In August, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, in his working-man’s clothes—aviators, jeans, and a trucker hat—starred in a video where he carted people’s possessions out of a homeless encampment near a Los Angeles highway.

On any given night in 2023, more than 650,000 people in the US experienced homelessness, with almost 400,000 unsheltered—though that figure may be an underestimate. Research by the federal Government Accountability Office found that every $100 rise in median monthly rent brings about a 9 percent increase in homelessness—notable as rent costs have climbed by 25 percent nationally since 2020, according to CNBC.

Newsom’s photo op followed his July order calling for the clearing of encampments on public property, and came alongside a threat to withhold state funding from cities and counties that failed to meet his requirements, much to the ire of local officials like Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. On July 25, the day of the order, the governor posted on X: “No more excuses. We’ve provided the time. We’ve provided the funds. Now it’s time for locals to do their job.”

Earlier this month, Newsom approved more than $130 million in funding for 18 cities, including over $12 million to Riverside, to “sweep” encampments. According to the governor, the goal is to support “efforts to get people out of encampments and connected with care and housing across the state.”

A statewide audit released in April tracked investment during Newsom’s first five years as governor, from 2019 to 2023, and found that California spent roughly $24 billion in that span to address housing and homelessness. At his inaugural address in January 2019, Newsom vowed to “launch a Marshall Plan for affordable housing and lift up the fight against homelessness,” promising to push for the development of 3.5 million housing units across the state by 2025. 

According to CalMatters, his administration has since backtracked numerous times, calling in 2022 for cities to have planned a combined 2.5 million homes by 2030. The state still has about one-third of the country’s unhoused people, more than half of whom, in many cities—like San Francisco—are without any kind of shelter.

In Orange County, many homeless advocates denounced Newsom’s strategy as criminalizing life without shelter rather than driving the construction of affordable homes. 

“All things like this do is just shuffle the chairs on the deck of the Titanic,” said David Gillanders, the executive director of Pathways of Hope, an Orange County organization that provides shelters and other support with housing. “If you uproot a person who’s living in an encampment, they’re just going to find another place to go if you’re not offering them an appropriate sort of accommodation.” 

Gillanders cites California first responders who moved to—and started commuting from—Idaho, or even further afield. Kyle Conforti, an Orange County firefighter who lives in the suburbs of Nashville, Tennessee, told the Guardian that the rise in cost of living “outpaces my raises and income. So we finally just ran the numbers and figured out it would be cheaper to live out of state and have me commute back.”

According to a 2024 report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, California has the highest housing costs in the nation. At an average of some $2,500 a month, it takes an hourly wage of almost $50 to afford a two-bedroom residence without being “cost-burdened,” or spending more than 30 percent of income. Another study released this year by the California Housing Partnership found even higher average rents in Orange County: just under $2,800, meaning renters would need to earn about $54 per hour. 

“We are going to make them so uncomfortable on the streets of San Francisco that they have to take our offer.”

But not everyone in California is opposed to Newsom’s focus on encampments. San Francisco is among the largest cities to double down on a confrontational policy of eliminating encampments through police enforcement. In August, the city’s mayor, London Breed, strengthened one of its three separate programs to push unhoused people out of the city by offering one-way bus tickets before shelter or other services.

Responding to Newsom’s order in July, Breed said, “We have offered people shelter and space, and many people are declining…But we are going to make them so uncomfortable on the streets of San Francisco that they have to take our offer.”

Other city councils have similarly prioritized police raids of encampments. From 2006 to 2019, the National Homelessness Law Center found, the number of city-wide bans on camping and loitering doubled—and bans on living in vehicles tripled. Newport Beach, another wealthy Orange County municipality, unanimously voted to intensify anti-camping law enforcement by recruiting more officers for its police “Quality of Life” teams, which issue citations for camping and related violations, withdrew funding for a mobile mental health response team, and, according to the Los Angeles Times, is considering the hire of a full-time city attorney dedicated strictly to prosecuting anti-camping laws.

In early October, the city’s ordinance banning camping on public property went into effect, and within hours, all encampments were cleared by public works crews and police. The ordinance does not require Newport Beach to offer services to those who have been forced out.

But the most recent arguments over homelessness began in the lead-up to a June Supreme Court ruling, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, that overturned a 2018 lower court decision banning local laws against camping on public property if cities didn’t also provide adequate temporary shelter.

In that case, amicus briefs from various parties—including Newsom—were filed to the Supreme Court. One included petitions from 10 California cities, and Orange County, about the consequences of Martin v. Boise, the lower court’s ruling. Orange County called it “financially unsustainable,” citing a 2019 settlement payment of more than $2 million and a potentially “impractical” requirement to provide one shelter bed per person unhoused. The county’s budget for the 2022-2023 fiscal year was $8.8 billion.

Garden Grove, another of Orange County’s largest cities, wrote, “The further impacts of Martin include an increase in homeless individuals by 49% since 2017, an increase in petty crime and theft, and an increase in overdose calls from Fentanyl and other deadly narcotics.” 

The Garden Grove comments came from a declaration by Sergeant Jeffrey Brown, the head of its police department’s “Special Resource Team” on homelessness. Brown referred to 2021 numbers demonstrating that less than one percent of homeless people were accepting referrals to shelter or inpatient mental health facilities, and wrote, “As it relates to encampments, the Martin decision has effectively disabled” local police “from mitigating encampment growth and homeless activity on public streets, sidewalks, and rights of way.” 

“Now part of their housing solution would be to house them in jails.”

Neither the Garden Grove Police Department nor Brown responded to a request for comment. 

Asked why people experiencing homelessness in nearby Newport Beach were turning down shelter bed offers, Natalie Basmaciyan, the city’s homeless services manager, said, “We tend to have a slightly older unhoused population in our region, and they’ve gone through shelters in the ’80s and ’90s and even in the ’00s that were not well-managed. They didn’t have good facilities…You know, here’s a sack lunch. You need to leave for the day. You have to queue up at 5pm and hope you get a bed again.” 

“We don’t do that,” said Basmaciyan. “Once you’re assigned a bed and you’re in our program, you are here until you get housed.” 

Vox found that other reasons many people avoid shelters range from having to give up pets and personal belongings to having to leave a partner at a gender-segregated facility. 

Even adequate shelters present problems absent a system to move people to permanent supportive housing. “We have people that have been in a temporary shelter for three years,” Joe Stapleton, the mayor pro tem of Newport Beach, admitted. 

According to CalMatters, homeless shelters themselves often pose health and safety risks; the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California found raw sewage flowing from porta-potties, broken showers, rodent and maggot infestations, a lack of wintertime heating, and flooding during storms. The ACLU also uncovered accounts of unchecked theft, sexual abuse, and violence. Despite California law requiring shelter inspections and repairs, CalMatters found little to no evidence of accountability, with just four of the state’s 478 cities filing mandatory shelter reports—apparently without consequence.

For those who turn down shelters, Newport Beach’s municipal code provides a list of penalties enforced via civil or criminal citation, which both escalate with repeat offenses and accrue interest and late fees.

According to Stapleton, applying those penalties “is a last resort,” as is calling police. 

“This is where the system has failed, where it’s like, how many times is somebody going to remain on the streets, refusing all the services and everything that we’re providing, to a point where they’re going to continue to sleep in front of a business. I don’t think we have the solution. I don’t think anybody has a solution,” said Stapleton. 

Cesar Covarrubias, executive director of the Kennedy Commission, an Orange County nonprofit that works to increase production of homes for lower-income residents, described the penalty structure as a trap that unhoused people are forced into.

“Individuals who are homeless get citations,” said Covarrubias, and if those go unpaid, “then there’s warrants that are issued against them.” Most people cited “are never going to be able to pay for those,” he said, “and it just continues to be a cycle where now part of their housing solution would be to house them in jails.”

Covarrubias suggested that “more affordable housing needs to happen through regional and local partnerships with cities,” using publicly owned lands and “local, regional, and state funding…to really create more housing that is affordable.” But the focus on clearing encampments, he said—especially following the Grants Pass decision and Newsom’s order— has hindered progress. 

State and local authorities “are really going to stifle this collaboration of addressing housing and homelessness regionally, because there is just no incentive for them to do so,” Covarrubias said. “Now they’re going back to what they traditionally did, which was more enforcement [and] criminalization of homelessness.” 

Cities are also divided on housing construction. According to Covarrubias, many municipalities are failing to satisfy guidelines set by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, a California mandate that decides how much housing each city requires to meet affordability standards. The assessment is a planning tool, he said, that in theory discourages landlords and developers from building only market-rate housing. 

Covarrubias explained the failures—and the vital impact of housing policy—by contrasting housing development in Santa Ana and Anaheim, two cities in northern Orange County, which has relatively higher rates of poverty and residential overcrowding than its southern part. Although Anaheim was producing more homes than required, most construction served “above moderate” income levels, a floor of about $124,000 a year for a two-person household. Conversely, Santa Ana, where an affordable housing opportunity ordinance preserves at least 15 percent of new housing for low-income residents, exceeded state guidelines for “low” and “very low” income levels: for two-person households, that represents annual incomes of $101,000 and $63,100, respectively. 

