Donald Trump’s Cabinet appointeesare not the only source of controversy in his transition back to the White House.
On Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages the functioning of federal agencies, to warn that the Trump transition team has refused to sign memoranda of understanding with the Biden-Harris administration. All prior presidents-elect have signed the agreements, which outline how the administrations will work together; one of them, for example, would allow the FBI under the current administration to conduct background checks on Trump’s nominees. Another would facilitate the Trump team’s national security clearances required to receive classified intelligence briefings before he assumes office. “The Trump team’s unprecedented refusal to sign agreements with the outgoing administration threatens the American public by hamstringing incoming officials’ ability to govern responsibly,” Warren writes.
The refusal to publish the ethics code heightens “the risk of the incoming administration governing for the benefit of special interests rather than the American public.”
On top of that, Trump’s transition team has yet to publish a full ethics code on the GSA website addressing how he will deal with his conflicts of interest, as required by a law that Trump himself passed in 2020. Warren’s letter notes that while the Trump team has published its own ethics code, “it includes nothing about how President-elect Trump will manage his own extensive financial conflicts of interest—which experts anticipate will be one of the most alarming corruption challenges of the incoming administration.” The refusal to publish the ethics code, Warren says, heightens “the risk of the incoming administration governing for the benefit of special interests rather than the American public.”
As the New York Timesreported Sunday, it’s possible these “special interests” could, in fact, be helping to fund the Trump transition: Because the Trump team has not signed a memorandum of understanding with the GSA that was due Sept. 1, they have been able to shield the names of donors to the transition. If the Trump transition had entered into the agreement, they would have to publicly disclose donors, each of whom would have an individual giving limit of $5,000—but the Trump team would have been able to access $7.2 million in federal funds to help with the costs of the transition.
Trump is also reportedly the first president to circumvent this agreement, which seems to suggest his team thinks he can raise more from donors without being limited to the $5,000 cap per individual donor. But as one expert told the Times, it could come at a serious ethical cost:
“When the money isn’t disclosed, it’s not clear how much everybody is giving, who is giving it and what they are getting in return for their donations,” said Heath Brown, a professor of public policy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who studies presidential transitions. “It’s an area where the vast majority of Americans would agree that they want to know who is paying that bill.”
In her letter to the GSA, Warren asks them to respond by December 5 to questions about how the agency is engaging with the Trump transition and the impacts of the Trump team’s lack of compliance with federal law. Spokespeople for the Trump transition team and the GSA did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones on Sunday morning.
On a day meant to commemorate the transgender people who have been murdered in violent acts of bigotry, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) have united in bringing their transphobia to Congress.
On Wednesday, one day after Mace introduced a resolution to bar trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, Johnson unilaterally announced a policy doing just that. If enforced, the rule will apply to trans people using bathrooms and locker rooms in the Capitol building and House offices.
“Women deserve women’s only spaces,” Johnson told reporters. “And we’re not anti-anyone, we’re pro-woman.”
“It’s always been, I guess, an unwritten policy,” he added, “but now it’s in writing.” In an emailed statement, Johnson said, “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol.”
Speaker Johnson just now: “Yeah like all House policies it's enforceable. Look, we have single-sex facilities for a reason. Women deserve women's only spaces. And we're not anti-anyone, we're pro-woman. I think it's an important policy for us to continue.” pic.twitter.com/m3FakHHoz7
As I wrote yesterday, although Mace’s resolution does not mention Rep.-elect Sarah McBride by name, Mace said the effort is “absolutely” meant to target McBride, the first openly trans person to be elected to Congress. (Mace has also repeatedly misgendered her on social media.) On Monday, McBride called Mace’s resolution “a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing” and alleged that Mace was “manufacturing culture wars.” After Johnson announced his support for it Wednesday, McBride responded in a lengthy statement posted on X, calling the bathroom ban an “effort to distract from the real issues facing this country.”
“Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them,” McBride wrote, adding that she is looking “forward to getting to know my future colleagues on both sides of the aisle.”
Johnson on Wednesday claimed the policy would be enforceable, but did not say how. He also did not commit to including it in the Rules package, which outlines protocol for the House, and which members will vote on at the start of the next session in early January. Mace’s resolution says the House Sergeant-at-Arms would be charged with enforcing the rule; that office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
LGBTQ advocateshave since slammed the policy—and questioned how it could even be enforced. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, called Johnson’s announcement “a cruel and unnecessary rule that puts countless staff, interns, and visitors to the U.S. Capitol at risk.” Mace’s resolution specifies it applies to “members, officers, and employees of the House,” but Johnson’s statement is less specific, and therefore potentially broader. It states, “all single-sex facilities…are reserved for individuals of that biological sex.”
Pocan also asked: “Will the Sergeant at Arms post officers in bathrooms? Will everyone who works at the Capitol have to carry around their birth certificate or undergo a genetic test?” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement, “This new cruel and discriminatory policy has nothing to do with helping the American people or addressing their priorities—it’s all about hurting people.”
Mace isn’t stopping with the Capitol bathrooms, though. On Wednesday, she announced she plans to introduce a bill that aims to go further than her resolution does, by seeking to ban trans people from using women’s bathrooms and locker rooms on all federal property. It’s unclear if Johnson will support it. In a statement, Mace said: “The radical Left says I’m a ‘threat.’ You better believe it. And I will shamelessly call you out for putting women and girls in harm’s way.”
While questions over the enforceability of the policy go unanswered, both Mace and her GOP colleague Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have openly threatened to use physical violence against trans people in Congress who violate the bathroom policy. “It will come to throws—there will be fists if this happens,” Mace told the YouTube personality Michael Knowles on Wednesday.
Johnson’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about whether or not he condemns the threats of violence from the members.
At least 36 transgender and gender-nonconforming people have been killed in the US over the past year, according to a report by the Human Rights Campaign. On top of that, hundreds of pieces of legislation targeting LGBTQ people have been introduced in state legislatures nationwide, hate crimes against LGBTQ people reported to the FBI have reached record highs, and calls to a suicide crisis line for LGBTQ youth spiked nearly 700 percent the day after Trump’s reelection.
But on these realities, Mace and Johnson seem to have nothing to say.
Update, November 20: This post was updated with a response from McBride.
On a day meant to commemorate the transgender people who have been murdered in violent acts of bigotry, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) have united in bringing their transphobia to Congress.
On Wednesday, one day after Mace introduced a resolution to bar trans people from using the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity, Johnson unilaterally announced a policy doing just that. If enforced, the rule will apply to trans people using bathrooms and locker rooms in the Capitol building and House offices.
“Women deserve women’s only spaces,” Johnson told reporters. “And we’re not anti-anyone, we’re pro-woman.”
“It’s always been, I guess, an unwritten policy,” he added, “but now it’s in writing.” In an emailed statement, Johnson said, “It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol.”
Speaker Johnson just now: “Yeah like all House policies it's enforceable. Look, we have single-sex facilities for a reason. Women deserve women's only spaces. And we're not anti-anyone, we're pro-woman. I think it's an important policy for us to continue.” pic.twitter.com/m3FakHHoz7
As I wrote yesterday, although Mace’s resolution does not mention Rep.-elect Sarah McBride by name, Mace said the effort is “absolutely” meant to target McBride, the first openly trans person to be elected to Congress. (Mace has also repeatedly misgendered her on social media.) On Monday, McBride called Mace’s resolution “a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing” and alleged that Mace was “manufacturing culture wars.” After Johnson announced his support for it Wednesday, McBride responded in a lengthy statement posted on X, calling the bathroom ban an “effort to distract from the real issues facing this country.”
