Trump promised retribution in his second term. For our March+April issue, we spoke with those targeted about lessons from the first term, fears of a second, and plans to fight back. Read the whole package here.
Mother Jones spoke with Carl Weatherley-White, Head of Capital Markets for Greenbacker, in January, before the beginning of the second term, about the potential impacts of the next administration repealing the IRA. Greenbacker is a renewable energy investing company with over 450 projects around the US.
This interview has been edited for clarity and condensed.
Do you think existing renewable energy projects will be hit by a new Trump administration repealing the IRA?
In the unlikely event that the IRA is repealed, then you have a lot of turmoil. A lot of projects that are under development will have to either renegotiate their power purchase agreements to get higher pricing. If they cannot do that, they would have to kill the projects.
How do you prepare for a full repeal?
We’ve accelerated some of our development so that we can grandfather projects. We have a pipeline of projects under development and under construction that work under the current tax law. I think if the change did happen, then we would revisit our development pipeline, and prioritize projects. We’d have to really rerun the numbers on all our projects and decide which ones still are still financeable and which ones aren’t.
How would the repeal trickle down to the public?
It basically gets at the cost of electricity. You have utilities that are delivering electricity, and they set rates at a level that create a return on their investment that is established by regulators. If a tax credit goes away, then they would have to increase rates to cover their costs. And so given the amount of electricity predicted to come from renewable energy, without a tax credit I think you’d likely see significant pressure to increase electricity prices.
And honestly, that would create another political problem for any administration.
Is there anticipation of some of these projects that have been funded by IRA facing increased scrutiny or auditing?
I don’t think so. The rules are very detailed. There’s already a lot of scrutiny, not only by the Internal Revenue Service, but also by all of the market participants: lawyers, accounts, bankers, investors. They’re all very careful to make sure that the products are well structured and they’re safe. It already is a pretty robust ecosystem.
At a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday, Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, acknowledged climate change is “real” and that greenhouse gasses are making the planet hotter—but stopped short of saying the agency must regulate them.
About 90 minutes into the hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), asked Zeldin, a former New York congressmember, whether the EPA is obligated to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. “Do you accept that as a mandate?”
“Authorized—yes, senator,” Zeldin countered Markey. “Authorized to.” His argument being that the 2007 ruling allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but did not require it to do so. “There are steps that the EPA would have to take in order for an obligation to be created,” he added. “I’m just going off the actual text.”
What Zeldin failed to acknowledge, however, is that the 2007 ruling did require EPA to regulate greenhouse gases—if the agency determined they pose a danger to public health.
And the agency did make that determination, in 2009. As Michael Gerrard, an environmental lawyer and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, explains, that year the EPA issued its “Endangerment Finding,” concluding that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This obligated the agency to regulate the emissions. While the incoming Trump administration could try and reverse that finding, doing so, Gerrard says, would be a “fool’s errand”:“The amount of scientific evidence available when the Endangerment Finding was first made in 2009 was overwhelming. It’s now overwhelming-squared.”
Zeldin: “I believe that climate change is real.”
Jillian Blanchard, the vice president of Climate Change and Environmental Justice at Lawyers for Good Government, says Zeldin’s response “may be a signal” that he’s considering changing the Endangerment Finding, but she agrees the science remains clear: “If anything,” she says, “the science has made it more clear that more regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is going to be necessary to protect the public health.”
Zeldin, as the New York Timesreports, received more than $270,000 from oil and gas interests over the years, and has little environmental experience.
Still, his testimony offered a contrast to Donald Trump, who’s repeatedly called the climate crisis a “hoax” and promised to “drill baby drill.” As Zeldin told the committee on Wednesday, “I believe that climate change is real,” adding, “we must, with urgency, be addressing these issues.”
At a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday, Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, acknowledged climate change is “real” and that greenhouse gasses are making the planet hotter—but stopped short of saying the agency must regulate them.
About 90 minutes into the hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), asked Zeldin, a former New York congressmember, whether the EPA is obligated to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which defined carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. “Do you accept that as a mandate?”
“Authorized—yes, senator,” Zeldin countered Markey. “Authorized to.” His argument being that the 2007 ruling allowed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but did not require it to do so. “There are steps that the EPA would have to take in order for an obligation to be created,” he added. “I’m just going off the actual text.”
What Zeldin failed to acknowledge, however, is that the 2007 ruling did require EPA to regulate greenhouse gases—if the agency determined they pose a danger to public health.
And the agency did make that determination, in 2009. As Michael Gerrard, an environmental lawyer and director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, explains, that year the EPA issued its “Endangerment Finding,” concluding that greenhouse gases “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” This obligated the agency to regulate the emissions. While the incoming Trump administration could try and reverse that finding, doing so, Gerrard says, would be a “fool’s errand”:“The amount of scientific evidence available when the Endangerment Finding was first made in 2009 was overwhelming. It’s now overwhelming-squared.”
Zeldin: “I believe that climate change is real.”
Jillian Blanchard, the vice president of Climate Change and Environmental Justice at Lawyers for Good Government, says Zeldin’s response “may be a signal” that he’s considering changing the Endangerment Finding, but she agrees the science remains clear: “If anything,” she says, “the science has made it more clear that more regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is going to be necessary to protect the public health.”
Zeldin, as the New York Timesreports, received more than $270,000 from oil and gas interests over the years, and has little environmental experience.
Still, his testimony offered a contrast to Donald Trump, who’s repeatedly called the climate crisis a “hoax” and promised to “drill baby drill.” As Zeldin told the committee on Wednesday, “I believe that climate change is real,” adding, “we must, with urgency, be addressing these issues.”
Chris Wright, the fracking company CEO who Trump has nominated to lead the Department of Energy and who had previously claimed “there is no climate crisis,” admitted that climate change is a “real issue” during his confirmation hearings on Wednesday.
Wright, who runs Liberty Energy and is worth $171 million, was tapped in mid-November by Trump, who heralded him as someone who would help lead his administration’s efforts to cut regulations and remove government subsidies for renewable energy.
However, Wright’s recognition that climate change is “real” and requires the US “to evolve our energy system” rubs against previous climate denying statements from Trump, like calling climate change a hoax and denying the scientific consensus in support of the issue.
Given his background, it’s unclear if or how Wright’s comments, made to the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, might shape his tenure if he is confirmed. In a statement following Trump’s announcement of his plan to nominate Wright, the Sierra Club defined him as a “climate denier who has profited off of polluting our communities and endangering our health and future.” Wright has contributed $165,000 to Koch-controlled Super PACs since 2014, according to the Energy and Policy Institute, which have funneled millions towards climate denial groups that oppose renewable energy.
In a 2023 LinkedIn video post, Wright argued that “there is no climate crisis and we are not in the midst of an energy transition,” and that “the only thing resembling a crisis with respect to climate change is the regressive opportunity squelching policies justified in the name of climate change.” Wright also downplayedthe relationship between climate change and destructive natural disasters, claiming there’s been “no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods despite endless fear mongering.”