Police ordinances and encampment raids “are not addressing the issue of why individuals are homeless.”

So what to do? Covarrubias cited the Kennedy Commission’s suggestion, a $1 billion county bond to leverage state resources and fund affordable housing. Northern California’s Santa Clara County, home to many of Silicon Valley’s largest firms, suffers one of the worst housing crises in the country. It issued a $950 million affordable housing bond in 2016, partnering with 10 of its cities to fund affordable housing development. By December 2023, the measure had facilitated the construction of 5,127 new affordable apartments and 56 multi-unit housing developments.

That’s where the state and groups like the Kennedy Commission come in, said Covarrubias—monitoring housing commitments and progress on construction for low-income residents. The state’s housing department has the ability to initiate lawsuits, request court orders, and administer penalties to cities for noncompliance in housing plan implementation, including fines of up to $50,000 per month and some loss of authority over building permits or zoning changes. Norwalk, a city in Los Angeles County that extended a moratorium on building emergency shelters, recently forfeited state housing and homelessness funding as a consequence, and, according to Newsom, can no longer reject certain affordable housing initiatives. Over the past five years, the city has accepted nearly $29 million to house people experiencing homelessness but has failed to provide a sufficient number of units—just 175 out of 5,034 planned, according to the governor’s office. 

Gillanders, of Orange County’s Pathways of Hope, said that more avenues for public housing are needed—beginning with the repeal of the Faircloth Amendment, which caps the number of public housing units that the federal government can fund and authorize at 1999 levels. Jared Brey, the housing correspondent for nonprofit news organization Next City, wrote that the Faircloth Amendment was part of a wave of welfare reform laws passed during the Clinton administration in the ’90s that considered public assistance programs counterproductive to financial self-sufficiency.  

Gillanders also suggested that the Department of Housing and Urban Development should be empowered to build affordable housing directly, using federal funds—development Reagan-era budget cuts still severely limit to this day, and which would require fiscal backing from Congress. As housing costs have soared, HUD’s budget and power have not. 

In fact, a bill along those lines just hit Congress: the Homes Act, introduced in late September by Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), would repeal the Faircloth Amendment and establish a new federal authority to develop affordable housing with tenant protections. Gillanders calls it a “step in the right direction.”

Covarrubias stressed the need for a human perspective on homelessness: “The reality that we need to understand is that many individuals that are on the streets at some point coped with life normally until something happened”—like a layoff. And as my colleague Julianne McShane writes, many who experience homelessness are survivors of domestic violence and struggle to find safe access to shelter and housing. “In the bigger picture,” Covarrubias said, police ordinances and encampment raids “are not addressing the issue of why individuals are homeless.”

It appears as though Mark Robinson is hellbent on his apparent refusal to take emergency action in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.

Following the North Carolina lieutenant governor’s role as the sole lawmaker to skip a vote on North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper’s request to declare a state of emergency before Helene struck late last month, Robinson, also the Republican gubernatorial candidate, was once again the only official to fail to respond to Cooper’s executive order to increase relief efforts. 

According to CBS17, each member of North Carolina’s Council of State had 48 hours to respond to Cooper’s call for action on Saturday. But Robinson did not respond. Robinson’s newly hired chief of staff, Krishna Polite, told the news outlet on Tuesday that Robinson had supported the order, but it went awry because Roy’s formal request was sent to former staff members.

Robinson’s team did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones. 

Robinson’s campaign has been inundated with chaos in recent months, with half of his staff quitting following a CNN report connecting to him racist and sexually explicit remarks on a pornographic message board. That included comments declaring himself a “black NAZI!” and referring to Mein Kampf as a “good read.” But Robinson has remained defiant, refusing to bow out of the race in the face of multiple controversies.

That defiance, or at least Robinson’s refusal to accept responsibility, appears to extend to his Helene response. After missing the initial state of emergency vote, Robinson posted on X: “Democrats like Cooper, [North Carolina Attorney General] Josh Stein & Joe Biden want to hide behind bureaucratic resolutions that pass automatically—instead of getting out there and working to help people in dire need. I won’t stand for this.”

Though his recent controversies may have shocked people at the national level, Cooper, a Democrat, may not be so surprised. In July, the North Carolina governor explained at an event for land conservation that he dropped out of the running to be Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate because he was worried about the damage Robinson could do if he left office. (North Carolina’s state constitution says, “During the absence of the Governor from the State…the Lieutenant Governor shall be Acting Governor.”)  

“This was not the right time for our state or for me,” Cooper said at the time. “We had concerns that he would try to seize the limelight…and that would be a real distraction to the presidential campaign.” 

Cooper’s latest executive order supports recovery from Hurricane Helene by increasing the number of professional health care workers and making emergency medications more readily available.

Long gone are the innocent days when media outlets claimed the independence and nuance of the politics of Elon Musk. Now, amid myriad X posts spreading far-right propaganda on immigrants, trans people, and, well, just about any other topic, it has become obvious where one of the richest men in the world stands.

This week, there was more proof that Musk has put his money where his mouth has been. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Musk poured tens of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns and conservative groups even before he publicly endorsed Donald Trump in July. Conservatives helped conceal Musk’s contributions through so-called social welfare or “dark money” groups that do not have to disclose their donors and can raise unlimited funds. (Musk did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.)

One piece of reporting stood out. The newspaper found that the tech billionaire donated more than $50 million in 2022 for campaign advertisements by Citizens for Sanity, a group connected to former Trump aide Stephen Miller and his non-profit America First Legal, which bills itself as “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU.” 

Ties to Miller back in 2022 illuminate Musk’s current penchant for posting about immigrants. Musk has increasingly aligned himself with xenophobic anti-migrant plans and trans hysteria championed by Miller within the Trump administration. 

As my colleague Isabela Dias wrote, Trump has vowed to conduct “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Miller and others have worked for years to develop a plan—including deploying the National Guard, constructing massive detention camps through executive order, and packing the federal government with their own people. 

In recent months, Musk’s posts have sunken to lies of mass voter fraud to help Trump win. As I reported, the billionaire recently posted a rant about how Democrats are the true threat to democracy by fast-tracking asylum seekers for citizenship so that they can vote in swing states. Simple fact-checking finds that asylum seekers are not being flown to battleground states, are not being given a facilitated citizenship process, and are not being allowed to vote—it is all false. 

As we previously noted, these statements fall within the 2024 iteration of the Republicans’ “Big Lie.” If Trump loses in November, then Democrats stole the election through noncitizen voters. 

Musk has also directly aligned himself with Trump, founding a super PAC called America PAC to get 800,000 people to vote for the former president in key battleground states. According to the Guardian, Trump’s ground operation in swing states are now mostly outsourced to America PAC, and Business Insider said that Musk is now shelling out millions to Republicans in 15 competitive House races. Yesterday, Politico reported that America PAC was teaming up with Turning Point Action, the political advocacy division of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, to fund hundreds of “ballot chasers” in Wisconsin. 

Musk also announced yesterday on X that he would attend Trump’s comeback rally on Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, the location of an assassination attempt against the former president in July. 

So much for claiming to be politically moderate.

Long gone are the innocent days when media outlets claimed the independence and nuance of the politics of Elon Musk. Now, amid myriad X posts spreading far-right propaganda on immigrants, trans people, and, well, just about any other topic, it has become obvious where one of the richest men in the world stands.

This week, there was more proof that Musk has put his money where his mouth has been. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Musk poured tens of millions of dollars into Republican campaigns and conservative groups even before he publicly endorsed Donald Trump in July. Conservatives helped conceal Musk’s contributions through so-called social welfare or “dark money” groups that do not have to disclose their donors and can raise unlimited funds. (Musk did not respond to the Journal’s request for comment.)

One piece of reporting stood out. The newspaper found that the tech billionaire donated more than $50 million in 2022 for campaign advertisements by Citizens for Sanity, a group connected to former Trump aide Stephen Miller and his non-profit America First Legal, which bills itself as “the long-awaited answer to the ACLU.” 

Ties to Miller back in 2022 illuminate Musk’s current penchant for posting about immigrants. Musk has increasingly aligned himself with xenophobic anti-migrant plans and trans hysteria championed by Miller within the Trump administration. 

As my colleague Isabela Dias wrote, Trump has vowed to conduct “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Miller and others have worked for years to develop a plan—including deploying the National Guard, constructing massive detention camps through executive order, and packing the federal government with their own people. 

In recent months, Musk’s posts have sunken to lies of mass voter fraud to help Trump win. As I reported, the billionaire recently posted a rant about how Democrats are the true threat to democracy by fast-tracking asylum seekers for citizenship so that they can vote in swing states. Simple fact-checking finds that asylum seekers are not being flown to battleground states, are not being given a facilitated citizenship process, and are not being allowed to vote—it is all false. 

As we previously noted, these statements fall within the 2024 iteration of the Republicans’ “Big Lie.” If Trump loses in November, then Democrats stole the election through noncitizen voters. 

