School board member admits to banning books without reading them, faces lawsuit by Ellsworth Toohey

 "I don't like them. I wouldn't read them. I'll be honest I've read the reviews on some of them…" With these words at a public meeting, Tennessee's Rutherford County School Board member Stan Vaught admitted to banning books he hadn't read - a revelation that kicked off a federal lawsuit.

 Three students and the writers' organization PEN America are suing the Rutherford County School Board for systematically removing more than 140 books from school libraries, including works by Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners. The lawsuit alleges the board violated students' First Amendment rights by banning books based on personal disagreements rather than legitimate educational concerns.

According to the complaint, board members relied primarily on BookLooks.org, a website connected to the Hitler-quoting group Moms for Liberty, instead of reading the books themselves or considering their literary merit. The board repeatedly overruled their own librarians' recommendations to keep books like Toni Morrison's Beloved and Margaret Atwood's The Testaments, and Ernest Cline' Ready Player One because it has "characters discussing beliefs that heaven and god are not real."

 The hasty removal process created chaos in school libraries. Some had to close their circulation desks as librarians scrambled to pull hundreds of books from shelves. Students were even ordered to immediately surrender checked-out copies of banned titles.

"The Board's removal of books was-and continues to be-motivated by their desire to suppress ideas that were not in keeping with Defendant's political values," the complaint states.

 

 

A developing political scandal in Florida has Gov. Ron DeSantis on the defensive by Greg Allen

 

MIAMI — Fla. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is on the defensive over questions about how $10 million in state money came to be used to fund a political campaign.

In two terms as governor, DeSantis has enjoyed strong support from the Republican-controlled legislature. But now, Republicans in the state House of Representatives say the alleged misuse of funds may warrant a criminal investigation.

 

The allegations involve $10 million that was paid to Florida by Centene, a company that provides managed care to Medicaid recipients. The money was part of a $67 million settlement by the company after it was charged with overbilling taxpayers for medications. Ten million dollars of the settlement was paid directly to a non-profit group, Hope Florida. That's a charity founded by Gov. DeSantis' wife, Casey, to help people move off government assistance into community-based programs.

An investigation by state lawmakers found that after receiving it, Hope Florida transferred the $10 million to two "dark money" political groups — groups that aren't required to disclose their donors. The two groups then sent some $8.5 million to a political committee that was campaigning against an amendment to legalize recreational marijuana in the state. It was a group controlled by DeSantis' then-chief of staff, now Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

 Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Alex Andrade, say they believe that transaction was illegal.

At a hearing of the Health Care Subcommittee in Florida's House of Representatives, Andrade said, "There's no question that these were Medicaid funds, steered by the Governor's chief of staff through secret and clandestine actions to his own political committee."

 

The investigation in the Florida House didn't target DeSantis directly. But the political campaign to defeat the marijuana initiative — which successfully scuttled the amendment — was led by DeSantis. Since these allegations, DeSantis has denied any wrongdoing by his administration. He's fought back in a series of news conferences where he's attacked the news media and Republican lawmakers.

"The whole thing that the House leadership is doing is a manufactured fraud," DeSantis said at a recent appearance in Fort Myers. "This is a hoax. They are trying to smear one of the most successful programs anywhere in the country."

Among the many issues lawmakers are angry about is that the DeSantis administration didn't tell Florida's Legislature about the $67 million settlement or about the $10 million that went directly to a charity overseen by DeSantis' wife. The investigation is the most visible indication of a growing rift between DeSantis and Republican leaders in the legislature. State House Speaker Daniel Perez recently responded to the governor's attack, calling it "a temper tantrum," saying "the House will not be bullied."

 

The other state official at the center of these allegations is Florida's attorney general, James Uthmeier.

According to the House investigation, Uthmeier was the person who initiated the plan to divert some of the settlement money to groups campaigning against the marijuana referendum. At the time, he was DeSantis' chief of staff. In February, months after these events occurred, DeSantis appointed Uthmeier attorney general to replace Ashley Moody. DeSantis named Moody to the U.S. Senate to fill out Marco Rubio's term after Rubio was appointed Secretary of State by President Trump.

Uthmeier denies the allegations that he was the mastermind behind the deal. "I was not involved in the settlement negotiations related to the Hope Florida contribution," he says. "Looking at it, everything looks legal."

 

Uthmeier says the $10 million that went to the "dark money" groups wasn't Medicaid money. He's called it a "sweetener" — money added by Centene on top of the larger Medicaid settlement. Representative Andrade says that's a legalistic argument and he isn't buying it. "Ten million dollars is a lot of money," he says. "In the real world, if someone defrauded the state or a charity of ten million dollars, they would go to prison."

Andrade says he's concluded his investigation and it's up to federal prosecutors to decide whether to pursue criminal charges. He's says he's spoken to the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney in Florida's Northern District declined to comment.

Even if there are no criminal charges, one person marked by this investigation is Casey DeSantis. She's been making appearances around the state with her husband and appears to be preparing her own bid to run for governor. President Trump has already endorsed a candidate in the race, Republican Congressman Byron Donalds.

 

Shakedown federalism and energy policy nationalization by Barry G. Rab

 

The Trump administration’s approach to federalism increasingly entails identifying states that do not embrace its policies and applying executive pressure to bring them to heel. Much like heads of universities and law firms, governors are beginning to get the treatment. This can begin with executive orders that declare broad presidential policy aims but lack specifics on either constitutional or statutory authority, much less procedural detail. A shakedown process can result in targeted institutions being firmly advised to shift course promptly or face serious consequences.

Recent executive orders indicate that this approach is being extended to state energy production and use. An April 8 Protecting American Energy from State Overreach order contends that many state energy policies have imposed “significant barriers to interstate and international trade” and are “fundamentally irreconcilable” with administration objectives to “unleash American energy.” It empowers Attorney General Pam Bondi to work with relevant federal agency heads to identify offensive state energy laws and “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop” their enforcement. This is intended to work in concert with other recent executive orders, including a quartet designed to reverse declining coal production and use for electricity.

It is not clear how these will be implemented. The state overreach order identifies energy sources that the administration favors (oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, nuclear, geothermal, and biofuel). But it does not reference other major domestic energy sources, such as wind and solar, seemingly drawing a bullseye on them for heightened scrutiny. It briefly highlights a few policies deemed problematic (cap-and-trade in California and compensation for climate damages from energy production firms in New York and Vermont) but does not confine its scope to these. More broadly, it calls upon the attorney general to prioritize a review of state laws that purport to address such issues as “climate change” or “greenhouse gas” emissions.