“Like all members, I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them,” McBride wrote, adding that she is looking “forward to getting to know my future colleagues on both sides of the aisle.”
Johnson on Wednesday claimed the policy would be enforceable, but did not say how. He also did not commit to including it in the Rules package, which outlines protocol for the House, and which members will vote on at the start of the next session in early January. Mace’s resolution says the House Sergeant-at-Arms would be charged with enforcing the rule; that office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
LGBTQ advocateshave since slammed the policy—and questioned how it could even be enforced. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, called Johnson’s announcement “a cruel and unnecessary rule that puts countless staff, interns, and visitors to the U.S. Capitol at risk.” Mace’s resolution specifies it applies to “members, officers, and employees of the House,” but Johnson’s statement is less specific, and therefore potentially broader. It states, “all single-sex facilities…are reserved for individuals of that biological sex.”
Pocan also asked: “Will the Sergeant at Arms post officers in bathrooms? Will everyone who works at the Capitol have to carry around their birth certificate or undergo a genetic test?” Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a statement, “This new cruel and discriminatory policy has nothing to do with helping the American people or addressing their priorities—it’s all about hurting people.”
Mace isn’t stopping with the Capitol bathrooms, though. On Wednesday, she announced she plans to introduce a bill that aims to go further than her resolution does, by seeking to ban trans people from using women’s bathrooms and locker rooms on all federal property. It’s unclear if Johnson will support it. In a statement, Mace said: “The radical Left says I’m a ‘threat.’ You better believe it. And I will shamelessly call you out for putting women and girls in harm’s way.”
While questions over the enforceability of the policy go unanswered, both Mace and her GOP colleague Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have openly threatened to use physical violence against trans people in Congress who violate the bathroom policy. “It will come to throws—there will be fists if this happens,” Mace told the YouTube personality Michael Knowles on Wednesday.
Johnson’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about whether or not he condemns the threats of violence from the members.
At least 36 transgender and gender-nonconforming people have been killed in the US over the past year, according to a report by the Human Rights Campaign. On top of that, hundreds of pieces of legislation targeting LGBTQ people have been introduced in state legislatures nationwide, hate crimes against LGBTQ people reported to the FBI have reached record highs, and calls to a suicide crisis line for LGBTQ youth spiked nearly 700 percent the day after Trump’s reelection.
But on these realities, Mace and Johnson seem to have nothing to say.
Update, November 20: This post was updated with a response from McBride.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has proven time and time again that she will do nearly anything to make headlines.
But on Monday, she reached a new low, introducing a resolution seeking to bar transgender members and employees in the House of Representatives from using the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity in the Capitol building. Echoing Republican talking pointsgrounded in paranoia, the resolution alleges that allowing trans women to use women’s bathrooms “jeopardizes the safety and dignity” of cisgender women. It would task the House Sergeant-at-Arms with enforcing the resolution if passed.
The move comes just weeks after Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.) became the first openly transgender person to serve in Congress. Though it does not directly mention McBride, the bill represents a clear attempt to attack her: Mace told reporters this explicitly on Tuesday, confirming thatthe bill is “absolutely” meant to target McBride. And in a post on X after announcing the resolution, Mace said McBride “does not get a say in women’s private spaces.”
McBride appeared to respond to the resolution in a post on X, stating: “Every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness.” In a follow-up post, McBride called Mace’s effort “a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars.”
Other Democratic members also blasted the effort: Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), the first openly gay person to represent her state in Congress and co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, said in a post on X that Mace’s effort was a “petty, hateful distraction,” adding, “There’s no bottom to the cruelty.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio (D-N.Y.) said: “This is not just bigotry, this is just plain bullying.” Laurel Powell, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, called Mace’s resolution “a political charade by a grown-up bully” and “another warning sign that the incoming anti-equality House majority will continue to focus on targeting LGBTQ+ people rather than the cost of living, price gouging or any of the problems the American people elected them to solve.” And GLAAD CEO Sarah Ellis said in a statement: “Everyone in Congress might try focusing on solutions to improve people’s lives and leading with kindness, and see what progress you might make for every American.”
“Manufacturing culture wars,” as McBride put it, is, indeed, an apt way to describe the transphobic paranoia Mace and supporting members in the GOP appears to be stoking with this resolution—an especially ironic development given that Democrats have been chastised for having been too concerned with trans issues since losing the election.
When it comes to GOP panic about trans people using bathrooms alongside cisgender people, the evidence around the issue does not support the panic. A 2018 study published in the journal Sexual Research and Social Policy found there is no link between trans-inclusive bathroom policies and safety, and that reports of “privacy and safety violations” in bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms are “exceedingly rare.” This is probably why most states—37, plus DC—do not have any laws on the books regulating trans peoples’ use of bathrooms or other facilities, according to the Movement Advancement Project. (Mace’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on that research or other questions for this story.) But these facts have not stopped the GOP from pumping millions of dollars into anti-trans ads and filing hundreds of anti-trans bills in state legislatures across the country.
And as for the claim that it’s trans people who pose a danger to cisgender people in bathrooms? The GOP appears to be the party who poses a physical threat.Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)went so far as to reportedly say in a private House GOP Conference meeting that she would fight a transgender woman if she tried to use a women’s bathroom in the House.
For all the drama this is stirring up, though, Mace’s latest effort may not go any further than the headlines: At a press conference Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, “This is an issue that Congress has never had to address before and we’re going to do that in a deliberate fashion…and we will accommodate the needs of every single person.” He added that he would not commit to including the language of Mace’s resolution in the rules package the House will vote on in early January. A spokesperson for Johnson did not immediately respond to a question about the consequences if Greene fought another member of Congress or the lack of evidence to support Mace’s resolution.
Update, November 19: This post was updated with a statement from GLAAD.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has proven time and time again that she will do nearly anything to make headlines.
But on Monday, she reached a new low, introducing a resolution seeking to bar transgender members and employees in the House of Representatives from using the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity in the Capitol building. Echoing Republican talking pointsgrounded in paranoia, the resolution alleges that allowing trans women to use women’s bathrooms “jeopardizes the safety and dignity” of cisgender women. It would task the House Sergeant-at-Arms with enforcing the resolution if passed.
The move comes just weeks after Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.) became the first openly transgender person to serve in Congress. Though it does not directly mention McBride, the bill represents a clear attempt to attack her: Mace told reporters this explicitly on Tuesday, confirming thatthe bill is “absolutely” meant to target McBride. And in a post on X after announcing the resolution, Mace said McBride “does not get a say in women’s private spaces.”
McBride appeared to respond to the resolution in a post on X, stating: “Every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness.” In a follow-up post, McBride called Mace’s effort “a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars.”
Other Democratic members also blasted the effort: Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), the first openly gay person to represent her state in Congress and co-chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, said in a post on X that Mace’s effort was a “petty, hateful distraction,” adding, “There’s no bottom to the cruelty.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio (D-N.Y.) said: “This is not just bigotry, this is just plain bullying.” Laurel Powell, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, called Mace’s resolution “a political charade by a grown-up bully” and “another warning sign that the incoming anti-equality House majority will continue to focus on targeting LGBTQ+ people rather than the cost of living, price gouging or any of the problems the American people elected them to solve.” And GLAAD CEO Sarah Ellis said in a statement: “Everyone in Congress might try focusing on solutions to improve people’s lives and leading with kindness, and see what progress you might make for every American.”
“Manufacturing culture wars,” as McBride put it, is, indeed, an apt way to describe the transphobic paranoia Mace and supporting members in the GOP appears to be stoking with this resolution—an especially ironic development given that Democrats have been chastised for having been too concerned with trans issues since losing the election.