Musk has also directly aligned himself with Trump, founding a super PAC called America PAC to get 800,000 people to vote for the former president in key battleground states. According to the Guardian, Trump’s ground operation in swing states are now mostly outsourced to America PAC, and Business Insider said that Musk is now shelling out millions to Republicans in 15 competitive House races. Yesterday, Politico reported that America PAC was teaming up with Turning Point Action, the political advocacy division of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA, to fund hundreds of “ballot chasers” in Wisconsin. 

Musk also announced yesterday on X that he would attend Trump’s comeback rally on Saturday in Butler, Pennsylvania, the location of an assassination attempt against the former president in July. 

So much for claiming to be politically moderate.

“This Jay Chen for American Congress, he’s perfect for China,” one agent told his colleague in a smoke-filled room at the “Chinese Communist Party Intelligence Division.” Chen, the agent said in stereotypically accented English, was “a socialist comrade” who supported Bernie Sanders “for supreme leader.”

“Sanders loves Mao, Chen loves Sanders,” the other spy said, as the pair erupted in maniacal laughter.

The two men were actors in an advertisement for GOP Rep. Michelle Steel in her 2022 reelection fight against Chen in Southern California’s 45th Congressional District. Following a barrage of promotional material in this vein, groups from Asian American and Pacific Islander communities protested the tactics used by Steel, calling them “McCarthyist” and making signs reading “Stop Asian hate” and “Red-baiting is race-baiting.” 

Steel, who is Korean American, won the race, taking 52 percent of the vote and helping Republicans narrowly seize control of the US House.

Politicized battles over Asian American identity have become a recurring feature of campaigns in the 45th—a wrench-shaped swing district that spans more than a dozen cities in Orange and Los Angeles counties. It’s one of the country’s few majority-minority congressional districts represented by a Republican, and Democrats see it as one of their top pickup opportunities as they try to retake the House in November. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders make up 39 percent of the district’s voting-age residents—the second highest in the state. Approximately half of the district’s Asian population is Vietnamese.

Democrats hope their challenger this time around—Derek Tran—will fare better than Chen. A US Army veteran and the son of refugees, Tran is leaning heavily into his anti-communist bona fides. “Derek’s family fled a murderous communist regime in Vietnam,” his campaign website notes. “He knows firsthand the devastating impact of totalitarian governments and is committed to standing firm against Chinese Communist rule.”

In an interview with Mother Jones, Chen expressed optimism that Tran’s biography would be a powerful tool in fighting back against Steel’s “red scare” tactics. “The fact that Derek is Vietnamese American will help him counter a lot of these attacks,” Chen predicted.

Chen—who is Taiwanese American—recalled that, in his own race two years ago, Republicans posted campaign signs reading “China’s Choice Jay Chen” and “made them resemble the Chinese flag.” Similar rhetoric was deployed in Vietnamese and featured the colors of the flag of South Vietnam, the US-backed country that ceased to exist in 1975 after it was defeated by communist forces at the end of the Vietnam War. “The bulk of its focus is on the Vietnamese community, and the symbolism that [Steel] includes—the red and the yellow—are meant to trigger an immigrant population, many of whom were refugees who were very traumatized by communism,” Chen said.

That’s happening again. Steel’s team has installed large signs invoking the South Vietnamese flag around the area’s Little Saigon community—across from a Costco popular with Vietnamese shoppers and at the entrance to a plaza of Vietnamese shops. “Đả Đảo Cộng Sản,” they read: “Down With Communism.”

The signs have caused some controversy. “To us, Steel is misusing the flag for her own political gain—the flag we so revere,” said Christina Dao, a host and commentator for Nguoi Viet Daily News in Little Saigon. “We would never put any political slogans or anyone’s names on the flag. Michelle Steel is not really a part of its history.”

In our conversation, Dao pointed to a Wall Street Journal report from 2020 that documented how Steel’s husband, Shawn Steel, who has served as the Republican National Committee member from California since 2008, invited Chinese nationals to a 2017 GOP event where attendees allegedly talked through campaign strategy. (Steel told the Journal that it would be “false, defamatory, and offensive” to suggest he’d helped Chinese government efforts in any way. He did not respond to a request for comment from Mother Jones.)

All this convinced Dao and other Vietnamese Americans in Little Saigon to form an unofficial group, start a petition on Change.org, and organize an online press conference to criticize Michelle Steel. The congresswoman is “abusing” the flag “to satisfy her greed for power,” the petition says.

In 1984, following the GOP’s national convention, Ronald Reagan kicked off his presidential reelection campaign in Fountain Valley, part of today’s 45th District. “It’s nice to be in Orange County,” Reagan famously remarked, “where the good Republicans go to die.” At the time, the county was about 78 percent white and solidly conservative.

Since then, the region has grown in diversity and has slowly shifted toward the political center. A survey conducted earlier this year by the University of California, Irvine, concluded that the county is now “politically purple…almost evenly split among Republicans (32%), Democrats (33%), and Independents (35%).” Among Asian American respondents, the partisan divide is similar. 

The common narrative is that the influx of immigrant communities made the county more ethnically and economically heterogeneous. This, along with the backlash to Republican support for California’s Proposition 187 in 1994—which ordered health care institutions and school districts to deny services to undocumented people—led to a decades-long political drift away from GOP hegemony. In 2018, bolstered by opposition to Donald Trump, Democrats won a clean sweep of all seven congressional seats in the county.

Viewing Orange County as purple is “dangerous for Democrats.”

But there’s no reason to think these changes are permanent. Republicans—including Steel—recaptured two of those House seats in 2020. And Gustavo Arellano, an author and columnist at the Los Angeles Times, warned this year that viewing Orange County as purple is “dangerous for Democrats,” as the GOP still dominates local politics. Republicans, he noted, “hold every countywide elected position and all the seats on the Orange County Board of Education…A majority of city councils in the county lean GOP.” 

In 2018, Arellano credited the Republican Party as the “pioneer in diversifying O.C.’s politics,” listing notable Latino politicians who arrived in the region in the ’80s, including Tom Fuentes, a Mexican American who worked on Richard Nixon’s California gubernatorial campaign and later became the long-standing chair of the county GOP. 

Now that Asian American Republicans have become a force in Orange County politics, Arellano argued, the GOP was constructing “a new racial cold war” through appeals to immigrants across the country who “come with skills and ambitions and don’t want government handouts.” In his view, the Republican Party was now drawing on anti-Latino feelings among other immigrant groups, resulting in support for policies like stronger borders. 

“The countywide power held by [Republicans] reflects strong local mobilization efforts by the party,” said UC Irvine professor Long Bui, an expert on the politics of Vietnamese refugees, in an email interview. “Saying Orange County is increasingly Democratic due to a rise in immigrants overlooks nuances, especially when party affiliations among Vietnamese Americans split along generational, class, and educational lines.”

Survey data published last year shows that a narrow majority of Vietnamese Americans nationwide lean toward the Republican Party, a sharp contrast to other AAPI communities, which tend to heavily favor Democrats. According to Thu-Huong Nguyen-Vo, a professor of Asian American studies at UCLA, the political divides within the Vietnamese American community partly reflect several distinct groups of immigrants: refugees who left Vietnam at the end of the war in 1975; boat people who fled starting in the late ’70s; and later humanitarian and family reunification efforts. 

While Nguyen-Vo stresses that many differences exist among individual voters, in general, those who immigrated in 1975—in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saigon—were mostly middle- and upper-class urban dwellers and tended to be more liberal than groups who arrived later. They opposed the communist regime, but they didn’t necessarily see anti-communism as incompatible with Democratic policies like progressive income tax rates and a more generous social safety net.

Vietnamese boat people and other groups who fled after 1975 are more “staunchly anti-communist and pro-American,” according to Nguyen-Vo. Before leaving Vietnam, she notes, these families lived through “extreme economic hardship, partly due to the American embargo and socialist reorganization…and outright repression including incarceration in prisons and reeducation camps.”

“Many died or disappeared due to boat wrecks, lack of fuel, food and water, and encounters with pirates,” explains Nguyen-Vo. “These folks languished in refugee camps for long years awaiting countries to grant asylum.” Once in the US, boat people often had a tougher time financially than earlier Vietnamese immigrants and may support policies like lowering taxes and restricting immigration, believing they will help them reach economic stability or advancement. “However, they tend to favor social programs like health care and social assistance, as many had depended on these programs at some point,” Nguyen-Vo suggested. “They may equate being anti-communist and conservative with the GOP and vote red, but they would still want their GOP representatives to support social programs.” 

Culture war issues have become a particular flashpoint. Lance Trover, a spokesperson for Steel, cited the Republican lawmaker’s work in introducing the Helping Applications Receive Valid and Reasonable Decisions (HARVARD) Act to “stop racial discrimination in university admissions that has been proven to specifically target Asian Americans”—the subject of last year’s Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action policies. 

