Blob di C.I.R.C.E.

Immigration

We’re on the Ground in Minneapolis as Tensions Flare After ICE Shooting

Amanda Moore is a journalist who has been covering the rise of ICE across the US for months, writing news articles and posting clips of confrontations to her social media feeds and, in the process, becoming one of the most prominent chroniclers of Trump’s immigration crackdown from the front lines. Amanda will be filing stories for Mother Jones over the coming weeks and months about ICE and its operations, and I spoke to her as she arrived on the ground in the immediate aftermath of the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, the 37-year-old mother who was killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, sparking mass protests. Below is our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity. James West: Tell me exactly where you are, what you’re seeing, and what the mood is like on the ground. Amanda Moore: I’m here outside of the Whipple Building. It’s a federal building. It’s where ICE has been staging since they got here. As you can see, there are now a bunch of federal Border Patrol agents. This morning, there were some protests that were larger than the previous ones that have been at the building, and protesters actually worked to block the driveway. So now we can see all of the Border Patrol agents are here because they came out to guard the facility. Amanda, you’ve been around the country for months covering escalating tactics used by ICE at these types of facilities, and you’re drawing comparisons between what you’re seeing there and other facilities like Broadview in Chicago. > “Once again, I was getting tear-gassed at 7 o’clock in the morning.” The first month at Broadview was extremely violent. People were being tear-gassed by 7 o’clock in the morning. They were picking up protesters and flinging them to the ground like rag dolls. And today, here at the Whipple Building, reminded me of Broadview. Once again, I was getting tear-gassed at 7 o’clock in the morning. You know, protesters were not really prepared for what was coming in the same way. They don’t expect it so early in the morning. And eventually, in Broadview, that kind of petered off because local police took over, and they no longer had Border Patrol out front. So as long as Border Patrol is guarding the facility, it seems to be a pretty similar pattern. One of the accelerants on the ground where you’ve been previously, Amanda, seems to be whenever the Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino rocks up. What vibe does he bring into a scene anytime you’re on the ground? Well, Bovino is the show, right? So when he comes into town, all the cameras are on him, and all the protesters know who he is—or if they don’t know, they learn very, very fast. And so he’s kind of in charge, and it’s the culture of Border Patrol under his direction that leads to some of that violence that we experience. With Bovino himself, there’s obviously now a court record in place where even the courts aren’t believing the types of stories that federal law enforcement is bringing about some of these protesters. > “If a rock is kicked…in Bovino’s direction, then Tricia McLaughlin will tweet > that video and say a rock was thrown.” Yeah. In Chicago, in federal court, the judges began to just completely discredit everything that Border Patrol had to say. And so it’s this escalation that’s based on a reality that does not exist—one that’s not reflected in any of the video, photos, or the eyewitness experiences. If a rock is kicked on the ground in Bovino’s direction, then [DHS spokesperson] Tricia McLaughlin will tweet that video and say a rock was thrown—and that’s clearly not the case. This scene is one that attracts counter-protesters as well as pretty hardcore protesters against ICE. When these two forces meet, what do you typically see, and what should people be prepared to see as this type of confrontation unfolds over the next couple of days? We actually had some pro-ICE protesters here this morning. They came. One had an American flag. I believe one of them is still standing around in front of Border Patrol somewhere. And he was very direct. He said, we’ve already executed one of you, and basically, we’ll do it again. A lot of the pro-ICE protesters, they seem to be here to antagonize, not necessarily to really show support. It’s a lot of instigation, and many times it’s being done under the veneer of journalism, which, of course, that’s not. Tell me how you prepare for these types of excursions into the fray when you’ve been covering this. What are some of the challenges? What should our viewers expect to see from you in the coming days as you are on the ground in Minneapolis? A primary challenge would be tear gas. There’s a lot of it—they really go through it—and pepper balls. So you have to have safety gear. You have to have goggles and masks and helmets and all that stuff. But a real issue, I think, is going to be when you’re at these events, every agent in front of you has a gun, and you can guess that several people behind you have guns as well—especially when they’re in the neighborhoods, when protests pop up during a raid, not necessarily at the facility. And [Minnesota] is an open-carry state, so that comes into play here in a way it didn’t necessarily in most of Chicago. But there’s really only so much you can do. The agents can be very friendly to the press. They can be very willing to talk, or they can shoot you with a pepper ball when you try to ask them a question—you can never predict. So it’s a little bit of a guessing game.