When it comes to GOP panic about trans people using bathrooms alongside cisgender people, the evidence around the issue does not support the panic. A 2018 study published in the journal Sexual Research and Social Policy found there is no link between trans-inclusive bathroom policies and safety, and that reports of “privacy and safety violations” in bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms are “exceedingly rare.” This is probably why most states—37, plus DC—do not have any laws on the books regulating trans peoples’ use of bathrooms or other facilities, according to the Movement Advancement Project. (Mace’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on that research or other questions for this story.) But these facts have not stopped the GOP from pumping millions of dollars into anti-trans ads and filing hundreds of anti-trans bills in state legislatures across the country.
And as for the claim that it’s trans people who pose a danger to cisgender people in bathrooms? The GOP appears to be the party who poses a physical threat.Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)went so far as to reportedly say in a private House GOP Conference meeting that she would fight a transgender woman if she tried to use a women’s bathroom in the House.
For all the drama this is stirring up, though, Mace’s latest effort may not go any further than the headlines: At a press conference Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, “This is an issue that Congress has never had to address before and we’re going to do that in a deliberate fashion…and we will accommodate the needs of every single person.” He added that he would not commit to including the language of Mace’s resolution in the rules package the House will vote on in early January. A spokesperson for Johnson did not immediately respond to a question about the consequences if Greene fought another member of Congress or the lack of evidence to support Mace’s resolution.
Update, November 19: This post was updated with a statement from GLAAD.
On Monday morning, Donald Trump tried to do what he has done many times before: rewrite history in an attempt to make himself look like a man of moderation.
This time it concerned Trump’s treatment of the media, which has included a long history of threats and denigration. “In order to Make America Great Again, it is very important, if not vital, to have a free, fair and open media or press,” Trump told Fox News Digital. Those remarks, at least to anyone who has paid attention over the past decade, starkly diverged from his record of attacking American journalists, which just two weeks ago saw the president-elect saying that he wouldn’t mind if journalists were shot at.
Trump also told the outlet that he feels “an obligation to the American public, and to our country itself, to be open and available to the press,” adding, “If not treated fairly, however, that will end. The media is very important to the long-term success of the United States of America.”
These claims are confounding—in fact, rendered useless—when you consider the lengths the president-elect has gone to to attack journalists who produce coverage that is critical of him. On the weekend before Election Day, Trump told Fox News, “To make America great, you really do have to get the news shaped up,” and called reporters present at a rally later that day “monsters,” and “horrible, horrible, dishonest people,” as my colleague Dan Friedman reported at the time.
Between September and November, Trump insulted, attacked, or threatened the media more than 100 times, according to an analysis conducted by the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders.
So what prompted Trump’s apparent about-face on the media? It comes on the heels of a meeting Trump reportedly had on Friday at his Mar-a-Lago estate with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the husband-and-wife hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe. For context, Trump and the hosts go way back; Scarborough, a former Florida congressman, reportedly gave Trump advice during his first presidential campaign, and the ex-president would call into the influential morning show to discuss politics and policy. But their relationship soured as Trump’s popularity grew, the hosts became more critical of his policies, and Trump launched a baseless personal attack against Brzezinski that earned him rebukes from even within his own party.
But after Scarborough and Brzezinski on Monday announced that the trio had met for the first time in seven years, Trump appears to have softened his view on the media at large.
“We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets,” Scarborough said on-air Monday, adding, “We talked about that a good bit. It’s going to come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show….that we didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so.”
Joe and Mika went to Mar a Lago to talk with Trump over the weekend. First face-to-face meeting in seven years. "We didn't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues and we told him so," @JoeNBC says. "What we did agree on – was to restart communications," @morningmika says. pic.twitter.com/lyWZWK4CwX
Trump also discussed the meeting with Fox News Digital, describing it as “extremely cordial,” adding that they discussed some of his Cabinet picks. “The meeting ended in a very positive manner,” he reportedly said, “and we agreed to speak in the future.”
Brzezinski’s take—that it’s worth talking to Trump for those who have access—has some merit: After all, more than 76 million Americans voted for him. But then again, mainstream journalists have tried. Trump repeatedly rebuffed sit-down interview invitations during the campaign from CBS News and NBC News, both of which Harris did do; Instead, Trump gave interviews to a bevy of right-wing male podcasters. If Trump and his team are serious about respecting the press, they will have to engage with them—respectfully, and on the issues—rather than denigrate them.
They could start with us: Spokespeople for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a list of questions from Mother Jones, including about whether Trump would apologize for saying he’d be ok with journalists being shot at; whether he’d commit to stop calling journalists “fake news” and “the enemy of the people”; whether the newly named press secretary Karoline Leavitt would commit to holding regular news briefings at the White House, unlike during his first term; and what specific steps Trump would take to improve his relationship with the news media.
It’s ultimately unclear if Trump’s sudden friendliness toward the media can be attributed to the MSNBC reunion at Mar-a-Lago. But one thing remains certain: You probably can’t trust this one, at all.
Last month, Louisianabecame the first state to begin classifyingmisoprostol and mifepristone—the two pills used in medication abortion—as schedule IVcontrolled substances.
The move, driven by anti-abortion Republicans and unsupported by evidence, left the state’s doctors bracing for the worst—the pills also are used to manage miscarriages and treat postpartum hemorrhages, and the new law requires they be locked away with other narcotics, potentially wasting precious minutes in an emergency. Hundreds of Louisiana doctors opposed the law, and one of them, Dr. Veronica Gillispie-Bell, a board-certified OB-GYN in New Orleans, told me she feared other states would follow.
That fear may now come to pass: Pat Curry, a Republican lawmaker in Texas, pre-filed a bill in the state legislature this week that would classify the two drugs as schedule IV substances there. The next legislative session does not begin until January 14—if passed, the bill would take effect in September 2025. Curry did not immediately respond to a Facebook message from Mother Jones on Sunday, and appeared to block me from messaging him further after I inquired about the bill.
The news, which appears to have first been reported by the Louisiana Illuminator, is just the latest example of right-wing attacks on abortion pills. Project 2025, the extremist guidebook to a second Trump term, recommends that the Department of Justice invoke the 19th-century Comstock Act to prosecute providers of abortion pills, as I have previously reported. It also recommends that the Food and Drug Administration revoke its approval of abortion pills. Conservative attorneys general in three states are trying to revive a US Supreme Court case seeking to restrict access to mifepristone after the justices unanimously dismissed it earlier this year. And as the Guardianreported on Sunday, anti-abortion advocates hope to outlaw abortion pills nationwide during Trump’s next term.
There is no scientific or medical evidence base to support the notion that the pills are dangerous or should be regulated as controlled substances, which federal law describes as drugs that have “potential for abuse.” More than 100 studies have found that mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective methods to terminate a pregnancy, and research has shown abortion pills are just as safe and effective when prescribed via telemedicine and mailed to patients as when prescribed and dispensed in person. Post-Dobbs, Americans have taken to stockpiling abortion pills just in case they need them in the future; medication abortion provided via telehealth has also become an increasingly popular option in the face of rising abortion restrictions—it now accounts for approximately one in five abortions nationwide.
The Texas bill certainly has a shot. The legislature is solidly Republican and has historically been strongly anti-abortion, having passed SB 8, a six-week ban, then the nation’s most restrictive, in 2021. (As my colleague Nina Martin reported this summer, new research shows that a huge increase in infant deaths followed the implementation of SB 8, due in part to an increase of babies born with birth defects. After Dobbs, abortion became fully outlawed in Texas, with no exceptions for rape or incest—just the life or health of the mother.)
A spokesperson for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott—who, as I reported, falsely claimed Texas would “eliminate rape” as an attempt to justify passing SB 8—did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday asking if the governor would support the “controlled substances” bill.