Trover also noted Steel’s efforts to highlight “Vietnamese communist human rights abuses.” In a July 2024 interview with VietFaceTV, a Vietnamese-language television station based in the district, Steel voiced her concerns with the Vietnamese government’s treatment of prisoners of conscience. She also noted her support for a bipartisan bill that would prevent Vietnamese refugees who arrived in the United States prior to 1995 from being deported.

Both candidates have leaned heavily on their families’ immigration experiences. “To forge the American Dream in California,” Tran said over email, “I know that what this community wants more than anything is someone who will protect individual freedom, fight for economic opportunity, and address the affordability crisis that is hurting families.” In May, Tran sparked his own controversy when he told Punchbowl News that although Steel presents herself as a Korean refugee who fled communism, she actually moved to the US for “economic gain.”

“That’s not the same as losing one’s country after the fall of Saigon in ’75 and having no home,” he said.

“There are people in the community who are tired of this continued conversation about identity.”

Dozens of AAPI organizations and community leaders came to Steel’s defense, insisting that Tran apologize for his statement. “Mr. Tran, starting a new life and working to attain a better economic state is the American Dream that so many of us or our parents have done,” they wrote. “It’s why we are here, and why we love representing the diverse groups in our communities.”

Of course, Tran isn’t the only candidate trying to draw distinctions between different groups of immigrants. “You regularly see [Steel] and Young Kim [a Korean American Republican representing a neighboring congressional district] talking about how, Oh, I came here legally to pursue the American Dream. But it’s the undocumented who are making it worse for everyone,” said Chen.

Hao Phan, the Southeast Asia curator at Northern Illinois University, thinks that such rhetoric could resonate with voters. “Vietnamese Americans are concerned about the issue of illegal immigration,” he says. “Although Vietnamese are immigrants, they tend to see themselves as good immigrants in contrast to the bad immigrants.”

Some voters are growing frustrated with the increasingly bitter identity politics. “This new political dimension has created a painful rift within the community, which used to be united around the identity of a community of refugees…against the communist regime in Vietnam,” says Phan.

Jeanie Le, a board member with the Orange County Young Democrats, says she appreciates the importance of ethnic background and the history of AAPI identity. But, she adds, “there are people in the community who are tired of this continued conversation about identity…People who are here are worried about if their kid is going to school and how they’re going to pay rent.” She called out Steel’s red-baiting in particular: “A lot of Vietnamese people are really tired of it because it makes the community seem monolithic.”

Le sees the battles over AAPI identity as misguided distractions from the more immediate concrete problems facing the district, including the soaring cost of living. She praised Kim B. Nguyen-Penaloza—a Garden Grove City Council member who lost the March primary to Tran by a couple hundred votes—for her work leading the city’s mobile mental health program for the unhoused. She also highlighted Thai Viet Phan, a council member from nearby Santa Ana, for her support of a local law that limits rent increases to 3 percent per year.

“There’s so much happening in our community, and I just really want to make sure that when people write about this community, they reflect that,” Le told me. “It’s a lot more complex than a lot of people try to make it out to be.”

Update, October 4: This story previously noted that Le told Mother Jones that the OC Young Democrats weren’t fully backing a candidate in the California 45th congressional race. After that interview, but before this story was published, the group endorsed Tran.

On Sunday, Elon Musk posted a lengthy diatribe about Democrats being the real “threat to democracy.”

In his tweet, Musk claimed that Democrats are flying “asylum seekers” to swing states (this is not happening), fast-tracking them for citizenship (asylum seekers are not fast-tracked), and ensuring said noncitizens can vote (noncitizens cannot vote in federal or state elections). (In the tweet, Musk also lists Ohio as an example of a swing state; it is not.)

In short: Almost every claim in Musk’s rant is factually incorrect.

As we previously stated, Republicans’ “Big Lie” this time has been that Democrats are stealing the election by pushing noncitizens to the ballot box. Trump backed the claim in the presidential debate earlier this month when asked about whether he acknowledges that he lost in 2020. “A lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote,” the former president said. “And that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.” 

But, as my colleague Isabela Dias reported, this is not accurate. There are not masses of noncitizens registered to vote. In fact, as she wrote, “a study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that in the 2016 election, election officials in 42 jurisdictions overseeing the tabulation of 23.5 million votes only referred about 30 cases of ‘suspected noncitizen voting’ for investigation or prosecution—or 0.0001 percent of votes.”

Musk’s logic, though, goes beyond the idea of noncitizens voting. He claims 1 in 20 “illegals” will become citizens per year, resulting in two million new legal voters for Democrats in four years. “America then becomes a one-party state and Democracy is over,” the billionaire wrote. “The only ‘elections’ will be the Democratic Party primaries.”

Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!

Let me explain: if even 1 in 20 illegals become citizens per year, something that the Democrats are expediting as fast… https://t.co/u3HBdd5Bv0

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 29, 2024

But this is far from the truth. Last year, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, only 29,000 asylees became naturalized citizens. They all entered the US before Joe Biden’s presidency and were engaged in the five-year process of demonstrating legal permanent residence to apply for citizenship. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) also weighed in, replying to Musk’s post, with another theory. “It’s a two prong strategy,” he explained. “When they bring illegals to blue states, the blue states get extra electoral votes in the presidential election and extra congressional districts, even though the illegals can’t vote. This is because we count them in the census and for apportionment.”

As our reporter Ari Berman wrote in 2020, this has been a long-term complaint from the right. Political representation in the 14th Amendment includes “all persons”—not only those eligible to vote. And elected officials, in turn, represent the total population, including those who cannot vote (kids, for example). Republicans want to exclude noncitizens from the census and change the paradigm to reinforce Republican voting power. 

Massie’s communications director, John Kennedy, did not respond to a request for comment. 

Musk has been driving his claims of noncitizens voting for months. The Washington Post reported earlier in September that the false claims had election officials worried. Many told the newspaper that the posts coincided with a rise in requests to toss voter rolls and made them fearful over the possibility of violent threats in the lead-up to November. 

The owner of X also targeted a story from the Los Angeles Times that found that immigration authorities were approving citizenship applications “at the fastest speed in years.” The Times highlighted that right-wing figures were making “baseless claims” and included a statement from Naree Ketudat, a spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security. 

She said that the agency has processed naturalization petitions within a six-month period for decades and that the department “does not take actions based on electoral politics or upcoming elections. Period.” 

So, all of it was wrong. But Musk has not let facts get in the way of posting through it.

On Sunday, Elon Musk posted a lengthy diatribe about Democrats being the real “threat to democracy.”

In his tweet, Musk claimed that Democrats are flying “asylum seekers” to swing states (this is not happening), fast-tracking them for citizenship (asylum seekers are not fast-tracked), and ensuring said noncitizens can vote (noncitizens cannot vote). (In the tweet, Musk also lists Ohio as an example of a swing state; it is not.)

In short: Almost every claim in Musk’s rant is factually incorrect.

As we previously stated, Republicans’ “Big Lie” this time has been that Democrats are stealing the election by pushing noncitizens to the ballot box. Trump backed the claim in the presidential debate earlier this month when asked about whether he acknowledges that he lost in 2020. “A lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote,” the former president said. “And that’s why they’re allowing them to come into our country.” 

But, as my colleague Isabela Dias reported, this is not accurate. There are not masses of noncitizens registered to vote. In fact, as she wrote, “a study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that in the 2016 election, election officials in 42 jurisdictions overseeing the tabulation of 23.5 million votes only referred about 30 cases of ‘suspected noncitizen voting’ for investigation or prosecution—or 0.0001 percent of votes.”

Musk’s logic, though, goes beyond the idea of noncitizens voting. He claims 1 in 20 “illegals” will become citizens per year, resulting in two million new legal voters for Democrats in four years. “America then becomes a one-party state and Democracy is over,” the billionaire wrote. “The only ‘elections’ will be the Democratic Party primaries.”

Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!

Let me explain: if even 1 in 20 illegals become citizens per year, something that the Democrats are expediting as fast… https://t.co/u3HBdd5Bv0

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 29, 2024

But this is far from the truth. Last year, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, only 29,000 asylees became naturalized citizens. They all entered the US before Joe Biden’s presidency and were engaged in the five-year process of demonstrating legal permanent residence to apply for citizenship. 

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) also weighed in, replying to Musk’s post, with another theory. “It’s a two prong strategy,” he explained. “When they bring illegals to blue states, the blue states get extra electoral votes in the presidential election and extra congressional districts, even though the illegals can’t vote. This is because we count them in the census and for apportionment.”

As our reporter Ari Berman wrote in 2020, this has been a long-term complaint from the right. Political representation in the 14th Amendment includes “all persons”—not only those eligible to vote. And elected officials, in turn, represent the total population, including those who cannot vote (kids, for example). Republicans want to exclude noncitizens from the census and change the paradigm to reinforce Republican voting power. 

Massie’s communications director, John Kennedy, did not respond to a request for comment. 

Musk has been driving his claims of noncitizens voting for months. The Washington Post reported earlier in September that the false claims had election officials worried. Many told the newspaper that the posts coincided with a rise in requests to toss voter rolls and made them fearful over the possibility of violent threats in the lead-up to November. 

