men,” The New Yorker’s political columnist Richard H. Rovere was less than impressed. The book, which provided a detailed account of the journalistic process the two Washington Post reporters used to uncover the extent of the Watergate scandal, was primed to be a bestseller. For historians and rubbernecking readers alike, “All the President’s Men” would be a necessary tome, a how-to on exposing corruption. Rovere, on the other hand, found the book to be “barren of ideas and imagination,” and “scarcely more interesting or enlightening than the day-by-day newspaper accounts.” The authors were too hung up on facts over insights, he argued. This was not the gossipy publication that many anticipated, and to Rovere, that missing element made the book a disappointment. Thankfully for Rovere, director Alan J. Pakula would turn those humdrum parts of “All the President’s Men” into a gripping procedural just two years later, crafting a legendary piece of American cinema in the process.

But near the end of his column, Rovere emphasized one particularly important point in the book: Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t have had anything to investigate if it weren’t for Nixon’s bumbling political cabinet and the sloppy work done by the low-level criminal team conducting the Watergate break-in. “Twenty years ago, McCarthyism might have been a grace and continuing menace to the liberty of us all if the leader had been less indolent and more hungry for power,” he wrote. “Two years ago, the triumph of the Watergate mentality might have become similarly disastrous if those who planned and executed it had not been almost wholly lacking in political finesse.”

Related

The Watergate story that transcends Woodward and Bernstein

If only that were still true. These days, America endures a Watergate-level amount of corruption every week, spearheaded by politicians as dolting and imbecilic as the ones in Nixon’s trusted circle. Federal immorality is no longer brushed under the rug, just waiting to be splashed across newspapers in big-scoop headlines; it’s scrawled out and published on X and Truth Social by the very politicians and talking heads committing it. Our government is rife with the exact kind of juicy insights that Rovere hoped to find in Woodward and Bernstein’s book, freely and fearlessly displayed. You can’t cover something up if you have nothing to hide.

Nearly 50 years after its theatrical release, Pakula’s “All the President’s Men” plays much differently than it once did. Despite its reputation as a rousing tribute to the value of journalistic process, all of the film’s finest, most impactful components have spoiled with time — and to no fault of anyone involved with the actual movie itself. The years have eroded the film’s relevance, sped up by pernicious politicians and unethical business practices that have all but made editorial institutions and the hope for a stable democratic government moot. Yet, watching the film all these years later, its ardent message of persistence is somehow all the more powerful. If Woodward and Bernstein can climb over every wall, turn over every stone and reroute themselves at every dead end, perhaps it’s not too late for some good, old-fashioned salvation.

(Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images) Robert Redford, Jason Robards, Jack Warden, Dustin Hoffman, director Alan J. Pakula and Martin Balsam in front of The Washington Post building for “All the President’s Men”

The problem is that every corrupt politician in America, as well as their cronies, also knows that our fate has not yet been decided — and they’ll do anything to accelerate doom if it means the world will spin in their favor. In Pakula’s “All the President’s Men,” The Washington Post newsroom functions almost like a secret lair, a place where the good guys can hide out and compile their facts. Phones ring off the hook, cigarette smoke fills the air and the coffee is always hot. It’s a safe haven for journalists to put their heads together and find a solution that will serve the reader, and in turn, the greater good of the American people. On occasions that the reporting takes Woodward (Robert Redford) and Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) away from their cubicles, their work is financed and comped by their employers. And even though they’re on deadline, they’re afforded ample time to collect data and conduct interviews before returning to their typewriters.

I’m sure I don’t need to tell you that this is, sadly, a very outdated look at what newspaper journalism used to look like. Access to the internet exacerbated the need for a quick turnaround in newswriting. The homepage has to be refreshed with saucy material that will bring new readers in and keep existing readers scrolling. The number of long-term investigations published by outlets with the resources to fund such pursuits has dwindled fast. But most critically, venture capital has eaten away at the remaining vestiges of old-school journalism. Papers and websites can be bought, sold and traded, and quite often, the publication’s editorial voice will go with it.

---

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

---

Coincidentally, The Washington Post first endorsed a presidential candidate in 1976, the same year “All the President’s Men” hit theaters. The paper continued the practice for almost every presidential election cycle until 2024, when Jeff Bezos, the billionaire who acquired the publication in 2013, announced that the Post would halt its endorsements — just 11 days before the 2024 election. While Bezos’ reps claimed this would be a return to neutrality for the publication, many people, including Post staffers, saw the decision as a clear and irrefutable move on Bezos’ part to curry favor with Donald Trump. In the following days, the paper lost a top editor and 250,000 subscribers, an injury that could only aid the narrative that the paper was struggling under Bezos when 300-some employees were laid off earlier this year in a “bloodbath” cut. A publication that once stood for truth and justice, emboldening reporters like Bernstein and Woodward to uncover corruption, was now wantonly flaunting its own rot.

When I first saw “All the President’s Men,” it was over the course of three days. My high school history teacher showed the film to our junior class, broken up into 50-minute segments that would adhere to the school bell. Despite being on the staff of my school’s newspaper, I expected the film to be a slog; boring and obsessed with detail and names I didn’t know or care much about.

(Warner Bros. Inc./Getty Images) Robert Redford holding papers while speaking to Dustin Hoffman typing on a typewriter in a scene from the film “All the President’s Men” 1976

To my surprise, I was gripped from its outset, fascinated by the way Pakula and screenwriter William Goldman managed to make the mundane so fascinating. Scenes of Redford and Hoffman taking phone calls and scribbling down notes, or poring over library slips in desperate search of a kernel of a lead, were thrilling. And it wasn’t only the method that was fascinating; it was the effect. Tugging on a tiny piece of thread can unspool a yarn of corruption so vast and wide-reaching that it goes all the way up to the highest office in the Western world. It’s impossible to watch “All the President’s Men” and not feel inspired by Woodward and Bernstein’s tenacity.

“Because these perpetrators were held accountable, it would be nearly impossible for a political crime of this level to happen again,” I remember our teacher telling the class. That’s a nice thought, even if it’s myopic. Less than a decade after my graduation, Trump was elected and the veil was pulled. Political cover-ups like this happened all the time, I realized. Now they were just more visible.

“All the President’s Men” is not the defining American portrait of good triumphing over evil that a more naive version of myself once thought it was. Rather, it was a warning. Pakula and Goldman saw obstacles on the horizon. The country was rocked by the Watergate fallout, but its citizens also lapped up the gossip — like Rovere hoped to do with what little tidbits made it to Woodward and Bernstein’s book. The public both abhorred and adored the scandal. The more that top-level political corruption dominated the headlines, the less taboo it became.

We need your help to stay independent

Subscribe today to support Salon’s progressive journalism

The ripples of the botched Watergate operation spoke to all of those arrogant enough to think they might be able to do it better. All America needed to kick things into high gear was a pervasive advancement in technology that made it easier to silo oneself into conspiracy and conservatism, and a political sub-party like the MAGA crowd to fuel the “fake news” rhetoric. Suddenly, even if a story in the papers went through a rigorous fact-checking process and was sourced accordingly, it didn’t have to be true if you didn’t want it to be.

To certain people, reality is a fickle thing. It comes and goes, and we get to choose to accept it when we feel like it. But just because so many have made up their own truths doesn’t mean that facts aren’t real, or that actions don’t have consequences. Jeff Bezos might be trying to systematically dismantle The Washington Post, and Bari Weiss may be doing the same thing to CBS News, but not all Americans are sitting idly by to let it happen. Weiss hasn’t been able to spend one day in her tenure at CBS without flubbing something and getting called on it by concerned citizens, and Washington Post readers recently joined the paper’s union in protesting. And while the net effect of this outcry isn’t as immediately visible as governmental corruption, it’s crucial to remember that Woodward and Bernstein started small, too. “All the President’s Men” underscores that sentiment with its matter-of-fact final shot, watching a teletype machine writing out years of front-page headlines leading to Nixon’s resignation.