 

The order, however, never explains how this nullification process would be operationalized. Quite aside from massive constitutional and statutory stumbling blocks is the sheer enormity of state policies that have been adopted in this area over the past quarter-century and could conceivably warrant attorney general scrutiny. Every state has achieved some level of decarbonization in its electricity supply since 2000, with some ongoing consequences for now-favored energy sources.

Between 2015 and 2020, a time span including the first Trump administration, more than 400 bills were adopted by states that, in some fashion, supported within-state development of energy sources not included on the executive order’s preferred list. About one-third of these were approved with bipartisan support in states with full Republican control of the executive and legislative branches, including major initiatives in South Carolina, Georgia, and Arkansas. Many states have adopted such policies on state political economy grounds, seeing multiple upsides to home-generated renewables over imported coal or gas. Under the new executive order, many of these could potentially be deemed as threatening new administration objectives, including reduced demand for prioritized domestic energy sources.

Consequently, any serious effort to vet all existing state policies that threaten new executive plans would have to cast a very wide net. A comprehensive review would require platoons of federal government analysts and attorneys, amid aggressive downsizing of federal agency staff. Such a study might well turn up policies offensive to the president but adopted with broad support by states he considers part of his political base. Moreover, the order’s vague brushstrokes on how to conduct this review could generate a staggering set of interpretation and implementation questions.

Would a host of state policies adopted over the past 25 years to shutter coal plants for a range of economic and environmental reasons be deemed contrary to the president’s agenda and thereby warrant repeal? How many of the hundreds of coal-burning units that have been closed during this century should be reopened, and how many currently scheduled for retirement should remain operational? Have states possessing fossil fuel resources that have been reluctant to pursue fracking for oil and gas or mining for coal undermined the national interest, and now must be required to atone by pursuing production? Should state legislation designed to thwart federal installation of interim (Texas and New Mexico) or permanent (Nevada) nuclear waste repositories be overturned since they might imperil future nuclear power expansion? Would states that have taken major steps to reduce methane waste during oil and gas production be required to abandon them to incentivize greater output? Do the numerous oil and gas production states that apply severance taxes to extracted energy, imposing cost burdens commonly shifted to consumers in other states, burden interstate commerce and reduce fossil fuel demand, as was hotly debated in Congress in the 1980s?

The full implications of this new search-and-destroy approach to energy federalism are difficult to fathom. From recent administration experience, one can assume that implementation of this executive order will lead to a form of executive branch shakedown applied initially to high-profile state cases and then expanded, backed by threats to terminate federal funding and double down on regulatory pressures.

The United States is decades overdue for a serious conversation about clarifying the roles of federal and state government in developing effective energy and environmental policy for the next quarter-century. But the latest string of executive orders suggests continued movement toward a new era of federalism that borrows from Tammany Hall rather than the Federalist Papers.

 

GOP Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Arkansas Republican lawmakers urge Trump to reconsider denial of disaster relief

 By LUKE BARR

 

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the state's entire GOP congressional delegation are urging President Donald Trump to reconsider after the Federal Emergency Management denied the state's request for federal disaster relief following a series of deadly storms last month.

After severe storms hit the state in mid-March, Sanders applied for disaster relief through FEMA, under what's known as a major disaster declaration. The request was denied.

"As Governor Sanders noted in her request, these storms caused catastrophic damage across the state, resulting in disastrous amounts of debris, widespread destruction to homes and businesses, the deaths of three Arkansans, and injuries to many more," the state's two Republican senators and four GOP House members wrote in an April 21 letter to Trump. "Given the cumulative impact and sheer magnitude of destruction from these severe weather events, federal assistance is vital to ensure that state and local communities have the capabilities needed to rebuild."

 

his isn't the first time FEMA has denied state requests recently. Earlier this month, Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, of Washington, said FEMA had denied his state's application for federal disaster relief stemming from a "bomb cyclone" that slammed the state last November.

“This is another troubling example of the federal government withholding funding,” Ferguson said in a statement. "Washington communities have been waiting for months for the resources they need to fully recover from last winter’s devastating storms, and this decision will cause further delay. We will appeal."

FEMA also denied a request from North Carolina's Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to extend 100% federal funding for debris removal related to last fall's devastating Hurricane Helene beyond an initial 180-day timeline.

However, the situation in Arkansas marks the first time that Republicans have publicly pushed back on a denial of FEMA relief requests.

 Sanders served as the White House press secretary during Trump's first term.

 

ABC News has requested comment from FEMA about why Arkansas' request was denied.

During a visit in January to parts of North Carolina still left battered by Helene, Trump sharply criticized FEMA and suggested states could manage disaster relief better than the federal government.

"You want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA," he said. "And then FEMA gets here and they don't know the area. They've never been to the area, and they want to give you rules that you've never heard about. They want to bring people that aren't as good as the people you already have. And FEMA has turned out to be a disaster."

 n January, Trump issued an executive order creating a review council to examine the agency and make recommendations for overhauling it.

Exclusive: a Nature analysis signals the beginnings of a US science brain drain by Laurie Udesky & Jack Leeming

 A trawl of job views and application data suggests jobseekers are looking abroad as the Trump administration’s cuts to science take hold. 

 

Researchers in the United States are seeking career opportunities abroad as President Donald Trump’s administration slashes science funding and workforce numbers, finds an analysis of Nature’s jobs-board data.

Data from the Nature Careers global science jobs platform show that US scientists submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad between January and March 2025 than during the same period in 2024. At the same time, the number of US-based users browsing jobs abroad increased by 35%.

In March alone, as the administration intensified its cuts to science, views rose by 68% compared with the same month last year.

More than 200 federal grants for research related to HIV and AIDS were abruptly terminated last month. Cuts to grants from the US National Institutes of Health for COVID-19 research were revealed, and the government began a US$400-million reduction in research grants at Columbia University in New York City, because of campus protests supporting Palestinians in the conflict with Israel.

“To see this big drop in views and applications to the US — and the similar rise in those looking to leave — is unprecedented,” says James Richards, who leads the Global Talent Solutions team at Springer Nature, which includes the Nature Careers multidisciplinary science jobs board. As this article went to press, the board hosted 983 live vacancies.

The team shared the data with Nature journalists on condition that its analysis was confined to percentage changes rather than raw numbers, on the grounds that the information is considered commercially privileged. Nature’s journalists are editorially independent of Springer Nature, its publisher.

The release of the Nature Careers jobs-board data follows a separate poll of researchers by Nature’s news team, which found that 75% of researchers in the United States who responded were keen to leave.

 

Applications from US scientists seeking career opportunities in neighbouring Canada increased by 41% between January and March 2025 compared with the same period in 2024. By contrast, applications from Canadian researchers for jobs in the United States dropped by 13%.

Chemical engineer Valerie Niemann is one of many looking beyond the United States to develop her career. This month, she moved from Stanford University in California to take up a postdoctoral position at the University of Bern.