The owner of X also targeted a story from the Los Angeles Times that found that immigration authorities were approving citizenship applications “at the fastest speed in years.” The Times highlighted that right-wing figures were making “baseless claims” and included a statement from Naree Ketudat, a spokesperson for the US Department of Homeland Security. 

She said that the agency has processed naturalization petitions within a six-month period for decades and that the department “does not take actions based on electoral politics or upcoming elections. Period.” 

So, all of it was wrong. But Musk has not let facts get in the way of posting through it.

Surprise, surprise. JD Vance’s self-proclaimed seamless journey from a “Never Trump” conservative in 2016—who called the former president potentially “America’s Hitler”—to a fervent supporter of the man in 2020 may not be the complete story. 

According to a Friday report from the Washington Post, in February 2020, Vance condemned Trump’s choices during his first term in office in private messages on X. “Trump has just so thoroughly failed to deliver on his economic populism (excepting a disjointed China policy),” the VP choice reportedly wrote to a source that has remained anonymous due to worries over a vitriolic response. 

In another DM sent in June 2020, Vance predicted that his future running mate would lose to Joe Biden in the presidential election. When Trump was actually defeated, Vance asserted that Democrats stole the election. 

William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, told the Post that Vance’s remarks about Trump’s poor execution of his promises for the economy were not targeting the former president but “establishment Republicans who thwarted much of Trump’s populist economic agenda to increase tariffs and boost domestic manufacturing in Congress.”

“Trump has just so thoroughly failed to deliver on his economic populism (excepting a disjointed China policy),” the VP choice reportedly wrote.

“Fortunately, Sen. Vance believes that Republicans in Congress are much more aligned with President Trump’s agenda today than they were back then, so he is confident that they won’t run into those same issues within the party,” Martin added.

In other messages, Vance appeared receptive to government-led health care, saying Medicare for All “is a net positive, maybe not (details matter).” 

This brings into question when and why Vance underwent a change of heart on Trump. When asked about this, Martin did not respond to Mother Jones’ request for comment. 

We previously noted how Vance’s transformation to a champion of the former president may be genuine—he’s clearly studied the influences of the newly-established right with references to Nazi Germany and seizing the administrative state for themselves. But even if Vance makes his reasoning clear, he serves as an example of how elites can justify in their own minds that they can vote for Trump—because when they do so, they tell themselves they helping the working class (or, actually, the white working class), despite all the evidence to the contrary.

As Vance said at the Republican National Convention in July: “America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.”

Or, in other words, it has a shared history and common future for a certain kind of people.

Kamala Harris is starting to respond to calls by media outlets and voters to share a detailed economic policy plan ahead of November, including making billionaires “pay their fair share.”

Harris delivered a speech to the Economic Club of Pittsburgh on Wednesday, along with the release of a policy book that lays out her strategy to lower costs and “create an opportunity economy” for the middle class. 

In Pittsburgh, Harris attempted the delicate balance of reaching out to undecided voters while also appealing to those already excited by her campaign as she replaced President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. 

“I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology, and instead should seek practical solutions to problems,” Harris said. “Part of being pragmatic means taking good ideas from wherever they come.”

The result was a speech that didn’t do much to elaborate on policy, instead seeking to avoid language or commitments that could reinforce Republicans’ description of Harris as a “Marxist.”

But the 82-page document, “A New Way Forward for the Middle Class,” gets into some of those details, including “making the wealthiest Americans play by the same rules as the middle class.” 

To do this, Harris proposes a minimum income tax for billionaires—at an amount yet to be disclosed—and “commonsense tax reforms for corporations.” 

The policy guide cites the federal budget for fiscal year 2025—according to which Donald Trump’s 2017 tax breaks brought effective corporate tax rates to less than 10 percent—and a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nongovernmental think tank, that found that large companies didn’t pass the profits from those cuts to workers or into other investments. 

Harris states that she will raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent—notably still less than the 35 percent rate for the richest companies that was in place from 1993 until Trump’s 2017 cuts. In the document, the vice president emphasized the difference with Trump’s tax policy, which by 2020 allowed at least 55 of the largest American corporations to pay no federal income tax and to make $3.5 billion in rebates. 

Voters remain concerned about economic policy. According to a September poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena College among undecided voters in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, about one in eight said Harris’ handling of the economy was their most pressing concern. What her latest economic strategy means for such voters remains to be seen. 

Surprise, surprise. JD Vance’s self-proclaimed seamless journey from a “Never Trump” conservative in 2016—who called the former president potentially “America’s Hitler”—to a fervent supporter of the man in 2020 may not be the complete story. 

According to a Friday report from the Washington Post, in February 2020, Vance condemned Trump’s choices during his first term in office in private messages on X. “Trump has just so thoroughly failed to deliver on his economic populism (excepting a disjointed China policy),” the VP choice reportedly wrote to a source that has remained anonymous due to worries over a vitriolic response. 

In another DM sent in June 2020, Vance predicted that his future running mate would lose to Joe Biden in the presidential election. When Trump was actually defeated, Vance asserted that Democrats stole the election. 

William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, told the Post that Vance’s remarks about Trump’s poor execution of his promises for the economy were not targeting the former president but “establishment Republicans who thwarted much of Trump’s populist economic agenda to increase tariffs and boost domestic manufacturing in Congress.”

“Trump has just so thoroughly failed to deliver on his economic populism (excepting a disjointed China policy),” the VP choice reportedly wrote.

“Fortunately, Sen. Vance believes that Republicans in Congress are much more aligned with President Trump’s agenda today than they were back then, so he is confident that they won’t run into those same issues within the party,” Martin added.

In other messages, Vance appeared receptive to government-led health care, saying Medicare for All “is a net positive, maybe not (details matter).” 

This brings into question when and why Vance underwent a change of heart on Trump. When asked about this, Martin did not respond to Mother Jones’ request for comment. 

We previously noted how Vance’s transformation to a champion of the former president may be genuine—he’s clearly studied the influences of the newly-established right with references to Nazi Germany and seizing the administrative state for themselves. But even if Vance makes his reasoning clear, he serves as an example of how elites can justify in their own minds that they can vote for Trump—because when they do so, they tell themselves they helping the working class (or, actually, the white working class), despite all the evidence to the contrary.

As Vance said at the Republican National Convention in July: “America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future.”

Or, in other words, it has a shared history and common future for a certain kind of people.

Kamala Harris is starting to respond to calls by media outlets and voters to share a detailed economic policy plan ahead of November, including making billionaires “pay their fair share.”

Harris delivered a speech to the Economic Club of Pittsburgh on Wednesday, along with the release of a policy book that lays out her strategy to lower costs and “create an opportunity economy” for the middle class. 

In Pittsburgh, Harris attempted the delicate balance of reaching out to undecided voters while also appealing to those already excited by her campaign as she replaced President Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. 

“I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology, and instead should seek practical solutions to problems,” Harris said. “Part of being pragmatic means taking good ideas from wherever they come.”

The result was a speech that didn’t do much to elaborate on policy, instead seeking to avoid language or commitments that could reinforce Republicans’ description of Harris as a “Marxist.”

But the 82-page document, “A New Way Forward for the Middle Class,” gets into some of those details, including “making the wealthiest Americans play by the same rules as the middle class.” 

To do this, Harris proposes a minimum income tax for billionaires—at an amount yet to be disclosed—and “commonsense tax reforms for corporations.” 

The policy guide cites the federal budget for fiscal year 2025—according to which Donald Trump’s 2017 tax breaks brought effective corporate tax rates to less than 10 percent—and a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nongovernmental think tank, that found that large companies didn’t pass the profits from those cuts to workers or into other investments. 

Harris states that she will raise the corporate tax rate to 28 percent—notably still less than the 35 percent rate for the richest companies that was in place from 1993 until Trump’s 2017 cuts. In the document, the vice president emphasized the difference with Trump’s tax policy, which by 2020 allowed at least 55 of the largest American corporations to pay no federal income tax and to make $3.5 billion in rebates. 

Voters remain concerned about economic policy. According to a September poll conducted by the New York Times and Siena College among undecided voters in Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, about one in eight said Harris’ handling of the economy was their most pressing concern. What her latest economic strategy means for such voters remains to be seen. 

It’s been quite the week for New York City mayors.

One day after reports said that Mayor Eric Adams was indicted in a federal corruption investigation, former mayor Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington, DC, over his key role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The move marks yet another end for Giuliani, who as Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, was a primary actor in the false conspiracy theories alleging that the election had been stolen from Trump. Several people close to Trump’s inner circle accused Giuliani of pushing the former president to declare victory on Election Night while drunk. 

“This is an absolute travesty and a total miscarriage of justice,” Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, said in a statement to Mother Jones. “Members of the legal community who want to protect the integrity of our justice system should immediately speak out against this partisan, politically motivated decision.”

“The people coming after Mayor Giuliani can’t take away the fact that he remains the most effective prosecutor in American history, who did more to improve the lives of others than almost any other American alive today.”