Journalism doesn’t look the same as it did 50 years ago, but that doesn’t mean that the stubborn reporter is a thing of the past. There are plenty of people who care enough to put the time and effort into uncovering the extent of the amoral world we’ve found ourselves in. Sifting through the noise and the voices takes more time, but it’s worth it. You never know when you’ll find yourself on the ground floor of a scandal, reading a story that will change history forever and result in the unthinkable. As Pakula’s brilliantly stark ending reminds us all these years later, justice requires patience.

Read more

from Salon’s culture newsletter, The Swell

• Everyone should live like Miss Piggy
• We aren’t all reading the same “Wuthering Heights”
• We still swoon for Prince’s “Kiss”

The post “All the President’s Men” was a warning appeared first on Salon.com.

Oulu sits at the edge of the Bothnian Gulf, where ground and sea wear the same coat of snow. In 2026 the city holds the title European Capital of Culture, though culture has been working the night shift here for centuries. In winter the city feels borderless. Frozen waterways blur into land, and only a bridge or half-buried boat hints that water still moves beneath the white. The cold is not decorative. It is structural.

I step into Ravintola Toripolliisi with ears burning and fingers stiff from the air. Inside there is ritual. Coats come off slowly. Hats. Gloves. Scarves unwound with patience. The room reclaims you. I order lohikeitto, salmon soup, and a glass of Portuguese red to remind my toes they are still alive. The bowl arrives pale and steaming. Salmon silky. Potatoes sturdy then soft. Dill lifting through cream. I break grilled sourdough, dip a bit then a lot, doing a side dance with the spoon. The broth does not attack the cold. It absorbs it. Around me candles hold steady light and conversations stay low.

This is how you begin here. You let winter into the bowl and tame it.

Morning comes crunchy, which is what Finns call a very cold day. Each step over refrozen snow snaps like thin sugar crust. Commuters and dog walkers move across frozen water below as if it were a park. Steam rises from chimneys, from warm patches of river, from mouths. I retreat into Jaanan Puoti café and repeat the door ritual. The world softens.

Heli greets me warmly and without flourish. “What should I have?” I ask. “Coffee,” she says. “Hot chocolate, lemonade, but it’s not summer.” She laughs. “Beer is always popular. The cold isn’t the problem.” The dark is. In December daylight shrinks to a handful of hours. Coffee solves that not because it heats you but because it sparks you. Finns drink staggering amounts of it. Hands wrap around ceramic. Steam meets faces just in from the blue. You sit. You talk. You fill the dark. Warmth here is social before it is thermal.

I order a latte and a whole grain pastry twisted with ham and cheese. Nutty, sturdy grain that carries the field into February.

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

After more strolls along the tundra, I dine at Grill It restaurant, where winter appears plated rather than resisted. Jerusalem artichoke soup arrives earthy and thick, built for thawing. Pike perch tartare from Lake Oulujärvi rests on malt bread with capers and dill oil and a whisper of pine tar. Tar-tartare. Just enough to evoke boats and long coasts. A barley risotto studded with dried autumn mushrooms follows, Finland’s breadbasket turned into comfort. Torched dessert cracks like ice, crème brûlée with salted caramel mousse and cloudberry compote, fire and frost in one spoonful. Winter is not hidden. It is arranged.

A morning of museums, Sámi tribal art and intellectual warmth. I can’t shake the image of a woman in traditional dress sharing forest coffee with a bear, an art scene reaching for myth and landing, briefly, in sitcom. I head to the beach. As beach as Oulu winter permits. I walk a frozen Bothnian Gulf at Nallikari, an obscured lighthouse, a delinquent lifeguard stand, and makeshift saunas stand on white expanse like archaeology. With each step a faint echo and a reminder that the sea sleeps but does not disappear.

The sun just barely awake sets in a blaze sandwiched between vast grey sky and vast grey sea.

That evening at Oula Restaurant, a gem inside the Lapland Hotel, I sit for an Arctic Food Lab dinner led by program coordinator Matti Moller, who speaks about northern food with the calm confidence of someone describing architecture rather than cuisine. Northern food is not novelty, he explains. It is system. Rye and oats for endurance. Cold water fish from lakes and sea. Fungi from spruce forests. Berries dried, brined, or frozen against winter. Roots that wait patiently in cellars.

The meal begins with scallop brightened with currant and rye-seasoned buttermilk, then slow-cooked reindeer, sirloin and tongue, finished over wood, mushroom purée beneath and fermented cabbage cutting richness. Preservation refined into elegance. Dessert revives malt bread as French toast alongside sea buckthorn and pumpkin held through autumn and sharpened into sorbet. Even sweetness carries the logic of storage.

Over coffee I ask Matti what winter food means here. “It’s more like soul food from your cellar,” he says. “Preserved berries. Fermented ingredients. You heat up your house with a burning stove, and at the same time you put root vegetables or a meat pot inside. You share the warmth in that way.” Food and fire in the same motion. Winter is not a crisis. It is a system.

Before sunrise I drive north to the country and Tornio. Snowshoeing across a frozen river with Sweden mere feet away and drilling a fishing hole through thick crust, I discover I am better at casting through air than dropping a line through ice. The day remains crunchy and humbling.

Strangers gather in a riverside fire shelter and brew coffee the old way. Snow packed into a pot and melted. Grounds tossed in. A spruce branch threaded through the spout as a filter. Steam rises into white sky as enamel mugs are passed and sweet bread tears open near flame. This practice predates borders. Sámi reindeer herders carried leather coffee pouches into forests for generations. Start fire. Melt snow. Brew. Share. Snow becomes water. Water becomes coffee. Coffee becomes ceremony.

That night I test myself in a public sauna above the frozen river. Sit in heat. Step into biting air. Climb down and plunge through a carved opening in the ice. The shock empties the lungs. I return pink and laughing. Someone hands me a chilled sauna beer, ironic and perfect. Later karaoke. Finnish licorice liquor loosens the room. Some singers cool it down, others heat. My “Copacabana” is electric.

I return to Oulu by lunch and duck into Särkkä pub as snow drifts sideways against the windows. Candlelight, wood, hot oil, coats hanging heavy near the door. From my seat by the glass, the world outside remains white and distant, framed for observation rather than endured. Oulu does this well. It warms the inside and lets you study the cold without mittens. I order fried vendace rolled in rye flour, mashed potatoes beside it, and a local IPA. The fish is small and northern, crisp at the edges and tender within. Rye grows in stubborn soil and stores well. The beer is not for heat. It is for rhythm. It keeps you seated. It keeps you talking while winter performs behind the pane.

Later back at Lapland Hotel I meet Chef Satu Tilus, steady hands behind my Artic Food Lab feast. “In winter nothing grows here,” she says plainly. So you plan. “We preserve and we eat root vegetables, and of course slow-cooked food.” When I ask what winter cooking means personally, she answers simply. “It’s always cooking that brings the people together.” Not plating. Not serving. Cooking. A pot on the stove unites while the world outside freezes.

She returns to the kitchen and I order her Lapland Delicacies platter, a kind of northern greatest hits presented on a slice of tree. Potato flatbread with spruce sprout pesto and pickled white currant. Sugar salted whitefish with horseradish. A profiterole filled with trout roe cream. Reindeer tartare with red cabbage and fermented garlic mayonnaise. Sweet cheese with gooseberry jam.

Cellar vegetables. Preserves. Smoke and salt where nothing grows. Acid to wake the tongue. Fermentation doing quiet work in the background. Berries held for months. Grain that survives poor soil. It is not showy. It is deliberate. The platter does not fight winter. It leans into it.

On my final morning Puistokahvila Makia glows gold against a blue commute. I order a korvapuusti. Sticky buns feel immature once you have said korvapuusti. Laminated with cinnamon-cardamom butter, it promises a fragrant sauna when torn apart. I wrap both hands around my latte and watch the cold press pale against the windows.

Back in my room at Lapland Hotel I turn on the private sauna. Heat gathers slowly. Wood releases its scent. I wait. Outside, winter shows its envy and its poise. Oulu may hold a European Capital of Culture title for the year, but nothing here feels temporary. The culture lives in repetition. In ritual. In the way a bowl of soup absorbs the cold and a room of steam loosens it.