Against the backdrop of the deadly blazes raging in Los Angeles, California Senator Alex Padilla grilled Wright about his past claims that wildfires have no connection to climate change. “I understand you’ve written that ‘the hype over wildfires is just hype to justify more impoverishment from bad government policies,’” Padilla said, as he asked if “you still believe that wildfires are just hype?” Wright said he stood by his comments.
Environmental advocates have argued Wright’s history makes him an inappropriate choice to lead the Department of Energy, and his testimony on Wednesday didn’t seem to change that. As Food & Water Watch, a non-profit environmental organization, tweeted during the hearing, his “background as a fracking company CEO flies in the face of the Department’s stated purpose, which is to ‘foster a secure and reliable energy system that is environmentally and economically sustainable.’”
Chris Wright, Trump’s pick to head the Department of Energy, had his confirmation hearing this morning. As is typical for a Trump nominee, Wright’s background as a fracking company CEO flies in the face of the Department's stated purpose, which is to “foster a secure and reliable…
At least 10 people have been confirmed dead as wildfires continue to torch through Los Angeles County in the region’s most destructive fires in history. Officials warn that strong winds will persist into Thursday, further hampering ongoing firefighting efforts.
As of this writing, 180,000 people are under mandatory evacuation orders. Thousands of structures and entire neighborhoods have beendestroyed. While fire officials are still investigating the causes, the fires have undeniablybeen fueled by the Santa Ana winds which at one point surpassed 100 mph. The National Weather Service has also attributed the extreme weather to low humidity levels and dry vegetation.
A 2023 study found climate change to be a significant contributor to California’s record-breaking wildfires over the past two decades.
One of the areas worst hit is the affluent Pacific Palisades neighborhood, where a main shopping center is owned by billionaire Rick Caruso.
This is what’s left of the Pacific Palisades. The mall survived. Most everything else is gone. Homes, apartment complexes… businesses. pic.twitter.com/Vfz721V48J
In direct response to the threat ofwater shortages,which officials fear could significantly hurt firefighting efforts, Mark Pestrella, director of Los Angeles County Public Works, emphasized that the hydrant system in the area was not designed to fight wildfires. “That’s why air support is so critical to the firefight and, unfortunately, wind and air visibility have prevented that support,” Pestrella said, urging residents not to use water to fight the fires to conserve it for firefighters.
“It is really quite futile to attempt to fight fire with your hose at your house,” he added.
Dozens of schools in LA County remain closed. Alberto M. Carvalho, the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, said, “We make the decision of closing schools with a very methodical and science-driven manner,” citing considerations such as air quality.
“National Weather Service has predicted a continued red flag weather event with strong winds and low humidities, placing all residents in Los Angeles County in danger,” said Marrone in an 8 am PT briefing Wednesday.
Marrone made a point to share that they had already arrested two people for looting. “If you are thinking of coming into these areas to steal in these residences you are going to be caught, you’re going to be arrested and you going to be prosecuted,”saidthe fire chief.
The first responders at the same press conference urged residents to comply with orders and stay vigilant about the fast–evolving emergency.
“Lastly we want to make sure everybody understands we are not out of danger yet, with the strong winds that continue to push through the city and county today, I will tell you we are all committed to our first responders to protecting lives and property” Marrone emphasized at the briefing.
Meanwhile, high-profile conservatives and President-elect Donald Trump have wasted no time blaming Democratic lawmakers for the fires. Trump claimed Gov. Newsom, whom he referred to as “Newscum,” wanted “to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt, by giving it less water (it didn’t work!), but didn’t care about the people of California.” Elon Musk and Caruso have also weighed in to criticize current democratic Mayor Karen Bass, who is in Ghana for the inauguration of Ghana President John Mahama. Bass is on her way back to LA as of Wednesday.
Caruso, who was Bass’s challenger in 2022, notably ran without a climate plan.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Still, the threat to humans is low according to the CDC. The agency has traced most human infections back to those handling livestock, and there’s been no reported transmission between people.
“I have dairies that are never coming back from this.”
But for cows and the dairy they produce, it’s a different story. This year was the first time the flu was detected in cows in the US,and it has ripped through many Western states’ dairy farms with startling speed. Since March, the virus has been found in cow herds of 16 states. For the last few months, infected herds have largely been concentrated in California—the state that makes up about 20 percent of the nation’s dairy industry. Last week, Texas, another one of the nation’s top dairy producing states, saw the reappearance of bird flu after two months without a detected outbreak.
In the industry hit hardest by bird flu, the poultry industry, the virus’ spread has resulted in the culling of entire flocks which has lead to higher egg prices on supermarket shelves. Will milk and butter prices soon go the same route? And how worried should you be about consuming dairy?
How exactly does bird flu affect dairy cows?
Some farmers are first identifying outbreaks in their herds through the color and density of the milk, in what they are coining “golden mastitis,” according to Milkweed, a dairy news publication. As early studies by University of Copenhagen researchers found, the virus latches onto dairy cows mammary glands, creating complications for the dairy industry beyond just the cow fatalities.
The virus is proving deadly to cows. According to Colorado State University Professor Jason Lombard, an infectious disease specialist for cattle, the case fatality rates based on a limited set of herds was zero to 15 percent. But California saw an even higher rate of up to 20 percent during a late summer heatwave in the states Central Valley. It was a warning for how the rising number of heatwaves and temps across the country could result in deadlier herd outbreaks in upcoming summers.
For some of the cows that survived, there was a dip in their dairy production of around 25 percent according to multiple experts I spoke with. As a farmer told Bloomberg News,some of the cows aren’t returning to full production levels, an indication of longer lasting effects of the virus. It’s a finding experts are seeing in other parts of the US, too. According to Lombard, this may be due to the severity of the virus in the cow. According to reporting in Milkweed, there may also be “long-tail” bird flu impacts on a cow’s dairy production, health, and reproduction. Additional research is likely needed to understand the extent of these potential longterm effects of the virus and whether they could spell trouble ahead for recovering farms.
A spokesperson with the California Department of Food and Agriculture told Mother Jones, “it’s too soon to know how production has been impacted.”
How is this impacting farms and farm workers?
As of today, more than half of the people who’ve contracted H5N1 are dairy farmworkers, according to the CDC. This population is particularly vulnerable because they are often the ones handling milking or milking equipment which can lead to spreading the virus. The CDC is recommending employers take steps to reduce their workers’ exposure to the virus by creating health and safety plans.