In the United States, she says, “people don’t know how long their postdocs will be. We can’t apply for fellowships because we don’t know how long they’re going to exist.”

In a 25 March post on the social media platform X, Xiao Wu, a biostatistician at Columbia University, lamented: “My very first NIH grant was abruptly cancelled just three months after receiving funding.” His work focuses on using evidence-based data to mitigate the harms of climate change on health.

Wu is not currently looking for work elsewhere, but fears he might eventually have no choice. “Without these grants, my career stability and professional future are directly jeopardized,” he says. “Therefore, this situation is not simply one of ‘seeking other opportunities’, but rather one where we are effectively being forced out of US academic institutions.” (See ‘US interest in international jobs’.)

 

Bring me your huddled masses

Some European institutions are scrambling to attract what might be an exodus of scientific talent from the United States.

In early March, for example, Aix-Marseille University in France, launched the Safe Place for Science initiative. It has allocated €15 million (about US$17 million) from the university’s budget to sponsor 15 researchers working on climate, health, the environment and social sciences.

Aix-Marseille spokesperson Clara Bufi says that the university closed the application window after receiving an overwhelming 298 applications and nearly 400 requests for information, but adds that it might reopen it after processing the current applications. The programme is aimed at US researchers who have been dismissed, censored or prevented from working by the Trump administration’s actions. Seventy per cent of applicants are researchers from the United States and are specialists in their fields, she says, and 20 people will now be selected this year.

“What’s happening is terrible for American research,” says Aix-Marseille’s president, Éric Berton, adding: “We felt it was our duty to do what we could to show scientists there was a little light in the south of France where they could do their research, be a lot freer and where they were wanted.”

Berton’s message seems to be a compelling one. Applications from the United States to fill European vacancies on the Nature Careers jobs board increased by 32% in March compared with the same month a year earlier, and views increased by 41%.

At the same time, applications to US institutions from researchers in Europe dropped by 41%.

The Max Planck institutes in Germany have been fielding requests from some of their researchers who are from the United States but who would like to stay in Germany longer than they’d planned.

 

Christina Beck, a spokesperson for the institutes, says that more applications are arriving from Asian countries, too, attributing the rise to “scientists possibly reorienting themselves, and preferring Europe to the US”. She adds: “We are following the situation in the US closely and are very concerned about the encroachments on academic freedom and institutional autonomy there.”

On 7 April, Patrick Cramer, president of the Max Planck Society in Munich, Germany, announced the formation of the Max Planck Transatlantic Program. The initiative sets out plans to create collaborative research centres with US-based institutions, as well as providing further postdoctoral training posts, and extra places for junior investigators at the society’s 84 institutes. It will also offer director positions to some “outstanding investigators” who are no longer able to work in the United States.

The entire international jobs market has seen a spike in activity (see ’Lands of opportunity’). Views and applications for non-US jobs posted on the Nature Careers website by researchers outside the country were 13% higher in January to March 2025 than they were in the same period last year.

 

Pope Francis: why his papacy mattered for Africa – and for the world’s poor and marginalised by Stan Chu Ilo

 

The death of Pope Francis at his residence on 21 April 2025 marks the end of a significant era for the Vatican and the global Catholic following of 1.3 billion faithful.

The first pope from the Americas and also the first to come from outside the west in the modern era, Pope Francis was elected leader of the Catholic church on 13 March 2013.

By the time the Argentinian Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013 there was a general feeling that the Catholic church was reaching the end of an era. At the time, the church was beset by crises, from corruption to clerical sexual abuse.

Some of the challenges facing the church which the ageing Pope Benedict XVI could no longer handle included:

• the readmission of a Holocaust denying bishop into the church

• mounting evidence of corruption in the Vatican Bank

   

  • multiple cases of clerical sexual abuse in many parts of the world

  • the confusion created in the English-speaking world with the translation of the New Roman missal into English.

  Moreover, the church was reeling from the revelation of papal secrets of his predecessor Pope Benedict by the papal butler. A book detailing these secrets portrayed the Vatican as a corrupt hotbed of jealousy, intrigue and underhanded factional fighting.

  The revelations caused the church a great deal of embarrassment.

  It meant therefore that Cardinal Bergoglio was elected by the Catholic cardinals with a mandate to clean up the church and reform the Vatican and its bureaucracy. He was to institute processes and procedures for transparency, accountability and renewal of the church and its structures, and address the lingering scandals of clerical abuse.

  The Pope’s global legacy

  Three key things defined his papal role and legacy.

  First is concentrating on the core competence of the church: serving the poor and the marginalised. This is what the founder of the Christian religion, Jesus Christ, did.

  Francis focused the Catholic church and the entire world on one mission: helping the poor, addressing global inequalities, speaking for the voiceless, and placing the attention of the world on those on the periphery.

  He also chose to live simply, forsaking the pomp and pageantry of the papacy.

  Secondly, he changed the way the Catholic church’s message is communicated. In his programmatic document, Evangelii Gaudium, he called the church to what he calls “missionary conversion”. His thinking was that everything that is done in the church must be about proclaiming the good news to a wounded and broken world.

  His central message was that of mercy towards all, an end to wars, our common humanity and the closeness of God to those who suffer. The suffering in the world continues to grow because of injustice, greed, selfishness and pride. He also focused on symbols and simple style to press home his message, like celebrating mass at a wall that divides the United States and Mexico. 

   

  In 2015 he made a risky trip to Bangui, the capital of Central African Republic, during a time of war and tension between the fighting factions of the Muslim Seleka and the Christian anti-balaka. He drove on the Popemobile with both the highest ranking Muslim cleric in the country and his Christian counterpart and visited both a Christian church and a mosque to press home the message of peace.

  The third strategy was restructuring the church and reforming the Vatican bank.

  He created the G8 (a representative council of cardinals from every part of the world) to advise him, calling the Catholic church to a synod for dialogue on every aspect of the life of the church. This effort was unprecedented.

  He also overhauled the procedures for the synod of bishops, making it more participatory, and gave women and the non-ordained voting rights. He shook up the membership of the Vatican department that picks bishops to include women. He appointed the first woman (Sr Simone Brambilla) to lead a major Vatican department and to have a cardinal as her deputy. Another woman (Sr Raffaella Petrini) was named the first woman governor of the Vatican City State.

  Pope Francis and Africa

  The pontiff’s legacy will be keenly felt in Africa. Three things stand out.

  First, he reflected the concerns of people on the continent with his message against imperialism, colonialism, exploitation of the poor by the rich, global inequality, neo-liberal capitalism and ecological injustice. Pope Francis became a voice for Africa. When he visited Kenya in 2015, he chose to visit the slums of Nairobi to proclaim the gospel of liberation to the forsaken of society. He called on African governments to guarantee for the poor and all citizens access to land, lodging and labour.