January 9, 2026 / Mother Jones

FEMA Downsizing Plan Is a Disaster, Survivors Say

Police violence

ICE

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Flood, storm, and fire survivors gathered in Washington, DC, on Monday to express their alarm over a leaked report from the FEMA Review Council that proposes halving the agency’s workforce and scaling back federal disaster assistance. Holding images of the devastation wrought by disasters in their communities, more than 80 survivors from 10 states and Puerto Rico gathered at a press conference in the historic Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill. There, Brandy Gerstner tearfully recounted the flash floods that destroyed her home and family farm in Sandy Creek, Texas, in July. With little help from the county or state, Gerstner said she and her family were left to navigate the flood’s aftermath on their own. “From the very beginning, it was neighbors and volunteers who showed up. Official help was scarce,” she said. It took search and rescue three days to arrive in Sandy Creek. “By that time, it was search and recovery,” said Gerstner.” Weeks later, after being told that FEMA could help pay for costs not already covered by a small flood insurance payout, her application for federal assistance was denied. > “‘Passing disaster management to the states’ is code-speak for letting people > suffer and die.” In DC, Gerstner was one of several survivors to condemn the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink FEMA’s scope. “We know what it feels like when emergency systems fall short. Proposals to weaken FEMA should further alarm every American,” said Gerstner. Trump has repeatedly expressed his intention to shift FEMA’s responsibilities to states. In June, he told reporters assembled in the Oval Office that the administration wanted to “wean off of FEMA,” and move many of the agency’s responsibilities to the state level, “so the governors can handle it.” Just weeks into his second term, Trump created the FEMA Review Council, calling for a “full-scale review” of the agency and citing “serious concerns of political bias in FEMA.” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth co-chair the council, which is composed almost entirely of Republican federal and state officials. After nearly a year of deliberation, the committee was poised to vote on its final recommendations for the agency’s future at a meeting on Thursday in DC. But the meeting was abruptly cancelled after a draft of the council’s report leaked to news outlets. The White House has not yet set a date for a rescheduled meeting, but the leaked report, which calls for sweeping reductions to FEMA’s staff and scope, sparked immediate backlash from advocacy groups, disaster survivors, and emergency management experts. > “This is absolutely appalling, and it makes an already difficult disaster > process even more arduous.” In addition to shifting greater responsibility for disaster response and recovery to the states, the report’s recommendations include cutting the FEMA workforce by 50 percent and moving employees out of Washington, DC, over the next two to three years. The report also outlines a block grant system that would streamline the delivery of disaster aid to states within 30 days of a major federal disaster declaration, expediting cash flow while requiring a higher cost share from states. However, fewer disasters might qualify for such federal assistance in the reimagined FEMA. “Federal assistance should only be reserved for truly catastrophic events that exceed [State, Local, Tribal and Territorial] capacity and capability,” the report states, according to CNN. Restricting federal aid could have dire consequences to states already struggling to support disaster victims, said Amanda Devecka-Rinear, executive director of the New Jersey Organizing Project and senior at Organizing Resilience, which hosted the Monday press conference. “‘Passing disaster management to the states’ is code-speak for letting people suffer and die,” said Devecka-Rinear in a statement. This weekend, tens of thousands of residents in Washington state were ordered to evacuate their homes amidst historic rainfall and flooding. Gov. Bob Ferguson declared a statewide emergency and has announced meetings with FEMA to expedite a federal disaster designation and secure critical funding and resources. If the current precedent holds, that may take weeks. On average, it’s taken more than a month to approve requests for federal disaster designations during Trump’s second term, the Associated Press found. Even once a federal disaster designation is granted, there’s no guarantee of rapid response under the current agency administration, said Abby McIlraith, an emergency management specialist at FEMA. McIlraith has been on administrative leave since August, when she, along with current and former agency employees, signed the Katrina Declaration, condemning FEMA practices interfering with disaster recovery, including Secretary Noem’s policy of personally reviewing and approving all expenses over $100,000. “This is absolutely appalling, and it makes an already difficult disaster process even more arduous for the people it serves,” said McIlraith at the Monday press conference. McIlraith, Gerstner and other survivors called for a fully independent FEMA not based within the Department of Homeland Security. “Disasters don’t discriminate, but disaster recovery does,” said Michael McLemore, a St. Louis-based electoral justice organizer and survivor of a deadly May 16 tornado. During the St. Louis tornado, sirens failed to sound across northern parts of the city. The tornado caused $1.6 billion in immediate damage, yet was not declared a major federal disaster until nearly a month later, said McLemore. “You’re here today because this building and this government have failed you,” said New Jersey senator Andy Kim, speaking to the assembled survivors. “There should be accountability, there should be change, there should be real effort. What is more important for our government than to be there for our people in their time of great need?”