The CDC is working with organizations like the National Center for Farm Worker Health to expand testing, PPE availability, and training. According to Bethany Alcauter, a director at the organization, ensuring dairy farmworkers have access to testing is a tricky situation. The 100,000-some workforce faces barriers to accessing health care and testing, such as an inability to take paid-time off to get themselves tested if they are sick. And the system depends on the producer to decide to bring in the health department to oversee potential outbreaks within herds and staff, which doesn’t always happen because there’s no government mandate.
“It’s all recommendations and kindness—that’s what we’re running on. It’s not regulation and enforcement.”
“It’s all recommendations and kindness—that’s what we’re running on,” Alcauter says. “It’s not regulation and enforcement.” She believes thetesting infrastructure could be strengthenedby “recognizing that farm workers can be public-health first responders if they have the knowledge and the access to the right contacts, in the right system.”
Outside of navigating farmworker health, farmers face economic impacts when the virus spreads through their herds. “What you’re losing at the end of the day is revenue for your farm when it rolls through,” says Will Loux, vice president of economic affairs for the National Milk Producers Federation. “Depending on the financial situation of an individual farm it can certainly be devastating.”
There are a handful of variables and factors that shape the financial losses of a dairy hit with an outbreak. Luckily, agriculture economist Charles Nicholson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and some colleagues created a calculator to estimate this financial impact of a bird flu outbreak. Based on Nicholson’s estimates for California, a typical farm of 1500 cattle will lose $120,000 annually. For context, this is about $10,000 more than the median household income of a dairy farmer. Based on those estimates, that would mean California’s farmers have collectively lost about $80 millionat most due to avian flu so far. The US Department of Agriculture is providing support for farmers who are impacted by H5N1 outbreaks.
In reviewing a few herd datasets in Michigan, Phillip Durst, a dairy and cattle expert, noted that about half a year after an outbreak, herds were producing around 10 percent less than before. Not only do farmers face massive short term losses, they also struggle to return to full capacity again. And, there arehigh costs associated with putting resources into taking care of sick animals too.
Even strong diaries that had “tip top” biosecurity measures, or comprehensive environmental protection measures in place, are shutting down, according to Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of Western Untied Dairies, a trade organization overseeing farms across California. “I have dairies that are never coming back from this,” Raudabaugh says. “This was just so cataclysmic for them. They’re not going to be able to get over that loss in production hump.”
There is some hope around the corner. A vaccine for cows, which the USDA claims is in the works, could help stop the spread and protect remaining uninfected herds. “Until we have a vaccine that we can inoculate them with at an early age, we have no choices except to hope that herd immunity sets in soon,” Raudabaugh says.
What’s the effect on milk?
In June, the US dropped 1.5 percent in production, around 278 million pounds of milk, compared to 2023. It was one of the early potential indicators of the industry’s vulnerability to this virus. However, since then, the nation’s production rebounded to above 2023 numbers. It’s largely why consumers are not seeing the same impact on the price and availability ofdairy products like they are with eggs.
“When one state gets H5N1 there are a lot of other states that tend to pick up the slack. So in general, when you look at the national numbers, you really have to squint to kind of find where H5N1 is in the milk production”,” says Loux.
California produces around a fifth of the nation’s dairy, and since August over half of the state’s herds had an outbreak. In October, California saw a near four percent drop in milk production compared to 2023, equating toabout 127 million pounds of milk.
On Thursday, the USDA released November’s data on milk production showing California with the largest decrease this year of 301 million fewergallons of milk compared to 2023. That is more than double the decrease of last month. Still, the nation only saw a near 1 percent decrease since 2023.
How the next administration handles this virus may spell a different story for the dairy industry and the country. With Trump’s history of downplaying infectious diseases and promoting unfounded cures, and public health cabinetnominations who decry vaccine effectiveness, a human-to-human outbreak could lead to another pandemic. Likely to take over the USDA is Brooke Rollins, who, according to Politico, had less experience in agriculture than others on Trump’s shortlist (though she does have a degree in agriculture development). It’s currently unclear what her plans are for handling this virus and supporting farmers and the industry at large. Rollins did not respond to my request for an interview.
Should I be worried about getting sick from drinking milk?
Drinking pasteurized milk is safe. For more than 100 years, pasteurization has kept the public safe by killing harmful bacteria and viruses.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the likely soon-to-be director of Health and Human Services under Trump, has a history of promoting raw milk. Earlier this month, Kennedy’s favorite raw milk brand was recalled by California after testing positive for bird flu. Kennedy’s rise to public health power comes at time when raw milk is rising in popularity on TikTok.
In response to the spread of bird flu in raw milk, the USDA announced a national strategy requiring milk samples nationwide be tested by the agency. Since officially beginning testing on Monday, 16 new bird flu outbreaks in cow herds have been identified in two states.
For now, as the nation continues to work on controlling the spread of bird flu, consider tossing your raw milk out before it does more than just spoil.
Still, the threat to humans is low according to the CDC. The agency has traced most human infections back to those handling livestock, and there’s been no reported transmission between people.
“I have dairies that are never coming back from this.”
But for cows and the dairy they produce, it’s a different story. This year was the first time the flu was detected in cows in the US,and it has ripped through many Western states’ dairy farms with startling speed. Since March, the virus has been found in cow herds of 16 states. For the last few months, infected herds have largely been concentrated in California—the state that makes up about 20 percent of the nation’s dairy industry. Last week, Texas, another one of the nation’s top dairy producing states, saw the reappearance of bird flu after two months without a detected outbreak.
In the industry hit hardest by bird flu, the poultry industry, the virus’ spread has resulted in the culling of entire flocks which has lead to higher egg prices on supermarket shelves. Will milk and butter prices soon go the same route? And how worried should you be about consuming dairy?
How exactly does bird flu affect dairy cows?
Some farmers are first identifying outbreaks in their herds through the color and density of the milk, in what they are coining “golden mastitis,” according to Milkweed, a dairy news publication. As early studies by University of Copenhagen researchers found, the virus latches onto dairy cows mammary glands, creating complications for the dairy industry beyond just the cow fatalities.
The virus is proving deadly to cows. According to Colorado State University Professor Jason Lombard, an infectious disease specialist for cattle, the case fatality rates based on a limited set of herds was zero to 15 percent. But California saw an even higher rate of up to 20 percent during a late summer heatwave in the states Central Valley. It was a warning for how the rising number of heatwaves and temps across the country could result in deadlier herd outbreaks in upcoming summers.
For some of the cows that survived, there was a dip in their dairy production of around 25 percent according to multiple experts I spoke with. As a farmer told Bloomberg News,some of the cows aren’t returning to full production levels, an indication of longer lasting effects of the virus. It’s a finding experts are seeing in other parts of the US, too. According to Lombard, this may be due to the severity of the virus in the cow. According to reporting in Milkweed, there may also be “long-tail” bird flu impacts on a cow’s dairy production, health, and reproduction. Additional research is likely needed to understand the extent of these potential longterm effects of the virus and whether they could spell trouble ahead for recovering farms.