When the sauna is hot, I ladle water and splash the stones. Steam rises fast, strikes the ceiling, then settles over my shoulders. And here I sit with no sauna beer. I just hum “Copacabana” and smile.

The post In Finland, winter is a way of eating appeared first on Salon.com.

The review, convened by the Pan American Health Organization and led by health experts, was supposed to be held in April. At the meeting, a panel would determine if the U.S. could keep its measles-free status. The status is granted to nations that have not had a continuous spread of measles within one year.

U.S. health officials requested that the meeting be delayed until November, according to Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon. Officially, the delay is to give the agency more time to collect and analyze data from the ongoing nationwide measles outbreak.

Pan American Health Organization spokesman Sebastián Oliel said the delay was due to the “extent of the analysis” being conducted by the CDC in the midst of multiple outbreaks.

Dr. Walter Orenstein, a member of the committee that reviews measles reports, questioned the delay.

“I don’t see why a delay of that long would be needed,” he told The Times. “It is awfully coincidental, with the midterm elections.”

Social media scientific communicator Dr. Lucky Tran criticized U.S. officials for the delay.

“This is a reckless, accountability-dodging move that puts politics over public health,” he said in a post on X.

Nearly 2,300 measles cases were reported in 2025, with another 1,136 cases in the first few months of 2026, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. It is the worst year for measles cases in the U.S. in more than two decades, since it was officially eliminated in 2000.

South Carolina has been hit especially hard, with roughly 990 cases reported through yesterday. The vast majority of those infected were children who were not vaccinated against measles.

The post “Awfully coincidental”: Review of US measles status delayed seven months appeared first on Salon.com.

A petition entitled “Health Not War!” was launched on Monday, written in large part by Charles Eisenstein, a senior advisor and speechwriter for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy‘s 2024 presidential campaign.

“We remind members of Congress, and the Trump administration, that our nation has squandered $8 trillion on regime-change wars since 9/11. We remind them that our nation’s infrastructure, its middle class, and its health have all been hollowed out to fund these wars,” the petition reads in part, calling on members of Congress to support a war powers resolution on Iran.

“We call on them to turn America’s attention, money, technology, science, and resources toward rebuilding our nation from the inside out,” it says.

“I believe that most people who identify with MAHA are also anti-war,” Eisenstein told Salon. Eisenstein said his petition aims to create “a national peace movement that unites left and right” that is consistent with previous MAHA policies.

“‘End the forever wars’ was a major plank of the Kennedy 2024 campaign, Eisenstein said.

Others close to Kennedy have voiced their disdain for the conflict they see as a product of Trump’s brash foreign policy.

“This is absolutely devastating,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told Salon, calling it a “catastrophe.”

“It’s a circus of miscalculation. Everything about it is wrong,” he said. Kucinich, who served in Congress for 16 years and was Kennedy’s 2024 campaign manager, said that the decision to go to war “isn’t [Kennedy’s] call,” as he must “wear two hats” as HHS secretary and nominal MAHA leader.

“He’s not going to attack the president. That’s not going to happen. Kennedy helped create the president. He’s hardly a vassal,” Kucinich said. “People in that cabinet know that they’d better stay in their lane.”

Kucinich has long opposed U.S. military intervention, going so far as to sue President Barack Obama over his 2011 intervention in Libya. He is worried about the ripple effects of the decision to invade, especially within America’s foreign policy more broadly, which he says is becoming “a very malign intent to dominate.” This is despite Trump’s prior claims he would avoid foreign wars.

“Foreign wars do not make America great again — he made that clear.”

Eisenstein said the war is a bad look for MAHA and Kennedy’s work at the HHS. “It associates the noble goals of the movement with an immoral war,” he said. “In my opinion, HHS was one of the few bright spots in the Trump administration.”

David Murphy, founder of the food and health policy group United We Eat, said that MAGA should be “putting the Constitution first,” criticizing Trump’s “command” of the military.

“When hostilities proceed without congressional authorization or an attack on the United States, honoring Congress’s constitutional role is essential to preserving democratic accountability for future generations,” Murphy said in a press release for the petition.

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

A possible consequence of MAHA’s disagreement over MAGA foreign policies is the threat of losing Republican voters in the upcoming midterms. While Kucinich noted a “convergence” of political beliefs within MAHA, a February report from MAHA Action President Tony Lyons warned that “the Republican party is renting MAHA voters.”

“Embracing RFK and Trump’s MAHA message earned the GOP the most votes in American history,” Lyons wrote, pointing to data that showed 4-6% of new Trump voters in 2024 did so because of the movement.

Kennedy has enjoyed broad support from the Trump administration, with an administration lawyer saying on Thursday that Kennedy has “broad, unreviewable authority” in his position, specifically on his measles vaccine policy, even as the country strains under a historic measles outbreak.

“If the secretary were to say, under my judgment herd immunity is the best way, that would be unreviewable,” the lawyer said.

For its part, the White House is rejecting any kind of gulf between MAGA and MAHA. “While the U.S. military wrecks the Iranian terrorist regime, the Trump administration remains laser-focused here at home to deliver on the President’s MAHA agenda: from cracking down on artificial ingredients in our food supply to revising federal Dietary Guidelines to finally lowering prescription drug prices,” the White House told Scripps News in a statement.

Kucinich posited that MAHA and its voters are becoming increasingly outside the president’s control.

“MAHA is evolving as a political movement. It is a movement that goes beyond who the president is,” Kucinich said, noting that the anti-war petition is a “signal” to pay attention to. “It means neither MAHA nor MAGA is being dragged into a war without objecting.”

The relationship between MAHA and MAGA has also been strained recently by Trump’s executive order protecting producers of the herbicide glyphosate. Kennedy has publicly supported the decision, which resulted in harsh blowback within the movement.

“I just feel like it is the ultimate betrayal,” Shaughnessy Naughton, the president of the science-forward political action committee 314 Action, told Salon. “I think this is a big problem for the MAHA movement.”

The post Iran war enrages Make America Healthy Again movement appeared first on Salon.com.

One method, practiced in cities like Detroit, has been to demolish swathes of empty buildings abandoned by white flight, allowed to decay by a tax-starved municipal government, and withheld from Black residents by “blockbusting” agents selling them only after massive markups. The logic, according to its proponents, is to make space for majority-Black populations to flourish. But in “Demolishing Detroit: How Structural Racism Endures,” author Nicholas Caverly records his observations and research from field work in Detroit, arguing that those demolitions have largely maintained rather than removed racial inequities.

Caverly, a professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst, recently spoke to Salon about the problem of demolition in its current form, and the potential for a model with more community input.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Your research covers decades of policy where empty buildings have been torn down en masse with the idea that their removal will heal racial inequities. You’ve also said that it’s much more complicated than what policymakers claim.

There’s been about 200,000 empty buildings torn down since the 1970s, and the goal is informed by the idea that racist disinvestment is a problem and white flight is a problem, and empty buildings are a physical scar of that problem. And so could we just tear these things down and address the problem? I spent a couple of years talking to city residents, demolition workers, and unsurprisingly, it’s a lot more complicated than that. It’s not just about saying, how do we tear down the remains of inequities that we know that have existed in the past, but also the fact that when you’re tearing things down, you’re creating new problems too, new kinds of anti-Black distributions of economic opportunity, environmental contamination, and so on.

I think Detroit is kind of emblematic of uneven conditions that we see across the United States, and the kinds of questions we should be asking about what happens after the demolition takes place. Is this land that should be funneled into big, private development projects, in a way that might reproduce the same systems? Or is this land that could be kind of held in stewardship, or some kind of community-scale needs? What would it look like to actually change the way that land is managed in Detroit?

What do arguments in favor of mass demolition miss, and why are they persuasive anyway?

We have all these empty buildings that are monuments to white racism. So if we look at the way that we got hundreds of thousands of empty buildings into Detroit, these are things that are connected to longstanding property regimes that channeled home ownership opportunities towards white families and away from families of color. These things have been talked about a lot in the United States. So there’s an idea that if we could just tear them down, that would create a clean slate and we could move forward — the same logic that is applied to Confederate monuments.

