Since winning the election, President-elect Donald Trump has seized headlines with a series of alarming appointments for his incoming administration. Many lack the basic qualifications for their respective posts; nearly all can be fairly characterized as MAGA loyalists.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the former TV personality and failed Republican Senate candidate, is among the more heavily scrutinized picks—and for good reason. Oz is a celebrity doctor without any experience running a large federal bureaucracy, now tapped to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a massive agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act. Oz also boasts a long history of peddling dubious scientific theories and treatments.

But Oz’s remarkable lack of qualifications does not appear to have dimmed Republican excitement. In fact, they seem thrilled. Sen. Lindsey Graham said he was “very excited” about the nomination; Sen. Tommy Tuberville went as far as to call Oz an “all-star” candidate. Here’s what to know about Oz and why he could be the perfect vessel to help achieve the party’s long-sought goal of dramatically gutting safety net programs.

He Has a Long History of Peddling Pseudoscience

Trained as a heart surgeon, Oz rose to fame as a daytime TV personality. In the 2000s, he made frequent appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show, where the eponymous TV host dubbed him “America’s Doctor.” He then moved on to his own show in 2009. Throughout his 13 years on air, Oz repeatedly came under fire for pushing questionable remedies, including sketchy weight-loss supplements that landed him in the hot seat with the US Senate.

“My show is about hope,” Oz told senators in 2014. “We’ve engaged millions in programs, including programs we did with the CDC, to get folks to realize there are different ways they can rethink their future.”

In 2011, Oz told viewers to stop drinking apple juice out of concern that it contained dangerous levels of arsenic. The FDA slammed the advice, calling it “irresponsible and misleading to” make such a suggestion.

Throughout the pandemic, Oz encouraged people to use hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, malaria medication that then-President Donald Trump heralded as an effective treatment for Covid. (It is not.) In emails reported by the Washington Post, Oz even urged Jared Kushner to help expedite the medication to patients, writing, “We have a potential pandemic solution at our fingertips.”

Oz’s previous support for Joseph Mercola, an osteopath who’d eventually become one of the leading spreaders of Covid misinformation, was also condemned. As my colleague David Corn reported:

With his cheerleading for hydroxychloroquine, Oz helped distort the national public conversation about Covid. But his greater impact on the pandemic might be his previous support for Mercola. Advancing the career of the fellow who would become a top promoter of Covid misinformation—and whose efforts may have prompted many Americans to not become vaccinated and, thus, face terrible consequences—hardly meets the oath that Oz once swore: first, do no harm.

Oz Has Invested in Private Health Care Programs

One of the major concerns raised by Oz’s critics is whether he will cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid. As the Washington Post reported, Trump’s advisers are preparing to cut Medicaid, which currently serves about 80 million low-income people, in addition to a slew of other safety-net programs, to offset the cost of extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

Oz does not appear to have taken any public positions concerning Medicaid. However, he has been a vocal supporter of the privatization of health care programs. In 2020, he wrote an op-ed supporting Medicare Advantage, a private coverage option supported by Trump and Project 2025.

As William Gavin at Quartz reported, Oz has previously disclosed owning at least $600,000 of stocks in companies that benefit from private Medicare services, raising serious concerns that, if confirmed, Oz could stand to finally benefit from the services his agency oversees.

Experts have long warned that privatizing Medicare is not a viable solution for cutting government waste, and will instead potentially make health care far more inaccessible for vulnerable communities.

But there is some reason to be hopeful. As my colleague Julia Métraux reported, existing laws will make it somewhat challenging for Oz to completely wreck Medicare.

His Peers Have Questioned His Ethics—A Lot

For nearly as long as Oz has been famous, peers have questioned his motives. In 2011, ABC News’ Richard Besser accused Oz of fearmongering, stating his apple juice claims reminded him of “screaming fire in a crowded theater.” In 2015, doctors wrote a letter calling for Columbia University to cut its ties to Oz, stating that Oz had “repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine.” It didn’t work at the time. But seven years later, as Oz campaigned for Senate, the university finally severed its ties.

“It took Columbia far too long to remove Oz from its otherwise distinguished medical faculty,” Dr. Henry Miller, of the Pacific Research Institute, in California, told MedPage Today. Miller called Oz “an unethical grifter whose claims and pronouncements were not supported by science, and were injurious to consumers—in the interest of financial benefit to Oz himself.”

In 2017, academics wrote a paper titled The Case of Dr. Oz: Ethics, Evidence, and Does Professional Self-Regulation Work?, in which they called the media personality “a dangerous rogue unfit for the office of America’s doctor.”

His Failed Senate Campaign Was Rife With Ableism

While running for Senate, Oz’s campaign also took several ableist potshots at his competitor, Sen. John Fetterman. “If John Fetterman had ever eaten a vegetable in his life,” Oz’s senior communications officer told Business Insider after Fetterman poked fun at the infamous crudité video, “then maybe he wouldn’t have had a major stroke and wouldn’t be in the position of having to lie about it constantly.”

Oz’s campaign also mocked Fetterman in September 2022 by including the following line in a press release: “We will pay for any additional medical personnel he might need to have on standby.”

On Monday, Donald Trump appeared to confirm that he is willing—even eager—to declare a national emergency and use the military to carry out his plans for mass deportations.

“TRUE!!!” he wrote on social media, responding to a post suggesting that reports were circulating of the president-elect’s preparedness to go to such extreme lengths to implement his cruel immigration policies.

Trump’s desire to deport millions of undocumented immigrants can be traced to his first presidency, during which migrant families were deliberately separated and sweeping workplace raids were conducted. But as my colleague Isabela Dias wrote, Trump ultimately fell short of deporting the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. Now that Trump has secured the presidency once again, this time with less guardrails and internal opposition, he’s vowed to conduct “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” As Isabela writes:

This time around, they plan to invoke an infamous 18th-century wartime law, deploy the National Guard, and build massive detention camps—and intend on reshaping the federal bureaucracy to ensure it happens, drafting executive orders and filling the administration with loyalists who will quickly implement the policies. 