A spokesperson with the California Department of Food and Agriculture told Mother Jones, “it’s too soon to know how production has been impacted.”
How is this impacting farms and farm workers?
As of today, more than half of the people who’ve contracted H5N1 are dairy farmworkers, according to the CDC. This population is particularly vulnerable because they are often the ones handling milking or milking equipment which can lead to spreading the virus. The CDC is recommending employers take steps to reduce their workers’ exposure to the virus by creating health and safety plans.
The CDC is working with organizations like the National Center for Farm Worker Health to expand testing, PPE availability, and training. According to Bethany Alcauter, a director at the organization, ensuring dairy farmworkers have access to testing is a tricky situation. The 100,000-some workforce faces barriers to accessing health care and testing, such as an inability to take paid-time off to get themselves tested if they are sick. And the system depends on the producer to decide to bring in the health department to oversee potential outbreaks within herds and staff, which doesn’t always happen because there’s no government mandate.
“It’s all recommendations and kindness—that’s what we’re running on. It’s not regulation and enforcement.”
“It’s all recommendations and kindness—that’s what we’re running on,” Alcauter says. “It’s not regulation and enforcement.” She believes thetesting infrastructure could be strengthenedby “recognizing that farm workers can be public-health first responders if they have the knowledge and the access to the right contacts, in the right system.”
Outside of navigating farmworker health, farmers face economic impacts when the virus spreads through their herds. “What you’re losing at the end of the day is revenue for your farm when it rolls through,” says Will Loux, vice president of economic affairs for the National Milk Producers Federation. “Depending on the financial situation of an individual farm it can certainly be devastating.”
There are a handful of variables and factors that shape the financial losses of a dairy hit with an outbreak. Luckily, agriculture economist Charles Nicholson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and some colleagues created a calculator to estimate this financial impact of a bird flu outbreak. Based on Nicholson’s estimates for California, a typical farm of 1500 cattle will lose $120,000 annually. For context, this is about $10,000 more than the median household income of a dairy farmer. Based on those estimates, that would mean California’s farmers have collectively lost about $80 millionat most due to avian flu so far. The US Department of Agriculture is providing support for farmers who are impacted by H5N1 outbreaks.
In reviewing a few herd datasets in Michigan, Phillip Durst, a dairy and cattle expert, noted that about half a year after an outbreak, herds were producing around 10 percent less than before. Not only do farmers face massive short term losses, they also struggle to return to full capacity again. And, there arehigh costs associated with putting resources into taking care of sick animals too.
Even strong diaries that had “tip top” biosecurity measures, or comprehensive environmental protection measures in place, are shutting down, according to Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of Western Untied Dairies, a trade organization overseeing farms across California. “I have dairies that are never coming back from this,” Raudabaugh says. “This was just so cataclysmic for them. They’re not going to be able to get over that loss in production hump.”
There is some hope around the corner. A vaccine for cows, which the USDA claims is in the works, could help stop the spread and protect remaining uninfected herds. “Until we have a vaccine that we can inoculate them with at an early age, we have no choices except to hope that herd immunity sets in soon,” Raudabaugh says.
What’s the effect on milk?
In June, the US dropped 1.5 percent in production, around 278 million pounds of milk, compared to 2023. It was one of the early potential indicators of the industry’s vulnerability to this virus. However, since then, the nation’s production rebounded to above 2023 numbers. It’s largely why consumers are not seeing the same impact on the price and availability ofdairy products like they are with eggs.
“When one state gets H5N1 there are a lot of other states that tend to pick up the slack. So in general, when you look at the national numbers, you really have to squint to kind of find where H5N1 is in the milk production”,” says Loux.
California produces around a fifth of the nation’s dairy, and since August over half of the state’s herds had an outbreak. In October, California saw a near four percent drop in milk production compared to 2023, equating toabout 127 million pounds of milk.
On Thursday, the USDA released November’s data on milk production showing California with the largest decrease this year of 301 million fewergallons of milk compared to 2023. That is more than double the decrease of last month. Still, the nation only saw a near 1 percent decrease since 2023.
How the next administration handles this virus may spell a different story for the dairy industry and the country. With Trump’s history of downplaying infectious diseases and promoting unfounded cures, and public health cabinetnominations who decry vaccine effectiveness, a human-to-human outbreak could lead to another pandemic. Likely to take over the USDA is Brooke Rollins, who, according to Politico, had less experience in agriculture than others on Trump’s shortlist (though she does have a degree in agriculture development). It’s currently unclear what her plans are for handling this virus and supporting farmers and the industry at large. Rollins did not respond to my request for an interview.
Should I be worried about getting sick from drinking milk?
Drinking pasteurized milk is safe. For more than 100 years, pasteurization has kept the public safe by killing harmful bacteria and viruses.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the likely soon-to-be director of Health and Human Services under Trump, has a history of promoting raw milk. Earlier this month, Kennedy’s favorite raw milk brand was recalled by California after testing positive for bird flu. Kennedy’s rise to public health power comes at time when raw milk is rising in popularity on TikTok.
In response to the spread of bird flu in raw milk, the USDA announced a national strategy requiring milk samples nationwide be tested by the agency. Since officially beginning testing on Monday, 16 new bird flu outbreaks in cow herds have been identified in two states.
For now, as the nation continues to work on controlling the spread of bird flu, consider tossing your raw milk out before it does more than just spoil.
The bird flu’s been around for generations. But this year, concerns have spiked after it jumped to humans and other mammals, leading to at least 58 confirmed cases in the United States among mostly farmworkers.
Another, more obvious, cause for worry: The response to the prospective health crisis will soon be under the direction of President-elect Donald Trump. The former and future president will arrive in office next month with a track record of downplaying the severity of Covid-19, pushing unfounded cures, sharing conspiracy theories, and brandishing xenophobic rhetoric regarding Covid-19. A Lancetstudy found that under the Trump administration the US could have averted about 40 percent of its Covid-19 deaths compared to other high-income, G7 countries, and that’s partly due to the Trump administration’s manner of handling the crisis by politicizing masks and publicly dismissing its threat.
Additionally, Trump is angling to bring prominent vaccine deniers to oversee agencies crucial to the nation’s bird flu response. If Trump gets his way, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be led by Tom Weldon, who has sought to remove the agency’s ability to conduct vaccine safety research and has spread vaccine misinformation himself. He also tapped Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “go wild on health” as the director of Health and Human Services. Kennedy was labeled one of the “Disinformation Dozen” for spreading misinformation about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccine, and his anti-vaccine efforts contributed to a deadly 2019 measles outbreak in American Samoa. He has also stated “there’s no vaccine that is safe and effective,” and is apparently a fan of raw milk, which can be a conduit for spreading bird flu.
“I don’t see our management of H5N1, which is already really bad, improving under a new administration.”