In the latter case, it’s a question of who do we censor in our public spaces, how we make sure our public spaces are accountable to people. But simply tearing down a statue or tearing down an empty building doesn’t change this underlying system. It can produce a kind of symbolic change, but it doesn’t necessarily change the structural conditions. And that is something people recognize on the ground. Like when I would talk to people, they would raise concerns about how the demolition contaminates the ground around them. It’s got poisonous lead in it from paint. So we have to be careful, and also think of how to build different kinds of systems. We’d have to think about what it looks like to produce actually equitable distributions of resources and distributions of burden.

In Detroit, which you build your study around in your book, what are the processes by which land is then converted into a given purpose — and do those processes give a hint to the public over the intended purpose?

I think absolutely it provides a hint. For example, the Detroit demolitions for a while were managed by an institution called the Detroit Land Bank Authority. They no longer manage demolition, but they are the titleholder to publicly-owned land, and are still the largest single landowner in the city of Detroit. The goal of the Land Bank Authority was to create a single titleholder that would be able to package up and create large development, facilitate large development projects. And while the Land Bank Authority has been able to kind of affect some of those projects by bundling pieces of property together to make them interesting to a highly highly-capitalized developer, they have also struggled because the kind of contiguous empty land that you might anticipate might appear after a demolition is never fully empty. There’s sometimes people who live there, or there are different owners of record.

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

And so the Land Bank wasn’t able to fulfill a lot of its desires for big development. What that opened the door for people to think about what it would look like to build things like community land trusts, a kind of common opportunity of stewardship. I think that the scale of empty land in Detroit has opened up some really interesting conflicts that show us that there isn’t necessarily one future after you tear something down — it’s contested, and it’s open to people to try to shape what the future of their city looks like.

You’re skeptical of the claim that Black communities in general will benefit from municipal demolition in the form that it has taken, not least because it’s such a broad categorization. So who are actually the main beneficiaries from these demolitions and subsequent lack of care in development?

I think that it depends on how we’re going to classify benefit. There was a big hope with demolition because of the way it was framed for city residents, especially starting around 2014, which is when there was this big influx of federal funding for building demolitions in Detroit and also other places like Milwaukee, Baltimore and Stockton. Federal funds were shifted to demolition from a variety of other things. And there was an argument that if we shift funds into demolition, we’re going to increase property value and create jobs. These are seen as net goods in the United States.

It is true that property values increased in Detroit following demolitions, and that is good if you own your home and you’re able to pay increasing taxes for it. It wasn’t so great for people who didn’t own their home and who had to deal with spiking rents. It isn’t so great for people who are having difficulty paying their rising tax bills. And it didn’t necessarily address many of the concerns that Detroiters had around making sure there was affordable and accessible housing. We would like quality housing to be something that people can afford.

You’ve gone in detail about specific mechanisms of demolition, like algorithms, for example. For mapping, pricing, contract processes and so on. Could you explain how those actively reproduce class and racial hierarchies?

Demolitions, as I said, were framed as a way of increasing property value. That was one of the things that helped to authorize more than $250 million in federal money for demolitions in Detroit, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars across the United States. And that meant that public institutions that organized demolitions had to provide a lot of data to show that the buildings they were tearing down were increasing property value in ways that would kind of ripple out.

Home ownership in the United States, as you know, was created on racist terms. They were provided to white possible homeowners and denied to most everybody else, especially Black possible homeowners. And those are inequalities that continue to exist in our contemporary housing landscapes. They are inequalities that continue to exist in part because of the ways that mortgages are approved or denied. And so demolition administrators saw increasing property value as a way to create this kind of algorithmic change in the underwriting landscape for people applying for mortgages or home renovation loans in Detroit.

They thought that demolition was an investment in expanding access to home ownership, which it did do. If we look at the number of mortgages that were issued in Detroit following demolitions, they did increase. And yet, that didn’t actually address the concerns that many Detroiters had, which was that housing was unaffordable, and that access to high-quality housing was incredibly limited. And so part of what I write about when I’m talking about algorithms is how when we have these algorithmic ideas of equity or equality in which the goal is to equalize access to homeownership, but we don’t interrogate the very thing that’s at the heart of homeownership, which is that homes are not accessible to everybody. We pass by the opportunity to invest our resources in other kinds of things like producing more housing.

Are there any models that you have in mind for what steps governments should take to actually help communities and not only improve their material conditions, but institutionalize their say in the policy process?

If we had we wanted to think about what are some best practices, I’m going to give two things. Number one is to create systems that actually listen to people, not just saying, well, we’re interested in community input, but then we’re not going to give it any actual power. So this might range from participatory budgeting to participatory planning, that gives meaningful input to people who show up in their communities. We’ve got lots of evidence for how that isn’t an effective way of of changing who is centered within our ideas of policy and our ideas of urban design.

One way that I saw that come up in Detroit is people talking about what to do with contaminated soil produced by demolitions. People would say, “well, we’ve got to figure out what to do with the soil. We don’t want it to just go get dumped on some other community that is, for example, living next to a landfill or something; we should try to imagine a broader distribution of soil.”

And then as far as broad things that I could point to or a place that I could point to, I think of Montgomery County, which is in Maryland just outside of D.C., which had some longstanding laws that did not address some really big problems. But over the past 40 years or so produced some really meaningful investments in social housing, public transportation, public art, education. And I think looking into those kinds of examples in which people, decades ago, came together in moments like the Civil Rights era and created a local way of trying to create more livable and just cities in Montgomery County.

The post Why tearing down empty homes in Detroit won’t fix inequality appeared first on Salon.com.

Listeners who relished the smooth sensuality of “Harry’s House” would be well-advised to buckle up. “Kiss All the Time. Disco, Occasionally” is a wild, unpredictable ride, chock-full of sonic sound and fury. Co-produced by Kid Harpoon and Tyler Johnson, the album was made for the earbud era. A veritable feast for the ears that shimmers with sound — a stray guitar flourish here, a pulsing synthesizer there.

Several years in the making, “Kiss All the Time. Disco, Occasionally” found Styles living and working in Berlin — a career move that has been likened to the recording of David Bowie’s Berlin Trilogy: “Low,” “Heroes” and “Lodger.” And the comparison to Bowie’s West German sojourn is apt: working with his producers, Styles has clearly immersed himself in the avant-garde, taking chances, and embracing idiosyncrasy.

But by his own admission, Styles attributes the vivid sonic textures of his latest album to the “joyous” influence of LCD Soundsystem. And that sense of joy and wonder radiates with eroticism and humor at nearly every turn, from the pulsing synthesizer and muted vocals of “Aperture,” the LP’s lead, chart-topping single, to “Coming Up Roses,” an orchestral ballad that unleashes a fusillade of strings into the proceedings.

Not to be outdone by the album’s soaring musical ambience, Styles’ lyrics never disappoint, blending his penchant for witticism with pop-culture philosophy. With “Season 2 Weight Loss,” he punctures the ego-driven obsessions of our age, reminding us not to take ourselves too seriously, while simultaneously living in a world in which a casual remark on social media can ignite a firestorm. “It’s kind of sad,” he sings, “but there’s something I know / Too many things for you to analyze.” The remedy, he points out, is right there in front of us: “Let light come in once in a while.”

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

Although it may seem naïve, on the surface, to stoop to such mundanity — a variation on our era’s “go outside and touch grass” naturalism — Styles may be genuinely onto something. With songs like “Paint by Numbers,” he pauses the album’s disco thrum to enjoy the simple pleasures of, well, living. Working his acoustic guitar with a French horn accompaniment — French horns! — he dares us to balance our relentless socioeconomic drive with our deep need to hang out, to while away the hours. “It’s a lifetime of learnin’ to paint by numbers,” he sings, “And watchin’ the colors run.”

For some listeners, “Kiss All the Time. Disco, Occasionally” may seem like an unwelcome shift away from the tried-and-true pop sensibilities of “Harry’s House.” But rest assured that Styles’ heartwarming sense of wit and whimsy are fully in evidence. In “Are You Listening Yet?” he advises us, no matter what, to never stray too far away from the joy-inducing possibilities of music — whether it be LCD Soundsystem or, say, Harry Styles. “If you must join a movement,” he advises, tongue-in-cheek, “make sure there’s dancing.”