If Trump and his allies have it their way, armed troops and out-of-state law enforcement would likely blitz into communities—knocking on doors, searching workplaces and homes, and arbitrarily interrogating and arresting suspected undocumented immigrants. The dragnet would almost certainly ensnare US citizens, too.

Some of the contours of the plan already appear in motion. Last week, Trump appointed Tom Homan, the former ICE head often dubbed the “father of family separation,” as his new “border czar.”

“Mass deportation is coming,” Homan tweeted recently. “Message to every illegal alien mooching off America.”

Trump’s immigration crackdown is all but certain to go beyond mass deportations. The president-elect has made clear that he intends to tear down the country’s immigration system as we know it, by ending birthright citizenship, reviving the “Muslim Ban,” and rolling back refugee resettlement. For more on how Trump’s plan would destroy the US as we know it, read Isabela’s in-depth reporting here.

On Monday, Donald Trump appeared to confirm that he is willing—even eager—to declare a national emergency and use the military to carry out his plans for mass deportations.

“TRUE!!!” he wrote on social media, responding to a post suggesting that reports were circulating of the president-elect’s preparedness to go to such extreme lengths to implement his cruel immigration policies.

Trump’s desire to deport millions of undocumented immigrants can be traced to his first presidency, during which migrant families were deliberately separated and sweeping workplace raids were conducted. But as my colleague Isabela Dias wrote, Trump ultimately fell short of deporting the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. Now that Trump has secured the presidency once again, this time with less guardrails and internal opposition, he’s vowed to conduct “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” As Isabela writes:

This time around, they plan to invoke an infamous 18th-century wartime law, deploy the National Guard, and build massive detention camps—and intend on reshaping the federal bureaucracy to ensure it happens, drafting executive orders and filling the administration with loyalists who will quickly implement the policies. 

If Trump and his allies have it their way, armed troops and out-of-state law enforcement would likely blitz into communities—knocking on doors, searching workplaces and homes, and arbitrarily interrogating and arresting suspected undocumented immigrants. The dragnet would almost certainly ensnare US citizens, too.

Some of the contours of the plan already appear in motion. Last week, Trump appointed Tom Homan, the former ICE head often dubbed the “father of family separation,” as his new “border czar.”

“Mass deportation is coming,” Homan tweeted recently. “Message to every illegal alien mooching off America.”

Trump’s immigration crackdown is all but certain to go beyond mass deportations. The president-elect has made clear that he intends to tear down the country’s immigration system as we know it, by ending birthright citizenship, reviving the “Muslim Ban,” and rolling back refugee resettlement. For more on how Trump’s plan would destroy the US as we know it, read Isabela’s in-depth reporting here.

On Wednesday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s decision to remove nearly 2,000 registered voters from the state’s rolls, after two lower federal courts deemed the purge illegal. At least 1,600 voters will now have to fight to get reinstated—with less than a week to Election Day.

“It was a lawless decision in which the Supreme Court did not explain its decision or rationale,” said Anna Dorman, counsel with voting rights advocacy group Protect Democracy.

Two months ago, Youngkin filed an executive order to purge Virginia’s voter rolls, ostensibly in a quest to prevent “noncitizens” from casting ballots. Since then, his administration has unceremoniously kicked thousands of actual citizens off the rolls, an outcome that advocates and election officials warned Youngkin about before he initiated the program. According to Dorman, most people have had their registration revoked due to simple clerical errors on DMV paperwork.

“There has been no prosecutions of any noncitizen for voting in Virginia in the last 20 years, despite Gov. Youngkin’s Election Integrity Unit searching high and low,” Dorman said. “But if there was, this program wouldn’t stop it. Those people can still just sign an affidavit and vote. So the only people actually being hurt by this are eligible US voters who are confused about whether they’re allowed to vote.”

As I reported last week, a judge with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Youngkin’s purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, a law that stops states from removing ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days of the election. On Sunday, an appeals court rep9ortedly upheld that decision, according to the Washington Post.

However, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has tossed out those rulings, allowing the governor to remove as many voters as he pleases with little to no explanation of the legal reasoning.

Voting rights advocates warn that the court’s actions tie into Donald Trump’s bigger plan to undermine the results of the 2024 election. As my colleague Pema Levy reported, the conspiracy theory surrounding noncitizens voting in the 2024 election was stoked by Trump’s right-wing donors:

So who’s behind the push to make baseless claims of non-citizen voter fraud a bogeyman? According to a new report, the money funding the groups pushing the lie comes from the same stew of rightwing donors backing Trump, his authoritarian agenda, and the judges who enable him.

The non-citizen voting myth, in other words, is coming from the same activists who may seek to weaponize the lie for political gain this November. 

“This is just another attempt to launder conspiracy theories and lies in the public consciousness,” said Doman. “They’re repeating these lies so many times that even if people don’t necessarily believe any specific instance, they have a generalized sense that there is something amiss in order to deny the election results, if they don’t go their way.”

If you’ve been removed from Virginia’s rolls, all hope is not lost. Because the state allows same-day voter registration, anyone affected can reinstate their registration before voting, either during the early voting period or on Election Day. All they’d have to do is sign an affidavit confirming their citizenship at their polling location.

However, they must cast those votes in person. If you’re one of the many folks who rely on absentee ballots, then your voting options in Virginia’s elections are nonexistent.

“Anyone who wanted to vote absentee has been who has been purged under this program has been disenfranchised,” said Dorman. “That impacts college students, that impacts disabled individuals, that impacts people who just can’t get time off from work. And I think that that is contrary to the purpose of the National Voter Registration Act, which is the law that we sued under here.”

On Wednesday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s decision to remove nearly 2,000 registered voters from the state’s rolls, after two lower federal courts deemed the purge illegal. At least 1,600 voters will now have to fight to get reinstated—with less than a week to Election Day.

“It was a lawless decision in which the Supreme Court did not explain its decision or rationale,” said Anna Dorman, counsel with voting rights advocacy group Protect Democracy.

Two months ago, Youngkin filed an executive order to purge Virginia’s voter rolls, ostensibly in a quest to prevent “noncitizens” from casting ballots. Since then, his administration has unceremoniously kicked thousands of actual citizens off the rolls, an outcome that advocates and election officials warned Youngkin about before he initiated the program. According to Dorman, most people have had their registration revoked due to simple clerical errors on DMV paperwork.