The ruling from the federal appeals court on Thursday stated that Giuliani had not responded when ordered to argue why he shouldn’t be disbarred in Washington after he was stripped of his law license in New York this summer.

Giuliani had been suspended from DC law after a board in May declared that Giuliani should have his license revoked. “We conclude that disbarment is the only sanction that will protect the public, the courts, and the integrity of the legal profession, and deter other lawyers from launching similarly baseless claims in the pursuit of such wide-ranging yet completely unjustified relief,” they said.

Of course, legal troubles are far from Giuliani’s only headache these days. The former mayor also filed for bankruptcy last year and is even selling his own coffee to help with cash flow. On Tuesday, he was told that he must pay $300,000 to the accounting firm Global Data Risk for its work on following his money in a bankruptcy court proceeding.

It’s been quite the week for New York City mayors.

One day after reports said that Mayor Eric Adams was indicted in a federal corruption investigation, former mayor Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington, DC, over his key role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

The move marks yet another end for Giuliani, who as Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, was a primary actor in the false conspiracy theories alleging that the election had been stolen from Trump. Several people close to Trump’s inner circle accused Giuliani of pushing the former president to declare victory on Election Night while drunk. 

“This is an absolute travesty and a total miscarriage of justice,” Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for Giuliani, said in a statement to Mother Jones. “Members of the legal community who want to protect the integrity of our justice system should immediately speak out against this partisan, politically motivated decision.”

“The people coming after Mayor Giuliani can’t take away the fact that he remains the most effective prosecutor in American history, who did more to improve the lives of others than almost any other American alive today.”

The ruling from the federal appeals court on Thursday stated that Giuliani had not responded when ordered to argue why he shouldn’t be disbarred in Washington after he was stripped of his law license in New York this summer.

Giuliani had been suspended from DC law after a board in May declared that Giuliani should have his license revoked. “We conclude that disbarment is the only sanction that will protect the public, the courts, and the integrity of the legal profession, and deter other lawyers from launching similarly baseless claims in the pursuit of such wide-ranging yet completely unjustified relief,” they said.

Of course, legal troubles are far from Giuliani’s only headache these days. The former mayor also filed for bankruptcy last year and is even selling his own coffee to help with cash flow. On Tuesday, he was told that he must pay $300,000 to the accounting firm Global Data Risk for its work on following his money in a bankruptcy court proceeding.

When Veronica Fraley posted on X last week that she couldn’t afford her rent, the American discus star got help from a notable source. “I gotchu,” replied Flavor Flav, a founding member of the hip-hop group Public Enemy. “DM me and I’ll send payment TODAY so you don’t have to worry bout it TOMORROW,,, and imma be rooting for ya tomorrow LETZ GO,!!!”

Ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, Flavor Flav signed a five-year sponsorship deal with the US women’s and men’s water polo teams. And when it came to supporting Fraley as she competed for her country, he was joined by Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian. Meanwhile, other athletes have turned to fundraising platforms like GoFundMe to make it to Paris and beyond. 

Many viewers tune in to the Olympics for these wholesome stories—an individual fighting through adversity to pull themself up onto the medal podium. But should we consider why these arduous journeys are needed in the first place? 

There are some athlete groups that have been questioning this idea. Global Athlete, which describes itself as “an international athlete-led movement,” is among them. According to the organization’s website, its members are “collectively addressing the imbalance of power between athletes and administrators” by pushing for better pay and working conditions, as well as rights like freedom of expression. 

Rob Koehler, the director general at Global Athlete, said in an interview that most of the problems the group is confronting come from the “outdated model” used by the International Olympic Committee, the non-governmental sports organization in charge of organizing the Summer, Winter, and Youth Olympic Games. 

“The majority of athletes can barely pay rent. The facade of when you become an Olympian, you’re set for life is so far from the truth,” he said. “They’ve invested 15, sometimes 20 years of their lives, putting school aside, putting jobs aside, and committing to the goal of going to the Olympics. And when they’ve finished, they sit in their bed lying awake at night, wondering, ‘What am I going to do next?’ There’s no career path for them afterward. That’s the reality.”

“It’s time to put the most important stakeholder first, which are the athletes, and start distributing to everyone.”

When asked about athlete pay, the IOC’s media relations team pointed to a news release in which its executive board “expressed its full support for fair financial reward for athletes.” 

According to public financial information posted on the IOC’s website, the committee—a privately funded non-profit association—earned $7.6 billion from 2017 to 2021. The IOC says that 90 percent of that revenue goes toward the Olympic Games, athlete development, and the Olympic Movement, which encompasses the IOC, the International Sports Federations, and the National Olympic Committees.

The same IOC release explains that the purpose of the national committees is “to develop the athletes, give them the best possible training and competition conditions, and support them in education and their daily life with regard to their profession.” Each of the 206 national committees choose the athletes to represent their country through a qualification process. 

The document referred to a statement from IOC Athletes’ Commission Chair Emma Terho: “Rewarding athletes financially for their achievements at the Games is commonplace for many National Olympic Committees and governments, while International Federations help to develop their sport worldwide and close the development gap between the haves and the have-nots. Each role is important for the athletes, and for sport overall, because without this work, the disparities between athletes around the world would be much wider than they are today.”

But Global Athlete sees the situation differently. “They use rhetoric to say that the National Olympic Committees pay for gold medals. Not every country does, but that’s not the point here,” Koehler said. “Every single athlete attending the Games should be able to earn from the revenues.” 

Koehler highlighted a study his group published in April 2020 in partnership with Ryerson University and the Ted Rogers School of Management that found that athletes only receive 4.1 percent of the Olympic Movement’s revenues via scholarships, grants, and achievement awards. In addition, just 0.5 percent of IOC funds go directly toward athletes, according to the study. Athletes are not allowed to negotiate these numbers. 

Meanwhile, the five largest professional sports leagues in the world—the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, and English Premier League—distribute between 40 and 60 percent of their revenue to athletes. 

In the lead-up to the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, the IOC updated the Olympic Charter’s Rule 40, which, according to the Global Athlete study, had previously prohibited competitors from profiting from their association with the Olympic Games through unapproved, non-Olympic corporate sponsors. But the April 2020 study suggested that the relaxation of the international by-law had been largely ineffective, since less than 10 national committees had actually implemented the change. 

The IOC did not respond to a question about the study’s findings.

Koehler emphasized that athlete pay is not the only issue. He cited incidents at the Tokyo Games, specifically, where athletes were not permitted to breastfeed their babies while competing due to rules restricting bringing family and friends during the Covid pandemic. 

“We worked with leading breastfeeding organizations, the athletes spoke up, and they were forced to change the rules,” Koehler recounted. 

He also recalled the organization’s work with other athlete organizing groups to pressure the IOC to weaken Rule 50, which had stated, “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

Groups like Global Athlete and the International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency that sets international labor standards, stress that collective bargaining is essential to improve athlete rights. 

While progress has been made, Koehler says that the IOC has blocked various pathways for athletes to engage in this bargaining. “The IOC Athletes Commission is required to sign the Olympic oath, which is a condition where you have to support all decisions of the IOC. You’ve lost your independence right away,” he stated. Because of this, athletes “sign away all their rights” when they attend the Games. 

Koehler noted that the athlete agreement required for Paris competitors mandates that they waive rights like the ability to “bring any claim, arbitration or litigation, or seek any other form of relief, including request for provisional measures, in any…court or tribunal [other than the Court of Arbitration of Sport], unless otherwise agreed in writing by the IOC.” 

Koehler argues that the IOC would actually benefit from negotiations with athletes, saying that in most cases, sports leagues with organized work forces have thrived due to increased buy-in from athletes. “If you look at the NCAA and what happened there, I think that’s the future for the IOC,” he said. 

In May 2024, the NCAA, its five major Division I conferences, and legal representatives for athletes arranged to settle three lawsuits about the ways schools compensate their athletes. The deal determines how former athletes will share the $2.78 billion in damages that the NCAA will pay and builds a new system for revenue sharing.  

That’s the future Koehler wants for the Olympics. “It’s time to put the most important stakeholder first, which are the athletes, and start distributing to everyone,” he said.

A jury found New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez guilty on all counts on Tuesday afternoon, marking the end of the powerful lawmaker’s two-month corruption trial.

Federal prosecutors had accused Menendez of accepting bribes in exchange for using his clout as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to benefit Qatar, Egypt, and several personal associates. In June 2022, the FBI found evidence of the bribery scheme at his New Jersey home—gold bars, a Mercedes-Benz convertible, and home furnishings, as well as more than $480,000 in cash hidden in envelopes, clothing, closets, and a safe. The senator pleaded not guilty and claimed that he wasn’t aware of the money in the bedroom closet because his wife, Nadine, kept the door locked. Nadine was also charged but her trial has been postponed indefinitely as she recovers from breast cancer surgery. One of the couple’s co-defendants, Jose Uribe, pleaded guilty in March and testified against Menendez at trial.