The post Harry Styles lets the music — and the joy — take over appeared first on Salon.com.

Crucial “Scream 7” narrative details began circulating as far back as late 2025. By January, entire plot summaries were floating around social media, while the movie-logging platform Letterboxd was review-bombed with leaks and poor ratings. Boycotters were not afraid to go low. To them, it was an eye for an eye — well-earned justice after the film’s production company, Spyglass Media, fired the franchise’s new final girl, Melissa Barrera, after Barrera posted on social media in support of Palestine in late 2023. And as public sentiment has continued to shift toward Barrera’s view over the last two-and-a-half years, support for the boycott intensified, backed by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, Film Workers for Palestine and more. Almost overnight, “Scream 7” became a politicized film. And as is the case with most politicized issues these days, the boycott was met with its own stalwart opposition, dead set on supporting the film not just despite the boycott, but because of it. While there’s no doubt the boycott irreversibly shifted public perception of the franchise in its rebooted state, “Scream 7” managed a record-breaking opening weekend gross of $63.6 million, the franchise’s largest before inflation is adjusted. Like it or not, “Scream 7” was proof that all films — even the goriest, silliest slashers — have the potential to be political.

(Paramount Pictures) Neve Campbell and Courteney Cox in “Scream 7”

Not so, if you believe filmmaker Wim Wenders, who carelessly expressed the opposite in the opening press conference of last month’s Berlin International Film Festival. A journalist at the presser began by mentioning the Berlinale’s institutional loyalty “with the people of Iran and Ukraine.” He then teed up a question about the German government’s role in the Israel-Palestine conflict and the war in Gaza, asking, “Do you, as a jury, support this selective treatment of human rights?” A bit of an unfair question, as jury member Ewa Puszczyńska noted, but an unsurprisingly unfair one given the culture we live in. Nevertheless, Wenders interjected with a rash answer. “We have to stay out of politics. We are the counterweight of politics, the opposite of politics. We have to do the work of the people, not the work of politicians.”

Though there is some nuance to Wenders’ statement, it rang entirely false and uncaring in a world replete with politicism, and shrouded the festival’s proceedings in a muck of controversy. Film is political because it affects and reflects the average person’s habits and quality of life in the same ways policy does. Right now, the tides are mid-shift. The ground is unstable. When studio mergers are set to change film as we know it, and the seventh film in a relatively innocuous horror franchise can become a political lightning rod, cinema has never been more immediately and imperatively political.

Wenders should understand the impactful potential of cinema better than most. Most known and loved for 1984’s “Paris, Texas,” the filmmaker has more recently devoted his work to nonfiction storytelling. In 2014’s “The Salt of the Earth,” Wenders chronicled the contemporary work of internationally revered photographer and photojournalist Sebastião Salgado, who dedicated his life to documenting global societies in series that opposed war and social injustice. And in 2018’s “Pope Francis: A Man of His Word,” Wenders was given rare access to Western religion’s most prominent figurehead as he preached progressive values around the world. Even something like “Perfect Days” — Wenders’ most recent narrative film, a simple but moving meditation on the beauty of life and routine — has the potency of politics in its bones.

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

But we live in an age where even our most prolific artists are afraid to say the wrong thing. In the internet age, ignorance has a price, and to avoid paying it, some would rather say nothing at all, even as the window for silence quickly closes. After more than 100 artists in the film industry signed an open letter criticizing the festival’s silence, Wenders alluded to this phenomenon in a prepared statement at the Berlinale’s closing awards ceremony. “Cinema is more resistant to oblivion, and certainly longer-living than the short-lived attention span that the internet offers, while your urgency reaches places our films cannot,” Wenders said.

“Activists are fighting mainly on the internet for humanitarian causes — namely, our dignity and protection of human life. These are our causes as well. As the Berlinale films clearly show, most of us filmmakers applaud you. All of us applaud you. You do necessary and courageous work. But does it need to be in competition with ours? Do our languages need to clash?”

In short: yes and no. The internet’s demand for the right response, all the time, is designed to corner people. Cinema can and should speak for itself. Films are statements, and these statements don’t always arrive when they’re requested. But as the reaction to the Berlinale’s messy initial press conference showed, representatives of the art form have a duty to swallow their fear of misspeaking — at least when they’re given a platform as a juror for a major international film festival. This political climate might be the trickiest modern society has ever navigated, but true artists aren’t afraid to adapt if it means staying in step with the very world their art observes.

(Nina Westervelt/Variety via Getty Images) Mason Gooding, Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega and Courteney Cox at the premiere of “Scream VI”

It’s even more remarkable, then, that Melissa Barrera refused to back down or apologize after her 2023 reposts gained traction and ignited controversy. At the time, Spyglass issued a statement, saying that Barrera’s posts “flagrantly [crossed] the line into hate speech,” claiming that the posts were antisemitic and were “false references to genocide and ethnic cleansing.”

Curiously, though, every “Scream” film is now owned by Paramount Pictures, which has distributed the most recent trio of films after Paramount Global acquired the catalog from Dimension Films — a former subsidiary of Miramax — in 2020. On its face, that may not look suspicious. But in July 2025, Paramount settled a lawsuit with Donald Trump to the tune of $16 million. That same month, the FCC approved the pending merger of Paramount with Skydance Media, leaving many to conclude that the settlement was a pay-to-play way of moving the merger along. Now, Paramount Skydance Corporation holds the highest bid to acquire Warner Bros. after Netflix backed out. And if everything goes the way things look at the time of writing, Paramount Skydance will successfully subsume one of cinema’s preeminent studio giants.

This also means that Paramount (and I’ll refer to the company as that for expediency’s sake) will have a monopoly on the films audiences see. They will control what films get made, and by whom. Given that Trump criticized Netflix staffer Susan Rice on Truth Social just two weeks ago, it doesn’t take an eagle-eyed reader to make the correlation that the president did not want Netflix to have Warner Bros. Paramount, on the other hand, is a much better owner in the conservative administration’s eyes. They’ve already done a number on CBS News, shifting the longstanding program to the middle-right. And if the merger goes through, Paramount could also control the majority of films we see.

That’s a frightening thing, considering Paramount has already announced plans to continue rehabbing disgraced “Melania” director Brett Ratner’s career with a new “Rush Hour” film. They’ve also tapped the equally toxic — and just as shoddy —  filmmaker Max Landis for a new “G.I. Joe,” after Landis was accused of sexual and emotional abuse by multiple women. To put it very plainly: Paramount does not want dissenting voices among its roster, and is all too happy to not only overlook allegations against the filmmakers the company employs, but actively seek them out to give them jobs. Is it really any wonder that Paramount just so happens to distribute the very franchise that Barrera was ousted from? If the new final girl of the “Scream” series wouldn’t play nice and stick to the script, they’d simply toss her away and pay Neve Campbell to return.

While cinema is an inherently political art form — anything put to celluloid or digital has the power to influence people at the same level as politics — it shouldn’t have to be political to this degree. The average person shouldn’t have to fret that bold ideas and wondrous cinematic visions are being gatekept from them by the people in a boardroom clinging to a conservative agenda. And yet, this is the reality that we face; the barrel of the gun that we’re staring down together. Right now, politics is intertwined with almost every facet of big business, no matter what type of business it is, and that objectively sucks.

But maybe there’s a little bit of hope, buried somewhere beneath the rubble. At last Sunday’s Actor Awards, producer Scott Stuber — a key growth figure for Universal in the early 2000s and former chairman of Netflix Films — told Variety that he hopes something good can come from the losses of the potential merger. “I’m hoping there will be new companies that rise up and are entrepreneurial,” Stuber said. “I hope there are all kinds of new places. And you look over the last 50 years, companies like New Line, A24, Miramax, they came out of [entrepreneurial spirits]. And I hope a bunch of people who, unfortunately, may lose their jobs band together and create something great.”