“There has been no prosecutions of any noncitizen for voting in Virginia in the last 20 years, despite Gov. Youngkin’s Election Integrity Unit searching high and low,” Dorman said. “But if there was, this program wouldn’t stop it. Those people can still just sign an affidavit and vote. So the only people actually being hurt by this are eligible US voters who are confused about whether they’re allowed to vote.”

As I reported last week, a judge with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Youngkin’s purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, a law that stops states from removing ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days of the election. On Sunday, an appeals court rep9ortedly upheld that decision, according to the Washington Post.

However, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has tossed out those rulings, allowing the governor to remove as many voters as he pleases with little to no explanation of the legal reasoning.

Voting rights advocates warn that the court’s actions tie into Donald Trump’s bigger plan to undermine the results of the 2024 election. As my colleague Pema Levy reported, the conspiracy theory surrounding noncitizens voting in the 2024 election was stoked by Trump’s right-wing donors:

So who’s behind the push to make baseless claims of non-citizen voter fraud a bogeyman? According to a new report, the money funding the groups pushing the lie comes from the same stew of rightwing donors backing Trump, his authoritarian agenda, and the judges who enable him.

The non-citizen voting myth, in other words, is coming from the same activists who may seek to weaponize the lie for political gain this November. 

“This is just another attempt to launder conspiracy theories and lies in the public consciousness,” said Doman. “They’re repeating these lies so many times that even if people don’t necessarily believe any specific instance, they have a generalized sense that there is something amiss in order to deny the election results, if they don’t go their way.”

If you’ve been removed from Virginia’s rolls, all hope is not lost. Because the state allows same-day voter registration, anyone affected can reinstate their registration before voting, either during the early voting period or on Election Day. All they’d have to do is sign an affidavit confirming their citizenship at their polling location.

However, they must cast those votes in person. If you’re one of the many folks who rely on absentee ballots, then your voting options in Virginia’s elections are nonexistent.

“Anyone who wanted to vote absentee has been who has been purged under this program has been disenfranchised,” said Dorman. “That impacts college students, that impacts disabled individuals, that impacts people who just can’t get time off from work. And I think that that is contrary to the purpose of the National Voter Registration Act, which is the law that we sued under here.”

On Friday, a Virginia judge ruled that Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s recent purge of close to 2,000 voters from state rolls—within 90 days of November’s election—was illegal. Now, with that election less than two weeks away, the state must reinstate all 1,600 revoked registrations.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Giles found that Youngkin’s purge violated the National Voter Registration Act, a federal law that prevents states from removing ineligible voters from the rolls within 90 days of the election.

Last August, Youngkin issued an executive order that included several “ballot security” measures, including the authority to revoke thousands of Virginians’ voter registrations on the suspicion that they were not US citizens—a notion rooted in a GOP conspiracy theory popularized by Donald Trump and his allies.

Since then, his administration has been purging voters in waves, claiming to have revoked the registration of more than 6,000 non-citizens (and tens of thousands of people who had simply died).

“This program puts the voter registration and the fundamental rights of all Virginians on the line based on conspiracies that have no evidence,” said Anna Dorman, counsel with voting rights nonprofit Protect Democracy.

Earlier this year, Protect Democracy joined several other advocacy groups to file a lawsuit against Virginia’s Department of Elections, accusing Youngkin of trying to “delegitimize and subvert the results of the 2024 election if Donald Trump does not win.” A few days later, the Department of Justice filed its own lawsuit against Youngkin’s administration.

Youngkin has claimed that at least 1,500 “self-identified” non-citizens were removed from the rolls, but the data tells a different story.

On Wednesday, during court proceedings, the DOE was ordered to hand over the names of the people affected by this round of removals. According to Dorman, many of those listed were US citizens.

“We’ve only had this list for 48 hours, and we have already confirmed that there are many eligible US citizens who are on this list, both naturalized citizens and people who have been lifelong Virginia voters,” said Dorman.

She added: “There are nearly 100 people on the list who have been registered and voting in the Commonwealth for more than 10 years. So claims that this is impacting non-citizens are not true.”

While advocates hailed the ruling as a significant victory for voting rights, for many, the damage was already done. Since Monday is the deadline for anyone seeking an absentee ballot, those purged can no longer request one.

“Folks have until tonight to request their absentee ballots,” said Dorman, “Unfortunately, people are not going to be able to get back on rolls before that deadline.”

Youngkin plans to appeal the ruling, stating in a tweet that he was “prepared to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court if needed.” Many other Republicans have jumped to the governor’s defense, including former president Donald Trump, who hinted at a stop in Virginia in the near future.

Sleepy Joe Biden and Comrade Kamala Harris ridiculously accuse me of wanting to “weaponize” the Justice Department, when they have done all of the weaponizing. Now, their truly Weaponized Department of “Injustice,” and a Judge (appointed by Joe), have ORDERED the Great…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 25, 2024

Elon Musk’s obsessive quest to get Donald Trump into the White House has taken a desperate turn. On Thursday, the tech CEO tweeted to more than 20o million followers that he’s offering $100 to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign his pro-Trump petition.

If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you & whoever referred you will now get $100 for signing our petition in support of free speech & right to bear arms.

Earn money for supporting something you already believe in!

Offer valid until midnight on Monday.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2024

This $100 deal is an expansion of a previous bargain he levied with swing state voters earlier this year, where he offered $47 to any voters located in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina who’d be willing to refer a friend to the petition.

However, this $100 special offer is exclusively for Pennsylvanians.

According to the site, the goal is to get “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.”

The tech CEO tweeted this offer shortly after hosting his first solo political event at a Pennsylvania town hall on Friday night, in which he reportedly peddled debunked election conspiracy theories.

While this petition isn’t his only bid to flip the swing state in Trump’s favor, (last week, Musk offered to go door-to-door in Pennsylvania to petition for the former president), it’s certainly one of his stupidest ones.