When Texas lawmakers return to work in January, they will likely have to contend with protests from doctors and abortion rights advocates, who have evidence on their side. As Gillispie-Bell, the New Orleans doctor, told me: “It’s really a dangerous slippery slope when we have legislation that interferes with what we know to be evidence-based medicine.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has debuted a new—and implausible—reason that the House Ethics Committee’s report into allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use by former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) should not be released: Gaetz is now a private citizen.
In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper on Sunday morning, Johnson claimed that since Gaetz resigned from Congress on Wednesday, he does not deserve to be subject to the scrutiny of lawmakers. Yet Johnson neglected to provide the full context: Gaetz resigned shortly after Trump announced he would nominate him for the post of attorney general—which is about as far from “private citizen” as one could get.
“There’s a very important protocol and tradition and rule that we maintain, that the House Ethics Committee’s jurisdiction does not extend to non-members of Congress,” Johnson said. “I think that would be a Pandora’s box. I don’t think we want the House Ethics Committee using all of its vast resources and powers to go after private citizens.”
"The president and I have literally not discussed one word about the ethics report. Not once."
As Tapper pointed out, Johnson’s claim is untrue: In the past, the committee hasreleased reports focused on former Rep. Bill Boner (R-Tenn.), former Rep. Buz Lukens (R-Ohio), and former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), all after their resignations.
Johnson’s latest stance comes after he initially said, at a Wednesday news conference, that he would not be—and could not be—involved in decisions about whether to release the Gaetz report. Two days later, after reportedly spending time with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Johnson changed his tune and said he would “strongly request” that the committee not release its findings. That was on Friday, the same day the committee was reportedly set to vote on the matter.
When Tapper asked Johnson if Trump asked him to change his position and advocate against the release of the report, the Speaker denied it. “The president and I have literally not discussed one word about the ethics report, not once,” he claimed.
Whether Gaetz actually stands a chance at running the Department of Justice is uncertain: NBC News reported Saturday that more than half of Senate Republicans, including some in leadership roles, do not believe he’ll survive the Senate confirmation process.
The fact that Johnson is still defending him is ironic for more reasons than one: The House Speaker’s hardcore Christian beliefs—which include urging a return to “18th century values”—are well known. Gaetz, on the other hand, was investigated over sex trafficking allegations by the department Trump has tapped him to lead. (Gaetz has denied the allegations and the DOJ opted not to file charges.)
But when Tapper pressed the issue, asking whether the Republican party still cared about electing leaders who are “moral in their personal lives,” Johnson dodged the question. Trump’s nominees, he declared, “are persons who will shake up the status quo.”
On Monday morning, Donald Trump tried to do what he has done many times before: rewrite history in an attempt to make himself look like a man of moderation.
This time it concerned Trump’s treatment of the media, which has included a long history of threats and denigration. “In order to Make America Great Again, it is very important, if not vital, to have a free, fair and open media or press,” Trump told Fox News Digital. Those remarks, at least to anyone who has paid attention over the past decade, starkly diverged from his record of attacking American journalists, which just two weeks ago saw the president-elect saying that he wouldn’t mind if journalists were shot at.
Trump also told the outlet that he feels “an obligation to the American public, and to our country itself, to be open and available to the press,” adding, “If not treated fairly, however, that will end. The media is very important to the long-term success of the United States of America.”
These claims are confounding—in fact, rendered useless—when you consider the lengths the president-elect has gone to to attack journalists who produce coverage that is critical of him. On the weekend before Election Day, Trump told Fox News, “To make America great, you really do have to get the news shaped up,” and called reporters present at a rally later that day “monsters,” and “horrible, horrible, dishonest people,” as my colleague Dan Friedman reported at the time.
Between September and November, Trump insulted, attacked, or threatened the media more than 100 times, according to an analysis conducted by the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders.
So what prompted Trump’s apparent about-face on the media? It comes on the heels of a meeting Trump reportedly had on Friday at his Mar-a-Lago estate with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the husband-and-wife hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe. For context, Trump and the hosts go way back; Scarborough, a former Florida congressman, reportedly gave Trump advice during his first presidential campaign, and the ex-president would call into the influential morning show to discuss politics and policy. But their relationship soured as Trump’s popularity grew, the hosts became more critical of his policies, and Trump launched a baseless personal attack against Brzezinski that earned him rebukes from even within his own party.
But after Scarborough and Brzezinski on Monday announced that the trio had met for the first time in seven years, Trump appears to have softened his view on the media at large.
“We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents and media outlets,” Scarborough said on-air Monday, adding, “We talked about that a good bit. It’s going to come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show….that we didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so.”
Joe and Mika went to Mar a Lago to talk with Trump over the weekend. First face-to-face meeting in seven years. "We didn't see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues and we told him so," @JoeNBC says. "What we did agree on – was to restart communications," @morningmika says. pic.twitter.com/lyWZWK4CwX
Trump also discussed the meeting with Fox News Digital, describing it as “extremely cordial,” adding that they discussed some of his Cabinet picks. “The meeting ended in a very positive manner,” he reportedly said, “and we agreed to speak in the future.”
Brzezinski’s take—that it’s worth talking to Trump for those who have access—has some merit: After all, more than 76 million Americans voted for him. But then again, mainstream journalists have tried. Trump repeatedly rebuffed sit-down interview invitations during the campaign from CBS News and NBC News, both of which Harris did do; Instead, Trump gave interviews to a bevy of right-wing male podcasters. If Trump and his team are serious about respecting the press, they will have to engage with them—respectfully, and on the issues—rather than denigrate them.
They could start with us: Spokespeople for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a list of questions from Mother Jones, including about whether Trump would apologize for saying he’d be ok with journalists being shot at; whether he’d commit to stop calling journalists “fake news” and “the enemy of the people”; whether the newly named press secretary Karoline Leavitt would commit to holding regular news briefings at the White House, unlike during his first term; and what specific steps Trump would take to improve his relationship with the news media.
It’s ultimately unclear if Trump’s sudden friendliness toward the media can be attributed to the MSNBC reunion at Mar-a-Lago. But one thing remains certain: You probably can’t trust this one, at all.
Last month, Louisianabecame the first state to begin classifyingmisoprostol and mifepristone—the two pills used in medication abortion—as schedule IVcontrolled substances.
The move, driven by anti-abortion Republicans and unsupported by evidence, left the state’s doctors bracing for the worst—the pills also are used to manage miscarriages and treat postpartum hemorrhages, and the new law requires they be locked away with other narcotics, potentially wasting precious minutes in an emergency. Hundreds of Louisiana doctors opposed the law, and one of them, Dr. Veronica Gillispie-Bell, a board-certified OB-GYN in New Orleans, told me she feared other states would follow.
That fear may now come to pass: Pat Curry, a Republican lawmaker in Texas, pre-filed a bill in the state legislature this week that would classify the two drugs as schedule IV substances there. The next legislative session does not begin until January 14—if passed, the bill would take effect in September 2025. Curry did not immediately respond to a Facebook message from Mother Jones on Sunday, and appeared to block me from messaging him further after I inquired about the bill.
The news, which appears to have first been reported by the Louisiana Illuminator, is just the latest example of right-wing attacks on abortion pills. Project 2025, the extremist guidebook to a second Trump term, recommends that the Department of Justice invoke the 19th-century Comstock Act to prosecute providers of abortion pills, as I have previously reported. It also recommends that the Food and Drug Administration revoke its approval of abortion pills. Conservative attorneys general in three states are trying to revive a US Supreme Court case seeking to restrict access to mifepristone after the justices unanimously dismissed it earlier this year. And as the Guardianreported on Sunday, anti-abortion advocates hope to outlaw abortion pills nationwide during Trump’s next term.