December 17, 2025 / Mother Jones

A Dozen Ways You (Yes, You) Can Help Fight Climate Change

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. If you’re reading this, chances are you care a lot about fighting climate change, and that’s great. The climate emergency threatens all of humanity. And although the world has started to make some progress on it, our global response is still extremely lacking. The trouble is, it can be genuinely hard to figure out how to direct your money wisely if you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There’s a glut of environmental organizations out there—but how do you know which are the most impactful? To help, here’s a list of eight of the most high-impact, cost-effective, and evidence-based organizations. We’re not including bigger-name groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, or the Natural Resources Defense Council, because most big organizations are already relatively well-funded. The groups we list below seem to be doing something especially promising in the light of criteria that matter for effectiveness: importance, tractability, and neglectedness. Important targets for change are ones that drive a big portion of global emissions. Tractable problems are ones where we can actually make progress right now. And neglected problems are ones that aren’t already getting a big influx of cash from other sources like the government or philanthropy, and could really use money from smaller donors. Founders Pledge, an organization that guides entrepreneurs committed to donating a portion of their proceeds to effective charities, and Giving Green, a climate charity evaluator, used these criteria to assess climate organizations. Their research informed the list below. As in the Founders Pledge and Giving Green recommendations, we’ve chosen to look at groups focused on mitigation (tackling the root causes of climate change by reducing emissions) rather than adaptation (decreasing the suffering from the impacts of climate change). Both are important, but the focus here is on preventing further catastrophe. And this work is particularly important right now, in a world where “climate attention has collapsed, political support has evaporated, and policy gains are under sustained assault,” Founders Pledge stressed in its assessment of today’s politically charged atmosphere. Just last month, the prominent environmental group 350.org was forced to “temporarily suspend” its US operations because of severe funding challenges, according to a letter obtained by Politico. They are among the many groups in the climate movement now buckling under existential funding cuts. At the same time, Founders Pledge argues that the climate community massively underinvested “outside the progressive bubble,” creating a movement that was not resilient to the shakeup that would come under President Donald Trump. “One of the main ways we were underprepared was the fact that climate philanthropy invested overwhelmingly on one side of the political spectrum,” the organization writes. Now, the experts say, it’s particularly important to invest in nonpartisan organizations dedicated to defending and expanding upon all of the progress made so far. Arguably, the best move is to donate not to an individual charity, but to a fund—like the Founders Pledge Climate Change Fund or the Giving Green Fund. Experts at those groups pool together donor money and give it out to the charities they deem most effective, right when extra funding is most needed. That can mean making time-sensitive grants to promote the writing of an important report, or stepping in when a charity becomes acutely funding-constrained. That said, some of us like to be able to decide exactly which charity our money ends up with—maybe because we have especially high confidence in one or two charities relative to the others—rather than letting experts split the cash over a range of different groups. With that in mind, we’re listing below a mix of individual organizations where your money is likely to have an exceptionally positive impact. CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE What it does: The Clean Air Task Force is a US-based nongovernmental organization that has been working to reduce air pollution since its founding in 1996. It led a successful campaign to reduce the pollution caused by coal-fired power plants in the US, helped limit the US power sector’s CO2 emissions, and helped establish regulations of diesel, shipping, and methane emissions. CATF also advocates for the adoption of neglected low- and zero-carbon technologies, from advanced nuclear power to super-hot rock geothermal energy. Why you should consider donating: In addition to its seriously impressive record of success and the high quality of its research, CATF does well on the neglectedness criterion: It often concentrates on targeting emissions sources that are neglected by other environmental organizations, and on scaling up deployment of technologies that are crucial for decarbonization, yet passed over by NGOs and governments. For example, it was one of the first major environmental groups to publicly campaign against overlooked superpollutants like methane. In recent years, CATF has been expanding beyond the US to operate in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere. This is crucial: About 35 percent of climate philanthropy goes to the US and about 10 percent to Europe, which together represent only about 15 percent of future emissions, according to Founders Pledge. And this year, CATF has refocused its strategy to zero in on programs with broad nonpartisan political support to ensure those global efforts have staying power. This is part of why Founders Pledge is supporting CATF’s efforts and recommends giving to that organization. CATF is also one of Giving Green’s top picks. You can donate to CATF here. FUTURE CLEANTECH ARCHITECTS What it does: This Germany-based organization aims to promote innovation in Europe’s hard-to-decarbonize sectors by running key programs in, for example, zero-carbon fuels, industry, and carbon removal technologies. Why you should consider donating: You might be wondering if this kind of innovation really meets the “neglectedness” criterion—don’t we already have a lot of innovation? In the US, yes. But in Europe, this kind of organization is much rarer. And according to Founders Pledge, it’s already exceeded expectations at improving the European climate policy response. Most notably, it has helped shape key legislation at the EU level and advised policymakers on how to get the most bang for their buck when supporting research and development for clean energy tech. Giving Green recommends this organization, too. You can donate to Future Cleantech Architects here. GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE What it does: The Good Food Institute works to make alternative proteins (think plant-based burgers) competitive with conventional proteins like beef, which could help reduce livestock consumption. It engages in scientific research, industry partnerships, and government advocacy that improves the odds of alternative proteins going mainstream. Why you should consider donating: Raising animals for meat is responsible for more than 10 percent and perhaps as much as 19 percent of global emissions. These animals belch the superpollutant methane. Plus, we humans tend to deforest a lot of land for them to graze on, even though we all know the world needs more trees, not less. Yet there hasn’t been very much government effort to substantially cut agricultural emissions. Giving Green recommends the Good Food Institute because of its potential to help with that, noting that “GFI remains a powerhouse in alternative protein thought leadership and action. It has strong ties to government, industry, and research organizations and continues to achieve impressive wins. We believe donations to GFI can help stimulate systemic change that reduces food system emissions on a global scale.” You can donate to the Good Food Institute here. INNOVATION INITIATIVE AT THE CLEAN ECONOMY PROJECT What it does: When Bill Gates shuttered the policy arm of his climate philanthropy Breakthrough Energy earlier this year, the US lost a unique advocate for innovation at a pivotal moment in the country’s energy transition. Or did it? A group of veteran Breakthrough Energy staff recently launched the Innovation Initiative—part of a new organization called the Clean Economy Project—as part of a push to ensure the US continues on the right path in its energy transition, regardless of which party is in power. Why you should consider donating: This newly formed project may still be in its infancy, but its work builds upon years of deep experience advocating for clean energy innovation across the political spectrum. Founders Pledge helped seed the new organization with an early grant because “we see the Innovation Initiative as the best bet for donors who want to support federal energy innovation policy advocacy at a moment when this ecosystem needs coordination and strategic leadership,” they said, noting that even small-scale support for such efforts can spur massive payoffs in the space: “Relatively modest advocacy investments can influence billions” in federal spending for research and development “that accelerates breakthrough technologies with global spillover effects.” You can learn more about the Innovation Initiative here. To donate, send an email to giving@cleanecon.org, with the subject line “Donating to Innovation Initiative.” DEPLOY/US What it does: This nonpartisan nonprofit works with American conservatives to enact decarbonization policies, with