As my colleague Tim Murphy writes :

This particular approach has drawbacks, for the same reason paying people to gather signatures often does: You’re incentivizing bad data, which is what you really don’t want in a get-out-the-vote operation. Paid petitioners get in trouble all the time because the signatures they collect don’t match real people, or were submitted without a voter’s knowledge. The PAC says it has some safeguards in place, and that you won’t get your $47 until both the referrer and referee are verified. But the money creates a reason for real people who don’t support Trump to sign up and take Musk’s cash. It’s a great way for Harris-backing undergrads at Arizona State to get beer money—it’s certainly easier than giving plasma.

It’s possible this is a genius move from a man with an evolutionarily advanced brain, in other words. But it’s also possible that Musk is simply doing the rich guy thing—and the classic rich tech guy thing—of walking into a new situation and assuming all of his ideas are important. 

On Saturday, Musk will speak at a Pennsylvania megachurch with strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, a religious movement that believes Christians are called to take over the government.

Correction, October 19: An earlier version misstated the date of the tweet. It was tweeted on Thursday, October 17.

Elon Musk’s obsessive quest to get Donald Trump into the White House has taken a desperate turn. On Thursday, the tech CEO tweeted to more than 20o million followers that he’s offering $100 to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign his pro-Trump petition.

If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you & whoever referred you will now get $100 for signing our petition in support of free speech & right to bear arms.

Earn money for supporting something you already believe in!

Offer valid until midnight on Monday.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2024

This $100 deal is an expansion of a previous bargain he levied with swing state voters earlier this year, where he offered $47 to any voters located in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina who’d be willing to refer a friend to the petition.

However, this $100 special offer is exclusively for Pennsylvanians.

According to the site, the goal is to get “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.”

The tech CEO tweeted this offer shortly after hosting his first solo political event at a Pennsylvania town hall on Friday night, in which he reportedly peddled debunked election conspiracy theories.

While this petition isn’t his only bid to flip the swing state in Trump’s favor, (last week, Musk offered to go door-to-door in Pennsylvania to petition for the former president), it’s certainly one of his stupidest ones.

As my colleague Tim Murphy writes :

This particular approach has drawbacks, for the same reason paying people to gather signatures often does: You’re incentivizing bad data, which is what you really don’t want in a get-out-the-vote operation. Paid petitioners get in trouble all the time because the signatures they collect don’t match real people, or were submitted without a voter’s knowledge. The PAC says it has some safeguards in place, and that you won’t get your $47 until both the referrer and referee are verified. But the money creates a reason for real people who don’t support Trump to sign up and take Musk’s cash. It’s a great way for Harris-backing undergrads at Arizona State to get beer money—it’s certainly easier than giving plasma.

It’s possible this is a genius move from a man with an evolutionarily advanced brain, in other words. But it’s also possible that Musk is simply doing the rich guy thing—and the classic rich tech guy thing—of walking into a new situation and assuming all of his ideas are important. 

On Saturday, Musk will speak at a Pennsylvania megachurch with strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, a religious movement that believes Christians are called to take over the government.

Correction, October 19: An earlier version misstated the date of the tweet. It was tweeted on Thursday, October 17.

Elon Musk’s obsessive quest to get Donald Trump into the White House has taken a desperate turn. On Thursday, the tech CEO tweeted to more than 20o million followers that he’s offering $100 to registered Pennsylvania voters who sign his pro-Trump petition.

If you’re a registered Pennsylvania voter, you & whoever referred you will now get $100 for signing our petition in support of free speech & right to bear arms.

Earn money for supporting something you already believe in!

Offer valid until midnight on Monday.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2024

This $100 deal is an expansion of a previous bargain he levied with swing state voters earlier this year, where he offered $47 to any voters located in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina who’d be willing to refer a friend to the petition.

However, this $100 special offer is exclusively for Pennsylvanians.

According to the site, the goal is to get “1 million registered voters in swing states to sign in support of the Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.”

The tech CEO tweeted this offer shortly after hosting his first solo political event at a Pennsylvania town hall on Friday night, in which he reportedly peddled debunked election conspiracy theories.

While this petition isn’t his only bid to flip the swing state in Trump’s favor, (last week, Musk offered to go door-to-door in Pennsylvania to petition for the former president), it’s certainly one of his stupidest ones.

As my colleague Tim Murphy writes :

This particular approach has drawbacks, for the same reason paying people to gather signatures often does: You’re incentivizing bad data, which is what you really don’t want in a get-out-the-vote operation. Paid petitioners get in trouble all the time because the signatures they collect don’t match real people, or were submitted without a voter’s knowledge. The PAC says it has some safeguards in place, and that you won’t get your $47 until both the referrer and referee are verified. But the money creates a reason for real people who don’t support Trump to sign up and take Musk’s cash. It’s a great way for Harris-backing undergrads at Arizona State to get beer money—it’s certainly easier than giving plasma.

It’s possible this is a genius move from a man with an evolutionarily advanced brain, in other words. But it’s also possible that Musk is simply doing the rich guy thing—and the classic rich tech guy thing—of walking into a new situation and assuming all of his ideas are important. 

On Saturday, Musk will speak at a Pennsylvania megachurch with strong ties to the New Apostolic Reformation, a religious movement that believes Christians are called to take over the government.

 Correction, October 19: An earlier version misstated the date of the tweet. It was tweeted on Thursday, October 17.

With less than a month to go until Election Day, Democrats are scrambling to persuade Black men to cast their ballots for Kamala Harris amid polls showing Donald Trump gaining momentum among Black voters. This week alone, the vice president’s campaign introduced the “Opportunity Agenda for Black Men,” a set of policy proposals that marked the Harris campaign’s most overt attempt at appealing to Black men yet.

So it landed as somewhat of a surprise, or at least a risk, that Barack Obama, ahead of his first campaign appearance for Harris last week, chose to blame sexist attitudes among Black men for any reluctance they may have in backing Harris. “Y’all know some of those brothers,” Obama said, quickly drawing backlash. “Demeaning,” is how the “Black Men for Trump Advisory Board” described it.

But it wasn’t just pro-Trump voters who found Obama’s remarks problematic. Plenty of Democrats took issue with what they saw as unfair scolding, including former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner.