And more dangerous public health policy could be on the horizon. Project 2025 placed a target on the back of the CDC, calling it “perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” and proposed cutting it in half. Eight former CDC directors, including Trump’s 2017 and 2018 appointees, opined that such a policy would “cost lives and damage the economy.”
The CDC has always been intertwined with politics, from its director appointments to lobbying for money from congress. Yet the Covid-19 pandemic saw the CDC take on a new level of distrust and a decline in reputation, especially from Republicans. It led Congress to require congressional approval for a CDC director instead of just a tap from the incoming administration, making Weldon the first CDC nomination to undergo congressional scrutiny and approval.
This is all part of the larger, Covid-era “politicization of the CDC,” says epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, a public health expert and host of the COVID Tracking Project serieswith Reveal.
“Public health became public enemy number one for a lot of folks that are coming in with this new administration,” Malaty Rivera said.
Public health in America has long been considered underresourced and disconnected, and that lack of data-sharing and organization was on full display when the Covid-19 pandemic took hold in 2020.
Reveal’s Peabody-nominated COVID Tracking Project series explored how the government struggled to procure essential data to guide the Covid-19 response, navigate bureaucratic hindrances in the midst of an emergency, and mend a fragmented response to the pandemic. Many of these issues rested on weak data infrastructure and a lack of funding to support local public health agencies, causing the federal government to rely on a volunteer-led data collection effort. Public health agencies are working on fixing those issues, but the anticipated cuts will likely stymie those efforts and exacerbate the systemic problems.
“The public is looking at this new administration to come in and ‘clean house’ because they’re looking at this as retribution for how they experienced the Covid-19 pandemic,” Malaty Rivera said.
Not all systems have improved since the pandemic. During the 2020 outbreak, the federal government got every hospital to report Covid-19 data, making hospitalization data the most real-time indicator of the severity of surges. It provided the nation with immense public health surveillance capacity, but the Biden administration scaled this back and now the CDC surveils an estimated 10 percent of the nation’s population, leaving the United States with limited information about the ongoing spread and risks of viruses like avian flu.
Last year, Biden-appointed CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told Reveal that the CDC is unable to require states to share essential response data with them. She offered a potential solution: “Working with Congress, I think we could create authorities that would protect privacy, that would protect individuals, but that would allow… swift and nimble public health responses that we don’t have with the data systems we have in place right now,” Walensky said.
But Congress did not grant the CDC those data authority powers, and the possibility of this seems even less likely under the next administration.
Walensky resigned from her post at the CDC soon after this interview aired, replaced by the current CDC director, Dr. Mandy Cohen. Cohen has conducted few interviews and largely centered the agency’s messaging on prepared public appearances and social media posts. The CDC denied multiple requests by Reveal for an interview with Cohen. However, Cohen answered questions swirling about the CDC’s future at a roundtable discussion in Raleigh, North Carolina, a day before the election.
“A well-funded CDC allows communities to thrive, but we all need to bring the data and the evidence to show that that money is working well here,” said Cohen.
A week after Trump’s election, she spoke about how the CDC might fare in the face of this next administration at a public health summit. She shared concerns for the proposed budgets that would “zero out” their ability to do work.
“Fundamentally, folks want to make sure we have an entity that is ready to respond to health threats and that means we need data infrastructure to identify those things [and] have people who are talented to understand how to respond,” Cohen said. “This kind of work and that infrastructure takes resources and you need to maintain it.”
With the looming threats of Project 2025 and a vaccine denier poised to lead the agency, Malaty Rivera believes the CDC is about to “have its legs cut off” by the incoming administration. She believes the impact of this will extend globally as it will also slash funding to international health organizations that “help keep vaccine preventable diseases from becoming outbreaks and epidemics, and then pandemics, potentially.”
Although Malaty Rivera hasn’t seen the type of changes in the bird flu virus that would cause pandemic “alarm bells,” it is still a growing issue that is testing the US’s public health response systems. Malaty Rivera sees the Biden administration repeating some of the same Covid-19 mistakes, like a lack of available rapid testing and data transparency.
“I don’t see our management of H5N1, which is already really bad, improving under a new administration,” said Malaty Rivera. “It’s about to get worse.”
The CDC still sees bird flu as a low risk to the public. The outbreak appears largely contained to farm animals and farmworkers, with the majority of human cases in California. While the CDC is monitoring bird flu outbreaks through wastewater systems, there seems to be a lack of a robust testing system that makes experts believe the current case count is likely an undercount.
Last month the CDC said it has seen no evidence of human-to-human transmission. But several people who contracted the bird flu have reportedly not been in contact with infected animals, raising fears about human-to-human spread. There is still trepidation from public health experts about an unlikely but possible path: that the seasonal flu and bird flu could cohabitate in a person infected with both, and mutate into something more capable of infecting humans. It’s why the CDC has encouraged seasonal flu shots in hopes of reducing the chance of co-infection.
On Monday night, Christian Pulisic, the star of the US men’s national soccer team, scored in a match against Jamaica and promptly jogged over to the corner flag. After a jumping fist pump, the red, white, and blue bedecked central midfielder did what’s become known as the “Trump Dance,” laughing as he wiggled his arms and hips.
This dance is more than just “fun.” It’s a symbol of shifts in power and policy.
In a post-game interview, Pulisic—a multi-millionaire who is a registered Republican—was questioned about his celebration, and disavowed that it carried any deeper meaning: “It’s not a political dance. It was just for fun.”
No matter what Pulisic intended, there’s no denying he’s part of a larger wave of athletes, from the NFL to the collegiate level, who in the wake of Trump’s 2024 win have been imitating the president-elect’s dance, which he is known to perform along to “YMCA.”
In discussing the trend, Fox News liberal commentator Jessica Tarlov identified a hypocrisy in contrast to the national stick-to-sports outrages that followed political statements by stars like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James: “I guess we’ve gotten to the portion of the Trump era where we have moved past shut up and dribble, and now it is fantastic for athletes to talk about their politics.”
There’s no doubt some athletes are doing the dance as a show of support for Trump and his agenda. Take San Francisco 49ers pass-rusher Nick Bosa, who, a week before the election, wore a “Make America Great Again” hat during a post-game appearance. He was eventually docked $11,255 for breaking rules barring displaying written messages on the field, but, as the Wall Street Journal reported, the NFL delayed the fine until after Election Day in hopes of avoiding controversy or retribution from Trump. The following Sunday, Bosa did Trump’s dance in celebration of a sack; a video went viral after being shared by Sean Hannity on social media.
Trump’s election win is visible beyond American athletes. Players from the English football club Barnsley F.C—founded in 1887 and now playing in the third tier of professional British soccer—celebrated a goal with the dance. The display was broadcast to the world by the team’s social media managers, who shared a video backed up by the sounds of YMCA. And this month’s attacks in Amsterdam on Israeli soccer fans were kicked off after at least one supporter of Maccabi Tel-Aviv, the visiting team, was photographed hoisting a Trump banner.