the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. DEPLOY/US partners with philanthropic, business, military, faith, youth, policy, and grassroots organizations to shape a decarbonization strategy and generate policy change. Why you should consider donating: In case you haven’t heard of the eco-right, it’s important to know that there are genuine right-of-center climate groups that want to build support for decarbonization based on conservative principles. These groups have a crucial role to play; they can weaken political polarization around climate and increase Republican support for bold decarbonization policies, which are especially important now, with Republicans in control of the White House and Congress. Right now, these right-of-center groups remain “woefully underfunded compared to both the opportunity and necessity of correcting a large ideological blindspot of the climate movement that has come to bite in 2025,” Founders Pledge writes, adding that DEPLOY/US is uniquely positioned to insulate climate policy against the shifting winds of politics. You can donate to DEPLOY/US here. ENERGY FOR GROWTH HUB What it does: Founded by Todd Moss in 2013, Energy for Growth Hub aims to make electricity reliable and affordable for everyone. The organization hopes to end energy poverty through climate-friendly solutions. Why you should consider donating: While Energy for Growth Hub is not a strictly climate-focused organization—ending energy poverty is its main goal—it’s still a leader in the clean energy space. The organization will use your donation to fund projects that produce insight for companies and policymakers on how to create the energy-rich, climate-friendly future they’re dreaming of. In June, the World Bank announced an end to its ban on funding nuclear power projects after a sustained lobbying effort from Energy for Growth Hub alongside other think tanks and policy wonks. “We all know that Washington is broken. People complain that it’s impossible to get stuff done,” Moss wrote in his Substack in response. “But then, actually quite often, stuff does get done. And sometimes, just sometimes, things happen because people outside government come together to push a new idea inside government.” You can donate to Energy for Growth Hub here. PROJECT INNERSPACE What it does: This US-based nonprofit hopes to unlock the power of heat — geothermal energy—lying beneath the Earth’s surface. Launched in 2022, Project InnerSpace seeks to expand global access and drive down the cost of carbon-free heat and electricity, particularly to populations in the Global South. The organization maps geothermal resources and identifies geothermal projects in need of further funding. Why you should consider donating: Most geothermal power plants are located in places where geothermal energy is close to the Earth’s surface. Project InnerSpace will use your donation to add new data and tools to GeoMap, its signature map of geothermal hot spots, and drive new strategies and projects to fast-track transitions to geothermal energy around the world. The group also began funding community energy projects through its newly launched GeoFund earlier this year, starting with a geothermal-powered food storage facility in Tapri, India, which will offer local farmers more power to preserve their crops. You can donate to Project InnerSpace here. OPPORTUNITY GREEN What it does: Opportunity Green aims to cut aviation and maritime shipping emissions through targeted regulation and policy initiatives. The UK-based nonprofit was founded in 2021, and since then has aimed to encourage private sector adoption of clean energy alternatives. Why you should consider donating: Aviation and maritime shipping are an enormous source of global emissions, but receive little attention because international coordination is difficult around the issue, and there are few low-carbon fleets and fuels readily available. Even so, in a few short years, Opportunity Green has managed to gain significant influence in EU and international policy discussions around shipping emissions, while also helping to bring the perspective of climate-vulnerable countries into the fray. In 2024, the group launched a major legal filing against the EU to challenge its green finance rules. “We think Opportunity Green is a strategic organization with broad expertise across multiple pathways of influence to reduce emissions from aviation and shipping,” Giving Green notes. “We are especially excited about Opportunity Green’s efforts to elevate climate-vulnerable countries in policy discussions.” You can donate to Opportunity Green here. The past several years have seen an explosion of grassroots activism groups focused on climate—from Greta Thunberg’s Fridays for Future to the Sunrise Movement to Extinction Rebellion. Activism is an important piece of the climate puzzle; it can help change public opinion and policy, including by shifting the Overton window, the range of policies that seem possible. Social change is not an exact science, and the challenges in measuring a social movement’s effectiveness are well documented. While it would be helpful to have more concrete data on the impact of activist groups, it may also be shortsighted to ignore movement-building for that reason. The environmentalist Bill McKibben told Vox that building the climate movement is crucial because, although we’ve already got some good mitigation solutions, we’re not deploying them fast enough. “That’s the ongoing power of the fossil fuel industry at work. The only way to break that power and change the politics of climate is to build a countervailing power,” he said in 2019. “Our job — and it’s the key job — is to change the zeitgeist, people’s sense of what’s normal and natural and obvious. If we do that, all else will follow.” Of course, some activist groups are more effective than others. And it’s worth noting that a group that was highly effective at influencing climate policy during the Biden administration, such as the Sunrise Movement, will not necessarily be as effective today. “Overall, our take on grassroots activism is that it has huge potential to be cost-effective, and we indeed think that grassroots movements like Sunrise have had really meaningful effects in the past,” Dan Stein, the director of Giving Green, told Vox. But, he added, “It takes a unique combination of timing, organization, and connection to policy to have an impactful grassroots movement.” One umbrella charity that’s more bullish on the ongoing impact of activism is the Climate Emergency Fund. It was founded in 2019 with the goal of quickly regranting money to groups engaged in climate protests around the globe. Its founders believe that street protest is crucially important to climate politics and neglected in environmental philanthropy. Grantees include Just Stop Oil, the group that made international headlines for throwing soup on a protected, glassed-in Van Gogh painting, and Extinction Rebellion, an activist movement that uses nonviolent civil disobedience like filling the streets and blocking intersections to demand that governments do more on climate. If you’re skeptical that street protest can make a difference, consider Harvard political scientist Erica Chenoweth’s research. She’s found that if you want to achieve systemic social change, you need to mobilize 3.5 percent of the population, a finding that helped inspire Extinction Rebellion. And in 2022, research from the nonprofit Social Change Lab suggested that, in the past, groups like Sunrise and Extinction Rebellion may have cost-effectively helped to win policy changes (in the US and UK, respectively) that avert carbon emissions. But the words “in the past” are doing a lot of work here: While early-stage social movement incubation might be cost-effective, it’s unclear whether it’s as cost-effective to give to an activist group once it’s already achieved national attention. The same research notes that in countries with existing high levels of climate concern, broadly trying to increase that concern may be less effective than in previous years; now, it might be more promising to focus on climate advocacy in countries with much lower baseline support for this issue. There are plenty of ways to use your skills to tackle the climate emergency. And many don’t cost a cent. If you’re a writer or artist, you can use your talents to convey a message that will resonate with people. If you’re a religious leader, you can give a sermon about climate and run a collection drive to support one of the groups above. If you’re a teacher, you can discuss this issue with your students, who may influence their parents. If you’re a good talker, you can go out canvassing for a politician you believe will make the right choices on climate. If you’re, well, any human being, you can consume less. You can reduce your energy use, how much stuff you buy, and how much meat you consume. Individual action alone won’t move the needle that much—real change on the part of governments and corporations is key—but your actions can influence others and ripple out to shift social norms, and keep you feeling motivated rather than resigned to climate despair. You can, of course, also volunteer with an activist group and put your body in the street to nonviolently disrupt business as usual and demand change. The point is that activism comes in many forms. It’s worth taking some time to think about which one (or ones) will allow you, with your unique capacities and constraints, to have the biggest positive impact. But at the end of the day, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good: It’s best to pick something that seems doable and get to work.