“I was disappointed that the former president would talk to Black men like that, especially given the statistics showing that Black men are the second largest voting bloc in the Democratic Party,” Turner, who is Black, told me in a phone interview. She added: “In a representative democracy, people have the right, even Black men, to vote with their conscience.”

As Turner points out, Black voters, and especially Black men, have drifted away from the Democratic Party for years now, a trend the Trump allies have tried to capitalize on through various efforts that include cognac and cigar-themed events. Placing such outsized emphasis on sexism, according to those disappointed by Obama’s remarks, is misguided, especially when Black voters remain one of the most reliable Democratic voters compared to other demographics. To Turner, the Democratic Party would be far better served by focusing on the working class.

“My party keeps talking about joy. Well, there is no joy when you can’t afford gas and food and the rent is going up.”

“My party keeps talking about joy,” said Turner, referencing the theme of the Democratic National Convention this summer. “Well, there is no joy when you can’t afford gas and food and the rent is going up. There’s no joy with 60 percent of American people saying they live paycheck to paycheck.”

Still, some welcomed Obama’s remarks as a rare willingness to call out longstanding issues of sexism among Black men in their communities, even if the delivery may have been botched. After all, Obama specifically acknowledged that Black men were far from the only racial group to hold such sexist attitudes.

“The tone was off and undeserved, but the message was there,” Andi Pringle, the executive director of Registration Nation, said. “The point he was trying to make was yes, men may have issues, but you need to get past it because what’s on the other side is worse. There is no choice here.”

To Pringle, the trend of Black men leaning more conservative than previous generations is not an anomaly but rather a symptom of deep-rooted sexism in America.

But while responses to Obama’s pointed speech may have been split, many agreed that Harris’ proposals—which include programs to forgive loans for small businesses, legalize marijuana, and increase access to cryptocurrency—are a step in the right direction for Black male outreach.

“I think [these proposals] are a really good sign,” said Turner. “African American men should be approached like any other demographic: With policies that help to enrich and lift their lives, make their lives better. Why? When you make Black men’s lives better, you definitely help lift the Black community.”

“In a representative democracy, people have the right, even Black men, to vote with their conscience.”

“Black men need to be encouraged, seen, and given space to have a voice. Right now, we’re all about mobilization,” said Pringle. “We don’t have time for much else.”

Such urgency is warranted considering the historic levels of support among Black conservatives supporting Trump’s return to the White House. My colleague Garrison Hayes explores this rapidly expanding movement in the following video, “I Spent a Week with Black Republicans,” and will be discussing the issue further in an upcoming episode of Reveal. Stay tuned.

Donald Trump’s record of hypocrisy and grifting now appears to extend to his “God Bless the USA” Bible. A new report from the Associated Press reveals that nearly 120,000 copies of the former president’s $60 Bibles are printed in China, the same country he’s spent most of his political career lambasting.

Those copies, according to records obtained by the AP, were shipped in February and March, likely making a $7 million profit for Trump.

As we previously wrote, these Bibles aren’t just average publications of a holy text. They include a handwritten chorus of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” as well as a custom embossing “in remembrance of the day that God intervened during President Donald J. Trump’s assassination attempt,” available in special edition copies.

All of which made the potential decision to mandate Trump’s Bible in Oklahoma’s schools deeply alarming. As I wrote last week:

On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.

According to the documents, the books must:

• Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
• Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
• Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible

Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible” does.

Trump’s Bible is, of course, just one of many odd business ventures he has started in this election cycle alone, including $400 golden sneakers.

Donald Trump’s record of hypocrisy and grifting now appears to extend to his “God Bless the USA” Bible. A new report from the Associated Press reveals that nearly 120,000 copies of the former president’s $60 Bibles are printed in China, the same country he’s spent most of his political career lambasting.

Those copies, according to records obtained by the AP, were shipped in February and March, likely making a $7 million profit for Trump.

As we previously wrote, these Bibles aren’t just average publications of a holy text. They include a handwritten chorus of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA,” as well as a custom embossing “in remembrance of the day that God intervened during President Donald J. Trump’s assassination attempt,” available in special edition copies.

All of which made the potential decision to mandate Trump’s Bible in Oklahoma’s schools deeply alarming. As I wrote last week:

On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.

According to the documents, the books must:

• Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
• Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
• Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible

Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible” does.

Trump’s Bible is, of course, just one of many odd business ventures he has started in this election cycle alone, including $400 golden sneakers.

In June, Oklahoma’s Trump-supporting top school official, Ryan Walters, ordered the state’s schools to teach the Bible in class—and this week, his department put in a $3 million proposal to buy 55,000 Bibles for Oklahoma schools. But out of the thousands of versions available for purchase, it seems only two holy books fit the state Department of Education’s strict criteria: one sold by Donald J. Trump, and one sold by his son Don Junior.

Surprise, surprise.

On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.

According to the documents, the books must:

• Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
• Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
• Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible

Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible” does.

As we reported earlier this year, Trump began hawking the “God Bless the USA” Bible—about $60 a pop—in March, a month after he started selling his $400 sneakers and other ungodly expensive pieces of merch.

The only other book to fit the bill? The “We The People Bible,” endorsed by Donald Trump Jr., at a price of $90.

Superintendent Ryan Walters’ office stands by the criteria, telling the Hill in a statement, “There are hundreds of Bible publishers, and we expect a robust competition for this proposal.”

The move is unsurprising from Walters’ administration. Last November, the Oklahoma superintendent endorsed Trump, promising that under the ex-president, “This cancer that is the teachers union will be driven out of our schools.” Walters also plans to join the GOP candidate’s reelection team, claiming he’s “excited to see [Trump] dismantle the Department of Education.”

Update, October 4: This story has been updated to credit Oklahoma Watch, which reported the Oklahoman article previously cited.

In June, Oklahoma’s Trump-supporting top school official, Ryan Walters, ordered the state’s schools to teach the Bible in class—and this week, his department put in a $3 million proposal to buy 55,000 Bibles for Oklahoma schools. But out of the thousands of versions available for purchase, it seems only two holy books fit the state Department of Education’s strict criteria: one sold by Donald J. Trump, and one sold by his son Don Junior.