According to Politico and the Bergen Record, in a five-hour closing argument starting last Monday, prosecutor Paul Monteleoni went through each charge in the 18-count indictment, connecting the lawmaker and his wife to gifts from three New Jersey businessmen—the co-defendants in the case—via emails, phone records, texts, and witness testimony. The prosecution team also asserted that Menendez made direct efforts to protect his co-defendants from criminal investigations, including attempting to secure the appointment of a particular candidate to lead the New Jersey US Attorney’s Office in the hope of shutting down a probe.

“Friends do not give friends envelopes stuffed with $10,000 in cash, just out of friendship,” Monteleoni stated last Tuesday. “Friends do not give those same friends kilogram bars of gold worth $60,000 each out of the goodness of their hearts.” 

Defense attorney Adam Fee addressed jurors last Tuesday, calling the prosecution’s evidence a “towering Jenga stack of stuff.” He asserted that Menendez kept money in his home because “everyone in his family was basically hoarding cash” due to their experiences of receiving visits from the Cuban police before they fled in 1951. 

In her testimony, Menendez’s sister, Caridad Gonzalez, recalled that their father didn’t trust banks, saying, “It’s a Cuban thing. They were afraid of losing what they worked so hard for.”

According to the New York Times, after Menendez’s guilty verdicts were announced, Judge Stein said, “I think everybody was very well tried. From the standpoint of the court, it was a well-tried case all around. Thank you.”

There is now pressure on the senator to resign before his term ends, but there is nothing in the Constitution that requires him to give up his seat. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on Menendez to step down, releasing a statement saying, “In light of this guilty verdict, Senator Menendez must now do what is right for his constituents, the Senate, and our country, and resign.” Schumer has so far refrained from attempting to expel Menendez; it’s unclear if he will now do so if Menendez refuses to leave willingly.

Rep. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), the Democratic nominee to take over Menendez’s seat in the Senate, described the verdict as “a sad and somber day for New Jersey and our country.” He went on to write, “I called on Senator Menendez to step down when these charges were first made public, and now that he has been found guilty, I believe the only course of action for him is to resign his seat immediately. The people of New Jersey deserve better.”

“I’m deeply disappointed by the jury’s decision,” Menendez said outside the courthouse, according to the Times. “I have never violated my public oath. I’ve never been anything but a patriot of my country and for my country.” He ignored reporters’ questions about whether he planned to resign.

Menendez technically remains on the November ballot as an independent candidate. 

This wasn’t Menendez’s first legal rodeo. Prior to winning reelection to the Senate in 2018, he faced a separate corruption prosecution that ended in a mistrial. The congressman was accused of helping a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist in a Medicare fraud scheme. In return, Menendez allegedly received various gifts from the doctor, including trips on his private jet, admission into a resort in the Dominican Republic, and campaign contributions. That case was made more challenging for prosecutors in part because of a unanimous 2016 Supreme Court ruling that overturned former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R) conviction on fraud, extortion, and conspiracy charges. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts said the prosecution’s definition of an “official act” under federal bribery laws was overly broad. 

Tuesday’s verdict follows another landmark Roberts opinion that could make some public corruption cases more difficult for the Department of Justice to pursue. Earlier this month, the court’s conservative majority ruled that former presidents—in that case, Donald Trump—enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for at least some official acts they performed in office and that prosecutors cannot introduce broad categories of evidence related to those acts. Menendez’s attorneys had some success at trial making a similar argument: Judge Stein ruled that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause barred prosecutors from using some evidence related to Menendez’s work as a member of Congress. 

But those favorable rulings weren’t enough for Menendez to avoid Tuesday’s guilty verdicts. Stein has set the sentencing date for October 29.

It’s the morning of November 28, 2023, and a lawyer gives an opening statement to the jury. He tells a story of a 9-year-old boy who sees his older brother Bennie collapsed on the ground after being shot in the chest. Someone calls 911, but when the police finally arrive, they don’t rush to help him, instead handcuffing the boy’s mother, who is screaming and hysterical, and pushing her to the ground. When the cops finally go over to Bennie, they put a sheet over his face. But Bennie’s chest is still going up and down—he’s still breathing.

“This probably happens over and over but we only know about it because it’s Young Thug and Brian Steel.”

The lawyer, Brian Steel, says that Bennie’s brother would come to believe that “the only two ways he can break the generational hopelessness and despair for his family, himself—and he wanted to break it for as many people as he could who were in this struggle—was to be a professional athlete or an accomplished musical artist.” He chose music. 

The young boy’s name is Jeffery Williams. He was born in 1991 and grew up in the Jonesboro South projects in Atlanta, Georgia, but was displaced at the age of 16 when the public housing development was demolished. He began rapping as Young Thug in 2010. Three studio albums and nearly 20 mixtapes later, he has become one of the most celebrated trap artists. 

But in May 2022, Young Thug—along with 27 others associated with his label YSL Records—was arrested. The rapper is now on trial for a host of charges, including using YSL as a front to run a criminal street gang and violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Although he’s not accused of murder, the state alleges that Young Thug rented a car used in the 2015 murder of rival gang member Donovan Thomas Jr. Fulton County prosecutors, led by District Attorney Fani Willis, are connecting this murder to dozens of more recent incidents of gun crime and killings and claiming that Young Thug is the leader and instigator behind the wave of violence. Some of the state’s evidence against the artist comes from his rap lyrics, including bars like “Gave the lawyer close to two mil’, he handle all the killings”—from the song “Just How It Is”—which the indictment describes as “an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

For decades, politicians, prosecutors, and the media have incited panic around Black rappers and their lyrics, a practice that, according to some constitutional experts, raises free speech concerns when those lyrics are presented at trial. Reading lyrics out of context, they warn, reinforces racial stereotypes, biases the jury, and prevents fair decisions, reframing the trial around artistic narratives rather than material evidence.

“Prosecutors do this because they know it makes their job easy,” Jack Lerner, a University of California, Irvine, law professor and a co-author of “Rap On Trial: A Legal Guide,” told Courthouse News Service following the Young Thug indictment. “They know that juries that aren’t familiar with rap music will essentially rob the rap artist of a fair trial. It really creates a chilling effect for the artist and has very serious First Amendment implications.” 

Last year, Reps. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) re-introduced the Restoring Artistic Protection Act, which would create federal rules to limit the ways in which artists’ lyrics can be used against them in criminal and civil cases. The lawmakers quoted a federal judge’s 2021 ruling barring two Philadelphia police officers from introducing as evidence the lyrics of a rapper who was suing them for wrongful arrest. “Freddy Mercury did not confess to having ‘just killed a man’ by putting ‘a gun against his head’ and ‘pull[ing] the trigger,’” the Trump-appointed judge wrote. “Bob Marley did not confess to having shot a sheriff. And Johnny Cash did not confess to shooting ‘a man in Reno, just to watch him die.’”

Willis, who was elected DA on a tough-on-crime platform in 2020, is the driving force behind the RICO accusations against Young Thug and his YSL co-defendants. Her history with Georgia’s RICO statute—an unusually broad version of a legal tool used across the country to combat organized crime—dates back a decade. As an assistant district attorney in 2014, she led the prosecution of 12 educators who allegedly cheated on state tests by correcting students’ answers to improve their scores. Eleven of them were convicted under RICO. Willis is now attempting to use the same law to prosecute Donald Trump and his allies for allegedly conspiring to steal the state’s 2020 presidential election. Meanwhile, Georgia’s attorney general is prosecuting dozens of anti-Cop City activists under RICO, accusing them of using illegal tactics to stop construction of the controversial law enforcement training center.

Enacted in 1980, Georgia’s RICO law expanded state power by, among other things, making it harder for crime bosses to use subordinates to shield themselves from legal liability. The statute gives prosecutors the authority to combine offenses committed by different people if they can argue that the illegal activity fell into a pattern and the defendants shared a common goal, explained Michael Mears, a professor at John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, in a 2023 interview with the New York Times. “It allows a prosecutor to go after the head of an organization, loosely defined, without having to prove that that head directly engaged in a conspiracy or any acts that violated state law,” he told the paper. “If you are a prosecutor, it’s a gold mine. If you are a defense attorney, it’s a nightmare.”

The law carries a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and fines of $25,000, giving the government an enormous amount of leverage to push defendants to take plea deals. In a 2022 press conference, Willis called herself a “fan of RICO” because it “allows a prosecutor’s office and law enforcement to tell the whole story.” She later stated, “We use it as a tool so [jurors] can have all the information they need to make a wise decision.”

But critics have accused Georgia prosecutors of abusing the law. The cases can take years to try—jury selection alone in the YSL case took 10 months—and are ruinously expensive to defend. Officials from the ACLU blasted the attorney general’s Cop City prosecution as a form of “extreme intimidation tactics that we need to resist.”

“A lot of people ask me to make Brian Steel and Thug merch, but I’m not trying to get sued.”

“There is legitimate concern that Georgia’s sweeping indictment could form a playbook for other prosecutors and state officials seeking to stifle political dissent,” the ACLU officials argued. Those fears aren’t baseless. Earlier this year, 10 Republican state senators put forward a bill that would further expand RICO in Georgia to punish low-level misdemeanors like loitering and illegally putting up posters. The legislation would also provide for increased penalties if the defendants are found to have targeted their victims based on “political affiliation or belief.” 