Stuber has a very silver-linings perspective that is, it must be said, rife with privilege. But he also isn’t necessarily wrong, either. The ’90s saw a major renaissance in independent filmmaking that has bled into the new millennium, and scrappy young artists are being given new chances every day as distributors like A24, NEON and their contemporaries move further into film production. Even outside of smaller studios, there’s a renewed chance for independent artists to take bold swings. This is the moment for combative, exciting and unpolished filmmaking; the time to donate a few bucks to the GoFundMe your weird but cool college roommate is starting up to produce their first short film; the time for guerilla productions and picking up the camera to make something fun with your friends. Radicalism is the enemy of big politics, and there’s nothing quite so radical as making and enjoying art on our own terms.

The post Film is — and always will be — political appeared first on Salon.com.

Donald Trump, the so-called “president of peace,” is here to overcome the “stupid and naïve” deals of previous presidents, he has said, by waging war with those countries that won’t make a deal with us — after we broke the last deal we had with them.

On Wednesday Trump announced the U.S., in cooperation with Israel, had “completely obliterated” Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons “a number of months ago” and then, seconds later, told us we had to attack the Islamic Republic on Saturday “because in two weeks they’d have a nuclear weapon.” From obliteration to a viable threat in months. That’s a pretty impressive accomplishment — and is almost certainly a complete fabrication. Which part? It’s Trump, so probably both statements. We didn’t obliterate Iran’s nuclear capabilities months ago, and they likely weren’t two weeks away from firing a nuclear weapon when the U.S. and Israel attacked them on Saturday.

The administration still hasn’t told us what imminent threat actually prompted the war. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said we were dragged into it. Trump said we dragged Israel into the conflict because he had a “feeling” we were about to be attacked — so he acted first. In the Indian Treaty Room Wednesday afternoon, the president backtracked and seemed to support Rubio’s contention. 

The administration has laid out four objectives in attacking Iran: to stop the country from producing new missiles, eliminate its navy, prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon and ensure Iran “cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.” Trump called Iran the “world’s number one sponsor of terror,” but he also said he thought the U.S. and Iran would be able to negotiate.

“We thought we had a deal, but then they backed out,” Trump said. “Then they came back and we thought we had a deal, and they backed out. I said, ‘You can’t deal with these people. You got to do it the right way.'”

There is little doubt what the president meant by “the right way.” White House Pep Secretary Karoline Leavitt told us from the briefing room Wednesday afternoon that Trump is a president of “peace and diplomacy first” but also a “man of action,” and that the “specter of a nuclear-armed Iran ended” with Operation Epic Fury.

As she rattled off all the property that has been destroyed and the people that have been killed, Leavitt sounded like an anchor on “NFL Game Day” talking about game highlights. “Absolutely crushed,” she said of Iran, observing that the country was “paying in blood.” If it sounds like a cheap rip-off of the WWE, well, that’s how Trump rolls. Leavitt also leaned into her favorite antagonist — the press. There has been “a lot of misreporting and intellectual dishonesty” from the media, Leavitt said, before she once again engaged in intellectual dishonesty and provided disinformation to us as to why America is in an undeclared war with Iran. 

We really shouldn’t over analyze this. Donald Trump took action because he wanted to. And, as usual, whatever he says afterward is inconsequential and often irrelevant to the action he has already taken. He simply bombed Iran because he felt like it. He threatened Spain, our ally — like he did Greenland, which is also our ally — simply because he wanted to. Trump loves trying on his big boy pants and threatening anyone he wants. As Leavitt told us Wednesday, the president doesn’t bluff. He floats trial balloons and if no one pushes back, he pushes forward.

He broke a nuclear deal with Iran, crafted by the Obama administration, that ensured the regime could not develop nuclear weapons. Then he bombed them. Then he wanted to negotiate with the Islamic Republic and said they’re difficult to deal with. No one doubts they are difficult to deal with, and few want to. Leavitt said Iran’s leaders “lied, they delayed, they tried to string the United States along.” Or as my father, the car salesman, would describe it, “they were negotiating.”

No one wants to side with Iran, but the real question is why we would expect them to negotiate with us after Trump reneged on the last deal. What are negotiation tactics for one man is fodder for war to others — especially if one or both sides are spoiling for a fight.

Trump was certainly doing that. His decision to go to war is a clear effort to unite the country against a long-time foreign enemy. It has the effect of diverting attention from quieting the dystopian actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in many of our larger cities, the shooting and detention of American citizens, and the still-volatile scandal surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files. 

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

After 47 years of Iran’s violent rhetoric and behavior, Trump said the U.S. has had enough. If you agree with the president — and on the face of it many will — then we should also hold our own country responsible for its past actions. The U.S., in partnership with Britain, overthrew a democratically-elected Iranian government in 1953 and supported the shah because of a J.R. Ewing “oil business” mentality that existed among America’s government, richest oil companies and closest ally.

Today’s Iranian leadership is the twisted child born from U.S. foreign policy at the height of the Cold War and the reaction of the radical religious movement that exploited and filled Iran’s power vacuum.

The White House tried on Wednesday to praise those who have given their life to this most recent and confusing horror show. The six American service members who died in this undeclared war were “heroes,” Leavitt said. “The best of us. They laid down their lives for their country.”

Who would say otherwise? What we all want to know is why? Why now? Despite the many stories told by Trump and his staff, those questions remain mostly unanswered. The administration’s inability to effectively convince the American people of the need for action has also deeply divided Congress, which is hardly a shock in today’s confusing political environment. Again, confusion is the brand.

The only thing that makes sense is that the reason for these and future casualties is because the president of peace, who “has solved eight wars,” determined that someone had to die — and their number came up.

Donald Trump said he hated war. He promised he’d keep us out of forever wars. He started one in Iran. His recent post on Truth Social said we had enough weapons to wage war forever and it would be productive in Iran. I guess he’s created a carve out. 

It is not a coincidence that on Feb. 11, Benjamin Netanyahu visited Trump at the White House. We do not know what was said between the two men, and while correlation is not causation, the Israeli prime minister didn’t travel to Washington and meet privately with the president to discuss the back nine at Mar-a-Lago. Those closest to Trump have hinted that they engaged in “very important” and “strategic” communications. It seems we may now know what that was about. 

Who dragged whom and where they dragged each other is irrelevant. They have opened Pandora’s box in the Middle East. It is a distraction and a stratagem. It sows confusion. It is Donald Trump’s brand.

The attorney general has been called before a subcommittee to discuss her handling of the Epstein scandal? Bomb Iran. The stock market took a dive? Bomb Iran. Trump’s immigration policy is tanking? Bomb Iran. Gas still isn’t at $1.85 a gallon? Bomb Iran. Trump is betting on several things, the key of which is keeping us so confused that we never notice what’s going on. 

Trump has already declared Operation Epic Fury an unqualified success. If it were to end today, maybe so. Few are mourning the killing of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, even in his own country. But the creeping fog of war is messy, and beyond anyone’s control. The administration’s decision to bomb Hezbollah in Lebanon means the war is already spreading and could easily grow out of control.  

In a 212-219 vote, the Republican-controlled House on Thursday rejected a resolution that would have restricted Trump’s war in Iran. The Senate had blocked a similar war powers resolution the day before. “I hope this one doesn’t come back to bite us in the a*s,” a Texas GOP representative told me. “I don’t know if we have a handle on this yet.”

There is little doubt that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is a political lightweight incapable of passing a mirror without pausing to smile and preen. If things take a turn for the worse, it is doubtful he has the wisdom and gravitas to handle it.  

But Trump doesn’t care about that anymore. He just wants to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason that strikes his fancy at the time. And no one has yet stopped him.

The post With Iran, confusion is the point appeared first on Salon.com.

For the administration’s critics, Noem’s dismissal will be especially pleasing. Since she was confirmed by the Senate in January 2025, the former secretary, even by the low standards set by a Cabinet filled with toadies, has excelled in debasing herself to please her boss. To meet the eye-popping deportation numbers set as goals by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, she turned the Department of Homeland Security into a disaster zone that was as inept as it was lawless.