As Trump’s win reverberates in American culture and across the world, his reelection has confirmed his status as a global right-wing figure. In that sense, symbols that are associated with him will always speak to shifts in power and policy. When they crop up in sports, it’s hard to argue they are simply “just for fun.”
On Monday night, Christian Pulisic, the star of the US men’s national soccer team, scored in a match against Jamaica and promptly jogged over to the corner flag. After a jumping fist pump, the red, white, and blue bedecked central midfielder did what’s become known as the “Trump Dance,” laughing as he wiggled his arms and hips.
This dance is more than just “fun.” It’s a symbol of shifts in power and policy.
In a post-game interview, Pulisic—a multi-millionaire who is a registered Republican—was questioned about his celebration, and disavowed that it carried any deeper meaning: “It’s not a political dance. It was just for fun.”
No matter what Pulisic intended, there’s no denying he’s part of a larger wave of athletes, from the NFL to the collegiate level, who in the wake of Trump’s 2024 win have been imitating the president-elect’s dance, which he is known to perform along to “YMCA.”
In discussing the trend, Fox News liberal commentator Jessica Tarlov identified a hypocrisy in contrast to the national stick-to-sports outrages that followed political statements by stars like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James: “I guess we’ve gotten to the portion of the Trump era where we have moved past shut up and dribble, and now it is fantastic for athletes to talk about their politics.”
There’s no doubt some athletes are doing the dance as a show of support for Trump and his agenda. Take San Francisco 49ers pass-rusher Nick Bosa, who, a week before the election, wore a “Make America Great Again” hat during a post-game appearance. He was eventually docked $11,255 for breaking rules barring displaying written messages on the field, but, as the Wall Street Journal reported, the NFL delayed the fine until after Election Day in hopes of avoiding controversy or retribution from Trump. The following Sunday, Bosa did Trump’s dance in celebration of a sack; a video went viral after being shared by Sean Hannity on social media.
Trump’s election win is visible beyond American athletes. Players from the English football club Barnsley F.C—founded in 1887 and now playing in the third tier of professional British soccer—celebrated a goal with the dance. The display was broadcast to the world by the team’s social media managers, who shared a video backed up by the sounds of YMCA. And this month’s attacks in Amsterdam on Israeli soccer fans were kicked off after at least one supporter of Maccabi Tel-Aviv, the visiting team, was photographed hoisting a Trump banner.
As Trump’s win reverberates in American culture and across the world, his reelection has confirmed his status as a global right-wing figure. In that sense, symbols that are associated with him will always speak to shifts in power and policy. When they crop up in sports, it’s hard to argue they are simply “just for fun.”
As Georgia vote counters page through the absentee and mail-in ballots, a few folks seated nearby who self-identify as “poll observers” are watching closely. A new election law in Georgia permitted anyone designated by an “independent candidate, nonpartisan candidate, a political party, or political body” to gain more access to voting centers and tabulation sites. Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump—who happens to be former President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law—and RNC Chair Michael Whatley embarked on a drive to recruit more than 200,000 poll watchers. As absentee and mail-in ballots began to be tallied this weekend, Whatley tweeted, “We have eyes in the room as votes are being counted.”
Live from Fulton County, Georgia… meet the self-appointed "vote monitors" looking for fraud: pic.twitter.com/tAOA2hqdVt
Mother Jones editor andsenior reporter Kiera Butler lives in Georgia and visited the Fulton County Elections Hub and Operations Center, where she spoke with a few poll observers. She wondered why they were there, who they voted for, and what they thought about the 2020 election. Rodney Kelso, a Trump supporter from Chattahoochee Hills, wanted to observe and “make sure everything is fair and we have a smooth process.” Kelso believed the 2020 presidential election was riddled with problems and believes mail-in ballots made the US vulnerable to “more fraud and nefarious deeds.” Rodney’s wife, Debi, also a Trump supporter, who shares her husband’s suspicions about the 2020 election, signed on to observe the count in Fulton County because she wanted to see the process up close.
As far as the January 6 attack on the US Capitol is concerned, both Rodney and Debi believe it was a farce. “It was a coup d’état,” said Rodney, “Our government was overthrown by foreign agents.” These were not Trump supporters storming the Capitol, they said. Debi believes the FBI was in on it.
Accepting the results of the 2024 election for Debi will be no problem “if there’s no cheating and everything’s on the up and up,” she said. “Then the winners win, the losers lose, regardless of who it is.”
Today, voters in several states will get a say on ballot measures related to climate initiatives. Across the country, there are hotly debated propositions surrounding pipeline construction, climate infrastructure, and carbon reduction. (And fate of the planet aside, there’s also one referendum that could usher in a new tree-centric, state flag.)
Here’s a round-up of the green issues, big and small, that some voters will see on their ballot.
Alabama: Amendment 1 Currently, Alabama schools hold lands that are managed by the state’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which has prevented its timberland from being sold or leased. This amendment could allow some local boards of education to manage, sell, or lease land and its natural resources to fund education.
California: Proposition 4 California voters are deciding whether to allocate another $10 billion to climate change preparedness infrastructure projects. The money would go to preventing wildfires, developing drought and coastal resilience, mitigating rising sea level impact, improving drinking water, and other related projects, with 40 percent of the funding destined for disadvantaged communities.
Louisiana: Outer Continental Shelf Revenues for Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund Amendment Louisiana voters will decide whether money the state generates from the production of wind, solar, or other alternative energy on the Outer Continental Shelf will, like similar revenue from oil and gas, be used to fund wetlands preservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, and infrastructure directly impacted by wetlands loss.
Maine: Question 5 Maine’s flag might get a green boost. Residents will vote on replacing the state seal-based flag with one bearing the image of a pine tree and the North Star, inspired by “an Eastern White Pine in Governor’s Grove at Viles Arboretum,” according to the artist.
Minnesota: Amendment 1 If passed, Minnesota will be allowed to extend for another 25 years a program allocating 40 percent of the state’s lottery revenue into the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, which supports conservation projects.
Rhode Island: Question 4 Ocean State voters will weigh issuing $53 million in bonds to fund environmental infrastructure projects, including wind development projects and climate change resilience efforts.
South Dakota: Referred Law 21 South Dakotans will have a say in an ongoing battle surrounding a $5.5 billion carbon dioxide pipeline network and landowners rights. Supporters of the so-called “Landowner Bill of Rights,” argue it will create regulatory uniformity, protect private property, and boost agriculture. The opposition describes this bill as a ”trojan horse” for the pipeline company behind the project, Summit Carbon Solutions, allowing it to bypass local government by undermining “local control over zoning laws, pipeline setbacks, and other vital safety measures.”
