• A Running List of the Petty Tyranny at the Olympics

    Beatrice Masilingi, Sha’Carri Richardson and Ona CarbonellMother Jones illustration; Getty; ZUMA Press

    As the pandemic continues to wreak havoc around the globe, and the cost of the Tokyo Olympics skyrockets, the International Olympic Committee and its satellite arms are busying themselves by cracking down on dress codes, recreational drug use, and peaceful protests—you know, the important stuff.

    We’re keeping track of its inane policing:

    • Namibia’s National Olympic Committee disqualifies 18-year-old athletes Christine Mboma and Beatrice Masilingi from running the women’s 400-meter race due to testosterone levels that the committee said were too high to let them compete. (In sex-testing athletes, “people are overdetermining testosterone’s effects in ways that don’t fit with what we know scientifically,” Stanford bioethicist Katrina Karkazis told us in 2016.)
    • Sha’Carri Richardson, a US favorite for the women’s 100-meter sprint, is caught with pot in her system and suspended for 30 days—meaning she won’t be able to compete in the event in Tokyo. Writes Mother Jones‘ Nathalie Baptiste: “Did smoking a little weed give her any kind of unfair advantage? No. Did she break the law? No. Richardson smoked in Oregon, where adults are legally allowed to partake. Simply put, it’s an archaic rule and, of course, it impacts vulnerable women.”
    • Soul Cap, a company that makes headwear specifically for more voluminous hair types, is rejected by the International Swimming Federation (FINA), meaning Black swimmers can’t use its caps at the Olympics. (FINA later said it is “reviewing” its decision.)
    • Spanish synchronized swimmer Ona Carbonell’s son Kai, who is still breastfeeding, is forbidden from staying in Tokyo’s Olympic Village with his mother (and source of critical sustenance) during the Games.

    • The International Olympic Committee and Tokyo organizers ban their social media teams from posting photos of any athletes taking a knee in protest before an event, even though the IOC recently relaxed its rules to allow acts of protest inside  Olympic venues—except if it is targeted, disruptive, or happens on the podium.
    • Australian showjumper Jamie Kermond is banned from the country’s Olympic team after testing positive for cocaine. Kermond, who was set to make his Olympic debut, stated he’d indulged recreationally one time. Cocaine falls under the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of banned substances, a sprawling and idiotic exercise in authoritarian control whose only virtue is that it introduced the world to the hilariously monikered Dick Pound.

    Top image credit: Mother Jones illustration; Joel Marklund/Bildbyran via ZUMA Press; Patrick Smith/Getty Images; Clive Rose/Getty Images

  • I Am Simply Asking if Ashton Kutcher Is a CIA Asset

    Photo by Jayne Kamin-Oncea/Getty Images

    John Krasinski, it gives me no pleasure to inform you that there is a new stereotypically attractive white guy in Hollywood who very publicly loves the Central Intelligence Agency. Ashton Kutcher is coming for you.

    You’re thinking, “the bonehead from ‘That ’70s Show‘ is a CIA asset? The guy who sat on a stool and scared the shit out of celebrities before popping out and cooly telling them ‘you’ve been Punk’d’?”

    The thought never crossed my mind about Kutcher’s relation to the security state until today when I stumbled onto an Instagram post of two screenshots from his Twitter. The tweets:

    From 2009: “spent the afternoon picking the brain of a former CIA guy. It really makes you wonder if anything you come in contact w/ is not manipulated.”

    From 2018: “Just sending out a morning shout to the men and woman of the intelligence community that keep us safe and protect our country. #gratitude #ty,” with a photo of a haggard pic of Kutcher drinking his morning joe out of a CIA mug.

    OK. What’s going on here? I went to Twitter and saw a separate Kutcher video had gone viral. In it, Kutcher explains how TikTok might actually (at least partially) be a Chinese psyop to influence the minds of Americans. (TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a Chinese company.) 

    “If I’m China and I want to think about a problem in that area of the world, specifically a naval problem in that area of the world, in the South China Sea, I would probably want to use TikTok to influence the minds of Americans in an anti-U.S. propaganda, anti-Taiwanese propaganda effort,” Kutcher said on American Optimist, the podcast of venture capitalist and Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, “to make any kind of war from the United States extraordinarily unpopular in order to defend the South China Sea.”

    There is a tremendous meta-irony in Kutcher, a famous and well-liked celebrity, talking about the Chinese government using entertainment to influence American sentiment about geopolitics, as he talks about geopolitics.

    Maybe he just reads the Economist a lot and has become a hawkish foreign policy guy as a hobby. I don’t know, but it’s weird. So, as a professional journalist, I tried to ask him about it.

    “Does Ashton do any work with the CIA or other U.S. national security agencies/does he want to?” I wrote in one of the most stupid but justified emails I’ve ever sent in my life to the PR company that represents Kutcher, K21. I haven’t heard anything back yet, and I don’t think I will.

    Google was obviously not much more helpful than K21 but I still found an article that is in the weird matrix of Ashton Kutcher’s fascination with the CIA and American geopolitical interests.

    In 2018, on the red carpet for the premiere of “The Spy Who Dumped Me” an ET reporter asked Mila Kunis, whose ex-boyfriend ends up being a spy, about how she’d react if she found out Ashton Kutcher was a spy.

    “I’d be like, ‘I knew it!'” she responded. “I wouldn’t put it past him…He also has multiple jobs, like, not everything adds up where I’m like, ‘What do you really do? What is this office you claim to go to, and why is there many different locations of this office?”

    Maybe Kunis wanted to give an interesting answer as she promoted her new movie (this is likely), or maybe she was using a reverse psychology deflection (this is unlikely). Who’s to say?

    Maybe you’re wondering “If Kutcher was a CIA asset wouldn’t he want to be secretive about it?” You clearly haven’t lived in D.C. if you think that. People who probably work in the intelligence community in D.C. desperately want you to know that they do while being cagey about it. The “tell me you’re [x] without telling me you’re [x]” meme format was potentially accidentally created by some 26-year-old intelligence analyst in Arlington who was workshopping ways to get Tinder dates without getting in trouble at work.

    You know you’ve come across one when you meet and they, in a very practiced but somehow slightly giddy voice, tell you the work in “the government” with no further explanation when you ask. No one just says they work in “the government” without specifying unless they work in intel, which is the point.