Noem transformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to function as an authoritarian secret police, but without the sleek, efficient evil a Hollywood rendering would bestow on the SS. Federal immigration agents were instead slipping on ice or shooting unarmed protesters, all while whining about how persecuted they were. She herself became a public joke because of her over-the-top portrayal of a corrupt apparatchik, complete with her vicious dog-shooting story, ridiculous flattery of Trump and demands for ever-fancier private jets to share with her partner in repression — and adultery, if credible reports are to be believed — Corey Lewandowski.

But if there was one symbol that resonated the most for Noem’s grasps for power, it was her face. The 54-year-old appears to have undergone such extensive plastic surgery in an attempt to mimic Trump’s cartoonish ideas of what is “hot” in a woman that she is both hard to look at and impossible to match to photos of her younger, normal-looking self. Many women in the president’s orbit have adopted what has become known as “Mar-a-Lago face,” a look that includes heavy fillers, cosmetic procedures and caked-on makeup to be visibly appealing to a man who apparently avoids wearing his glasses in public. When a Vanity Fair profile of Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, was published in December, it became notorious for, among other revelations, a photograph of press secretary Karoline Leavitt that appeared to show extensive injection spots for lip filler. (The president, unbothered by the appearance, keeps openly lusting over Leavitt’s “machine gun lips” that “don’t stop.”) But no one has gotten more attention for her dramatic visual transformation than Noem.

In the end, though, Noem could not save herself, and for reasons that are related to why she likely felt the pressure and need to have plastic surgery that most men in her position don’t reckon with: gender. As a woman, the former secretary was far more disposable to Trump than a man in her position. It’s a lesson she should have learned when he passed her over as a potential running mate for the charisma-free JD Vance. The same president who was found civilly liable by a jury for sexual assault, who calls female reporters “piggy” or scolds them for not smiling, who spent over a decade partying with Jeffrey Epstein will be pleased to have a woman to blame for his administration’s hemorrhaging of public support on what was once his biggest issue, immigration.

It would be one thing if Noem were uniquely incompetent. But as bad as her press coverage has been, it is no worse than what many of the men occupying top spots in the administration are facing.

Pete Hegseth has repeatedly confirmed suspicions that he, as a former Fox News host with a rumored drinking problem, isn’t up for the job of defense secretary, from the time his team accidentally leaked confidential battle plans to an Atlantic reporter to his recent tantrum when news outlets published the names and photos of service members killed in the Iran war.

FBI Director Kash Patel is just as comically corrupt as Noem, whether abusing his private jet privileges to hang out with the U.S. men’s hockey team at the Olympics or reportedly diverting agency resources to surround his girlfriend with security like she’s a princess.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick got caught in an obvious lie about his relationship with Epstein, insisting he barely knew the man, when in reality they were business partners who were photographed on vacation together.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to be beloved by Trump, even as he has made dubious claims about childhood diseases, oversaw a purge of medical and science professionals at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggested that bird flu be allowed to spread unimpeded, falsely linked Tylenol to autism and continues to pursue dangerous and unpopular anti-vaccine policies, despite promising he would leave vaccines alone during his Senate confirmation hearing. 

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

A telling detail showing the role gender played in Noem’s dismissal is reports of Trump’s dislike of her rumored affair with Lewandowski. It’s unlikely that the president, with his long list of confirmed and rumored adulteries, is experiencing a newfound moral disapproval of infidelity. And despite reports of a tense confrontation following Noem’s congressional hearing on Tuesday, he also seems to like Lewandowski personally. After all, Trump has kept him around for over a decade. But the widespread coverage of Noem and Lewandowski’s relationship in reputable outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and the Atlantic paints the adviser as the secondary person in the relationship. Lewandowski is portrayed in a role that, on the right, is usually reserved for women: as Noem’s support staff, cheering on her presidential ambitions and making sure she has her favorite blanket on the plane. To Trump, who has rigidly hierarchical notions of gender, that probably seems emasculating.

But more than anything else, Noem is in many ways taking the fall for Stephen Miller. While she is morally and professionally responsible for her blunders as secretary, she was also reportedly acting on direct orders from the White House deputy chief of staff, who appears to be the most powerful person in the administration besides Trump.

It’s Miller who set impossibly high arrest quotas for ICE that could only be met with policies Noem enacted, such as targeting people with legal asylum status for deportation or encouraging mass detentions on flimsy grounds that are usually overturned by courts. The blatant white supremacist imagery and rhetoric coming from DHS sounds far closer to Miller’s overheated rhetoric about the evils of diversity than Noem’s more careful language. And it’s Miller who was seen dancing with Noem to “Ice, Ice Baby” at the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve party.

The Department of Homeland Security’s failures are objectively as much, if not more, the fault of Miller than Noem, but there is no evidence he is paying any price for setting an agenda that was bound to go as badly as it has. To the contrary, the simultaneous announcement of GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma as Noem’s replacement, suggests there will be no scaling back from Miller’s demands on the department should he be confirmed by the Senate. He is a belligerent MAGA foot soldier who has drawn headlines in the past by complaining that teaching kids anti-racism impedes on lessons about Jesus.

Swapping Noem for the Mullin is an even trade, with one notable exception: He’s a man, and she’s not. Like a lot of men who please Trump, Mullin pretends to be a tough guy without actually backing it up. That was always where this was headed, no matter how much Trump-pleasing work Noem did — or had done. 

The post Mar-a-Lago face couldn’t save Kristi Noem appeared first on Salon.com.

According to a Truth Social post from Trump early on Thursday afternoon, Noem will be replaced at DHS by Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as of March 31. Mullin is a vigorous supporter of Trump and the MAGA movement, and his vacated U.S. Senate seat is likely to remain in Republican hands.

Earlier this week, Noem faced a humiliating and highly unusual personal grilling before judiciary committees in both the House and Senate, as Democratic members asked embarrassing questions about her personal life, including Noem’s alleged relationship with former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who has been serving as an unpaid special government employee under this administration. Noem did not directly deny an affair with Lewandowski in response to repeated questioning, as her husband sat behind her in the committee chamber.

“I think the ridiculousness of this and the tabloids that you are quoting and referencing are insane,” Noem said. “This is a thing I have refuted for years.”

She was also pressed by members of Congress over a $220 million ad campaign from the department that prominently featured her, as well as contracts agreed by the department that appeared to be non-competitive, in violation of government statutes. agreed to with only limited competition between contractors.

In Trump’s Truth Social post, the president said Noem “has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results” but said she was being moved to a newly invented position as “Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere,” to be announced this weekend. He thanked Noem “for her service at ‘Homeland.'”

Formerly known as the avidly pro-Trump governor of South Dakota, Noem was tapped lead DHS shortly after the 2024 election, and now becomes by far the most prominent Trump Cabinet official ousted during the second term. She was reportedly considered as a possible running mate on Trump’s 2024 ticket, though she was passed over in favor of JD Vance, then a newly-elected Ohio senator, after Noem published a book in which she boasted about shooting a poorly-behaved family dog.

Noem led DHS through the first year of Trump’s second term in office, overseeing both Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection as the agencies saw an unprecedented surge in funding and resources, growing to become an ever-present force in American life. Under Noem’s leadership, the agencies adopted wearing masks to conceal their identities, while rushing to complete quotas imposed on them, with the administration demanding 3,000 deportations a day.

Earlier this year, Noem sought to pin ICE and CBP’s violent crackdown in Minneapolis on White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, perhaps Trump’s closest adviser. A source told Axios that Noem had said, “Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen.”

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

U.S. public opinion has largely turned against Trump’s immigration enforcement policy, and coupled with the rumors about Noem’s private life, that apparently made her position untenable. Immigration was previously understood as one of Trump’s strongest issues in public polling, most Americans now disapprove of the administration’s handling of the issue. Two prominent GOP senators, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, publicly turned against Noem on Jan. 27, asking the president to fire her.

The GOP’s mass deportation policy came to a head in Minneapolis after officers under the DHS killed two American citizens within a two-week period in January, first Renee Nicole Good, a mother and Minneapolis resident, and later Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse working at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs hospital. Prior to these killings, DHS employees had killed six people as part of their immigration crackdown, though it was the videos and the nature of the killings in Minneapolis that escalated the political fallout.