Surprise, surprise.

On Friday, the nonprofit news outlet Oklahoma Watch reported that the superintendent’s bid documents included specific standards for the Bibles set to be used in Oklahoma classrooms, standards only met by two editions.

According to the documents, the books must:

• Be bound in leather or a leather-like material
• Include the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
• Be either the old or new version of the King James Bible

Supplier Mardel Christian & Education reportedly searched through the 2,900 versions of the Bible it carries and found that none fit the bill—but Trump’s “God Bless the USA Bible” does.

As we reported earlier this year, Trump began hawking the “God Bless the USA” Bible—about $60 a pop—in March, a month after he started selling his $400 sneakers and other ungodly expensive pieces of merch.

The only other book to fit the bill? The “We The People Bible,” endorsed by Donald Trump Jr., at a price of $90.

Superintendent Ryan Walters’ office stands by the criteria, telling the Hill in a statement, “There are hundreds of Bible publishers, and we expect a robust competition for this proposal.”

The move is unsurprising from Walters’ administration. Last November, the Oklahoma superintendent endorsed Trump, promising that under the ex-president, “This cancer that is the teachers union will be driven out of our schools.” Walters also plans to join the GOP candidate’s reelection team, claiming he’s “excited to see [Trump] dismantle the Department of Education.”

Update, October 4: This story has been updated to credit Oklahoma Watch, which reported the Oklahoman article previously cited.

Freddie “Khalil” Owens. Marcellus “Khaliifah”  Williams. Emmanuel Littlejohn. Travis Mullis. Alan Eugene Miller.

All five men were executed within one week in five different states, a period political scientist Austin Sarat condemned as “the worst execution spree in three decades.”

The most high-profile execution took place on Tuesday when Missouri executed Marcellus Williams, who had maintained his innocence for decades. The execution was carried out despite the prosecutor’s office in the 1998 murder trial acknowledging that evidence had been mishandled and therefore urged for the conviction to be vacated. The execution of Miller in Alabama also received intense media attention this week over the state’s use of nitrogen gas, a method many have likened to torture.

The five executions once again thrust the issue of capital punishment, long criticized as unjust and unconstitutional, back into the public discourse, with advocates against the death penalty calling for a national reckoning. Many recalled studies that have repeatedly shown that people of color, and primarily those with intellectual disabilities, are far more likely to be given death sentences—despite little evidence that the punishment works to deter crime.

“It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”

“The United States is in the midst of a national reconsideration of capital punishment in a way that was completely unforeseeable,” Sarat told me during a phone call this week. 

“What is driving this national reconsideration? It isn’t sudden moral conversions of people who are supporters of the death penalty. It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”

But amid the extraordinary string of executions this week, Vice President Kamala Harris has remained curiously silent on the issue of state-sanctioned violence and the death penalty. For some, the apparent silence is out of step with Harris’ deep history of opposing the death penalty, which includes her promise as San Francisco’s district attorney never to charge someone with the death penalty. She also campaigned on the promise to establish a federal ban when she first ran for president in 2019.

Yet, with the 2024 presidential election in a virtual tie—and familiar Republican attacks that she is soft on crime—Harris’ platform appears to have wiped out any mention of her stance regarding capital punishment. When reached for comment by Mother Jones, Harris’ press team did not respond.

Sarat said that any reluctance on behalf of Harris to weigh in on the issue, even with the extraordinarily high number of executions that took place this week, could reflect a change in the political climate from four years ago.

“The political landscape was different in 2020,” says Sarat. “That campaign unfolded in anticipation of and after the murder of George Floyd and the recognition of the need to address grave racial inequities.” 

He added: “Abolitionists surely want Kamala Harris to speak out against the death penalty, but they want something more. They wanted her to be elected president United States so she can actually do something about the death penalty.”

Correction, September 27: This post has been updated to reflect more precisely Austin Sarat’s historical observation about execution sprees.

Freddie “Khalil” Owens. Marcellus “Khaliifah”  Williams. Emmanuel Littlejohn. Travis Mullis. Alan Eugene Miller.

All five men were executed within one week in five different states, a period political scientist Austin Sarat condemned as “the worst execution spree in three decades.”

The most high-profile execution took place on Tuesday when Missouri executed Marcellus Williams, who had maintained his innocence for decades. The execution was carried out despite the prosecutor’s office in the 1998 murder trial acknowledging that evidence had been mishandled and therefore urged for the conviction to be vacated. The execution of Miller in Alabama also received intense media attention this week over the state’s use of nitrogen gas, a method many have likened to torture.

The five executions once again thrust the issue of capital punishment, long criticized as unjust and unconstitutional, back into the public discourse, with advocates against the death penalty calling for a national reckoning. Many recalled studies that have repeatedly shown that people of color, and primarily those with intellectual disabilities, are far more likely to be given death sentences—despite little evidence that the punishment works to deter crime.

“It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”

“The United States is in the midst of a national reconsideration of capital punishment in a way that was completely unforeseeable,” Sarat told me during a phone call this week. 

“What is driving this national reconsideration? It isn’t sudden moral conversions of people who are supporters of the death penalty. It’s the growing perception that the death penalty system in the United States is broken in its operation.”

But amid the extraordinary string of executions this week, Vice President Kamala Harris has remained curiously silent on the issue of state-sanctioned violence and the death penalty. For some, the apparent silence is out of step with Harris’ deep history of opposing the death penalty, which includes her promise as San Francisco’s district attorney never to charge someone with the death penalty. She also campaigned on the promise to establish a federal ban when she first ran for president in 2019.

Yet, with the 2024 presidential election in a virtual tie—and familiar Republican attacks that she is soft on crime—Harris’ platform appears to have wiped out any mention of her stance regarding capital punishment. When reached for comment by Mother Jones, Harris’ press team did not respond.

Sarat said that any reluctance on behalf of Harris to weigh in on the issue, even with the extraordinarily high number of executions that took place this week, could reflect a change in the political climate from four years ago.