    So yes, Kutcher would act like this if he was a CIA asset. If you think the CIA is cool enough to shill for, you’re going to think it’s cool enough to be associated with, even if you can’t officially be. You’re going to desperately want to be associated. The other explanation is that he just wants people to think this, which is just as (maybe more) likely.

    Either way, I don’t know. I’m just asking the questions—specifically about if Ashton Kutcher is an asset of the CIA.

  • I Can’t Stop Staring at This Siberian Mosquito Tornado

    Take a look, if you dare:

    Exceptionally heavy rains, the kind that are sometimes linked to human-created climate change, can create new wet areas where mosquitos lay eggs and bring about frightening swarms after hatching. But according to the Twitter account of the Siberian Times, a highly followable English-language content creator from Russia’s far east, what you’re seeing here—roughly 1 gazillion male insects circling and looking for females—is typical Siberian summer fare.

    And while I’m no entomologist, the size of the swarm suggests these bugs have a long, successful record of finding and mating with each other.

  • Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene Can’t Find Anyone Willing to Host Their California Rally

    Rep. Matt Gaetz and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene address a rally on May 7 in The Villages, Florida. Phelan M. Ebenhack/AP

    Two of the most controversial Republican members of Congress, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, were planning to hold a California rally this evening. The trouble is that venues keep canceling on them. 

    On Saturday, after two other venues had backed out, the M3 Live Anaheim Event Center also scrapped its plans to host the pair, hours before the “America First” rally was scheduled to start.

    The Pacific Hills Banquet & Event Center in Laguna Hills and the Riverside Convention Center had already canceled the event after receiving a deluge of complaints. 

    Gaetz is currently under investigation for allegedly having sex with a minor and paying prostitutes. Greene was stripped of her committee assignments earlier this year following her promotion of conspiracy theories and apparently of violence against political opponents.

    Gaetz and Greene have been hosting “America First” rallies around the country for the past two months. Gaetz told Politico that the rallies would target the “radical left” and focus on “ending America’s forever-wars, fixing the border Joe Biden broke on day one, prioritizing Americans, not illegal migrants, reshoring industries sold to foreign adversaries, ensuring real election integrity, and taking on the threat of the Chinese Communist Party.” 

  • Chicago Banker Convicted of Paying Paul Manafort Bribes to Influence Trump

    AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File

    A federal jury in Manhattan convicted Chicago banker Stephen Calk of bribing Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort by approving risky loans for Manafort in exchange for his assistance in getting Calk an administration job.

    Manafort oversaw Trump’s campaign from June to August 2016, stepping down after it was revealed he may have received off-the-books payments from a deposed Ukrainian president with close ties to Russia. But after being bounced from that position, Manafort remained on friendly terms with many Trump campaign officials—and maintained influence within Trump circles. Throughout the campaign, Manafort was struggling financially, but despite being arguably a bad risk, he was able to secure $16 million in loans from The Federal Savings Bank, which Calk ran. Prosecutors showed there was a quid pro quo: Manafort got those loans and lobbied Trump transition officials, including Anthony Scaramucci, to find Calk a job in the Trump administration.

    Calk’s attorneys argued that he had done nothing wrong and that it was the wheeling-and-dealing Manafort who had committed the crimes by lying to Calk’s bank about his finances. But Calk was convicted on one count of bribery and a related conspiracy charge. He faces up to 35 years in federal prison. Manafort himself was convicted on a number of money laundering and tax fraud charges in 2018. A jury hung on the question of whether he had committed bank fraud during his interactions with The Federal Savings Bank. Trump pardoned Manafort shortly before leaving office.

    During Calk’s trial, prosecutors demonstrated that Calk had pushed his bank to give Manafort the loans, while pressing Manafort to help him join Trump’s inner circle of advisers on the campaign and later the administration. Within days of the bank approving the first set of loans to Manafort, Manafort had Calk appointed to the Trump campaign’s council of economic advisers. On election night 2016, Calk texted Manafort about the status of another loan he had requested. Manafort subsequently leaned on Trump transition officials to consider Calk for a position.

    One of the prosecution’s star witnesses was New York City financier Anthony Scaramucci, who advised the Trump transition and briefly served in Trump’s White House in 2017. He described how Manafort had approached him after the election and promoted Calk as a good choice for an administration job. Scaramucci said Manafort never mentioned that there was a financial relationship between him and Calk. Scaramucci testified that Calk pestered him for weeks with text messages asking for updates on Calk’s status as potential presidential appointee. 

    Calk never was appointed to an administration job. He will be sentenced in January. 

  • Texas Dems to Biden, Congress: Show the Same Courage We’ve Shown to Protect Voting Rights

    J. Scott Applewhite/AP

    Texas House Democrats—who fled the state in a bold move to halt the advancement of a sweeping voter suppression bill—urged the White House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday to pass federal voting rights legislation. 

    At a press conference Tuesday in Washington, DC, the group of Democrats specifically called on Biden and Congress to demonstrate “the same courage” they had shown by traveling to the nation’s capital during a special legislative session that had been called by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who has since threatened to arrest the more than 50 Democrats who fled. As they did in a statement confirming their plans to boycott the session before hopping aboard two private planes on Monday, the group once again hailed both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act as examples of model legislation for protecting voting rights at the federal level and implored Congress to pass them.

    “We were quite literally forced to move and leave the state of Texas,” Texas Rep. Rhetta Bowers said in a press conference flanked by some of her fellow state Democrats. “We also know that we are living right now on borrowed time in Texas. And we can’t stay here indefinitely, to run out the clock, to stop Republican anti-voter bills.” Bowers said that although Texas Democrats would use “everything in our power to fight back,” they ultimately needed Congress to act with the same urgency. 

    “We are not going to buckle to the ‘big lie’ in the state of Texas—the ‘big lie’ that has resulted in anti-democratic legislation throughout the United States,” Rep. Rafael Anchia added.

    Abbott on Monday vowed to arrest the Democrats that had walked out on the session, thus denying the state’s House of Representatives the two-thirds quorum required to conduct official state business. In recent weeks, Texas Republicans, led by Abbott, have aggressively pushed to enact a sweeping set of bills that seek to ban drive-through and 24-hour voting, add new ID requirements for mail voting, and prohibit election officials from proactively sending out absentee ballot request forms.