  In a sense, Pope Francis embodied the message of decolonisation and was driven in part by the liberation theology that developed in Latin America. This theology tied religious faith with liberation of the people from structures of injustice and structural violence.

  Secondly, he encouraged African Catholics to develop Africa’s own unique approach to pastoral life and addressing social issues in Africa. Particularly, Pope Francis believed in decentralisation and local processes in meeting local challenges. He said many times that it is not necessary that all problems in the church be solved by the pope at the Roman centre of the church.

  In this way, he encouraged the growth and development of African priorities and cultural adaptation to the Catholic faith. He also encouraged greater transparency and accountability among African bishops and gave African Catholic universities and seminaries greater autonomy to develop their own educational priorities and programmes.

  Thirdly, Pope Francis had a very deep connection to Africa’s young people. He encouraged and supported initiatives and programmes to strengthen the agency of young people, to give them hope and support their personal, spiritual and professional development. For the first time in history, on 1 November 2022, Pope Francis met virtually with more than 1,000 young Africans for an hour. I helped organise this meeting. He answered their questions and encouraged them to fight for what they believe.

  A reformist agenda

  The reforms of Pope Francis could be termed a movement – from a church of a few where priests and bishops and the pope call the shots to a church of the people of God where everyone’s voice matters and where everyone’s concerns and needs are catered to.

  He quietly changed the tone of the message and the style of the leadership at the Vatican.

  Granted, he did not substantially alter the content of that message, which is often seen as conservative, Eurocentric, and resistant to cultural pluralism and social change. But he constantly chipped away at its foundations through inclusion and an openness to hearing the voices of everyone, including those who do not agree with the church’s position. In doing this, he shifted the priorities and practices of the Catholic church regarding such core issues as power and authority.

  Pope Francis opened the doors to the voices of the marginalised in the church — women, the poor, the LGBTQI+ community, and those who have disaffiliated from the church. Many African Catholics would love to see more African representation at the Vatican, and many of them also worry about the widening division in the church, particularly driven by cultural and ideological battles in the west that have nothing to do with the social and ecclesial context of Africa.

  Why his papacy mattered

  Pope Francis was the first pope from the Americas, the first Jesuit pope, the first to choose the name Francis and the first to come from outside the west in the modern era. He chose the name Francis because he wanted to focus his papacy on the poor, emulating St Francis of Assisi.

  In a sense, Pope Francis redefined what religion and spirituality mean for Catholicism. It’s not laying down and enforcing the law without mercy, it is caring for our neighbours and the Earth. This is the kind of religion the world needs today.

Patriots’ Day: How far-right groups hijack history and patriotic symbols to advance their cause, according to an expert on extremis Art Jipson

 

Patriots’ Day, a commemoration of the battles of Lexington and Concord – the first confrontations of the American Revolution – holds historical value as a symbol of American resistance to British colonial rule. Over time, however, the holiday has been co-opted by extremist groups.

Capitalizing on ambiguities in the understanding of patriotic symbols, extremist groups have attempted to change the meaning of freedom and liberty embedded in the symbol of the American flag.

Not all states celebrate Patriots’ Day. Massachusetts and Maine observe it as a public holiday on the third Monday in April. Wisconsin observes Patriots’ Day as a state observance – not a public holiday – on April 19, with schools and businesses remaining open. Other states may also mark it informally or through educational activities.

As a scholar of extremism, I have become increasingly concerned by the appropriation of patriotic symbols such as the American flag and Patriots’ Day into narratives for far-right rhetoric, recruitment and radicalization. Patriotic events such as the Fourth of July can be marked by demonstrations, armed protests and calls for militant action by far-right extremist groups. 

 

Just before the Fourth of July in 2019, the Southern Poverty Law Center demonstrated how extremist groups have long adopted symbols of U.S. history to promote white supremacy. A 2010 SPLC report documented extremist calls for “freedom,” including a call from such far-right groups for repeal of all social service spending.

The hijacking of patriotic symbols is part of an effort to create an atmosphere where participants believe they are engaging in a modern-day fight for freedom. 

 

In interviews I conducted with extremists in March 2025, several members of the Patriot Front said they are planning to protest on April 19 in an effort to use the holiday to attract media and public attention to their efforts to create a white homeland.

Extremists are not the only Americans who are planning on using Patriots’ Day as a platform to attract attention to their causes. Mobilization of opposition to President Donald Trump’s policies and deportation efforts are also planned for April 19. Protesters raise concerns about the incorporation of American patriotic symbols by the right wing to support policies that they view as distinctively anti-American and unconstitutional.

The 250th anniversary on April 19 of the first battles of the American Revolution is a fitting time to reflect on the meaning and use of historical symbols.

White supremacy and Patriots’ Day

From a sociological perspective, national symbols and events such as the American flag and Patriots’ Day do not have fixed meanings. Rather, any symbol is defined by how people actually use it. Whether one raises an American flag or burns one, the use of the flag is a powerful symbol that is understood to mean different things to different people, depending on the context.

Extremists often take other symbols of American patriotism, such as the bald eagle, the Second Amendment and the phrase “America the beautiful” and try to use them to promote their message. For example, white supremacists believe that America can be beautiful only if white Americans are in positions of authority. The interpretations of these symbols become tools for extremist mobilization.

In the lead-up to Patriots’ Day in 2023, members of the Patriot Front, a white supremacist group, rallied near the Massachusetts State House in Boston. They displayed a banner reading “Reclaim America,” a slogan associated with their ideology.

Several white supremacist groups such as the Patriot Front, National Socialist Club-131 and other neo-Nazis groups position themselves as authentic modern-day “patriots” fighting to preserve society. They claim they are “undermined by a government that represses citizens” and creates an unsafe space for what they call a “white homeland.”

The Patriot Front manifesto, written by group founder Thomas Rousseau, states: “A nation within a nation is our goal. Our people face complete annihilation as our culture and heritage are attacked from all sides.”

The role of extremist narratives

The extremist groups see Patriots’ Day not only as a commemoration of resistance against British colonialism but as a rallying point for a radical vision of American identity that attracts more attention from the public and the media because of the use of the recognized symbol.

Extremists frame their actions as a continuation of the American Revolution and draw upon the myth of an oppressed, virtuous “true American” standing against tyranny. In this view, traditional symbols of American patriotism represent resistance not against an overarching foreign power but against internal threats to their vision of America.

These include perceived threats posed by progressive movements, racial minorities, immigrants and the federal government. In the minds of those on the far right, what’s at stake are their traditional values, gun ownership and individual rights.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has highlighted the significance of April 19 in the anti-government “patriot” movement’s calendar, noting that it has been associated with increased activity from militias and other extremist groups. 