The AG’s office declined to comment to Mother Jones, citing the pending prosecution. Willis’ office did not respond to questions.

Perhaps because it lacks a clear political valence—like the Trump and Cop City cases—the YSL trial hasn’t always attracted the kind of mainstream media attention it deserves. Until recently, to get any regular updates on the televised trial, one had to turn to social media, particularly to an X account that goes by @ThuggerDaily. The anonymous author now has more than 70,000 followers, and he supplies them with translations of impenetrable legalese, videos of dramatic testimony, and explanations of all the players and strategies used in the trial. His work has brought national attention to the inner workings of Georgia’s criminal justice system, and it’s been cited by everyone from legal experts to music outlets like Complex and The Fader.

Young Thug’s lawyer Brian Steele has officially been held in contempt and taken into custody #FREESTEELE pic.twitter.com/0Lf4ppCVd9

— THUGGERDAILY ひ (@ThuggerDaily) June 10, 2024

Starting last month, the trial began receiving more intensive national coverage after Fulton County Judge Ural Glanville made a series of inflammatory decisions, including holding a secret meeting with prosecutors and a key witness. When Steel, the lawyer for Young Thug, learned about that meeting, Glanville demanded that Steel disclose how he’d found out about it. Steel refused to divulge his source and was then held in contempt by the judge. That was followed by calls for Glanville to withdraw from the case and by a series of appeals to higher courts in Georgia. The trial is now on indefinite hold until another judge makes a formal decision on whether Glanville should be removed.

I had the opportunity to ask @ThuggerDaily about his perspective on the intricacies of the trial, as well as what it reveals about Georgia’s fight against crime. You can read a condensed version of the discussion—which was conducted over email and has been edited for clarity and organization—below: 

How did you become interested in Young Thug’s music? My initiation was when the Jeffery mixtape blew up in 2016.

The first time Thug really clicked for me was on the bus on the way home from a high school soccer game my team had just won. Whoever was on aux played “Hercules” off a mixtape Thug had just dropped, which remains in my top 10 Thug songs ever. I was hooked on that song but didn’t really check out Thug’s other music until a friend of mine showed me “With Them” off Slime Season 3 the day it dropped. That sound blew my mind and that entire tape resonated with me immediately. That week, I went back and checked out Thug’s entire discography and have been a huge fan ever since.

What’s the story behind you starting to cover the YSL trial? What’s your background (legal, music, etc.)?

I often get asked if I have any background in law or journalism—I have literally zero. Never ran a social media account either. 

I had been a part of a Discord chat of active Young Thug fans for a long time, and when the RICO case first dropped, naturally everyone wanted as much information as possible. But the media coverage was absolutely horrid. Early on, none of us understood what Thug was being accused of doing. There were important hearings almost every month for the year leading up to the trial, but they weren’t streamed online and journalists didn’t cover them, so information was sparse. I took it upon myself to start reading court filings and summarizing them in the Discord server, and eventually, the owners of the Discord made me my own channel to announce case updates for everyone. 

We’d have watch parties for hearings with dozens of people tuning into bond hearings, but there were many that were not available for streaming. I accidentally stumbled upon a document summoning someone from jail to the courtroom with a Zoom passcode on it. I tried to keep it private for as long as I could, but eventually someone else came across the code through the same document and trolled the courtroom by screaming, “FREE THUG,” into the mic. After that, they made a new Zoom passcode and kept it super locked up. I was also checking the court docket every day and was reading and learning a lot about the law—just 6 months prior I didn’t even know what an indictment was. 

Fast forward to December 2022 and news of Walter “DK” Murphy taking the first plea deal dropped. The fans realized how big of a deal this was and we all scoured the internet looking for more information, but there was none. Radio silence. It was insane! I even resorted to DMing his lawyer, but they turned me away. The next day, Gunna took a plea deal. The info coming out about the deal was also bad but in the opposite extreme—it obviously made huge waves on social media, but the details coming out were sensationalized and, frankly, full of misinformation. No one posted the actual paperwork—the main thing going around was the video of Gunna’s plea allocution, where he responded, “Yes Ma’am,”—but I got it a full six hours before anyone posted the relevant parts to social media.  I made one very important connection very early on who was able to access court documents without paying and often before journalists got them. I still talk to this same contact a lot. I can’t really say who, but without them, ThuggerDaily wouldn’t be what it is—they sent me all the documents I was getting early on. Before them, I was paying per page and I’d get them delayed.

Slimelife Shawty aka Wunnie Lee is the third person to plea out of jail in the YSL case and will be coming home today.#yslricocase pic.twitter.com/Iqj5DAZHHh

— THUGGERDAILY ひ (@ThuggerDaily) December 16, 2022

This is when someone from the Discord server, the original owner of @ThuggerDaily, reached out to me. At this point, the Twitter account was an inactive Young Thug meme page with roughly 1,000 followers. We’d already talked about me potentially taking it over and turning my Discord updates into a full social media court updates page, but the wave of plea deals was the catalyst. 

My first official post was announcing Slimelife Shawty’s plea deal, which garnered 40 likes.

When did you start getting attention for your work? I was looking at posts from 2023 that didn’t receive as much engagement as you are getting now.

Honestly, getting attention was gradual and consistent. There are, of course, huge spikes when big developments happen, but I was getting recognition from local lawyers and even YSL case lawyers and friends and family of the defendants pretty early on. However, with the craziness in the last month—between Woody, recusal motions, Steel being ordered to go to jail, etc.—my page doubled in size in the span of 2 weeks. 

I started with 1,000 followers. On the day of opening statements, I went from about 16,000 followers to 20k. Today, I’m at 66k.

Why do you think there is so little active coverage of the trial? I mostly see explainers from mainstream outlets or basic reporting on developments with no added context like you’re doing. What are media outlets missing in their coverage of the trial?

This trial is extremely unique in ways that make it difficult to report. It has hundreds of witnesses and spans a timeline of 13 years with multiple narratives. It’s very unfriendly for traditional reporting as they would have to pay someone to cover five days of court a week for over two years. A random viewer can’t just pop in and understand why the state is asking the witness about a 10-year-old robbery in which no defendant was a participant. Even understanding Thug’s charges and what the state has to prove isn’t easy. It’s just too much. The only digestible parts are the funny clips of court proceedings that really SHOULDN’T be happening.

In June, Brian Steel filed a motion to recuse Judge Glanville from the case. Why are there so many moving parts like the absurd number of witnesses involved, the long jury selection process, and the messy court proceedings?

The state chose to indict 28 defendants in a conspiracy case with 700+ witnesses. It’s now around 200 witnesses after the judge ordered cuts when it was clear how long the trial was taking. That’s the source of most of the mess. Most think it’s working against them, but it’s hard to predict what a jury is thinking. They may have a decent murder case somewhere, but they insisted on the fluff to make it a RICO conspiracy. 

What do you think the state wants out of this trial? Is its plan working?

I think that Atlanta has a gang problem for sure, and this is a performative way of saying, “We’re doing something.” They have given plenty of “dangerous” people zero jail time in exchange for testimony against Young Thug. It’s clearly designed to make headlines instead of making a difference. 

You can’t arrest your way out of this.

What possible outcomes do you see for Young Thug and YSL in this trial?

As far as a final outcome, I have no idea. At this juncture, there’s a million ways the case can develop. However, I am 100% certain this first trial will end in a mistrial, whether it’s now or on appeal. Other than that, too much depends on unpredictable variables such as if the state wants to retry or offer favorable pleas, whether we get a new judge, which witnesses will show up again, etc., for me to make a decent prediction.

What do you think the trial says about Georgia’s criminal justice system and the other high-profile RICO cases in the state?

This trial has shown a whole new crowd of people, myself included, how much power the state has. Violation after violation and constant misconduct has been forgiven under the assumption that Georgia is trying their best. Even people who think Thug is guilty still acknowledge he deserves a fair trial and isn’t getting one. Everyone knows it. Yet we are wasting millions of dollars and years of time while the judge, who has lost control of the courtroom, has little oversight.

What do you think is the importance of having trials televised for the public?

It’s horrifying that this probably happens over and over but we only know about it because it’s Young Thug and Brian Steel. Even in this case, the state has tried to turn off the cameras under the guise of “witness safety.” The drawbacks of public trials definitely exist and I’m sure the jurors dislike social media reporting on the trial, but the alternative is no public accountability of public servants. It’s immensely important. 

You should be getting paid for your work. Are you?

Other than Twitter ad revenue—which is honestly pitiful—no. For a while, I tried to monetize my page by reaching out to hip-hop promo agencies to do paid tweets, but it was a hard sell because my page was so niche. A lot of people ask me to make Brian Steel and Thug merch, but I’m not trying to get sued lol. I’m not sure how to go about monetizing my page otherwise. Hopefully I can be involved in the inevitable documentary somehow and get a check there.