    “As soon as they come back in the state of Texas, they will be arrested, they will be cabined inside the Texas Capitol until they get their job done,” Abbott threatened on Monday. Other Republicans in the state blasted their Democratic counterparts for staging a publicity stunt.

    Tuesday’s press conference came hours ahead of President Biden’s much-anticipated speech on voting rights in Philadelphia, where he’ll make a forceful condemnation of Republican efforts to enact voter suppression laws. His message, however, is not expected to include support for ending the Senate’s filibuster rules, which advocates say stand in the way of passing meaningful protections for voting rights. 

  • Days After a Threat From Biden, a Major Ransomware Group Goes Dark


    A prolific ransomware group that was behind some of the year’s most prominent online attacks has gone dark—at least for now.

    Websites used by REvil, whose software is thought to have been used to target meatpacker JBS in late May, and, more recently, software company Kaseya, were unaccessible on Tuesday, according to multiple information security researchers.

    Given that President Joe Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call just last week that the US might take action against ransomware groups operating from Russia if the Russian government didn’t, speculation quickly turned to some sort of American plot. Shortly after the presidents’ conversation, a Biden administration official told reporters that such actions were imminent, warning, according to the New York Times, that while some aspects of the response would “be manifest and visible…some of them may not be. But we expect that those take place in the days and weeks ahead.” 

    REvil has long been thought to be run out of Russia, targeting a range of large, small, prominent, and obscure entities. The outfit provides ransomware software to affiliates, splitting any eventual payout. In the JBS case, they reportedly netted $11 million. The attack on Kaseya, which emerged as the US headed into the July 4 weekend, affected thousands of companies in 17 countries that use its IT infrastructure services.

    Allan Liska, a ransomware expert at cybersecurity firm Recorded Future, told Bloomberg that the group’s extortion page—where companies’ data was posted as proof—was unavailable on Tuesday, as were the group’s payment portals and chat functions.

    Brett Callow, a ransomware expert with cybersecurity firm Emsisoft, told Mother Jones Tuesday morning that, despite the administration’s threats, it was “far too early to read anything into this,” explaining that site has a history of outages. “This could be a temporary outage due to infrastructure upgrades or a disruption by law enforcement or REvil pulling the plug to sail off into the sunset,” Callow cautioned. Other researchers echoed the sentiment.

    The FBI and US Cyber Command declined requests for comment.

  • Twitter Finally Bans Nick Fuentes

    Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via AP

    For years, extremism experts have wondered why Nick Fuentes, a white-nationalist media figure, has been able to maintain a verified Twitter account. Even through denying the Holocaust, attending the 2017 violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, and frequently espousing overt racism, he kept his privileged access to the platform.

    That didn’t change when, the day before the January 6 insurrection, he floated the idea of killing state legislators who voted to certify election results. In fact, on January 5, when asked about those comments, the company admitted they didn’t see a reason to act, telling the Southern Poverty Law Center‘s Hannah Gais and Michael Edison Hayden that at “this point, our enforcement team has not seen enough violative content from @NickJFuentes on Twitter to ban him.” That apparently remained the case for six months after he attended the next day’s riots and egged on right-wing protestors—including his followers—as they stormed the building.

    But on Friday, long after a bevy of other platforms—among them YouTube, PayPal, and TikTok—had booted him, Twitter finally stripped his access for unclear reasons. Company spokesperson Trenton Kennedy declined to specify why they did so, telling Mother Jones only that he’d been “permanently suspended for repeated violations of the Twitter Rules.” He declined to share more information.

    Just before his Twitter ban, Fuentes spent Friday morning tweeting about his plans to crash a Conservative Political Action Conference event this weekend in Texas, boasting to his followers that “most likely, I’ll be getting physically removed from CPAC in Dallas on Saturday.” While some conservative voices and organizations like CPAC have distanced themselves from Fuentes over his history of pro-white power and racist statements, he’s been embraced by other prominent figures on the right, including Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar

  • Advocates Say the Biden Administration’s Execution Moratorium Doesn’t Go Far Enough

    Oliver Contreras/AP

    On Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced a moratorium on federal executions and ordered a review of the government’s execution protocols. The move from the Department of Justice comes after the Trump administration carried out an execution spree that lasted into the final days of his presidency. “The Department of Justice must ensure that everyone in the federal criminal justice system is not only afforded the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but is also treated fairly and humanely,” Garland said in a statement. “That obligation has special force in capital cases.”

    The moratorium is welcomed, but anti-death penalty advocates wonder what purpose it actually serves. The Biden administration has not scheduled any federal death row inmates for executions and has pledged to not do so. The DOJ order also doesn’t commute any death sentences nor does it bar federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty. “A moratorium on federal executions is one step in the right direction, but it is not enough,” Ruth Friedman, a federal defender, and director of the Federal Capital Habeas Project, said in a statement. 

    If the new moratorium seems like a repetition of the past, that’s because in many ways it is. In 2014, former president Barack Obama ordered a review of the government’s death penalty execution protocol in the wake of a botched execution in Oklahoma, in which Clayton Lockett struggled violently on the gurney before his execution was halted. He subsequently died an hour after the procedure began. But because the Obama administration didn’t take any additional steps to end capital punishment, Trump was free to execute a record 13 federal inmates.

    As I wrote previously, Joe Biden became the first president to publicly oppose the death penalty: 

    In its criminal justice platform, the Biden campaign pledged to abolish the death penalty at the federal level and incentivize states to follow suit. In the past, candidates avoided taking this stance on capital punishment out of fear of appearing weak on crime and soft on criminals.

    But after assuming the presidency in January, Biden was slow to follow through on his pledge. In fact, last month, the DOJ urged the US Supreme Court to reinstate the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon bomber whose sentence was overturned by a circuit court last year. The push to re-sentence Tsarnaev to death ran counter to Biden’s anti-death penalty stance and his assurance that he would end capital punishment at the federal level. However, Tsarnaev’s case is still pending in the Supreme Court, as the moratorium only halts executions and no other parts of the death penalty.