There is no scientific or medical evidence base to support the notion that the pills are dangerous or should be regulated as controlled substances, which federal law describes as drugs that have “potential for abuse.” More than 100 studies have found that mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective methods to terminate a pregnancy, and research has shown abortion pills are just as safe and effective when prescribed via telemedicine and mailed to patients as when prescribed and dispensed in person. Post-Dobbs, Americans have taken to stockpiling abortion pills just in case they need them in the future; medication abortion provided via telehealth has also become an increasingly popular option in the face of rising abortion restrictions—it now accounts for approximately one in five abortions nationwide.
The Texas bill certainly has a shot. The legislature is solidly Republican and has historically been strongly anti-abortion, having passed SB 8, a six-week ban, then the nation’s most restrictive, in 2021. (As my colleague Nina Martin reported this summer, new research shows that a huge increase in infant deaths followed the implementation of SB 8, due in part to an increase of babies born with birth defects. After Dobbs, abortion became fully outlawed in Texas, with no exceptions for rape or incest—just the life or health of the mother.)
A spokesperson for Republican Gov. Greg Abbott—who, as I reported, falsely claimed Texas would “eliminate rape” as an attempt to justify passing SB 8—did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday asking if the governor would support the “controlled substances” bill.
When Texas lawmakers return to work in January, they will likely have to contend with protests from doctors and abortion rights advocates, who have evidence on their side. As Gillispie-Bell, the New Orleans doctor, told me: “It’s really a dangerous slippery slope when we have legislation that interferes with what we know to be evidence-based medicine.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has debuted a new—and implausible—reason that the House Ethics Committee’s report into allegations of sexual misconduct and drug use by former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) should not be released: Gaetz is now a private citizen.
In an interview on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper on Sunday morning, Johnson claimed that since Gaetz resigned from Congress on Wednesday, he does not deserve to be subject to the scrutiny of lawmakers. Yet Johnson neglected to provide the full context: Gaetz resigned shortly after Trump announced he would nominate him for the post of attorney general—which is about as far from “private citizen” as one could get.
“There’s a very important protocol and tradition and rule that we maintain, that the House Ethics Committee’s jurisdiction does not extend to non-members of Congress,” Johnson said. “I think that would be a Pandora’s box. I don’t think we want the House Ethics Committee using all of its vast resources and powers to go after private citizens.”
"The president and I have literally not discussed one word about the ethics report. Not once."
As Tapper pointed out, Johnson’s claim is untrue: In the past, the committee hasreleased reports focused on former Rep. Bill Boner (R-Tenn.), former Rep. Buz Lukens (R-Ohio), and former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), all after their resignations.
Johnson’s latest stance comes after he initially said, at a Wednesday news conference, that he would not be—and could not be—involved in decisions about whether to release the Gaetz report. Two days later, after reportedly spending time with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate, Johnson changed his tune and said he would “strongly request” that the committee not release its findings. That was on Friday, the same day the committee was reportedly set to vote on the matter.
When Tapper asked Johnson if Trump asked him to change his position and advocate against the release of the report, the Speaker denied it. “The president and I have literally not discussed one word about the ethics report, not once,” he claimed.
Whether Gaetz actually stands a chance at running the Department of Justice is uncertain: NBC News reported Saturday that more than half of Senate Republicans, including some in leadership roles, do not believe he’ll survive the Senate confirmation process.
The fact that Johnson is still defending him is ironic for more reasons than one: The House Speaker’s hardcore Christian beliefs—which include urging a return to “18th century values”—are well known. Gaetz, on the other hand, was investigated over sex trafficking allegations by the department Trump has tapped him to lead. (Gaetz has denied the allegations and the DOJ opted not to file charges.)
But when Tapper pressed the issue, asking whether the Republican party still cared about electing leaders who are “moral in their personal lives,” Johnson dodged the question. Trump’s nominees, he declared, “are persons who will shake up the status quo.”
Trump’s reelection has been described by advocates and experts as a final blow to reproductive rights.
These fears are not unfounded. Trump appointed three of the five conservative Supreme Court justices who overruledRoe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion and unleashing a health care apocalypse. Vulnerable women found themselves in even greater danger thanks to abortion bans in more than a dozen states that have enabled abusers and left doctors fearful of prosecution if they intervene in pregnancy-related emergencies that require abortion care. ProPublica reported such bans appeared to have led to the deaths of several women in Georgia and Texas who were unable to get necessary abortion care when faced with dire medical complications. Add to this, Project 2025—the 900-plus-page extremist guidebook to a second Trump term—recommends thatvarious federal agencies take sweeping actions to roll back abortion access.
Trump’s convictions on abortion have been flexible throughout his career. During the presidential campaign, he tried to distance himself from Project 2025 and claimed he would leave abortion policy “to the states.” Immediately after the election, however, his acolytes admitted that “Project 2025 is the agenda.”
Given all this, reproductive rights experts and advocates agree that the future of abortion access is bleak. But there are several actions President Biden and his administration could take before Inauguration Day that could make it harder for the next administration to enact their absolutistanti-abortion agenda. “Some of [the ideas] are just throwing monkey wrenches into the gears,” says David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University whose scholarly work focuses on abortion access, “and maybe with the chaotic Trump administration that helps delay some of the harm.”
“Some of [the ideas] are just throwing monkey wrenches into the gears, and maybe with the chaotic Trump administration, that helps delay some of the harm.”
While Vice President Kamala Harris campaigned on “restoring reproductive freedom,” it’s unclear if the Biden administration will prioritize these requests before the transition. The White House did not respond on the record to the specific proposals mentioned in this story, but pointed to the administration’s record of defending and expanding reproductive rights. But some say there’s more they can, and should, do. “If the administration was hesitant or holding off, now is the time, I think, to not hesitate,” Rachel Rebouché, reproductive rights legal scholar and dean of Temple Law School, says.
Here’s a look at some of what the administration could do to stymie the Trump administration’s anti-abortion agenda before he’s back in the White House.
Preemptively Pardon Providers of Abortion Pills
The Comstock Act isa 19th-century anti-obscenity law still on the books that anti-abortion Republicans argue should be used to “enforce federal law against providers and distributors of [abortion] pills.” In December 2022, Biden’s DOJ issued a memo arguing that the law cannot be used to prosecute abortion pill providers. Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress introduced legislation to repeal parts of the bill lawmakers say could be most relevant to abortion, but the measure has languished in House and the Senate committees.
Given that Project 2025 advises Trump’s DOJ to invoke the Comstock Act to prosecute providers of abortion pills, some advocates suggest that Biden preemptively pardon anyone who could be implicated for doing so. Cohen, from Drexel, notes that a preemptive pardon “would make it so that the people who have been mailing [abortion] pills, or mailing procedural instruments or supplies, are not at risk of being prosecuted.”
Jodi Jacobson, founder and executive director of the initiative Healthcare Across Borders, described the proposal as “a proactive thing that the Biden administration can do to automatically protect people over the five-year statute of limitations” for federal offenses. Jacobson oversees a coalition that comprises several reproductive health advocacy organizations that plan to ask the Biden administration to issue the blanket preemptive pardon. “This is a no-brainer—there is no reason not to do this,” she says, adding that it would “take off the table the immediate criminalization of folks who have been trying to save lives.”
Trump’s Food and Drug Administration, though, could still revoke its approval of abortion pills, as Project 2025 recommends—but the preemptive pardon would protect providers who could otherwise face prosecution. Experts concede that while there would likely be legal challenges, “pardon power is pretty plenary to the president,” Cohen says. President Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned his predecessor, President Richard Nixon, for instance, which allowed Nixon to avoid Watergate-related charges (but ignited a national outcry). The Department of Justice did not respond to questions about the proposal from Mother Jones.