Following the killing of Pretti, who was tackled by a group of officers and shot numerous times by two different officers, congressional Republicans turning on Noem as a scapegoat, along with CBP’s former “commander at large,” Gregory Bovino, whose title was dissolved after the killings. Bovino’s apparent demotion came after he made demonstrably false claims that Pretti was aiming to kill federal agents. “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” Bovino said.

Tom Homan, Trump’s “border czar,” was sent to Minneapolis to assume command of operations there, vowing to continue the deadly operation, while promising that it would be “safer.”

“What we’ve been working on is making this operation safer, more efficient, by the book,” Homan said at a Jan. 29 press conference. “The mission is going to improve because of the changes we’re making internally.” None of these changes, it appears, was enough to save Kristi Noem’s job.

The post Kristi Noem is out: Chaotic reign at DHS ends amid personal scandal appeared first on Salon.com.

The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Feb. 28, 2026, set off the process of selecting a new supreme leader. It is only the second such transition in the Islamic Republic’s 47-year history and the first since the ailing Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini transferred power to Khamenei in June 1989.

As stipulated in Article 111 of the Iranian Constitution, a three-person Interim Leadership Council was created on March 1, 2026. It consists of President Masoud Pezeshkian, Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Eje’i and Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, who is also a candidate for supreme leader.

The council has temporarily assumed the duties of the supreme leader until a new one is appointed by the Assembly of Experts – an elected body of 88 clerics. The assembly is expected to swiftly elect the next supreme leader, especially with Iran being in a state of war.

Assuming it can be carried out, a swift succession is meant to signal to domestic dissidents and external enemies alike that the regime – or ruling system, nezam – remains in place. During the assembly’s first meeting to select a new supreme leader on March 3, Israel bombed its building in the city of Qom. The building was evacuated before the strike, and no casualties were reported.

Some media reports have portrayed Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, as a top contender, even though he lacks the status of a senior cleric. Although his is just one of a number of names that has been talked of as a potential successor.

Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said that Israel would kill any successor to Khamenei that is selected. Nevertheless, the Assembly of Experts appears determined to carry out its constitutional duty and appoint a new supreme leader.

As a scholar of Iranian politics, I argue that the succession process, irrespective of its outcome, has never been free or transparent.

The history of succession

The Iranian supreme leader serves for life and is the highest religious and political authority in the Islamic Republic.

He is the commander in chief of the armed forces and oversees other key institutions, such as the judicial branch and state media.

He also supervises the Guardian Council, which has the power to vet electoral candidates and veto parliamentary legislation.

In this capacity, the supreme leader has the final say on foreign policy and different areas of domestic policy.

The first leader of the Islamic Republic – Khomeini – ruled between 1979 and 1989. In addition to being a revolutionary and charismatic figure, Khomeini was a grand ayatollah and a “source of emulation,” or marja’ al-taqlid.

A grand ayatollah and source of emulation is among a select few of the highest-ranking clerics. He is considered a “sign of God” in Twelver Shiism, the largest branch of Shiism and the state religion of Iran. A grand ayatollah and source of emulation has the authority to make legal decisions for his lay followers and for lower-ranking clerics in Iran and the wider Shiite world.

There are several dozen grand ayatollahs and sources of emulation in the world. Most of them reside and run seminaries in the holy cities of Qom in Iran and Najaf in Iraq. Shiites can choose which one they want to follow as a senior figure of the faith, making the institution decentralized.

The electoral facade

The members of the Assembly of Experts serve eight-year terms and are authorized to elect, supervise and, if necessary, dismiss the supreme leader. Article 111 of the Iranian Constitution grants the assembly the authority to remove the supreme leader if he is deemed incapable or unqualified politically and religiously. However, it is unlikely to do so given that its members are first vetted by the Guardian Council before being elected by a popular vote of Iranian men and women ages 18 and older.

It should be noted that the members of the Guardian Council are appointed by the supreme leader and the chief justice, or head of the judiciary, who is also appointed by the supreme leader.

Therefore, through the council, the supreme leader approves the candidates. They are potentially elected to a body that oversees him, making the process far from free and fair.

In the last election for the Assembly of Experts in March 2024, which had a historically low voter turnout of about 40%, the Guardian Council disqualified many candidates.

This was particularly the case with moderates and reformists, who tended to oppose the supreme leader on various issues. For this reason, the assembly has not been known to seriously supervise or challenge the supreme leader, and its proceedings have remained strictly confidential or closed to the public.

The 1989 succession

As Khomeini approached the end of his life in 1989, the constitution was amended so that a lower-ranking cleric like Khamenei could assume the position.

As a seminary student of Khomeini who was more interested in politics than religion, Khamenei ranked below an ayatollah. Within the Shiite clerical hierarchy, and like other Islamic scholars who studied under an ayatollah, he earned the title Hojjat al-Eslam, or “proof of Islam.” He possessed the foundational knowledge of Islam without the advanced and independent reasoning – ijtihad – required for an ayatollah.

After being appointed to succeed Khomeini, Khamenei’s rank was elevated overnight to a grand ayatollah. The reason for the appointment was that Khamenei was a longtime loyalist and regime insider, even though he lacked the charismatic and religious authority of Khomeini.

Until 1989, Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri – a prominent theologian and revolutionary leader – was expected to take over as the supreme leader. That year, however, he was ultimately passed over by Khomeini and detained by the Revolutionary Guard.

Montazeri succumbed to this fate because he had questioned Khamenei’s qualifications as supreme leader and condemned the regime for its repression, especially the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988 by a committee of four prosecutors. After continuing to criticize Khamenei in 1997, Montazeri was placed under house arrest under the pretext of protecting him from hard-liners. In 2003 he was released by the reformist president Mohammad Khatami, who had received pressure from parliamentarians to do so.

The situation with succession today

For years, rumors circulated that Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the recently slain supreme leader, could be named the next one. However, such a scenario seemed unlikely during the lifetime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who openly opposed it.

He did so to avoid antagonizing parts of the political and religious establishment that categorically reject hereditary or dynastic succession. After all, the concept is considered antithetical or anathema to the Iranian Revolution, which deposed the monarchy led by the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in 1979.

From a political perspective, Mojtaba has never held public office. By contrast, his father served as Iran’s third president between 1981 and 1989.

Religiously speaking, Mojtaba – like his father before he became the supreme leader – is only a midranking cleric, though he teaches theology at the renowned Qom Seminary. As with his father, and for political purposes, the Assembly of Experts would have to elevate Mojtaba’s status to a grand ayatollah, even without the requisite religious credentials.

It is worth mentioning that Mojtaba is being considered for supreme leader alongside some seniors clerics whose credentials come closer to that of a grand ayatollah. Alireza Arafi, whose name has also come up as a potential successor, attained the rank of an ayatollah, or mujtahid, after publishing over 20 books and articles on Islamic jurisprudence and philosophy.

That said, in 2022 his religious qualifications were called into question. That year he joined the Assembly of Experts without taking the required written exam administered by the Guardian Council, even though he had been a member of it since 2019. Instead, he was appointed to the assembly by Khamenei through a legal loophole and without being elected. This incident indicated that Arafi was favored by Khamenei and may have an advantage as a candidate for supreme leader.

Another candidate, Ayatollah Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri, is an Islamic philosopher and theoretician. In this capacity, he serves as the head of the Qom Academy of Islamic Sciences and has been a member of the Assembly of Experts since 2016.

Yet another contender is Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Bushehri. He was educated in the Qom Seminary and became the Friday prayer leader of the city. Alongside Arafi, Bushehri serves as a deputy chairman of the Assembly of Experts.
As the current conflict continues, and even with the Interim Leadership Council in place, the Assembly of Experts is under immense pressure to rapidly rule on succession to preserve the system.

Mojtaba Khamenei’s election, as I see it, would continue the trend of prioritizing political preferences over religious principles that started in 1989.

This piece includes material from an earlier one published on May 23, 2024.

Eric Lob, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Florida International University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post How does Iran pick a new supreme leader? appeared first on Salon.com.