    Meanwhile, following Garland’s announcement, advocates are urging Biden to go further. “We know the federal death penalty system is marred by racial bias, arbitrariness, over-reaching, and grievous mistakes by defense lawyers and prosecutors that make it broken beyond repair,” Marcus said. If Biden doesn’t commute the sentences of the 46 remaining death row inmates “this moratorium will just leave these intractable issues unremedied and pave the way for another unconscionable bloodbath like we saw last year.”

  • The Trump Team’s New Social Media Platform Is Already Flooded With Hentai

    Mother Jones screenshot

    “Welcome to GETTR and start a new journey!” So reads an introductory message on the home page of Gettr, a right-wing social media app recently launched by a team led by Jason Miller, an ex-spokesperson of former president Donald Trump.

    That “new journey,” thanks to spam comments left en masse below the message, involves encountering things like anime porn and repeated copies of an image depicting Hillary Clinton’s head photoshopped onto another woman’s nude body.

    Major social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and its image-sharing subsidiary platform Instagram, have automated filters that root out and remove or censor nude images. At the moment, the Trump-linked social media app apparently has nothing of the kind.

    While Gettr frames itself as an anti-censorship platform—in its terms of service, Gettr notes “hold[ing] freedom of speech” is a “core value”—the company reserves the right to “address content that comes to our attention that we believe is … pornographic” alongside material that may be “offensive, obscene, lewd, lavicious, filthy… violent, harassing, threatening, abusive, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or inappropriate.”

    The app was quietly launched in June, according to Politico, but received a rush of attention on Thursday after the publication broke a story on its ties to Miller.

    The website joins a crowded and growing pool of right-wing social media sites that aim to be places of refuge for users who fled online venues that took steps to stem racist speech. As an example, Gab’s CEO has actively courted well-known antisemites to come to his platform, while maintaining a strong anti-pornography line.

    So, if you want a conservative platform and the ability to post uncensored hentai, for now, Gettr might be the website for you.

  • Nikole Hannah-Jones Finally Has Been Granted Tenure. But the Damage Is Already Done.

    Marcus Ingram/Getty Images

    Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones was granted tenure by the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill Board of Trustees on Wednesday evening, the latest twist in a monthslong saga that has led to bitter debates about the influence of big donors on hiring decisions, the increasingly partisan boards that govern public universities, and the conservative freakout over critical race theory.

    It is still not clear, however, whether Hannah-Jones will join the faculty at UNC–Chapel Hill, where she received a master’s degree in 2003. Her start date was originally set to be Thursday; in a statement released Wednesday, Hannah-Jones said, “These last weeks have been very challenging and difficult and I need to take some time to process all that has occurred and determine what is the best way forward.”

    On Thursday morning, the journalism school dean, Susan King, told me that Hannah-Jones hadn’t indicated to her whether she’d decided to accept the teaching position, and that she deserved some time to let everything sink in. “Nikole Hannah-Jones isn’t just a great journalist—she’s a once-in-a-generation journalist,” King said.

    In late April, the journalism school announced that the creator of the New York Times‘ award-winning and controversial 1619 Project would become the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism, noting that Knight chair professorships “are designed to bring top professionals to classrooms to teach and mentor students.” Hannah-Jones, the winner of a MacArthur “genius grant” in 2017, had become increasingly involved with the school in recent years, culminating in her induction into the NC Media & Journalism Hall of Fame earlier that month.

    But almost immediately, the announcement faced stiff criticism from conservative groups, with former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, now the president of the Young America’s Foundation, calling the appointment “shameful.” And when Hannah-Jones’ appointment came up for review in May before the Board of Trustees, it chose not to make a tenure decision—leaving the journalism school to offer Hannah-Jones a five-year fixed-term position with the opportunity for a future tenure review. “It’s disappointing, it’s not what we wanted, and I am afraid it will have a chilling effect,” King told NC Policy Watch at the time.

    According to the Washington Post, it was unclear how much conservative complaints about the 1619 Project affected the board’s choice to punt on Hannah-Jones’ tenure decision. The chair of the board, Richard Y. Stevens, said in May that it wasn’t out of the ordinary for trustees to scrutinize “candidates that don’t come from a traditional academic-type background,” even though the journalism school’s two previous Knight chairs, both of whom were white and didn’t come from traditional academic backgrounds, had had no problems receiving tenure. Four of the board’s 13 members are appointed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and another eight by the UNC system Board of Governors, an overwhelmingly conservative body that includes GOP megadonor Art Pope. (The final trustee is the UNC–Chapel Hill student body president.)

    But an investigation by The Assembly‘s John Drescher uncovered emails sent by Walter Hussman Jr.—the publisher of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and a UNC–Chapel Hill alum, whose $25 million donation in 2019 got his name on the school and his journalistic core values posted in the building’s foyer—to university leaders about his specific concerns with the 1619 Project. As Drescher reported:

    “I worry about the controversy of tying the UNC journalism school to the 1619 project,” Hussman wrote in a late December email to King, copying in [Chancellor Kevin] Guskiewicz and [Vice Chancellor for University Development David] Routh. “I find myself more in agreement with Pulitzer prize winning historians like James McPherson and Gordon Wood than I do Nikole Hannah-Jones. 

    “These historians appear to me to be pushing to find the true historical facts. Based on her own words, many will conclude she is trying to push an agenda, and they will assume she is manipulating historical facts to support it. If asked about it, I will have to be honest in saying I agree with the historians.” 

    The Hussman emails added a new layer to an already complicated and ugly situation. And in a subsequent interview, the millionaire donor—whose career, as Slate‘s Julia Craven points out, isn’t exactly a lesson in playing it down the middle—poured fuel on the fire, saying, “If she’s in favor of [the core principles of journalism], maybe we could work together. But if she’s opposed to them, I’m going to wonder why did she want to go to work at a journalism school where she’s opposed to the core values of the school.” Journalism faculty were quick to push back in the name of academic freedom. (Hussman has denied trying to affect the hiring process, saying in an interview, “I haven’t said to Susan King, ‘Do not hire Nikole Hannah-Jones.’ I never said that. I never said, ‘If you hire Nikole Hannah-Jones it could affect our commitment to the university or our donation.’ I never said that.”)