Push to Fill Vacancies in the Federal Judiciary
Biden cannot shift the balance of the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority before he leaves office, but the president and Senate Democrats do have the power to attempt to fill the 47 vacancies for open seats in the federal judiciary, mostly in federal district courts.
“We know the federal courts will continue to be central in the fight for reproductive freedom; the administration and Congress must be vigilant now in safeguarding our rights as much as possible,” Karen Stone, vice president of public policy and government relations at Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement provided to Mother Jones.
“We know the federal courts will continue to be central in the fight for reproductive freedom; the administration and Congress must be vigilant now in safeguarding our rights as much as possible.”
The significance of these lifetime appointments for the future of reproductive rights becomes apparent when you consider Matthew Kacsmaryk. He’s a Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas who issued an anti-science ruling last year that paved the way for anti-abortion activists to bring a case to the Supreme Court challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in a medication abortion. (The justices ultimately struck down the case, ruling that the anti-abortion plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit, as my colleague Nina Martin reported.)
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court sent the case on emergency abortion care back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals—a federal court in California with 10 Trump-appointed judges and jurisdiction over more than a dozen district courts in nine states. “The power of lower court federal judges is immense,” Cohen says, “because the Supreme Court only deals with such a limited number of cases.”
Once Biden makes a nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee, currently chaired by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.),recommends whether to send nominees to a full floor vote, which is required for their confirmation. A spokesperson for Durbin’s office said that, as of Wednesday morning, there were 16 nominees ready for a floor vote, and eight more who have had committee hearings and are waiting for a committee vote. The spokesperson added that Durbin “aims to confirm every possible nominee before the end of this Congress.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, “We are going to get as many done as we can.”
But that won’t necessarily be easy. Trump said in a social media post this weekend that “no Judges should be approved during this period of time because the Democrats are looking to ram through their Judges as the Republicans fight over Leadership.” Indeed, for Senate Democrats, time is of the essence. The next session of Congress begins January 3, just over two weeks before Trump takes office—so Biden’s nominees would need to be approved by after the New Year to make it onto the bench. Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), whose vote is crucial in the tight Senate, may once again undermine Democrats’ plans. He toldPolitico in March he would not support any Biden-nominated judge unless they have at least one Republican supporter.
Still, several advocates say they hope Senate Democrats make the necessary effort to get as many Biden-nominated judges approved as possible, considering the influence they’ll likely have on the future of reproductive rights. “If [getting judges approved] means working over Thanksgiving, working over Christmas, working over New Year’s—do it,” Cohen says. “This is not something that should be gifted to Trump.” One way they could speed circumvent Republican opposition is by dispensing with a tradition known as “blue slips,” in which senators weigh in on whether or not they support the federal court nominees for their state. There is precedent for this: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, abandoned the tradition—to the ire of Democrats—to get two Trump-nominated judges confirmed despite opposition from their home states’ Democratic senators. With only two months until the next Congress, Senate Democrats may not want to buck this tradition, though; they may want to keep “blue slips” as a weapon in their own arsenal as they anticipate Trump’s nominees to the federal judiciary.
Finalize Pending Reproductive Health-Related Rules for Federal Agencies
The Biden administration made headlines last month when it announced a proposedrule to allow 52 million women with private health insurance to obtain over-the-counter contraception for free under the Affordable Care Act. (Trump, on the other hand, has said he wants to “replace” Obamacare. And while he claims he would not restrict contraception access, it will face myriad threats in his administration, as my colleague Madison Pauly recently reported.)
But the contraception rule has yet to be finalized, and its pathway to becoming a reality is less straightforward than the optimistic White House press release suggests. After the public comment period—which has, so far, only attracted 2 people—ends on December 27, officials will analyze the comments and then write the final rule, which could then not even take effect for another 30 days.
Unlike executive orders, which can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen, rules approved for federal agencies are typically harder to undo. That’s thanks to the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines the process of how a proposed rule becomes a finalized regulation, and requires that federal agencies do not act in a way that is “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion.” Rebouché, from Temple Law School, says the administration needs to aim to get the contraception rule—and any other similar ones—finalized as soon as possible. “Any rule that’s already in process, push forward,” she says.
Katie O’Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women’s Law Center, would like to see the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s promise to launch a rule focused on ensuring “modern-day digital data brokers are not misusing or abusing our sensitive data” come to pass. An investigation by the office of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) earlier this year found that a data broker tracked visits by individuals to 600 Planned Parenthood locations across the country and then sold the data for an anti-abortion ad campaign. Even though the rule was promisedlast year, a CFPB spokesperson says they did not have any update.
Even if the agency tried to ram it through, though, any rules that get finalized at this late stage of the administration are at risk of being overturned in the next session of the GOP-controlled Congress, thanks to the Congressional Review Act, notes Steven Balla, associate professor of political science at George Washington University and co-director of the school’s Regulatory Studies Center. During Trump’s first term, Congress used the legislation to overturn 16 rules issued at the end of the preceding Obama administration—the most of any administration, ever, Balla explains.
Complete Investigations Into Hospitals Accusedof Violating Federal Law on Emergency Abortion Care
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard a case on whether hospitals must provide abortions to people whose lives or health are at risk, even in states with abortion bans, under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA. In a 6–3 decision—with Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting—the court sent the case back to a lower court, refusing to rule on the merits of the Biden administration’s argument that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care in states with post-Dobbs abortion bans that lack exceptions for a patient’s health. Project 2025 proposes an alternative approach: The guidebook says that “EMTALA requires no abortions” and that HHS should stop investigating hospitals that have failed to comply with its interpretation of the law.
Abortion rights advocates say Biden’s HHS should complete as many investigations as possible into hospitals that may have violated their interpretation of EMTALA by not providing stabilizing abortion care when needed. Otherwise, the Trump administration would inheritthem, a spokesperson for the Center for Reproductive Rights points out.
That spokesperson added that the organization has also submitted three recent complaints to HHS, focused on hospitals in Texas and Arizona that allegedly violated EMTALA by failing to provide medically necessary abortions to women in need. A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at HHS said the agency does not comment on ongoing investigations.
But even if these investigations were undertaken and completed before the transition, reports suggest they would be unlikely to face penalties from the Biden administration. Investigations recently published by the Associated Press found that more than 100 pregnant women were turned away from emergency rooms while they were in medical distress over the past two years, and that none of those hospitals were fined. Last year, HHS announced it was investigating two unnamed hospitals for allegedly violating the law by failing to offer a woman with a nonviable pregnancy the abortion care she needed. The National Women’s Law Center said it filed the complaint on behalf of Mylissa Farmer and identified the hospitals as Freeman Hospital West in Joplin, Missouri, and the University of Kansas Health System in Kansas City, Kansas. A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Mother Jones Wednesday, “Both hospitals are back in compliance,” but did not clarify whether they had faced monetary penalties.
One thing that both advocates and officials agree on? Elections have consequences, and there’s a limit to what Biden administration can actually do to mitigate the decades-long damage the Trump administration could do to reproductive rights once he takes office. “The electorate was confused or didn’t really care about abortion,” Cohen says, “and we’re reaping the reality of it.”
Press freedom groups have a stark warning for Americans: Trump could pose a serious threat to fact-based journalism during his next term in office if he does not change course.
The Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and Freedom of the Press Foundation all issued statements in the aftermath of Trump’s win this week, urging the ex- and soon-to-be president and his administration to commit to respecting the free press during the next four years. “Attacking the press is really an attack on American citizens’ right to know,” Reporters Without Borders Executive Director Clayton Weimers said in a statement. “Trump’s new administration can and must change its tune with the media and take concrete steps to protect journalists and develop a climate conducive to a robust and pluralistic news media.”