“The political landscape was different in 2020,” says Sarat. “That campaign unfolded in anticipation of and after the murder of George Floyd and the recognition of the need to address grave racial inequities.” 

He added: “Abolitionists surely want Kamala Harris to speak out against the death penalty, but they want something more. They wanted her to be elected president United States so she can actually do something about the death penalty.”

Correction, September 27: This post has been updated to reflect more precisely Austin Sarat’s historical observation about execution sprees.

On Sunday, two New York City police officers fired into a crowded Brooklyn subway station, shooting and injuring four people, including two bystanders, one of whom is a hospital employee now in critical condition after police shot him in the head during his commute. 

The catalyst for this bloody confrontation: an alleged fare evasion. In other words, $2.90.

According to the NYPD, officers suspected that 37-year-old Derell Mickles had skipped a turnstile at the Sutter Avenue subway station in Brooklyn. The officers followed Mickles, resulting in a chase that ended with officers shooting him, two bystanders, and another officer on duty. While police initially claimed that they had recovered a knife Mickles had used to threaten officers, officials later contradicted their own claim, prompting questions over what exactly had happened.

Asked about body camera footage on Tuesday, Mayor Eric Adams deflected, telling a reporter to “speak with the police commissioner,” before praising the officers involved in Sunday’s shooting for demonstrating a “great level of restraint.” The NYPD has since firmly defended the officers, with the police departments chief of patrol stating, “We are not perfect.”

The violent incident, inside one of the world’s busiest subway systems, has sparked outrage among New Yorkers as well as a victim’s family members, who condemned the officers’ actions as “reckless.”

And they’re far from alone. Criminal justice reform advocates are slamming what they see as an outsized response by the NYPD to something as minor and trivial as alleged fare evasion. It comes amid New York Mayor Eric Adams’ aggressive crackdown on fare evaders, a policy Adams has claimed would also help with violence that occurs on trains. Protests have since broken out across the city, calling for the officers involved in Sunday’s shooting to be held accountable.

I spoke with Michael Sisitzky, assistant policy director at the New York City Civil Liberties Union, to learn more about Adams’ crackdown on fare evasion, overpolicing, and lack of police transparency surrounding Sunday’s violent encounter. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

This is an ongoing investigation. But there are already significant concerns over how the police handled this situation and how the mayor has responded.

This disturbing incident is sadly not surprising, given what we’ve seen from this administration. The Adams administration and NYPD have been dramatically ramping up enforcement activity, increasing their presence in the subways, increasing stops, increasing frisks, and increasing all of the hallmarks of broken windows policing.  This is a predictable and inevitable consequence of this administration’s approach to a very aggressive enforcement mindset. There are so many questions about what we’ve heard from the mayor’s office from the NYPD about what exactly unfolded. 

We have heard officer accounts of what happened. We’ve heard some witness accounts. The NYPD and the mayor’s office have been reviewing body camera footage. But, we have not been able to see this. We’re not getting a transparent accounting of what took place. It’s absolutely critical that we see the evidence that they’re relying on to make these assertions. 

We’re being asked to take the word of a mayor whose initial tweet in response to this incident had to get community noted because it was leaving out the important context of the officer he was talking about having been shot was shot by a fellow officer. We can’t really trust their version of events when they’re not showing us the evidence of what took place in that incident.

This is a predictable and inevitable consequence of this administration’s approach to a very aggressive enforcement mindset.

Are complaints over transparency from the NYPD common?

It’s a hallmark of the NYPD. We know that they can be transparent when they choose to be and when they think it serves their interest. Folks may remember back in January of 2024 the NYPD released body camera footage within hours, within a day of the traffic stop of a city council member when they sought to use that footage to highlight their version of what took place. But they treat incidents like this very differently.

How common—or rare—are shootings like this in New York?

I don’t know that we have the full stats on how common this type of shooting is in the subway from an officer.  It’s not something that I’ve seen a full accounting of, but what we have seen are increased reports of police misconduct and abuse of New Yorkers that have upticked with this administration. Civilian complaints going into the Civilian Complaint Review Board have reached alarmingly high levels. At the same time, there have also been real concerns about what the department is actually doing with complaints that are moving through the NYPD disciplinary system, where they’re just not taking those reports seriously. 

When you respond to everything with an officer, you are increasing the likelihood that we’re going to see more cases where someone is subject to use of force.

Can overpolicing backfire? How do outsize police presences affect communities, particularly communities of color?

The approach that this administration has taken since day one is overpolicing. 

They’ve identified police officers as the be-all, end-all, sole solution to every societal ill. Fare evasion? Send a cop after it. Homelessness? Send police to conduct sweeps. Mental health crises? Instead of sending peers and EMTs, send a cop instead.

It’s a formula that this administration seems wedded to, but it’s not improving community safety for New Yorkers. Police are primarily concerned with enforcing criminal laws, making arrests, and issuing summonses. They have an enforcement mindset, not a delivery of services or addressing root causes mindset.

So when you respond to everything with an officer, you are increasing the likelihood that we’re going to see more and more cases where someone is subject to use of force, someone is tased, someone is shot, someone is killed when they did not need to be, because you are responding to a situation with tools that are just fundamentally not a good fit for that scenario.

We see this play out largely in communities that need more investments to address the root causes of crime, poverty, homelessness, the need for increased mental health and healthcare services. Rather than making those investments, which are harder and will take more thought to accomplish, we instead default to a reliance on police officers.

In March, the NYPD announced they would send 800 officers into subways to combat fare evasion. In the same month, Gov. Kathy Hochul deployed the National Guard in response to several violent incidents that occurred a few weeks prior. Realistically, how effective are methods like this in preventing crime, and what are some of the pitfalls?

It’s brought up time and time again that if you focus on low-level crime and low-level signs of disorder, you’re mitigating the potential for it to escalate into more serious criminal activity and driving down overall crime rates as a result. 

That’s been studied and debunked numerous times. New York City hit historically low crime rates as stop and frisk plummeted to historic lows and was reined in as enforcement fell, as summonses and arrest activity went down. The data is just not there to justify the approach to broken windows or quality-of-life policing.