 

Some of those groups include the sovereign citizens movement, Boogaloo Bois and the Patriot Front. The sovereign citizen movement is a loosely organized group of individuals who believe that they are not subject to government laws, especially federal laws in the United States. The Boogaloo movement is an anti-government extremist group known for advocating for a second American civil war, which they often call the “boogaloo.”

The myth of the ‘true American’

The construction of the “true American” is central to the ideology. For many far-right groups, the “true” or “real” American is defined as someone who believes in the preservation of a specific, often exclusionary version of American values in which white Americans are seen as both moral paragons and under siege.

Some American militia groups, such as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, claim that only those willing to resist their idea of “tyranny” are true American patriots and that they should resist the government.

In 2014, the Oath Keepers participated in an armed standoff in Nevada to support rancher Cliven Bundy, who was in a dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. The group positioned themselves as defenders against federal authority. Two men with ties to the Three Percenters, Barry Croft and Adam Fox, were involved in a plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2020. The plot was foiled by law enforcement, and the individuals were arrested and charged with terrorism-related offenses. Both received lengthy prison sentences.

As Stewart Rhodes, who founded The Oath Keepers in 2009 in Lexington, Massachusetts, has said: “We are the last line of defense against tyranny. Real patriots will stand up.”

Anyone not aligned with their ideology is seen as a traitor or unwilling to confront systemic problems and are derisively labeled “sheep.”

The mobilization of violence

One of the most concerning ways in which American patriotic symbols are co-opted by extremists is the potential to justify violent action. 

 

The connection between historical acts of violence, such as the battles of Lexington and Concord, and contemporary calls for preparation for violent actions is deliberately emphasized. According to historian Darren Mulloy, extremists use well-known and accepted American symbols to create a sense that violence is a justified and necessary means of defense. Militia groups, in Mulloy’s research, exploit the need for violence in the American Revolution and the settling of the American West to legitimize their contemporary calls.

The Oath Keepers romanticize the role of armed militias in the founding of America as seen at Lexington and Concord. They use this day to promote the idea that their cause is just and that armed resistance is a legitimate form of political expression.

Groups such as The Base and the Oath Keepers have called for training in preparation for armed defense against the government. They recruit current and former military, police and first responders, urging them to uphold an oath to defend the Constitution – as the group interprets it – often against what they see as a tyrannical federal government.

This creates a dangerous feedback loop in which extremism and violence are normalized through the glorification of historical events that celebrate acts of rebellion while strengthening identities that radicalize individuals.

Understanding how patriotic symbols can be exploited offers important insights into how historical narratives may be manipulated, potentially leading to harmful consequences in American society.

Federal judge finds ‘probable cause’ to hold Trump administration in contempt – a legal scholar explains what this means

By Cassandra Burke Robertson   

A battle between the Trump administration and federal courts over the deportation of more than 100 immigrants to a prison in El Salvador intensified on April 16, 2025. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg released an opinion saying that he had “probable cause” to hold members of the administration in criminal contempt. That potentially dramatic action was in response to the White House disobeying Boasberg’s March 15 order to halt flights taking those immigrants to El Salvador.

“The Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order,” the 46-page, April 16 opinion says.

Amy Lieberman, a politics editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Cassandra Burke Robertson, a legal scholar at Case Western Reserve University, to better understand Boasberg’s decision.

 

What exactly did Judge Boasberg do in this memorandum opinion?

Boasberg is saying there is evidence that the Trump administration has not complied with the court’s order to return the deportees, and that it may have intentionally flouted that order. He is making a finding of probable cause, meaning that the court needs to dig a little deeper to find out what happened and why the government, in this case, apparently did not comply with the court order.

It’s not too late for the government to comply. One option for the government is called “purging the contempt,” meaning the administration complies with the court order and brings the individuals who were sent to El Salvador back into U.S. custody. 

 

If the administration does that, there will not be any further contempt proceedings. Normally, that would be attractive to the government in this position.

If the government chooses not to bring the detainees back into U.S. custody, then the probable cause finding means there is going to be an investigation overseen by the court.

But nobody has been found in contempt, yet.

The next step is taking evidence about what happened, including declarations from government officials. If needed, the court may also order, Boasberg wrote, “hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs.” The goal is to find out who ordered what, when and why. Then the court can decide whether someone within the government is responsible for flouting the court order.

Boasberg is giving the administration until April 23 to respond. By that date, the government must either, first, explain the steps it has taken to seek to return the individuals to U.S. custody. Or, second, it can identify the individuals who decided not to halt the transfer of the detainees out of U.S. custody, after the court ruled that they should not be transferred.

If Boasberg holds government officials in contempt, what happens next?

It is definitely not clear who Boasberg would hold in contempt. Part of what Boasberg is doing is figuring out who the relevant decision-makers are and what they might have ordered. The next step is to take discovery on those issues and to make a finding about who is responsible.

With rare exceptions, a contempt case is prosecuted in the same court whose order was violated. Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor is responsible for charging the defendants, once identified, with contempt. Those charges, like any criminal case, would need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Issuing sanctions isn’t something Boasberg can just decide – there is a process.

Normally, a prosecutor in a case like this would be from the Department of Justice. In Boasberg’s opinion, he acknowledged that the Department of Justice might decline to prosecute. Federal rules allow the judge to appoint a different prosecutor if the government declines to prosecute or if “the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney.”

One big question is, can the president pardon contempt? Notably, Trump has done so before, when he pardoned Sheriff Joe Arpaio for defying a court order requiring him to stop his immigration patrols. However, some scholars have argued that such pardons may violate the Constitution’s separation of powers.

What is the punishment for contempt?

The two most common punishments would typically be a term of incarceration, or monetary sanctions. I suspect monetary sanctions are easier to enforce here than jail time.

It is so uncommon to hold any government official in contempt. Usually, the government would very quickly change direction to come into compliance to avoid the risk of any government official being sent to jail or any financial penalties being levied.

In the past, courts rarely needed to sentence government officials, because once there was a probable cause finding, the government would comply with what the judge was asking. Researcher Nicholas Perillo found “many examples of agencies shifting toward compliance on being faced with a mere contempt motion,” so that sanctions were not needed.

There aren’t a lot of cases where a judge has tried to enforce sanctions against a member of the government. In fact, only two federal officials – in 1951 – have ever been incarcerated for contempt, and they only spent a few hours in jail.

The Supreme Court found that the deportees’ case was not supposed to be heard in Boasberg’s court. Does Boasberg still have the authority to hold the government in contempt?

Boasberg had to address this, because the government also raised the issue. Boasberg points out the Supreme Court has historically said that when a party is faced with a court order, it has to comply with that court order until it gets relief on appeal. It cannot just ignore an order it believes a court should not have issued.