This will be a tall order for Trump: At a rally just last weekend, he said he would be OK with a crowd of journalists being shot at, as I reported at the time. His communications director, Steven Cheung, tried to clean up his comments by implausibly alleging that Trump “was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own!” From early September until the end of October, Trump verbally attacked the media more than 100 times, Reporters Without Borders found in an analysis published last month. Trump has repeatedly derided journalists as “fake news” and the media as “the enemy of the people.” And as my colleague Pema Levy reported, Trump also launched what experts said was a frivolous lawsuit against CBS News last month, alleging that producers unfairly edited a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, to make her look better. His campaign also submitted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission claiming that the Washington Post was running a paid advertising campaign to boost stories critical of Trump; a Post spokesperson said the allegations were “improper” and “without merit.” CNN also reported that Trump has called at least 15 times for the Federal Communications Commission to revoke the broadcast licenses of networks he dislikes.
All this makes it no wonder, then, that Reporters Without Borders said Trump’s reelection “marks a dangerous moment for American journalism and global press freedom.” The Committee to Protect Journalists struck a similar tone. “Legal persecution, imprisonment, physical violence, and even killings have sadly become familiar threats for journalists across the world,” its statement said. “They must not now also become commonplace in the United States, where threats of violence and online harassment have in recent years become routine.” And Freedom of the Press Foundation claimed that Trump “will try to destroy press freedom”; as the group noted, Trump will have an ally in Elon Musk, who has spread pro-Trump disinformation on his platform to the tune of billions of views in the lead-up to Election Day. More recently, Musk has taken to telling everyday X users that they are the media now and “citizen journalism is the future.” (Apparently his conception of journalism sees conspiracy theories as acceptable and fact-checks as unnecessary.)
This all comes at a time when Republicans, and young people, are as likely to trust social media as a news source as they are to trust national news outlets, according to data published last month from Pew Research Center. The Trump campaign and the GOP have both contributed to and capitalized on this distrust, with Trump launching his own social media network, Truth Social, in 2022, and eschewing the cable news sit-downs Harris did during the campaign for interviews with right-wing male podcasters, who likely helped him make massive gains among young men this year. Media outlets hoping to win back the trust of these voters, though, will not just have podcasters and social media to compete with: One of their biggest adversaries will likely be Trump himself.
Spokespeople for the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to questions from Mother Jones on Sunday.
As of early Sunday, major news outlets had yet to call the race between Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Republican candidate Kari Lake, though Gallego was leading with an estimated 88 percent of ballots counted. But in the “Election Integrity Community” on X—billed as a space for its 65,000 members to “share potential incidents of voter fraud or irregularities you see while voting in the 2024 election,” and backed by Musk’s pro-Trump PAC—such a close race, and potentially a GOP loss, can mean only one thing: The election was stolen.
One of the mainmysteriesamong members of the X community seems to be how a Democrat could potentially win a Senate seat in a state Trump won. (The Associated Press called Arizona for Trump on Saturday, reporting that he led Harris in the state by about 185,000 votes.) “This is as egregious an example of election fraud as when Biden allegedly had the dead voting for him in 2020,” one userclaimed, without evidence. But in fact, split-ticket voting—in which people do not cast all their votes for candidates in the same party—is a thing, and should not come as a surprise in Arizona, given that Lake has long polled poorly in the Senate race and still refuses to concede her 2022 loss in the governor’s race, as my colleague Tim Murphy has written.
Other members point to an alleged clerical error in Pima County—in which the number of uncounted ballots appeared to increase on Friday—as evidence of a conspiracy, urging Lake to “fight” the “election steal.” A lawyer for Lake sent a letter to the county demanding an explanation on Friday; Mark Evans, the county’s public communications manager, told the Arizona Capitol Times it was a “clerical error,” adding, “in this age of conspiracy, everything gets blown up into inserted votes.”
This context, though, appears absent from the X feed—as were fact-checks to false claims of voter fraud that percolated on Election Day, as I reported then. But this is not a surprise, given that research shows Musk’s so-called crowd-sourced fact-checking mechanism on X, known as “community notes,” did not actually address most false and misleading claims about the US elections circulating on the platform during the campaign. And with Musk poised to become even more powerful following Trump’s win, don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
As of early Sunday, major news outlets had yet to call the race between Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Republican candidate Kari Lake, though Gallego was leading with an estimated 88 percent of ballots counted. But in the “Election Integrity Community” on X—billed as a space for its 65,000 members to “share potential incidents of voter fraud or irregularities you see while voting in the 2024 election,” and backed by Musk’s pro-Trump PAC—such a close race, and potentially a GOP loss, can mean only one thing: The election was stolen.
One of the mainmysteriesamong members of the X community seems to be how a Democrat could potentially win a Senate seat in a state Trump won. (The Associated Press called Arizona for Trump on Saturday, reporting that he led Harris in the state by about 185,000 votes.) “This is as egregious an example of election fraud as when Biden allegedly had the dead voting for him in 2020,” one userclaimed, without evidence. But in fact, split-ticket voting—in which people do not cast all their votes for candidates in the same party—is a thing, and should not come as a surprise in Arizona, given that Lake has long polled poorly in the Senate race and still refuses to concede her 2022 loss in the governor’s race, as my colleague Tim Murphy has written.
Other members point to an alleged clerical error in Pima County—in which the number of uncounted ballots appeared to increase on Friday—as evidence of a conspiracy, urging Lake to “fight” the “election steal.” A lawyer for Lake sent a letter to the county demanding an explanation on Friday; Mark Evans, the county’s public communications manager, told the Arizona Capitol Times it was a “clerical error,” adding, “in this age of conspiracy, everything gets blown up into inserted votes.”
This context, though, appears absent from the X feed—as were fact-checks to false claims of voter fraud that percolated on Election Day, as I reported then. But this is not a surprise, given that research shows Musk’s so-called crowd-sourced fact-checking mechanism on X, known as “community notes,” did not actually address most false and misleading claims about the US elections circulating on the platform during the campaign. And with Musk poised to become even more powerful following Trump’s win, don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
Since Donald Trump won reelection, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have both done what the now-president-elect and his fellow Republicans refused to do in 2020: publicly accept loss and advocate for a peaceful transition of power.
In a Thursday morning speech outside the White House, Biden told Americans, “We accept the choice the country made.”
“I’ve said many times,” he continued,“you can’t love your country only when you win. You can’t love your neighbor only when you agree.” He added, “Something I hope we can do, no matter who you voted for, is to see each other not as adversaries, but as fellow Americans. Bring down the temperature.”
President Biden: "Setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable … The American experiment endures. We're going to be okay, but we need to stay engaged. We need to keep going." https://t.co/627FiKv7Szpic.twitter.com/hZoGsFc7yl
Seemingly alluding to Trump’s attacks on the voting system, Biden on Thursday also added that he hoped “we can lay to rest a question about the integrity of the American electoral system. It is honest, it is fair, and it is transparent, and it can be trusted, win or lose,” he said.Of course, now that Trump has won,the GOP suddenly appears to agree with this, despite the fact that they and their candidate spent years sowing doubt in the electoral system—including up until election night.
The president also told Americans who voted for Harris they had to keep the faith and keep peacefully fighting for what they believe in. “Setbacks are unavoidable,” Biden said. “Giving up is unforgivable.”
“The American experiment endures, we’re going to be okay, but we need to stay engaged,” the president added. “We need to keep going, and above all, need to keep the faith.”