Washington: Initiative 2066 This initiative, funded by fossil fuel and construction groups, would hinder, or even ban, government efforts to incentivize replacing gas stoves with energy-efficient electric appliances.
Initiative 2117 Residents of the Evergreen state may also vote to repeal its 2021 Climate Commitment Act, a carbon market program that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 95 percent by 2050. As of 2023, the program took in over $2 billion from the state’s largest polluters—money that went into environmental programs.
Across the country, you can find small town diners and watering holes proudly displaying photos of a president stopping by on the campaign trail. It’s not only a memento of how the person who got the nuclear codes may have ordered a burger or a slice of rhubarb pie—it’s a reminder of how voters have looked to national candidates’ food and beverage choices as one way to understand if inherently elite politicians are salt of the earth.
In forming her public image, Harris has showcased prowess in the kitchen.
This year, campaign season served up a buffet of food-related happenings and candidate signals, that sometimes, explains University of Buffalo political scientist Jacob Neiheisel, reveal politically salient “boundary markers between groups” and “status anxieties.”
One food gaffe that stands out in history came during incumbent Gerald Ford’s 1976 campaign, when he bit into a tamale in Texas, husk and all, and nearly choked. Such missteps are consequential, Neiheisel says, because it’s “seen as some kind of indicator that they’re out of touch with the electors, that they don’t know the people who they would be representing.”
This year, the closest we’ve come was JD Vance’s stop at Holt’s Sweet Shop, a Florida doughnut seller. His inability to engage the counter staff while standing draped in a suit and a seeming expectation that he’d be recognized—along with his order of “whatever makes sense”—brought national derision. As one succinct YouTube commenter put it, they had “never seen a VP candidate act with less charisma.”
Mountain Dew, also largely thanks to JD Vance, became a token of a certain kind of white manhood, after he, in attempting a jab against overreaching “woke” politics, spoke about drinking a Diet Mountain Dew and how Democrats were for some reason “going to call that racist.” A week later, Democrat vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz proved him wrong by reaffirming his historic love for Diet Dew, telling a voter online that drinking one was the best way to start a morning. In October, the Harris campaign published a video of a blaze orange-bedecked Walz hunting and holding a shotgun, saying he’s looking to “grab a Diet Dew” and “pound one down.” As that guns-and-ammo display suggests, “Diet Mountain Dew has something to say about masculinity,” Contois says, “but also about regionality,” referencing the drink’s “hillbilly”-tied branding and popularity across a so-called “Mountain Dew Belt” spanning parts of Appalachia and rural, middle America.
Despite Walz’s language calling to mind frat basement chugging, the Minnesota governor brings nearly 30 years of sobriety to the ticket. But when Kamala Harris went on Stephen Colbert’s show, the late night host brought up what he called one of the “old saws” of political likability: would I grab a beer with the candidate? (To play along, she was served a can of Miller High Life.)
But when it comes to playing politics with eating and drinking, Harris has largely been focused on letting voters know she likes to cook. That’s no surprise, according to the University of Tulsa’s Emily Contois, who has written that female candidates, in walking “an impossible line” of identity politics, often “navigate voter perceptions of both gender and electability through food and cooking.”
“You have to be masculine enough that they believe you can do the job,” Contois, a professor of media studies, says. “You have to be feminine enough that they think you’re a real woman and a believable one.”
Trump’s campaign bought McDonald’s more than 150 times—there’s no record Harris’ has once.
When Hillary Clinton ran for president, it was against the backdrop of the cultural controversy kicked off by her comments, amid her national introduction during her husband’s 1992 presidential campaign, about how she had prioritized a legal career over staying at home and baking cookies. While men seeking the highest office sometimes seem to relish stuffing their faces on camera, in her 2016 campaign Clinton told the press—during an appearance where she was offered but refused cheesecake—that she had long ago “learned early on not to eat in front of all of you.”
“When it comes to women and food and eating and dieting and bodies,” Contois says, “it becomes a tangled thing.”
In forming her public image, Harris has repeatedly showcased interest and prowess in the kitchen. In her 2020 democratic presidential primary campaign, she ran a video series called “Cooking with Kamala” where she cheffed it up with celebrities, comedians, and politicians. In her speech accepting the party’s vice presidential nomination that year, Contois has written about how, by mentioning cooking Sunday dinner for her family to bolster claim to the nickname of Mamala, Harris sought to “cast herself as politically competent and suitably feminine in the eyes of voters… while also foregrounding her role as a mother and nurturer.”
Contois believes the quirky recipe details shared by Harris on the campaign trail—such as soaking greens in the bathtub—indicates genuineness and true passion, but also a savvy strategy. “It’s coming across as both truth, and a tactic that can help to construct that believably feminine side that people would expect and want to see in a woman,” Contois said.
Harris’ cooking references have become a tool of attack. As Laura Loomer, the right-wing influencer who has spent time on the campaign trail alongside Trump, posted in September, “Kamala spends more time making cooking videos than she does speaking to the media.” Loomer also, in a tradition that traces at least as far back as stigmatizing Italian migrants’ use of garlic, made a smear out of Harris’ Indian heritage and cooking by posting she would make “the White House smell like curry.”
“The spice and the smell and the difference,” Contois says, “that’s a more than 100-year-old tactic … of how to other someone.” An extreme version was also used to target Haitian migrants by the Trump and Vance ticket, in their comments pushing the false notion the community was eating pet dogs and cats. “To eat the family pet—it’s this huge anthropological, cultural taboo,” Contois said. “That’s why the rumor could take root and do so much harm.”
Donald Trump found his own way to use a kitchen to reshape his public image in the campaign’s closing weeks, by making his stage-managed appearance behind a fryer and drive-thru window at a Pennsylvania McDonald’s. It was not only a reminder of his love for the company and fast food generally, but a salvo in his one-sided narrative battle about Harris’ actual experience working at a McDonald’s—one that contrasts with his own silver spoon-fed upbringing.
Harris’ cooking references have become a tool of attack.
Federal Elections Commission campaign spending data shows another clear Trump-Harris contrast related to McDonald’s. While his campaign has paid for food from the home of the Big Mac more than 150 times, there’s no record Harris’ has ordered even once. His team’s second most frequented food business is Dunkin’ Donuts, closely followed by Chick-fil-A, where he has spent over 10 times as much money as Harris. The Harris campaign, since it launched in July, has tended to go big on fast casual spots like Chipotle, where her campaign spent 15 times more than Trump’s, and Sweetgreen, where they spent three times as much as Trump.
Of course, to look beyond symbolism and such spending, the candidates have pushed policies that could affect what and how Americans eat. While Trump loves to blast the rise in cost of groceries, his plan to deport masses of immigrants has been predicted to cause an over 20 percent increase in the price of hand-picked crops while nearly doubling the price of milk. With those kind of stakes, it’s clear this year’s election has left voters with plenty to digest.