Here, the government had an obligation to comply with the order to return the Venezuelan immigrants sent to prison in El Salvador, even as it appealed the case to a higher court. And that is what is the issue here – that it failed to comply.

Have government officials ever been held in contempt of court before, and does this case differ from other cases?

It’s not a rare remedy in general – every year, many litigants are held in contempt and even jailed for refusing to comply with court orders. It’s especially common in child support and custody proceedings.

But it’s very rare for government officials to be held in contempt of court. One was the Arpaio case. Another case involved a Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples and was held in contempt. She spent six days in jail before she was released on the condition that she wouldn’t interfere with her deputies granting the licenses.

 

There has been talk of the U.S. edging into a constitutional crisis with this development. Does this order show that a crisis is already happening?

Any time the government fails to comply with a court order, I think we risk a constitutional crisis. But I believe that contempt proceedings are a way to show the strength of the Constitution. The contempt power has been around for as long as federal courts in the U.S. have been around, since 1789. This is fundamental to our constitutional system. If a litigant does not obey a court order, courts have power to enforce those orders.

The people growing their own toilet paper by Soo Min Kim

 

One million trees worldwide are cut down each year to make toilet paper. Is it more sustainable to grow your own?

In Meru, a town in eastern Kenya, a lush, leafy plant sways over the landscape. Benjamin Mutembei, a Meru resident, is growing the Plectranthus barbatus plant – not for food, but to use as toilet paper. He started growing the plant in 1985. "I learned about it from my grandfather and have been using it ever since. It's soft and has a nice smell," he says.

Plectranthus barbatus is a leafy plant that can grow up to 2m (6.6ft) tall. Its leaves are roughly the size of an industrial toilet paper square and emit a minty, lemony fragrance. Covered in tiny hairs, the leaves have a soft texture. This plant thrives in warm tropical temperatures and partial sunlight and is widely grown across Africa, where it is sometimes used to demarcate property boundaries.

 "This has been an African tissue for a long time, and everyone in my household uses the plant. I only buy modern toilet rolls when the leaves have all been plucked," Mutembei says.

 

The Plectranthus barbatus plant has provided Mutembei with a cost-effective alternative to purchasing toilet paper in Kenya. Like many commodities, the price of toilet paper has risen across Africa, largely due to the high cost of imported raw materials, such as wood pulp, which is essential for the production of toilet roll. Raw material costs now make up 75-80% of the final cost of tissue products in Kenya, according to the Kenya Association of Manufacturers.

Toilet paper made from virgin wood pulp currently dominates the global industry. "Typical toilet paper is made of 70-80% short fibre hardwood and 20-30% long fibre hardwood," says Ronalds Gonzalez, a professor in the Department of Forest Biomaterials at North Carolina State University.

According to research by the environmental impact consultancy Edge, roughly one million trees are cut down worldwide each year to make toilet paper.

The pulp and paper industry is the world's largest consumer of virgin wood, using roughly 35% of harvested trees for paper production. This is driving deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, species extinction and widespread ecosystem disruption according to the latest Ethical Consumer report on ethical toilet paper.

Martin Odhiambo, a herbalist at the National Museum of Kenya who specialises in traditional plants, thinks the solution to the environmental impact of cutting trees for toilet paper may already be here.

 "Plectranthus barbatus is the African toilet paper. Many young people nowadays are unaware of this plant, but it has the potential to be an environmentally friendly alternative to toilet paper," he says.

 

There is no official data on exactly how many people use the plant as toilet paper in Kenya; however, it is widely grown in various parts of Africa and continues to be used in many rural areas where it is easily accessible, says Odhiambo.

Plectranthus barbatus grows to its full height in 1-2 months from a cutting and the cutting itself costs around 50 Kenyan shillings ($0.37).

"The leaves are similar in size to an industrial toilet paper square, making them suitable for use in modern flush toilets or for composting in latrines," says Odhiambo.

 

Visitors from across Kenya attend Odhiambo's lectures on the uses of Plectranthus barbatus and buy cuttings from his botanical garden at the National Museum of Kenya in Nairobi.

"My class has grown to over 600 participants. People are enthusiastic about learning how to use the plant and often ask for cuttings and seedlings to take back to their towns," he says.

The potential of the plant is also being explored in other countries.

 

Robin Greenfield, an environmental activist who runs a non-profit advocating for sustainable living in Florida in the US, has been using the leaves of Plectranthus barbatus for five years.

 Greenfield runs a "grow your own toilet paper" initiative and cultivates over 100 Plectranthus barbatus plants at his Florida nursery. He shares cuttings for free or for voluntary donations, encouraging people to grow their own toilet paper. So far, he says he has distributed cuttings to hundreds of people.

"There are many people who associate using the toilet paper plant with poverty," says Greenfield, though he points out that industrial toilet paper is ultimately made from plants too.

 Greenfield says he's had positive feedback from people who have used the plant. "For anybody who feels a little hesitant to try this plant, I would say to drop your worries about what people think about you. And simply by saying, 'I'm going to be me, and that might mean wiping my butt with some really soft leaves that I grow,'" he says.

But how realistic is it that this plant might become more widely used?

 

Large-scale production has not yet been explored. Instead companies such as WEPA, one of Europe's largest toilet paper manufacturers, are reducing the environmental impact of conventional toilet paper in other ways. WEPA has developed a new method using recycled cardboard to produce toilet paper, which does not involve bleaching the fibres, a spokesperson says.

Typically wood pulp is bleached before it is turned into paper, which releases chlorinated compounds into the environment. These compounds can react with carbon-based materials, creating dioxins which are highly toxic chemicals associated with cancer and other health risks, according to a report by the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council.

The toilet paper plant, meanwhile, is expected to have a "minimal" impact on the industry, says a WEPA spokesperson.

One drawback is that wastewater and disposal systems, especially in Europe, aren't designed to handle this type of paper, as only soluble items can be flushed through the system, the spokesperson says.

Greenfield says that's where compost toilets come in. "I use a compost toilet. The leaves go back to the earth and produce soil, which can then support food growth. It's a closed-loop system, and I think using these leaves could lead us to a conversation about the environmental benefits of composting."

 

There are also limitations on the locations and countries where of Plectranthus barbatus can be grown, says to Wendy Applequist, an associate scientist at the Missouri Botanical Garden. In South Africa, for example, Plectranthus barbatus is regarded as an invasive species, and growing or selling it is banned. Invasive species cost the global economy more than $423bn (£333bn) every year and are a major driver of biodiversity loss. (Read about the proven ways to stop biodiversity loss.)

Applequist suggests that growing the plant in a controlled environment, within a designated area, and monitoring its growth to limit expansion into the existing ecosystem could help mitigate environmental risks.