Harris struck a similar tone during her concession speech at Howard University on Wednesday.“The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for,” Harris told the crowd. “But hear me when I say, hear me when I say, the light of America’s promise will always burn bright as long as we never give up and as long as we keep fighting.”
Harris also acknowledged that “folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now,” but urged her supporters to still accept the election results.
“A fundamental principle of American democracy is that when we lose an election, we accept the results,” she continued. “That principle, as much as any other, distinguishes democracy from monarchy or tyranny.”
The dual speeches came at a moment of widespread concerns that American democracy and so many civil liberties hang in the balance with Trump’s return to power. But with a future so unknown—and even frightening—to many, both Harris’ and Biden’s post-election remarksreminded Americans what leadership looks like: recognition of, and respect for, the will of the people, and a reminder that the future of American democracy remains worth peacefully fighting for.
Spokespeople for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On Wednesday morning, some of Trump’s favorite fans finally felt comfortable joking about what the next president has long denied: Project 2025 has always been the plan for a second Trump term.
“Now that the election is over I think we can finally say that yeah actually Project 2025 is the agenda. Lol,” right-wing podcast host Matt Walsh wrote in a post on X of the 900-plus-page extremist guidebook. Walsh’s message soon got picked up and promoted by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist who was recently released from prison, where he landed after ignoring a subpoena from the House January 6 Committee. “Fabulous,” Bannon said, chuckling, after reading Walsh’s post out loud on his War Room podcast today. “We might have to put that everywhere.”
Benny Johnson, a conservative YouTuber with 2.59 million followers who has called affirmative action “Nazi-level thinking” and said Trump should prosecute Biden for human trafficking of immigrants, also chimed in: “It is my honor to inform you all that Project 2025 was real the whole time,” he posted on X.
Bo French, a local Texas GOP official who recently came under fire for using slurs about gay people and people with disabilities on social media, wrote: “Can we admit now that we are going to implement Project 2025?”
Walsh, Bannon, and the others are not the only people in Trump’s orbit who have made these promises. While Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, there is a long list of his connections to it, which include many people who have similarly said that Trump plans to enact the policies if reelected. Russell Vought, a potential next chief of staff profiled by my colleague Isabela Dias, said in a secretly recorded meeting that Project 2025 is the real Trump plan and the distancing tactic was just campaign necessity.
Spokespeople for the Trump campaign, the RNC, and the Heritage Foundation—the right-wing think tank behind the plan—did not respond to repeated requests for comment from Mother Jones.
Colorado voters on Tuesday brought to victory a ballot measure that will provide millions of critical dollars to organizations supporting victims of domestic and sexual violence through the creation of a new tax on firearms and ammunition.
With nearly three-quarters of the votes counted as of this morning, the measure, known as Proposition KK, passed with 54 percent of votes. When it takes effect in April, it will impose a 6.5 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition, which will provide an estimated $39 million in annual revenue. The bulk of those funds, roughly $30 million, will go toward organizations that support victims of crimes, mostly domestic and sexual violence. The rest of the funds will support mental health services for veterans and young people, as well as increasedsecurity in Colorado public schools.
The money is especially crucial in light of the yearslong decline in federal funding from theVictims of Crime Act (VOCA), which has forced organizations that support survivors of domestic abuse to cut staff and scale back services, as I recently investigated for Mother Jones. In Colorado, the state went from receiving $31.3 million in VOCA funds in fiscal year 2017 to about $13.6 million in the most recent fiscal year, when the money was used to support more than 125,000 survivors, mostly women who were victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, according to Department of Justice data.
When we spoke last month, Roshan Kalantar, executive director of Violence Free Colorado, the statewide domestic violence coalition, told me that at least two programs in the state were on the verge of closing because of funding cuts. Now, thanks to the passage of Prop KK, they have a lifeline that may help keep them open, she said. But the earliest the funds would be disbursed to eligible programs would be January 2026, according to a spokesperson at the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. In the meantime, “there will be a gap and it will be difficult,” Kalantar said, adding that more federal funding cuts are expected. “We are hopeful that programs can weather this year with minimal impact.”
Democratic state Rep. Monica Duran, who introduced the bill that would become the ballot measure in the legislature earlier this year and who is a survivor of domestic violence herself, said in a statement late Tuesday: “Tonight really is a full circle moment for me; without the support from crime victim services as a young single mother trapped in an abusive relationship, there is no way I’d be here today celebrating the passage of Prop KK.”
“As federal dollars dwindle, Coloradans made the right choice this evening to step up and help fill the funding gaps in crime victim services,” Duran continued. “From navigating the challenging judicial system to helping secure child care, crime victim services play a major role in uplifting survivors by providing them the resources they need to start anew.”
Domestic violence advocates I spoke to said they see the new tax as particularly appropriate, considering the role firearms play in domestic violence homicides. Last year, there were 58 domestic violence fatalities in Colorado, more than three-quarters of which werecaused by guns, according to state data. As Kalantar put it when we last spoke: “It feels very appropriate that people making money off the sale of guns in Colorado should participate in the healing” of survivors.
The ballot measure faced strenuous opposition from the gun lobby, which alleged the tax—which will not apply to firearms vendors that make less than $20,000 annually, law enforcement agencies, or active-duty military personnel—is unconstitutional. It could also face legal challenges, like the one California faces after the state enacted a similar measure earlier this year.
A Trump-appointedfederal judge on Tuesday harshly rejected an eleventh-hour bid from the Republican National Committee and the Georgia Republican Party that soughtto force seven historically Democratic counties in the swing state to stop accepting absentee ballots returned after Friday.
In a telephone hearing on Tuesday, Judge R. Stan Baker of the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgiacalled the arguments underlying the lawsuit “red herrings” that amounted to efforts designed to “tip the scales of this election by discriminating against [counties] less likely to vote for their candidate.”
The lawsuit, filed Sunday, alleged that seven Georgia counties were violating state law—as well as the 14th Amendment and Elections Clause of the Constitution—by allowing voters to hand-deliver absentee ballots throughout the weekend and, in some cases, into Monday. The lawsuit cited a part of state law claiming that ballots needed to be returned the Friday before the election—but it turns out that’s the deadline for early voting, not for absentee ballots. As the Democratic National Committee and the state Democratic party responded in their court filing, the same state election law the GOP cited also says absentee ballots can be returned in person, which the Georgia Secretary of State also confirmed this weekend. And the state election website says absentee ballots are accepted through Election Day.
But Republicans alleged that county election boards were harming their “strategies and turnout efforts” by forcing them “to quickly mobilize staff and volunteers to ensure a poll watcher presence at election offices across the Defendants’ counties.” (As I have written, the GOP recruited a 200,000 person-strong pro-Trump army of “poll watchers” to “establish the battlefield” to challenge the results of the election, should former president Donald Trump lose.) In other words, through their lawsuit, the GOP seems to be seeking to do what their party has long sought to do: Limit eligible voters, especially those who favor Democrats.
But Baker was not having it: The judge—whom Trump nominated in 2017 and who was confirmed the following year—said in the Tuesday phone hearing that the RNC lawsuit lacked “a basic level of statutory review and reading comprehension,” according to POLITICO. (The transcript of the hearing was not yet immediately publicly available.) At one point, Baker even reportedly urged GOP lawyers to read The Boy Who Cried Wolf, adding, “Please don’t take us any closer to that ledge.” Spokespeople for the RNC and the Georgia GOP did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This is almost certainly not the last you’ll hear of GOP-led legal challenges in this election. It’s just one of the dozens of pre-election lawsuits the Republican National Committee has filed across the country in a bid to retake the White House through the courts, as my colleague Pema Levy recently reported.
Login