    Last week, Hannah-Jones’ legal team notified the university that she would not teach at the school without tenure, citing the Hussman emails and interviews as reasons for the decision. “Since signing the fixed-term contract,” her lawyers wrote, “Ms. Hannah-Jones has come to learn that political interference and influence from a powerful donor contributed to the Board of Trustees’ failure to consider her tenure application. In light of this information, Ms. Hannah-Jones cannot trust that the University would consider her tenure application in good faith during the period of the fixed-term contract.”

    Students, alumni, celebrities, and faculty—including professors at other institutions across the country—have rallied in recent weeks in support of Hannah-Jones. Her drawn-out battle, though, has led a significant number of Black professors at UNC–Chapel Hill to consider leaving the school, with some of them noting their residual anger and frustration over the way the administration and the UNC system botched the removal of the Confederate statue known as Silent Sam. Lisa Jones, a Black professor heavily recruited by the university’s chemistry department, withdrew her candidacy to join the faculty, writing, “I cannot see myself accepting a position at a university where this decision stands.”

    In the end, Hannah-Jones and her supporters won out. At the same time, the reputational damage done to the university by the trustees’ machinations, Hussman’s meddling, and the administration’s relative silence will be felt for years. But it doesn’t seem like the Board of Governors is all that concerned: Just last week, it declined to reappoint law professor Eric Muller to the UNC Press board, even while green-lighting his two colleagues up for reappointment. Sources told NC Policy Watch that Muller was singled out for his public statements on the school’s handling of the Silent Sam fiasco and broader issues regarding UNC–Chapel Hill’s failure to properly reckon with its racial history.

    As one member of the Board of Governors said, “They’re standing in the way of the system and how it usually works.”

    This story has been updated.

    Note: Ian Gordon is a graduate of the UNC–Chapel Hill journalism school and a former member of its alumni board.

  • Federal Regulator Hits Robinhood With $70 Million Fine, Its Largest Ever

    Omar Marques/AP

    On Wednesday, a federal financial regulator announced the largest financial penalty it’s ever levied—a roughly $70 million settlement—against the trading app Robinhood.

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) said that it had found “widespread and significant harm suffered by customers” of Robinhood, thanks to “false and misleading” information provided by the app about customer cash balances and the risks associated with trading volatile financial instruments called options. FINRA also said that millions of Robinhood customers had suffered losses during outages of the app in early March 2020 that prevented customers from capitalizing on historic stock market gains. Robinhood agreed to the fine without admitting to or denying FINRA’s findings. The company agreed to pay $12.6 million of the overall $70 million fine to harmed investors as restitution.

    FINRA specifically called out Robinhood for displaying inaccurate cash balances for more than 4 million of its customers. The app, the regulator found, displayed “buying power” on accounts that was often inflated, either showing numbers that were too high or displaying exaggerated negative balances.

    The findings specifically cite the case of “Customer A,” who was erroneously shown a negative cash balance of $730,165.72. The customer that this is referring to is almost certainly Alex Kearns, a 20-year-old college sophomore who took his own life this past June after seeing this negative balance and thinking he’d lost this sum on a trade, and whose case I profiled in a feature for Mother Jones’ July/August issue.

    In that story, I dug into the claim that Robinhood is designed to be misleading for its users in order to spur more trading. More frequent trading is financially beneficial for both Robinhood and the high-frequency trading firms that it partners with to execute the trades of its users. As I explained:

    From founding, [Robinhood’s] business model was dependent on customers trading frequently, allowing the company the chance to earn a different kind of commission—known as PFOF, or “payment for order flow”—from every transaction. The payments are essentially a finder’s fee given to Robinhood by so-called market makers, the Wall Street firms who make money executing individual investors’ trades. Since launch, Robinhood has enthusiastically embraced PFOF, arranging favorable rates that eclipsed other brokerages’, making it the company’s single largest source of revenue. The money flows evoke a key lesson of the digital age: If something is free, then you’re not the customer—you’re the product being sold.

    FINRA’s findings on Wednesday about Robinhood’s inaccurate displays of negative cash balances reflected something that I heard from several experts I spoke to in the course of my reporting, who pointed to the way that Robinhood displays losses as one of the elements of the app’s presentation that lead users to execute more trades:

    Years of research in behavioral science have shown that people who see losses are motivated to chase them, notes Schüll, like roulette players doubling down after a bad spin. She calls it “the chasing effect, where you want to gamble more on other stocks to make that up, to race to get it back.”

    And investors who trade more usually do far worse than those who take a set-it-and-forget-it approach. By building in behavioral cues aimed at getting people to trade more heavily, Robinhood is ultimately encouraging users to act against their own financial interests by making frequent trades—while PFOF and its related profits pile up for the app and its superrich collaborators.

    Robinhood has faced added scrutiny in the last year, first as it attracted millions of new investors during the pandemic, and later when it froze trading on shares of GameStop, a brick-and-mortar video game store, just as crowds of investors were driving up its price by more than 1,700 percent this past January. Two federal agencies and a congressional committee have launched probes into Robinhood’s decision to freeze trading.

    FINRA’s fine is not the first for Robinhood. The trading app was fined $1.25 million by FINRA in 2019 for violations of the duty of “best execution”—rules that require brokerages to obtain the best possible share prices for their customers. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Robinhood $65 million for similar best-execution violations in December 2020.

    Robinhood is expected to go public sometime this summer, at a valuation of more than $30 billion. The paperwork that Robinhood filed in order to offer shares in the company is expected to become public later this week, according to the New York Times. That paperwork is likely to shed light on previously unknown elements of the business, from historical financial statements to early investors.

  • Civil Rights Groups Held the First National Rally for DC Statehood

    Organizers erect a "51" sign during a rally for DC statehood before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs holds a hearing on the issue on June 22, 2021. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP

    Inspired by the Freedom Rides 60 years ago, civil rights advocates mobilized in Washington, DC, on Saturday against the backdrop of the US Capitol for the first-ever national rally in support of DC statehood.

    Holding signs that said “Protect our freedom to vote” and “DC statehood is racial justice,” civil rights activists linked the push for DC statehood to a broader effort to counter voter suppression, calling on the Senate to protect voting rights and pass the For the People Act, a sweeping democracy protection bill that offers support for DC statehood, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which does not address statehood but would restore provisions of the VRA that were gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.