December 14, 2025 / Mother Jones

Trump’s Gilded White House Makeover Is All About Power

The second Trump administration has made tearing down parts of the federal government a priority. And some of those efforts have been literal. In October, President Donald Trump ordered the demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for the construction of a massive 90,000-square-foot ballroom. He’s also given the White House a gilded makeover, bulldozed the famed Rose Garden, and even has plans for a so-called “Arc de Trump” that mirrors France’s Arc de Triomphe. So what’s behind all of this? Art historian Erin Thompson—author of Smashing Statues: The Rise and Fall of America’s Public Monuments—says that whether it’s Romans repurposing idols of leaders who had fallen out of favor or the glorification of Civil War officers in the American South, monuments and public aesthetics aren’t just about the past. They’re about symbolizing power today. Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app. “The aesthetic is a way to make the political physically present,” Thompson says. “It’s a way to make it seem like things are changing and like Trump is keeping his promises when he’s actually not.”On this week’s More To The Story, Thompson sits down with host Al Letson to discuss why Trump has decked out the White House in gold (so much gold), the rise and recent fall of Confederate monuments, and whether she thinks the Arc de Trump will ever get built. Find More To The Story on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Pandora, or your favorite podcast app, and don’t forget to subscribe. This following interview was edited for length and clarity. More To The Story transcripts are produced by a third-party transcription service and may contain errors. Al Letson: What is an art crime professor? Erin Thompson: Well, someone who’s gone to way too much school. I have a PhD in art history, and was finishing that up and thought, “Oh, I’m never going to get a job as an art historian. I should go to law school,” which I did, and ended up back in academia studying all of the intersections between art and crime. So I studied museum security, forgery, fraud, repatriations of stolen artwork. I could teach you how to steal a masterpiece, but then I would have to catch you. So is it fair to say that The Thomas Crown Affair is one of your favorite movies? No. Least favorite, opposite- Really? … because they make it seem like it’s a big deal to steal things from a museum, but it’s really, really easy to steal things from museums, as the Louvre heist just proved. I was just about to say, I think the thieves at the Louvre would agree with you. It’s hard to get away with stealing things from museums, which is why they got arrested immediately. So how did you move from studying museum pieces and art crime into monuments? Well, so my PhD is in ancient Greek and Roman arts, and when monuments began being protested in the summer of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, people were commenting online, “Civilized people don’t take down monuments. This is horrible.” And I was thinking, “Well, studying the ancient world, everything that I study has been at one point torn down and thrown into a pit and then buried for thousands of years.” Actually, as humans, this is what we do. We make monuments and then we tear them down as soon as we decide we want to honor somebody else. So I thought I could maybe add some perspective. And then having my skills in researching fraud, I started to realize that so many of the most controversial monuments in the U.S. were essentially fundraising scams where a bunch of money was embezzled from people who wanted to support racism, essentially, by putting up giant monuments to white supremacy. So I thought, maybe that’s some interesting information for our current debates. They got got, as they should. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. As somebody who grew up in the South, I would just say as a young Black man growing up in the shadow of these monuments, watching them go down felt like finally, finally this country was recognizing me in some small way. And I was completely unsurprised at the uproar from a lot of people who wanted to keep these monuments up. But when you dig into why these monuments were placed down, a lot of them were done just … Especially when we’re talking about Civil War monuments in the South and in other places, they were primarily put there to silence or to intimidate the Black population in a said area. Yeah, I call them victory monuments. They’re not about the defeat of the Confederates, they’re about the victory of Jim Crow and other means of reclaiming political and economic power for the white population of the South. Yeah. And so talk to me a little bit about the monuments themselves and how a lot of those were scams. I had never heard of that before. So for example, just outside of Atlanta in Stone Mountain, Georgia is the world’s largest Confederate monument, a gigantic carving into the side of a cliff of Lee and Jackson and Jefferson Davis. And that was launched in 1914 by a sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, working with the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The Klan enthusiastically embraced the project. They stacked the board. They took a bunch of the donations. Essentially, no progress was made for years and years and years until the 1950s when as a sign of resistance to Brown v. Board, the state of Georgia took over the monument and finally finished it. So it wasn’t finished until the 1970s. And to me, the makers said it should be a shrine to the South. It’s more like a shrine to a scam. The Klan leaders who led the project even fired Borglum at a certain point because they thought he was taking too much money. But he landed on his feet because he persuaded some Dakota businessmen to sponsor him to carve what turned into Mount Rushmore. So he defected from glorifying the Confederacy to carve a monument to the Union. So he didn’t really care about the glory of the Confederacy, he just wanted to make some money. So in the United States, how have monuments historically been funded? Well, the American government, both state and federal has always been a bit of a cheapskate when it comes to putting up public art. So most monuments that we see were actually privately fundraised, planned, and then donated to local governments. So they’re not really public art. They were put up by small groups for reasons. If you look, for example, at the Confederate monument that used to be in Birmingham, Alabama, this is a little weird that Birmingham had a Confederate monument in the first place because they were founded as a city well after the close of the Civil War. And the monument went up in two parts, both of which were in response to interracial unionization efforts. So the leaders, the owners and managers of the mines, when the miners were threatening to strike said, “No, no, no, no, no, no. We need to remind our white workers that they have to keep maintaining the segregation that their fathers or grandfathers fought for, so let’s put up this Civil War Monument.” So monuments don’t tell you very detailed versions of history, but also even thinking about history is kind of leading you on the wrong track when you look at, well, who is actually paying for these monuments top people put up and what did they actually want from them? So tell me, just pulling back a little bit, what’s the relationship between monuments and society? Monuments are our visions of the future. We put up a monument when we want people to aspire to that condition. We put up monuments to honor people to inspire people to follow their examples. So that sounds good and cheerful, right? It’s nothing wrong with having models and aspirations, but you have to think about, well, monuments are expensive. So who has the money to pay for them? Who has the political power to put them in place permanently? And you’ll often see that monuments are used to try and shape a community into a different form than it currently has. I live in New York City, for example, and almost all of the monuments put up until the last few decades are of white men. And what kind of message does that send to this incredibly diverse community of who deserves honor? And you said earlier that throughout time we have erected monuments and taken them down. Can you talk that cycle through with me? Yeah. Well, take the Romans, for example. Roman emperors would win a victory at war and put up a big victory monument, a triumphal arch or portraits of themselves. And then after the emperor died, the Senate would vote and decide, was this a good one or a bad one? Do we want to decide officially that they have become a deity and are to be honored forever, or do we want to forget their memory? And it was about a third, a third, a third. A third was no vote, a third were deities, a third were their memories were subjected to what we call damnatio memoriae. And if that happened to you, they would chisel the face off your statues and carve on your successor. The Romans were thrifty that way. They reused sculptures- Wow. So they recycled. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wow. Or they would break things up or melt it down and make it into a new statue. So this was a pretty common strategy of, just like we do it in a much more peaceable form, when a new president is elected, you take down the photo of the current president from the post office and put up the successor, etc, etc. So in the ancient world they had a more intense version of this, but you can think about the tearing down of statues of Saddam after his fall or the removal of statues of Lenin across the Soviet satellite states. This is something that we do when there are changes in power, and usually we don’t notice it because it’s more peaceful. There’s an official removal of the signs of the previous regime and a substitution with the others. So what was special and different about the summer of 2020 was the change came from below. It was unofficial. We mostly saw people not tearing down monuments with their bare hands, that’s obviously hard to do, but modifying monuments by adding paints, signage, projections, etc. And that’s exactly like what you looked at in Smashing Statues is the shift that, to me, in a lot of ways had been a long time coming. There had been movements here and there that were kind of under the radar for most people. But then after George Floyd, it’s like it got an injection of adrenaline, and suddenly all over the country you start seeing this stuff happening. Yeah, and I think people lost patience. What wasn’t obvious to a lot of observers was that changing a monument or even questioning a monument is illegal in most of the U.S., or there’s just no process to do so. So I interviewed for the book Mike Forcia, an indigenous activist in Minnesota, and he had been trying for his entire adult life to get the state legislator to ask why is there a statue of Columbus in one of the cities with the largest concentrations of an urban indigenous population in the world? And all of his petitions were just thrown away. So he eventually had to commit civil disobedience, I would describe it, by pulling down the statue. There’s no other way to have that conversation. Let me ask you, just to go back a little bit, how do these monuments shape and perceive