Instead, it’s very effective at funneling more and more people into the criminal legal system, saddling people with fines that they cannot afford, making them attend court dates that they cannot afford, and giving people the potentially lifelong consequence of acquiring a criminal record which can extend to every aspect of their life. What it’s not doing is meeting community needs and making New Yorkers safer.

Eric Adams has pushed for a crackdown on fare evasion. Last month, the MTA announced that they’ll be sending summons of up to $50 to $100 to fare evaders. Did a “tough on crime” approach play into what happened over the weekend?

What happened over the weekend is an inevitable outcome of that kind of tough-on-crime approach, where the only tool that we seem to have to offer is police officers, who are going to focus on enforcement and if they’re given an aggressive mandate to enforce, are going to enforce that aggressively.

We haven’t seen the actual footage yet. We’re relying on accounts of what happened. But it’s very easy to see how a police officer pursuing someone, chasing them, is a tactic that is escalatory, as opposed to thinking of ways we can tackle issues like fare evasion without the threat of violence.

That is such a mismatch we don’t need to be constrained thinking about responding to fare evasion with just a police law enforcement tool.

We should be thinking more broadly about getting people access to the support they need to enroll in programs for New Yorkers who can’t afford to pay for fares to get to work, pay for child care, or get access to medical care. We can think about other ways that we are addressing those causes without putting armed officers in and telling them you need to make sure that you are aggressively cracking down on everyone within the system.

As this case has gained traction on social media, one of the most disturbing responses I’ve seen is how so many people justify using this level of force because Mickles was suspected of evading a $2.90 fare. It’s a narrative that oftentimes rears its head after a high-profile case of police brutality. We saw this with George Floyd, Eric Garner. 

The level of force used here is so disproportionate to the alleged infraction. No one should be subject to having their life put in jeopardy because of an alleged evasion of a $2.90 cent fare, to say nothing of the fact that officers pursued him into a crowded station and onto a train.

That response is not only out of proportion to the individual’s alleged offense, but it is putting so many other people needlessly in harm’s way.

It’s deeply disturbing that the NYPD and the administration could view that level of a response as an appropriate reaction when we’re talking about something as trivial as the evasion of a $2.90 cent fare.

Since the shooting occurred, plenty of New Yorkers have started to protest the NYPD’s crackdown on fare evasion. What are your thoughts on some of these demonstrations?

People are recognizing an uptick in the targeting of their communities and an uptick in stop activity racial disparities as bad or even worse than they were at its height. There is a real sense that the NYPD is not providing a service to New Yorkers but is causing active harm In communities.

And I think that an expression that also finds a voice in the number of complaints of police misconduct going in, being on the rise, and is evident in the types of protests that we’re seeing against this incident and against other instances of police brutality and violence.

It’s important that New Yorkers be able to express their to raise their voice and express their views in protesting against policies that are causing harm in their communities rather than actually helping deliver real safety for them.

A bomb threat sent to “multiple agencies and media outlets” in Springfield, Ohio, forced the closure of the town’s City Hall on Thursday.

“City of Springfield received a bomb threat that has prompted an immediate response from local and regional law enforcement,” a statement from city officials said. “As a precautionary measure, the building has been evacuated, and authorities are currently conducting a thorough investigation.”

The evacuation comes amid racist, debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in the town. The claims started in obscure social media posts and quickly spread to prominent Republicans, including JD Vance and Donald Trump, who used the presidential debate this week to fuel the baseless conspiracy theory.

The mayor of Springfield, Ohio, has confirmed that Thursday’s bomb threats that prompted the evacuation of its City Hall and several other buildings were explicitly hostile to Haitians.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Mayor Rob Rue stated that the bomb threats “used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community.” 

He added that Springfield is a “community that needs help” and called on national leaders to step up and not “hurt a community like, unfortunately, we have seen over the last couple of days.”

The viral rumors have left Haitian immigrants in the area reporting incidents of harassment, including property damage. Many have elected to keep their children home from school; one Haitian resident told the Haitian Times that her cars were vandalized twice in the middle of the night.

“We’re all victims this morning,” she said the day following Trump’s racist remarks at the debate. “They’re attacking us in every way.”

Threat experts have long warned that Trump’s promotion of racist claims, particularly when they involve immigrants, can fuel violence. My colleague Mark Follman writes:

Immigration is a top issue for voters, and Trump’s unsubstantiated smears against migrants clearly are aimed at motivating his base. But his demagoguery is also part of a long campaign of thinly veiled incitement—one that increases the risk of political violence at the hands of Trump’s extremist supporters. For years, Trump has used this method, known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism, against an array of purported political enemies. With the help of Fox pundits, migrants have been on Trump’s list ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race

This story has been updated to reflect Mayor Rue’s comments.

A bomb threat sent to “multiple agencies and media outlets” in Springfield, Ohio, forced the closure of the town’s City Hall on Thursday.

“City of Springfield received a bomb threat that has prompted an immediate response from local and regional law enforcement,” a statement from city officials said. “As a precautionary measure, the building has been evacuated, and authorities are currently conducting a thorough investigation.”

The motive behind the threat is still under investigation. But Thursday’s evacuation comes amid racist, debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in the town. The claims started in obscure social media posts and quickly spread to prominent Republicans, including JD Vance and Donald Trump, who used the presidential debate this week to fuel the baseless conspiracy theory.

The viral rumors have left Haitian immigrants in the area reporting incidents of harassment, including property damage. Many have elected to keep their children home from school; one Haitian resident told the Haitian Times that her cars were vandalized twice in the middle of the night.

“We’re all victims this morning,” she said the day following Trump’s racist remarks at the debate. “They’re attacking us in every way.”

Threat experts have long warned that Trump’s promotion of racist claims, particularly when they involve immigrants, can fuel violence. My colleague Mark Follman writes:

Immigration is a top issue for voters, and Trump’s unsubstantiated smears against migrants clearly are aimed at motivating his base. But his demagoguery is also part of a long campaign of thinly veiled incitement—one that increases the risk of political violence at the hands of Trump’s extremist supporters. For years, Trump has used this method, known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism, against an array of purported political enemies. With the help of Fox pundits, migrants have been on Trump’s list ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race