    “The suppression of Black votes is white supremacist violence,” Missouri Democratic Rep. Cori Bush said to the crowd. Despite having more people than Wyoming and Vermont, states that are almost entirely white, the diverse population of Washington, DC, which is nearly half Black, has no voting representation in Congress. That lack of representation skews power in the Senate toward whiter and more rural states, making it easier for Republicans to block bills that would protect the rights of voters of color.

    The rally was the culmination of a nine-city bus tour by the civil rights group Black Voters Matter, which retraced the steps of the Freedom Riders in 1961 who were viciously attacked by white mobs when they sought to desegregate interstate bus travel. “Just like the Freedom Riders in 1961, we are at a crisis moment for our democracy,” said Janai Nelson, associate director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

    In April, the House passed legislation for the second time to make DC the country’s 51st state, but like other voting rights bills, it has stalled in the Senate. (The Senate held its first hearing on DC statehood recently.) Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) says he does not support the bill, but even if every Democrat did, they would still need to abolish the 60-vote requirement to pass it.

    Democrats could abolish the filibuster with just 51 votes—another strong argument for why they should want DC to become a state.

  • Rudy Giuliani Was Just Suspended From Practicing Law in New York

    Stefani Reynolds/Zuma

    Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani has been suspended from practicing law in New York due to his “demonstrably false and misleading” statements about the 2020 presidential election.

    A New York appellate court’s decision to temporarily disbar Giuliani is a remarkable fall from grace for the man once heralded as “America’s Mayor.” In a 33-page ruling, the court found that Giuliani violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by repeatedly lying in his allegations of voter fraud.

    “These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent’s narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client,” the decision reads. “We conclude that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law.”

    While Giuliani will have the opportunity to fight the suspension, the court wrote that “the uncontroverted misconduct in itself will likely result in substantial permanent sanctions at the conclusion of these disciplinary proceedings.”

    Giuliani’s lawyers said in a statement that they were disappointed with the decision and that they were confident their client would be reinstated as a lawyer. “This is unprecedented as we believe that our client does not pose a present danger to the public interest,” they wrote.

    Either way, as Congress still mulls action after the failure to enact a bipartisan commission to examine the causes of the January 6 riot on the Capitol, Giuliani’s suspension from practicing law could be as close as the United States gets to justice for the Trump administration’s incitement of violence and undermining of faith in the election system.

    Be sure to check out Giuliani’s son’s poorly composed video rant responding to this perceived injustice:

    This post’s headline has been updated to clarify that Giuliani’s suspension is temporary.

  • We Found the Stupidest Critical Race Theory Argument Yet, and It Involves Freud

    The panic over critical race theory—the shorthand boogeyman conservatives have weaponized to vilify schools that examine the role of institutional racism in the United States—has seen its fair share of absurdity in recent months, particularly as Republican lawmakers across the country push bills effectively banning discussions of race in classrooms.

    But after Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the joints chiefs of staff, defended the study of critical race theory before Congress this week, a new and especially wild argument against CRT appears to have emerged. Speaking on Newsmax, contributor Dick Morris started with the usual GOP talking points falsely accusing CRT of attempting to teach children that all white people are racist. But then Morris offered what he, rather mildly, described as a “unique thought” on the debate.

    “What does this do to the children?” he asked. “What does this do to a kid? A quarter of all Black marriages are intermarriage, racially. So what does that do to a Black boy whose mother is Black and his father is white? What does he think? ‘My father exploited my mother and that’s how he got successful?’ Does this reinforce the Oedipal notion that all kids have wanting to kill their father and marry their mother?”

    The suggestion that by studying the role of racism in today’s society, a child could develop sexual desires for the opposite-sex parent, then fuel thoughts of murder against the other parent is, as Morris put it, unique. Still, it would be far from surprising if Morris’ psychoanalytical approach takes hold among conservatives always looking to advance this nonexistent culture war. 

    In any event, if you’re looking for a palate cleanser after that Morris absurdity, I recommend you watch, if you haven’t already, what Milley had to say about CRT. Be sure to catch Matt Gaetz’s response in there too.

  • To Reduce Crime, Joe Biden Wants to Fund Local Communities—and the Police

    Susan Walsh/AP

    Addressing the nation Wednesday afternoon, President Biden unveiled a multifaceted plan to curb gun violence, following a 30 percent increase in homicide rates in 2020. Biden promised to crack down on firearms dealers, expand community-based programs, and work to provide jobs and housing for formerly incarcerated people.

    Despite the announcement’s progressive tilt, the announcement makes clear that Biden wants to increase funds for the police.

    To “help address violent crime,” the plan notes, the Treasury Department allows for the $350 billion in state and local funding in the American Rescue Plan to be used on cops. Local officials can hire more police officers, prosecute gun crime, and invest in technology that aids in policing. A fact sheet for Biden’s violence reduction plan states that “this strategy will use the Rescue Plan’s historic funding levels and clear guidance to help state, local, territorial, and tribal governments get the money they need to put more police officers on the beat.”

    “This is not a time to turn our backs on law enforcement or our communities,” Biden said in his presser.

    This approach concerns some activists. While many praise the community-based aspects of Biden’s plan, they worry that adding “more police officers on the beat” could result in disproportionate arrests in communities of color. The rise in mass incarceration was directly tied to tough-on-crime policies, which were often framed as a solution to rising violence.

    “We have concerns about elements of the plan that could very well lead to the further criminalization of communities of color,” Udi Ofer, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Justice Division, said in a statement. Ofer lauds Biden’s emphasis on funding community programs to address the root causes of gun violence, but he points out that government efforts targeting drug and weapons traffickers often result in the overpolicing of low-income communities of color. Take, for example, Washington, DC, where a 2019 plan to crack down on gun violence was selectively enforced in three predominantly Black neighborhoods, rather than citywide.

    As my colleague Samantha Michaels wrote last year, increased policing isn’t the only way to effectively crack down on gun violence. Oakland has seen success in reducing shootings through a program, Operation Ceasefire, that identifies those most at risk of committing violent crimes and offering them “access to housing, jobs, medical care, and life coaches, plus a monthly stipend if they accomplish goals like signing up for health insurance, opening a savings account, and staying in touch with probation officers.”