history? Because you saying that this is what we’ve always done and the Romans would switch out faces and statues, that’s totally new to me. And so as somebody who grew up with Confederate statues around or Confederate names always around, I think it’s shaped the way I view the world. And also as they were coming down, not knowing that in the long arc of history that this is what we always do, it challenged the perceptions, I think of a lot of people. Monuments are inherently simple. You can’t tell a full historical story in a couple figures in bronze. So I think they communicate very simple messages of this is the type of person that we honor. And they speak directly to our lizard brain, the part of us that sees something, “Oh, something big and shiny and higher than me is something worthy of respect.” So you can’t tell them a nuanced story in a monument, and that is used as a strength. I also think it’s a strength that they become boring. They fade into the background of our lived landscape, and then we don’t question their messages if we just think of the monument as something, oh, we’re going to tell each other, “Meet at the foot of this guy for our ultimate Frisbee game,” or something. So it is these moments of disruption that let us think, “This is supposed to stand for who we are as a people. Do we really want that guy up on the horse telling us who we are?” In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death and these statues and monuments are coming down or they’re being defaced, my little sister lives in Richmond, Virginia and I went to visit her. And I’ve been to Richmond several times. And I think I’d seen pictures of the monuments in Richmond being graffiti on them, but I had not seen them in real life up close. And it was kind of stunning to me. Also, what was stunning about it, because in Richmond, if you’ve never been to Richmond, Richmond has like this … I don’t know what street it is, but this long row- Monument Avenue. Monument Avenue, thank you. Has Monument Avenue with all of these different monuments. After George Floyd, they were spray painted, and people were gathering around these monuments in a way that I’d never seen before. I think those monuments went up to create a certain type of community. Monument Avenue was designed as a wealthy neighborhood, and how do you prevent the quote, unquote, “wrong type of people” from moving into your nice neighborhood? Well, put up some nice monuments celebrating Civil War generals. So it’s not- You tell them they’re not welcome. Yeah, exactly. So it’s a community created by exclusion, is what these monuments were put up for. And we actually see that again and again. In Charlottesville as well, the sculpture of Robert E. Lee that was recently melted down was put up to mark the exclusion of people from a neighborhood that had formerly been a neighborhood of Black housing and businesses, which they were condemned by eminent domain and turned into a cultural and park space that was intended to be whites only in the 1920s. So monuments are a powerful course for creating community. But you’re absolutely right that the removal can be a powerful force for creating community as well. And what saddens me is if you go to Richmond today, some of the bases of those monuments are still there. The Civil War monuments have been removed from Monument Avenue, but all of the graffiti has been scrubbed off. There’s no more people gathering there. It looks just like a traffic median again. And that’s true of almost everywhere in the U.S. The authorities are always a bit nervous about this type of spontaneous use of public space, I would say. Yeah. Listeners to this podcast have heard me say this 101 times because it’s my thing, but I just believe that America is a pendulum, that it swings hard one way and then it comes right back and swings the other way. Which means that in the long-term, America sees progress in inches, but the swings are where you can see exactly where the country is right now. And so I think if we look at what happened after George Floyd died, that was a hard swing the other way. I’m curious if what we see right now coming from the Trump administration, and not just like in military, he’s reverting the names or changing the names of military bases back to people whose names have been taken off these military bases, all of that type of stuff, but also he’s planning to put an Arc de Trump in D.C., the East Wing Ballroom, all of that stuff, do you feel like that is the opposite swing of what we saw during George Floyd’s death? Oh, yeah. And even literally, recently the Trump administration said that they were going to reverse removal of statues. So they re-erected a Confederate general statute in D.C., and they’ve said that they’re going to put up the Arlington Confederate Monument, which would cost millions and millions and millions of dollars to put up. So we will see if that actually happens. But just declaring that you’re going to do it is enough of a propaganda victory, I think, in this situation. Right. It might seem silly or not worthy of attention to look into the Trump administration’s aesthetic decisions, all of the gold ornamentations smeared all over the Oval Office and ballrooms and Arc de Trumps, and etc, but the aesthetic is a way to make the political physically present. It’s a way to rally people’s energies. It’s a way to make it seem like things are changing and like Trump is keeping his promises when he’s actually not. I think he hasn’t really changed Washington in the way that he’s told his base he’s going to change. The elite are still in control of political power and wealth, but he is literally changing the White House by tearing part of it down. And you can channel people’s attention into rooting for that type of change instead of actual change. And the style choices that he’s making are very congruent with his political message, in that he’s appealing to a vision of the past, which is greater than the present. But in both his political message and his aesthetic style, this vision of the past, you can’t pinpoint it. It’s not an actual time. It’s a fuzzy, hand-wavy, things were prettier and nicer than. And so you can’t fact-check that type of vision. You can’t see if we’ve actually gotten closer to it. And so putting up a gilded tchotchke counts as progress towards that, and he can claim the credit, which he’s happy to do. Yeah. And I think that’s intentional, because if you can’t land on the specific time period, you can’t be held accountable for how that time period played out for the disenfranchised. Or for the powerful of that time period. Right. Right, exactly. Appealing to making the White House look like Versailles. We all know what happened to the French kings, but apparently we’re not paying much attention. And there’s another current right tendency to appeal to the glory of Caesar. Everybody wants to be like Julius Caesar when that’s really not a good life choice, if you want to end up like him. I think the other thing when I think about Trump’s aesthetic, so I grew up in the South but I am originally from New Jersey, and I remember Trump when I was really young, primarily because my dad was from Pleasantville, New Jersey, which is right outside of Atlantic City. And so there were conversations that I didn’t understand as a kid, and Trump was a part of those because he had his casinos and all of that type of stuff. And I just remember being a little kid and seeing a commercial for, I guess either it was Trump’s properties or it was a casino or whatever. And I just remember looking at it on the TV and seeing gold everywhere. That was his thing, gold. And the older I get, the more I realize that the way Trump sees gold and all the fittings that he has around, really is like him surrounding himself what he perceives of as wealth, and what people who don’t have wealth perceive of as wealth. But the actual uber-rich, usually from what I’ve seen, do not decorate their houses in all gold, do not flaunt. Their wealth is present but quiet, whereas Trump’s wealth is present but loud. And that speaks to a lot of people who do not have the wealth. And in a sense, him putting gold around the White House is a secret, in my opinion, aspirational message to poor folks who do not have that, “One day you can have.” I don’t know, it’s just like a theory that I’ve been cooking in my head since I was a little kid. I think absolutely. We have the proverb, “All that glitters is not gold” because people keep needing to be reminded. And yeah, again, in our primitive lizard brains, we think shiny equals good and I want that, and we don’t look below the surface. And I think that Trump’s focus on glitzing up the White House, on making these new constructions now in his second term is not accidental, because you often see populist leaders focusing on aesthetic projects towards the end of their political life. In Hitler’s last days in the bunker, he was still pouring over models for a museum that he was building in his hometown of Linz, in which he was planning to put all of the masterpieces seized from victims of the Holocaust from other museums across Europe. It was going to have 22 miles of galleries, all stuffed full of the artistic wealth of the world. And I think there’s a comfort in this idea. Like, if I make something spectacular and beautiful enough, all of the cruelty that went into making it will be justified. I will be forgiven. So when I’m feeling depressed about the world, I think maybe this focus on the gold now is such an obsession because he recognizes that he’s on his way out. What does it mean to a society that some of the tech leaders are now turning their attention towards building statues? You were just talking about how leaders when they’re beginning their twilight are … I guess they’re thinking about their legacy, and so they’re putting up these monuments and doing other things. But what does it mean for us when we have these tech bros that are doing it now? Well, we’ve always seen this. Think about the Pantheon in Rome, that big circular temple. Across the front of it, you can still see the shapes of the letters that it used to have that was erected not by an emperor, but by a wealthy Roman who was doing so in service of the imperial cause. So big donors making big, splashy public projects have always been realizing that this is a good way to get in with the regime to shape things, to get loyalty from the public to their point of view as well. So today you look at people’s reactions to Elon Musk is very similar, I think to what you were talking about, the idea of, “I can also have this splashy level of wealth maybe someday, so I will follow somebody who I could see as a model of getting wealth, rather than someone who is actually going to do anything that’s actually good for me.” Do you think that the Arc de Trump will ever be built? That’s the thing about these Trumpian aesthetic actions, you can just put out the promise, you can release a picture of the renderings and claim victory, even though you haven’t actually done anything. I very much doubt that this arch is going to go up for a huge variety of reasons, but if it would go up, I don’t understand how it can be justified to spend that much money. When on the one hand you’re saying we are trying to cut government expenditure, there’s no justification for having tens of millions probably going on an arch to yourself.