Perhaps the biggest challenge to going mainstream, though, remains public acceptance. But from his plant nursery in Nairobi, Odhiambo remains hopeful.

"I know some people see using leaves as toilet paper as a step backward, but understanding the benefits of this plant, I believe it could become the next green alternative," says Odhiambo. "I've been growing it in my nursery and sharing it with communities across Kenya, and people have been amazed by its convenience. If we keep an open mind and continue promoting this plant, we could eventually mass produce it for widespread use."

The biggest trial in Meta's history starts Monday. Here's what to know by Bobby Allyn

 

The Federal Trade Commission's blockbuster antitrust case against Meta kicks off on Monday in a courtroom in Washington. It's the culmination of a nearly six-year investigation into whether the social media giant broke competition laws in acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp.

At stake is the future Meta's $1.4 trillion advertising business and the prospect of having to spin off its hugely popular services into separate companies — a corporate breakup the likes of which has not been seen since AT&T's telephone monopoly was forced to split apart more than 40 years ago. 

 

Lawyers for the FTC and Meta will deliver opening statements on Monday before U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in a trial expected to stretch for seven to eight weeks.

Reams of evidence and dozens of witnesses will be scrutinized. The government plans to call CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg and the head of Instagram, Adam Mosseri, to the witness stand.

What is the FTC's case against Meta?

The FTC argues that when Meta acquired Instagram, in 2012, and WhatsApp, two years later, that it was part of a strategy to eliminate competition and maintain monopoly power over the social media market. The government contends that a "buy or bury" strategy propelled Meta's acquisitions, leading Meta to gobble up competitors it viewed as threats, or to squash the rivals out of business altogether. In a 2012 internal email government lawyers plan to present, Zuckerberg wrote that buying Instagram was motivated by a desire to "neutralize a potential competitor." The FTC says this alleged behavior is illegal under federal antitrust laws.

 

What remedy does the FTC want? 

The government argues the only way to restore competition to the social media marketplace is for Meta to be forced to unwind its purchase of both Instagram and WhatsApp. The government says divesting those apps will allow smaller social media companies compete for consumers and ad dollars and loosen Meta's grip on the industry.

How is Meta expected to respond in court?

Meta counters that it is being punished for being an innovative and aggressive tech company. It has always competed fairly, Meta's lawyers say, and regulators are attempting to punish the tech titan's runaway success. Lawyers for Meta have also said in court filings that the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were approved by regulators more than a decade ago.

 

Yet the FTC maintains that Meta was not forthcoming to regulators who cleared the purchases, claiming Meta withheld key information about the company to win the blessing of Washington. Another important facet to Meta's defense is just how crowded the social media world is today, versus 2012 and 2014, when the company made those purchases. Meta says it faces fierce competition from Elon Musk's X, TikTok, Snapchat and many other social media platforms.

In a statement ahead of opening statements, Meta said: "its evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others. More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the Commission's action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final."

What would it mean for users of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp if Meta was forced to break up? 

The FTC says it would mean more robust competition among social media startups, and therefore better quality services for everyone. Government lawyers argue that Meta's services have degraded in quality in part because of its dominant position in the marketplace.

Regulators also say Meta's privacy protections have lapsed as a result of its alleged monopoly status. To the FTC, a break-up would translate into a more vibrant social media landscape, where new upstarts can go toe to toe with Meta's apps. But Meta contends the opposite: That a breakup would make each of its individual apps less integrated and worse for consumers after many years in which Meta's systems and data have become entwined.

What about the politics of the case? How does CEO Mark Zuckerberg's relationship with Trump play into this trial?

This case first started in Trump's first term, in December 2020. That's when Trump still had a bitter feud with Zuckerberg, but the two have been less confrontational of late. Before he won the November election, Trump threatened to throw Zuckerberg in prison, saying if Zuckerberg's platforms did anything to hurt Trump's chances on the campaign trail, he would "spend the rest of his life in prison." 

 

Like many other executives in Silicon Valley, Zuckerberg has recently been ingratiating himself with the Trump administration. Zuckeberg has publicly praised Trump; he donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee; he agreed to pay Trump $25 million to settle a suit Trump filed for being suspended from Facebook and Instagram in the wake of Jan. 6; and he's made company-wide shifts that align with Trump's priorities, like ending Facebook and Instagram's fact-checking program and rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Zuckerberg has also made visits to Trump's Mar-a-Lago club reportedly to lobby the president to drop the case.

There has been speculation that Trump could abandon the trial and settle with Meta but so far, all indications point to the case sticking. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has said his lawyers are "raring to go" against Meta. That said, he also has said he would "obey lawful orders" from the president. In other words, the start of the trial does not take a settlement off the time. The two sides could reach a settlement in the midst of the trial, though legal experts say it is highly unlikely. 

 

Egg prices increase to record high despite Trump's predictions and bird flu outbreak slowing by JOSH FUNK and DEE-ANN DURBIN

 

U.S. egg prices increased again last month to reach a new record-high of $6.23 per dozen despite President Donald Trump’s predictions, a drop in wholesale prices and no egg farms having bird flu outbreaks.

The increase reported Thursday in the Consumer Price Index means consumers and businesses that rely on eggs might not get much immediate relief. Demand for eggs is typically elevated until after Easter, which falls on April 20.

Industry experts were expecting the index to reflect a drop in retail egg prices because wholesale egg prices dropped significantly in March. University of Arkansas agricultural economist Jada Thompson said the wholesale prices did not start dropping until mid-March, so there may not have been enough time for the average price for the month to decline even though prices started to fall at the end of the month. And grocery stores may not have immediately passed on the lower prices.

The bird flu effect

 

Bird flu outbreaks were cited as the major cause of price spikes in January and February after more than 30 million egg-laying chickens were killed to prevent the spread of the disease. Only 2.1 million birds were slaughtered in March and none of them were on egg farms.

Egg prices hit $5.90 in February one month after setting a record at $4.95 per dozen, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The farms that had fall outbreaks have been working to resume egg production after sanitizing their barns and raising new flocks, but chickens must be about six months old before they start laying eggs. Thompson said those farms did not come back online as quickly as anticipated.

In the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture numbers, there were only about 285 million hens laying eggs nationwide as of March 1, down from 293 million the previous month. Before the outbreak, the flock typically numbered more than 315 million.

Since the current bird flu outbreak began, more than 168 million birds have been slaughtered, most of them egg-laying chickens. Any time a bird gets sick, the entire flock is killed to help keep bird flu from spreading. That can have an effect on the egg supply because massive egg farms may have millions of birds.

 

The disease is difficult to control because it is spread easily through the droppings of wild birds that carry the avian flu virus. Bird flu has also inflected other animals, including dairy cattle and several dozen farm workers but officials maintain it is not a significant threat to humans.