    “Moments like these have fueled our nation’s mass incarceration crisis,” Ofer writes. “This time around, we should be guided by evidence of what works, and not let the politics of fear drive our nation’s criminal justice policies.”

    Correction: A previous version of this article misstated the amount of funding available. It is $350 billion, not $350 million.

  • India Walton, Socialist and Former Nurse, Is Set to Become Buffalo’s First Female Mayor

    India Walton Campaign

    In what’s shaping up to be a stunning upset, India Walton, a socialist candidate running her first political campaign in Buffalo, New York, appears set to defeat four-term incumbent Byron Brown in the city’s Democratic mayoral primary. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Walton has a lead of 1,507 votes.

    The 38-year-old progressive challenger is now on track to become the city’s first female mayor and the country’s only socialist mayor of a major US city.

    As my colleague Andrea Guzman wrote ahead of the race, Walton, who counts Missouri Democratic Rep. Cori Bush as a role mode, is a lifelong Buffalo resident, a former nurse, and the founding executive director of a local land trust: 

    In her first 100 days, Walton has promised to sign a tenant’s bill of rights that would install a tenant advocate and institute rent control. She wants to remove police from responding to most mental health calls. She plans to declare Buffalo a sanctuary city. She would be the first woman to be Buffalo’s mayor. While there are other radical mayors in the United States, Walton would be the only socialist mayor in a major city.

    Walton was spotted celebrating as her campaign declared victory late Tuesday. “I won! Mommy, I’m the mayor of Buffalo!” she told her mother in a conversation captured on video and posted to Twitter. On social media, notable progressives including Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York City socialist, congratulated Walton on her likely win.

    Brown, who refused even to debate Walton ahead of Tuesday’s election, has yet to concede. For more on the country’s (likely) next socialist mayor, be sure to read Andrea’s insightful piece here.

  • “Impeachment or Death”: Scenes From Brazil’s Massive Protests Against Bolsonaro

    Protesters remember the 500,000 death from Covid-19 in Brazil.Isabela Dias

    On the day Brazil recorded its 500,000th death from COVID-19, thousands of Brazilians took to the streets to protest the government’s disastrous response to the pandemic. This is the second round of large nationwide demonstrations in 20 days calling for the impeachment of far-right President Jair Bolsonaro and for better vaccine rollout. Protests organized by grassroots movements, political parties, and unions are scheduled to take place in at least 400 cities across the country. 

    In Rio de Janeiro, it was hard to spot a single protester not wearing a mask. The crowd gathered next to a monument remembering the anti-slavery resistance leader Zumbi dos Palmares and marched along one of the main avenues of Rio’s historic Downtown neighborhood all the way to the Candelaria Church, the site of a 1993 massacre of children by the police. Mothers and fathers with their children joined the chorus of “Bolsonaro genocide.” An estimated 70,000 people attended the protest in Rio on Saturday.

    A group of vaccinated octogenarians who fought against the military dictatorship in the 1960s and 1970s once again hit the streets in the name of democracy. Student leaders held black and white pictures with the faces of people who disappeared during those years of repression. Bolsonaro, a former army captain who has appointed several military officers to key positions in his government, has repeatedly glorified the dictatorship and praised a notorious torturer from that era. Protesters also remembered Marielle Franco, a Black councilwoman and human rights activist from Rio de Janeiro whose murder in 2018 remains unsolved, and voiced support for former President Lula in a potential run for the presidency in 2022. 

    A man holds a flag in honor of Marielle Franco, a Rio de Janeiro councilwoman murdered in 2018.

    Several demonstrators carried handwritten signs blaming Bolsonaro for the half million deaths. Since the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak, he has called the coronavirus a “little flu,” ignored public health measures, promoted disproven treatments, and turned down early vaccine deals. “If the people are protesting amidst a pandemic it’s because the government is more dangerous than the virus,” read one of the signs. One mother wrote: “I’m vaccinated, I don’t want to bury my children.” So far, less than 12 percent of Brazil’s population has been fully vaccinated.

    Milady Bonfim de Jesus, 63, said she campaigned hard against Bolsonaro during the 2018 elections and is concerned about the president’s efforts to discredit Brazil’s electronic voting system, which she helped develop as an IT analyst at the Federal Data Processing Service (SERPRO), ahead of next year’s vote. Bonfim de Jesus has received only her first shot of the Covid-19 vaccine. “I’m scared of the virus, but I’m here,” she said. “What about the 500,000 people who died? I’ve lost friends and neighbors of 30 years. If there are other protests, I’ll be back.” 

    Holding a sign with the words “impeachment or death,” the teacher Helena Hawad, 58, described feeling angry, tired, sad, and fearful. “There’s too much symbolic violence,” she said. “It’s unbearable. We can’t wait any longer. It’s too dangerous.” 

    Milady Bonfim de Jesus with a sign blaming Bolsonaro for 500,000 deaths.

    Woman in shackles carries sign saying: “I don’t want to become a death statistic. The shackles belong to you.”

    Demonstration against Brazil's government in Rio de Janeiro.

    “No bullet, no hunger, no COVID. Bolsonaro out!”

    A crowd of protesters walk in Downtown Rio de Janeiro.

    Protesters demand Bolsonaro be ousted.

    “Food on the plate, vaccine in the arm, genocide in the Hague Tribunal.”


  • The House Voted to Finally Overturn the 2002 Iraq War Authorization

    Doug Mills/New York Times/Getty

    Congress gave George W. Bush approval to invade Iraq in 2002 and, for the better part of two decades, lawmakers have shown little interest in repealing it, even as presidents from both parties widen the scope of that approval far beyond Iraq’s borders. Presidents now regularly initiate conflict without congressional approval and legislation like the 2002 AUMF—or “authorization for use of military force”—is a major reason why. 

    But Democrats in Congress hope to put the genie back in the bottle. The House voted Thursday 268-161 to repeal the 2002 declaration, sending the matter to the Senate, where it faces its best chance of success in years. All but one Democrat supported the measure, and 49 Republicans voted in favor.

    “Congress has for so long failed to do its most basic functions of oversight and responsibility in exercising its war powers,” says Stephen Miles, executive director of Win Without War, an advocacy group that supports the repeal effort. “Anytime it’s doing something in that vein, it should be commended.”