December 10, 2025 / Mother Jones

House Candidate Kat Abughazaleh Calls Her Indictment for Protesting a “Political Prosecution”

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice unsealed an indictment against six protesters—including 26-year-old Democratic congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh—for allegedly impeding an ICE officer outside of a federal immigration facility in Broadview, Illinois. The move is a stunning continuation of Trump’s weaponization of judicial and police power to crush dissent. > “This case is a major push by the Trump administration to criminalize protest > and punish anyone who speaks out against them.” Abughazaleh, a former Mother Jones video creator, is running a progressive campaign for the House seat currently held by 81-year-old Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky. In recent months, she has been an outspoken participant at anti-ICE protests sweeping Chicago. One viral video in September showed Abughazaleh being slammed to the ground by a masked ICE agent. > View this post on Instagram > > > > > A post shared by Kat Abughazaleh (@kabughazaleh) In addition to Abughazaleh, the indictment names several other local Democratic leaders: Michael Rabbitt, Democratic committeeman in the 45th Ward in Chicago; Catherine Sharp, who is running for a seat on the Cook County Board of Commissioners and currently serves as chief of staff for Chicago Alderperson Andre Vasquez (40th Ward); and Brian Straw, a trustee for the village of Oak Park. All of the defendants are charged with both interfering with a federal law enforcement officer and conspiring to impede or injure federal officers during a protest on September 23. The alleged conspiracy includes actions such as “bang[ing] aggressively” on an ICE agent’s vehicle and “etching a message into the body of the vehicle, specifically the word ‘PIG.’” The indictment also claims the defendants “physically hindered and impeded” an ICE agent such that the vehicle was “forced to drive at an extremely slow rate of speed to avoid injuring any of the conspirators.” Abughazaleh called the indictment from the Trump administration an attempt to stop anti-ICE protests. “This is a political prosecution, and a gross attempt to silence dissent,” Abughazaleh said in a video posted on her Instagram. “This case is a major push by the Trump administration to criminalize protest and punish anyone who speaks out against them.” Others indicted had similar messages. “I am confident that a jury of my peers will see these charges for exactly what they are—another effort by the Trump administration to frighten people out of participating in protest and exercising their First Amendment rights,” said Sharp in a written statement. “As long as ICE is terrorizing members of our community and disregarding due process, I believe we must continue to speak out. I’m proud of my work organizing in our neighborhoods to keep our immigrant neighbors safe from harm.” Trump’s DOJ has levied similar federal conspiracy charges against other prominent anti-ICE protesters in recent months. Prosecutors brought a conspiracy charge against California labor leader David Huerta in Los Angeles, which was later reduced to a misdemeanor. Bajun “Baji” Mavalwalla II, a 35-year-old army veteran who served in Afghanistan, was charged with charged with “conspiracy to impede or injure officers” at an anti-ICE protest in Spokane, Washington. On Wednesday, in addition to Abughazaleh’s indictment, the DOJ announced ten more arrests related to anti-ICE protests in Southern California, including two protesters charged with committing a conspiracy. “I joined the protests at the Broadview ICE detention facility because of what is happening to our immigrant neighbors,” Straw said in a written statement. “The Trump Justice Department’s decision to seemingly hand-pick public officials like me for standing up against these inhumane policies will not deter me from fulfilling my oath of office.”