Earlier this month, the Lincoln Project rolled out an ad centered on abortion rights featuring a chilling line uttered by the narrator, a young woman, in a monologue addressed to her Trump-voting father: “You knew his politics would end my freedom, my rights, my life,” she says. “You chose hate over me.”
The ad, which depicts a woman dying in agony as she suffers complications while giving birth, was produced by the Lincoln Project to swing a demographic group they’ve dubbed “Dobbs Dads”—a group of men open to voting to protect or restore their daughters’ access to abortion—who just might be the downfall of Trump.
There’s evidence of such a shift in a recent Marist poll that showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading former President Donald Trump by 20 points among college educated white men—a 5 point improvement over Biden’s 2020 margin with the same demographic.
“We call them Dobbs Dads,” tweeted Joe Trippi, a veteran Democrat strategist who works with the Lincoln Project. “And they are breaking to Harris. One [of] our most important target groups.”
The Dobbs Dads moniker, of course, comes from the 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling where the justices, led by three Trump appointees, effectively ended the federal right to access abortion. In the wake of that decision, 13 states have outright banned abortion, mothers have died due to lack of abortion access, maternal deaths in Texas doubled, infant deaths rose nationally, and Idaho’s legislature disbanded committees designed to investigate causes of maternal deaths, obscuring public understanding of how that state’s abortion ban has impacted mothers. With nearly two thirds of the U.S. public believing abortion should be legal, including 61% of men according to Pew research, the fast changing legal regime has made abortion rights one of the election’s top issues.
Lincoln Project says it has identified roughly 680,000 Dobbs Dads in swing states.
According to Stuart Stevens, another Lincoln Project advisor, pregnancy related medical trauma has left more men open to voting against Trump, who has refused to rule out signing a federal abortion ban, and for Harris, who would work to restore abortion rights. Those men include, as Stevens recently told MSNBC, “voters who are more conservative than not, many of whom would check a box to say they are anti-abortion. But they are appalled by the specter of these tragedies.”
“These are men who really have prided themselves as being the defenders of their daughter,” explains Trippi, “They suddenly are looking at what that means in terms of the Dobbs decision as they think about their daughter’s future and the world she’d live in.”
The Lincoln Project says its Dobbs Dads strategy is based on research conducted by a sister organization, the Lincoln Democracy Institute. An April 2023 LDI survey of over 17,000 voters helped their team zero in on two voting groups they considered ripe for persuasion: Dobbs Dads, and another they dubbed Red Dawn Republicans—older GOP voters who prioritize traditional international alliances, particularly in opposition to Russia.
Alex Shashlo, who helps run the Lincoln Project’s digital campaigns, said their “super targeted talking to dads approach on abortion” led them to choose female narrators for “Daisy”—the nightmarish ad set in a delivery room—and another similar spot, “This Year.” The strategy was partially inspired by a viral video clip of Taylor Swift speaking with her father about taking a political stand ahead of the 2018 elections. “If Taylor Swift said, ‘Hey, talk to your dad’, to all her followers, that would be a pretty powerful thing,” Trippi said. LDI’s research confirmed that the concept of daughters having conversations about abortion with their fathers could be effective in reaching men.
In a close election, the targeted campaign could make all the difference. The Lincoln Project says it has identified roughly 680,000 Dobbs Dads in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. In a recent podcast, Trippi also mused on the demographic’s potential to “surprise people in these Senate races like in Florida, in Texas, maybe Montana.”
Earlier this month, the Lincoln Project rolled out an ad centered on abortion rights featuring a chilling line uttered by the narrator, a young woman, in a monologue addressed to her Trump-voting father: “You knew his politics would end my freedom, my rights, my life,” she says. “You chose hate over me.”
The ad, which depicts a woman dying in agony as she suffers complications while giving birth, was produced by the Lincoln Project to swing a demographic group they’ve dubbed “Dobbs Dads”—a group of men open to voting to protect or restore their daughters’ access to abortion—who just might be the downfall of Trump.
There’s evidence of such a shift in a recent Marist poll that showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading former President Donald Trump by 20 points among college educated white men—a 5 point improvement over Biden’s 2020 margin with the same demographic.
“We call them Dobbs Dads,” tweeted Joe Trippi, a veteran Democrat strategist who works with the Lincoln Project. “And they are breaking to Harris. One [of] our most important target groups.”
The Dobbs Dads moniker, of course, comes from the 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling where the justices, led by three Trump appointees, effectively ended the federal right to access abortion. In the wake of that decision, 13 states have outright banned abortion, mothers have died due to lack of abortion access, maternal deaths in Texas doubled, infant deaths rose nationally, and Idaho’s legislature disbanded committees designed to investigate causes of maternal deaths, obscuring public understanding of how that state’s abortion ban has impacted mothers. With nearly two thirds of the U.S. public believing abortion should be legal, including 61% of men according to Pew research, the fast changing legal regime has made abortion rights one of the election’s top issues.
Lincoln Project says it has identified roughly 680,000 Dobbs Dads in swing states.
According to Stuart Stevens, another Lincoln Project advisor, pregnancy related medical trauma has left more men open to voting against Trump, who has refused to rule out signing a federal abortion ban, and for Harris, who would work to restore abortion rights. Those men include, as Stevens recently told MSNBC, “voters who are more conservative than not, many of whom would check a box to say they are anti-abortion. But they are appalled by the specter of these tragedies.”
“These are men who really have prided themselves as being the defenders of their daughter,” explains Trippi, “They suddenly are looking at what that means in terms of the Dobbs decision as they think about their daughter’s future and the world she’d live in.”
The Lincoln Project says its Dobbs Dads strategy is based on research conducted by a sister organization, the Lincoln Democracy Institute. An April 2023 LDI survey of over 17,000 voters helped their team zero in on two voting groups they considered ripe for persuasion: Dobbs Dads, and another they dubbed Red Dawn Republicans—older GOP voters who prioritize traditional international alliances, particularly in opposition to Russia.
Alex Shashlo, who helps run the Lincoln Project’s digital campaigns, said their “super targeted talking to dads approach on abortion” led them to choose female narrators for “Daisy”—the nightmarish ad set in a delivery room—and another similar spot, “This Year.” The strategy was partially inspired by a viral video clip of Taylor Swift speaking with her father about taking a political stand ahead of the 2018 elections. “If Taylor Swift said, ‘Hey, talk to your dad’, to all her followers, that would be a pretty powerful thing,” Trippi said. LDI’s research confirmed that the concept of daughters having conversations about abortion with their fathers could be effective in reaching men.
In a close election, the targeted campaign could make all the difference. The Lincoln Project says it has identified roughly 680,000 Dobbs Dads in the swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. In a recent podcast, Trippi also mused on the demographic’s potential to “surprise people in these Senate races like in Florida, in Texas, maybe Montana.”