Egg price politics

Trump tried to take credit for the lower wholesale egg prices the USDA reported in recent weeks.

“The egg prices they were going through the sky. And you did a fantastic job,” Trump said to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins before he announced the details of his tariffs at the White House last week. ”Now we have lots of eggs and they are much cheaper now.”

But experts say the president’s plan to fight bird flu by focusing on strengthening egg farmers’ defenses against the virus is likely to be more of a long-term help.

 

“I think there are lots of people who are looking to see the egg prices coming down because they wanted to call it a win. And I think it’s a loss for everybody. I think we all want to see egg prices come down,” Thompson said.

Trump and Vice President JD Vance both trumpeted the overall decline in inflation last month before most of Trump's tariffs took effect, but they did not directly address egg prices.

Rollins on Thursday suggested the rise in egg prices is temporary. She pointed to the overall consumer price index showing a slight dip in prices for goods and services across the U.S. economy in March and suggested egg prices will soon follow.

“We’re also moving into the Super Bowl of eggs, which is Easter,” Rollins said. “So from the beginning, I’ve said this is sort of the high price for retail for eggs, but we feel very confident that will continue to come back down.”

Earlier this week, Trump said the annual White House egg roll would use real eggs again this year despite the high prices. Egg farmers typically donate more than 30,000 eggs for the event

 

Egg prices around the country

U.S. egg prices did began falling in mid-March, according to Datasembly, a market research company that tracks prices at thousands of stores. Datasembly said eggs averaged $5.98 per dozen the week beginning March 16 and dropped to $5.51 the week beginning March 30.

But prices vary widely around the country, depending on the location of recent bird flu outbreaks and some state laws requiring eggs to be cage-free. At a Walmart in Richmond, California, a dozen eggs were $6.34 on Thursday. In Omaha, Nebraska, Walmart was selling eggs for $4.97 per dozen. California requires eggs sold to be cage-free; Nebraska doesn't.

Egg prices are still expected to decline further later this spring, but the latest numbers could also increase scrutiny of Cal-Maine Foods, which provides 20% of the nation’s eggs, and other large egg producers.

Earlier this week, Cal-Maine acknowledged it is being investigated by the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which is looking into egg price increases. Cal-Maine said it is cooperating with the investigation.

In its most recent quarter, which ended March 1, Cal-Maine said its net income more than tripled to $508.5 million compared to the same period a year ago. The company said its revenue nearly doubled to $1.42 billion, largely because of higher egg prices.

Faking it

The price of real eggs has some consumers turning to fake ones for Easter crafts this year. Craft retailer Michaels said its craft egg kit, which features a dozen plastic eggs for $2.49, is a top seller and has sold three times faster than the company expected.

Trump’s dream of bringing manufacturing jobs back is missing a few things By Jessica Calarco, sociologist

 

Many Trump supporters are celebrating his new tariffs on the hope that they’ll make America great again by bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. “For four years, Americans couldn’t afford groceries, let alone a house,” Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner wrote on X last Wednesday, “This Liberation Day, @POTUS is bringing manufacturing and jobs back. President Trump is making the American Dream achievable again!” That same day, Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said in a CNN interview that, “The decision by President Trump today to impose reciprocal tariffs will be so good for Indiana.” Banks went on to talk about his father’s job at plant making axles for cars, saying, “Those are the manufacturing jobs that President Trump is bringing back from overseas.”  

The problem is: those who credit manufacturing jobs for a glorious past America mistake correlation for causation. They think their parents and grandparents had the “good life” because of jobs in manufacturing. In reality, their parents and grandparents had that life because of unions, pensions, high marginal tax rates, and strong social policies — with a little post-War exceptionalism and a lot of racism and sexism thrown in.

 he decades following World War II represented the heyday of domestic manufacturing in the U.S., with more than a quarter of all U.S. workers employed in the sector at the time. Those decades are also the ones that Americans associate with the “good life” — getting married, living in a “nice” house in a “nice” neighborhood, raising kids on one breadwinner’s income, taking slideshow-worthy summer vacations, and retiring comfortably at age 65, all without going to college, let alone taking on mountains of debt in student loans.

 

Today, many Americans perceive that lifestyle as harder to access than it used to be, and they often assume that they can’t have it because of declines in domestic manufacturing. Yet, even in manufacturing’s heyday, that “good life” wasn’t open to just anyone, wasn’t good for everyone and wasn’t actually the product of factory jobs.

From the 1950s through the 1970s, for example, Black men and white men in the U.S. were employed in manufacturing at roughly similar rates. Yet, the average white man working the industry was paid substantially more than his Black counterpart — a difference of more than $10,000 a year in today’s dollars. On top of those wage differences, Black families also faced further discrimination in access to education, low-cost mortgages, and rapidly growing suburban neighborhoods.

 

Meanwhile, the women who had stepped in to staff the factories during World War II were pushed out of manufacturing jobs and often out of the workforce entirely. Policymakers and union leaders told women it was their womanly purpose and patriotic duty to either go back to the home front or fill the jobs that men didn’t want. Even Woodie Guthrie, in the last verse of “Union Maid,” sang, “You gals who want to be free, just take a tip from me // Get you a man who’s a union man // And join the ladies’ auxiliary. // Married life ain’t hard when you’ve got a union card // A union man has a happy life // When he’s got a union wife.”  That lack of competition from women made it easier for men — especially U.S.-born white men — to negotiate for a family wage. That family wage offered women — especially U.S.-born white women — a path out of precarity, but it also incentivized them to accept roles where they were economically dependent on and socially subservient to men.  

Even with the reduced competition, though, the negotiation of a living wage was only possible thanks to the power that trade unions wielded at the time. In the decades after World War II, roughly one in three U.S. workers were union members, compared to only about one in ten today. Unions helped increase manufacturing wages and reduce wage gaps between front-line workers, managers, and CEOs. They also helped create and maintain other employment protections, like 40-hour workweeks, health insurance, and defined-benefit pensions that guaranteed a steady income even after workers retired.

 

As unions fought to protect workers from falling at the bottom, policymakers also moved to prevent runaway wealth at the top. At the federal level, the highest marginal tax rate increased rapidly after World War II, peaked at 92% in 1953, and remained above 70% until the early 1980s, after which it fell dramatically to just 37% today.

Those high taxes helped subsidize the “good life” for American families (especially white families) who couldn’t have afforded that life on their own. That money fueled innovations that increased lifespans and standards of those lives (including by allowing Americans to buy cheap goods produced in countries with laxer labor protections). That money also expanded access to education, making it possible for the children of factory workers to go to college and avoid the physical pain that their fathers suffered from manufacturing work.