October 29, 2025 / Mother Jones

Immigration

From Texas to Tennessee, Even Trump Country Is Marching Against Trump

It’s been a week since an estimated 7 million people across 50 US states and the District of Columbia—and countless others all over the world—took part in the “No Kings” protests to speak up against the Trump administration’s policies and his leadership’s slide into authoritarianism. From Washington, DC, to Oakland, California, protesters proudly waved American flags and declared their love for the country. They spanned generations, and many were dressed in various inflatable costumes—ducks, SpongeBob Squarepants, dinosaurs, and more—borrowing from Portland’s example of defying the rhetoric from Republicans and the administration that vilified anyone who demonstrated as violent, Leftist, “haters” of America. The peaceful October 18 pro-democracy protests, which naturally drew the ire of President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, marked one of the largest single-day demonstrations in US history. Two million more people than the previous “No Kings” gatherings from June showed up across 2,700 events in big Blue cities and, notably, in reliably Republican towns. “Even my small, conservative hometown of Brenham, Texas, held a ‘No Kings’ Rally with at least a hundred people in attendance,” wrote the ACLU Justice Division leader Ellen Flenniken in a post about the protests, “and it was far from being the only small town to show up for our rights and for each other.” In Pella, Iowa, “a town where Trump reigns as king,” as Slate’s Lyz Lenz writes, somewhere between 150 and 200 people showed up to chant, “No kings! No crowns!” > “The current protest movement has already reached deeper into Trump country > than at almost any point during the first Trump administration.” While these may appear to be random anecdotes, in fact, they reflect a meaningful trend described in the findings of a new study from Harvard’s Kennedy School, published just before October 18. Researchers responsible for the study, titled “The Resistance Reaches into Trump Country,” concluded through data analysis that “protest events now occur across a wider range of US counties than we have observed since January 2017.” To conduct this analysis, the researchers matched protest participation data to county-level 2024 presidential election data and county population data from the US Census. What they found is that, although there has been a steady climb in the “cumulative number” of counties hosting an event in recent years, 2025 likely has the “most geographically widespread” protests in US history. The current surge has pushed the “cumulative share of protest-hosting counties well above 60 percent,” surpassing the summer of 2020 Black Lives Matter demonstrations, when protests were recorded in almost 40 percent of counties across the country. The recent protests appear to be expanding to parts of the country that had voted for Trump. Between April and August of this year, the researchers noted, “the median protest county in the US sent more votes to Trump in 2024 than [Kamala] Harris.” As an example, the research cites the 2,000 people who joined the June round of “No Kings” protests in Kingsport, a city with a population of about 55,000 in Tennessee’s Sullivan County, where Trump won almost 77 percent of the vote. Last Saturday, Kingsport held a protest once again. “America was founded because we didn’t want a king,” Kristina Runciman, an organizer with East Tennessee Voices, told a local station, “and we don’t want a king now.” During the second Trump administration, researchers have found, the “share of counties hosting at least one anti-Trump protest has risen markedly…surpassing the historic spikes observed during his first term. And the current protest movement has already reached deeper into Trump country than at almost any point during the first Trump administration.”

October 25, 2025 / Mother Jones

Portland Feds Are Escalating Chaos at ICE Protests

In another dizzying plot point around President Donald Trump’s attempts to federalize the National Guard, three judges on the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision on Monday that Trump has the authority to deploy the Guard in Portland. > View this post on Instagram > > > > > A post shared by Mother Jones (@motherjonesmag) The ruling represents another turning point in legal battles taking place across the country, from Chicago to Washington, DC, and Los Angeles—all of which have been involved in lawsuits related to Trump’s troop deployments. While Oregon leaders continue to fight the Ninth Circuit’s decision, demanding a review by the full court, protesters have consistently shown up to the ICE facility in South Portland—driving the Trump administration’s ire and claims of a war-ravaged city under antifa siege. But here’s the kicker: The ICE facility is just one block in a 145-square-mile city. Given that—and that even there, protests have been led by an army of inflatable animals—many question the validity of deploying the National Guard. After the No Kings protest on Saturday, hundreds flocked to the facility for a nonviolent protest, but federal agents had other plans. “I’m a veteran who fought for my country,” Daryn Herzberg, 35, said. “I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic. And what I’m seeing right now is a terrorist in the White House trying to call us terrorists while we are out here trying to stop our friends and neighbors from getting kidnapped.” In an intense confrontation, agents fired tear gas, flashbang grenades, and pepper balls for over five minutes straight. For many protesters, that aggression is nothing new—just another night at the facility.

October 21, 2025 / Mother Jones

Video