    Lawmakers like Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) have long pushed to roll back the president’s war powers, but rarely have these efforts gathered much support in Congress. Part of the problem was the tendency for presidents from both parties to lean on the legislation as an ostensible legal justification for initiating conflict in the Middle East. 

    The United States declared the Iraq War over in 2011, but the AUMF lived on, serving as a legal rationale for Barack Obama’s campaign against the Islamic State and Donald Trump’s decision to assassinate a top Iranian general. Trump’s presidency lit a fire under Democrats, who voted twice to repeal the 2002 AUMF in the House, but those measures failed to clear the Republican-controlled Senate. 

    This year, Lee and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) spearheaded a parallel effort to finally put the 2002 AUMF to bed. Its chances of passing the 50-50 Senate are not extraordinary, but House Democrats are confident enough in its success that, for the first time, they are unveiling the declaration as a standalone bill, instead of an amendment to the annual defense policy bill.

    “In Washington, the 2002 AUMF has become somewhat of a zombie—an authorization that has long outlived its purpose yet still lurks among U.S. laws and poses a danger to the country’s interests,” Lee and Kaine wrote in a joint op-ed for Foreign Policy. “We owe it to U.S. troops to ensure military action is in the national interest before Congress continues to send them into harm’s way using outdated justification.”

    One element working in favor of the repeal effort is—surprisingly—the Biden administration. A White House statement said the repeal “would likely have minimal impact on current military operations,” a statement that gives Senate Democrats room to support the bill while also indicating the volume of options available to a modern president to conduct war without oversight.

    Another benefit: the bill’s potential to attract Republican support. It’s already been approved by 49 House Republicans, and in the Senate Kaine’s effort is supported by Republicans such as Todd Young (Ind.), Chuck Grassley (Ia.), Rand Paul (Ky.), and Mike Lee (Utah). Conservative groups like the Koch Brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity have rallied their political network to the cause alongside left-leaning groups like Win Without War. 

    A successful repeal would signal a bipartisan commitment to reining in presidential war powers, but the effect would still be mostly symbolic. When Biden ordered airstrikes on an Iran-backed militia in Syria, the White House justified his actions as an extension of his constitutional authority as commander in chief. He didn’t feel the need to reference a congressional authorization, but if he did, he could just have easily leaned on the 2001 AUMF, which the Trump administration believed would justify an attack against Iran, despite the legislation referring obliquely to al-Qaeda and Taliban.

    Presidents have a menu of options to pursue conflicts abroad without running it by Congress first. But even if this repeal effort won’t substantively change that state of affairs, it is—as Miles put it—a “no brainer” first step. 

  • Why Are Moderate Democrats Channeling the Ghost of Paul Ryan?

    Rep. Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden at their vice presidential debate in 2012. David Goldman/AP

    In 2011, Ayn Rand acolyte, amateur weightlifter, and then House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan proposed cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. One year later, former Bain Capital CEO Mitt Romney pledged to do the same while running for president—and then picked Ryan as his running mate. Nearly a decade and one massive Trump tax cut later, President Joe Biden wants to raise corporate taxes from 21 percent to 28 percent.

    The problem is that moderate Democrats have another number in mind: 25 percent.

    The 25 percenters include the usual suspects of moderate Democrats—Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema—plus Sens. Mark Warner and Jon Tester. And the president appears ready to go along with them, saying last month that he’d take a corporate tax rate as low as 25 percent. It’s a victory for a Romney-Ryan agenda that should have been further discredited by yet another decade of exploding inequality. 

    In 2017, I covered the tax bill that Republicans pushed through Congress without any Democratic support. Trump’s bill reduced the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent, while doing almost nothing to make up for the lost revenue by closing loopholes. Republicans also let many business owners deduct 20 percent of their business income when they pay individual taxes instead of corporate taxes. More than 60 percent of the benefits of the so-called pass through deduction will go to those in the top 1 percent, according to the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Only 4 percent will end up in the pockets of the bottom-two thirds of Americans. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the corporate tax cuts plus the pass-through deduction will cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. 

    On the individual side, the law was loaded up with handouts to the ultra-rich like a provision that doubled the estate tax exemption level from $11 million per couple to $22.4 million per couple. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the end result is that the law will give people in the top 1 percent a $61,090 tax cut in 2025, which works out to a 2.9 percent increase in after-tax income. Average Americans can expect to get $910, a 1.3 percent income boost. 

    After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law, the Congressional Budget Office projected that it would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years—even more than the $1.5 trillion anticipated while the bill was being debated. The full cost will likely be even higher. In a shrewd piece of legislative maneuvering, Republicans made the corporate tax cuts permanent but allowed the individual cuts to expire after 2025. Congress will face tremendous pressure to renew them since not doing so will be framed as a Democratic tax hike.

    The budget the White House unveiled last month leaves much of the Republican tax cut intact for now. It doesn’t touch the estate tax change or the pass-through deduction, opting instead to let them expire after 2025. Biden did call for making it harder for companies to shelter profits in tax havens and raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the same rate Barack Obama proposed during the 2012 campaign as part of a plan that would have also closed corporate tax loopholes. Those and other corporate tax changes Biden is proposing would raise more than $2 trillion over 10 years, according to the White House budget. 

    There are many reasons for pushing corporate taxes back up. First, the costs will be disproportionately borne by wealthy Americans who’ve seen their wealth skyrocket during the pandemic. Meanwhile, corporate profits are at record highs and still climbing. The many loopholes companies use to avoid paying today’s already low rate is a whole other issue. 

    But even Biden’s modest bump is aspirational. Before the White House budget was released, Manchin said he and other moderate Democrats feel “very strongly” about making sure the corporate tax rate doesn’t go above 25 percent. Biden, who has no Democratic votes to spare in the Senate, has now said he’s willing to accept that level. 

    It gives us what we’ve got today. Historically low corporate taxes make it easier for companies to book record profits. Then much of those profits are passed on to the top 1 percent of Americans through increased stock values and dividends. As ProPublica revealed last week, the Bezoes and Musks of the world manage to pay almost no taxes on their windfalls. 

    Faced with this reality, moderate Democrats have decided the corporate tax rate should stay where Republicans wanted it a decade ago. Congratulations Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. You might have lost the White House, but you won the ideological battle.