Articles & Videos

It’s been six months since a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, yet virtually nothing has come of the federal investigation into the incident thus far.Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross was caught on tape—from multiple angles—sidestepping the front of Good’s red Honda Pilot before advancing toward the driver side door, aiming his gun at Good, and firing his weapon.The 37-year-old was a mother and an award-winning poet. In the immediate moments after her death on January 7, the federal government’s response seemed to be normal. The FBI mobilized to investigate the crime scene, and local authorities received assurances from the government that the probe would proceed as a joint investigation. But by that evening, Washington had completely shut out Minnesota police and law enforcement in Hennepin County. The FBI shuttled Good’s SUV to a storage facility before Minnesota authorities got a chance to look at the evidence.“I was on the phone with the U.S. attorney, and everybody agreed this would once again be a joint investigation. And then suddenly the [Bureau of Criminal Apprehension] was kicked off the case,” Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty told the Pod Save the People podcast in June, referring to the state local law enforcement agency.“And so we realized then and there it was going to be a different situation,” Moriarty continued. “They took away Renee Good’s car. It’s shrink wrapped. It’s still sitting in a warehouse somewhere. They won’t share any evidence that they collected or got from any statements.”The restricted access to critical evidence meant that the Justice Department was the only agency left capable of conducting a full investigation into the incident. But Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ Civil Rights Division, had no interest in doing so, The New York Times reported in January.Three current and former department officials told the Times that Dhillon would not consider opening an investigation into whether Ross had violated the law. Instead, the department considered investigating Good and her widow, Becca Good, regarding their supposed ties to activist groups. The unusual request prompted the mass exodus of several federal prosecutors.But the push to shield Ross went all the way to the top. Then–Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement that there was “no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation” into Ross. Shortly afterward, Donald Trump and his allies began to slander Good as a “domestic terrorist,” preemptively attempting to sentence her in the court of public opinion. Meanwhile, the day after Good was killed, Vice President JD Vance practically promised Ross’s freedom: “That guy is protected by absolute immunity,” Vance told reporters at the time. “He was doing his job.”As of now, very little has been materially done to investigate Good’s death or hold her killer accountable. In a statement to The Atlantic, the Department of Homeland Security both confirmed that it was still looking into the circumstances of the shooting and echoed Vance’s comments that Ross had “acted in self-defense” after Good had “weaponized her vehicle against him.”The magazine noted in a story Monday that the word choice was “not particularly indicative of an agency keeping an open mind as to what happened.”In lieu of legitimate action from the federal government, state and local law enforcement have started to try to gain access to the evidence in their own ways, including legal action to demand federal agents hand over the protected material.Good’s widow has also filed her own lawsuit, asking for the return of the car so that Minnesota investigators can take a look at it.The family’s legal team “continues to take all aggressive offensive measures and is fiercely committed to pursuing truth and accountability,” Antonio Romanucci, the family’s attorney, said in an emailed statement to The Atlantic.

The Justice Department is trying to save acting Attorney General Todd Blanche from a lawsuit seeking the release of his correspondence regarding sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein ahead of his Senate confirmation hearing.The lawsuit, filed in June by the government watchdog American Oversight, requested “All email communications sent or received by Todd Blanche and containing both a key term from Column A and a key term from Column B,” and “All text messages and messages on messaging platforms ... sent or received by Todd Blanche and containing the term ‘Epstein.’”Column A contains “Epstein” and “Maxwell,” while column B contains “Trump,” “DJT,” “POTUS,” “DOE174,” “Tallahassee,” and nine other terms.The lawsuit also argued that Blanche’s upcoming Senate confirmation hearings creates “an urgency to inform the public about Mr. Blanche’s work in his official capacity surrounding the government’s treatment of the Smith Report,” and that “Mr. Blanche’s work history regarding the Epstein Files raises significant questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” American Oversight requested the records by July 14. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled Blanche’s confirmation hearing for July 15 and 16.The Justice Department argued against these requests in a 38-page memo, filed Monday, that alleges that American Oversight’s FOIA request would disrupt “the processing of other requests awaiting agency attention” and that granting this one would “wreak havoc on agencies and the court.”“The FOIA was intended to be available to all members of the public, not just those who are professional FOIA requesters or who have the resources to file a complaint in district court and move for preliminary injunctive relief. It is unfair … for AO to jump ahead of other requesters who filed their FOIA requests earlier, and who are waiting patiently in line for their requests to be processed,” the DOJ argued. “Granting relief would create perverse incentives and send the message that requesters whose preferred deadlines align with high-profile governmental proceedings can circumvent statutory procedures to leapfrog other requesters.”This response comes as over 1,200 former DOJ employees signed a letter on Tuesday urging Congress to reject Blanche’s nomination.The Department of Justice has yet to release or unredact all of the entire Epstein files, and has been dogged by Blanche’s own controversies over his handling of the files, given his meeting with Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and his past work as President Trump’s personal lawyer. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi has said Blanche is wholly responsible for any missteps with the files, even under her tenure. The new strange, albeit flimsy, argument from the DOJ will only rightly increase scrutiny as his hearing approaches.

“Disaster aid should be merit-based, not politicized,” said Rhode Island lawmakers, whose state was denied FEMA aid.

President Trump was on Truth Social at 12:58 a.m. on Tuesday morning demanding that Congress gift the military another $350 billion in defense spending in addition to passing his controversial SAVE America Act.“The United States Military has never been stronger, or more powerful. No other Nation can do what we do (It’s not even close!). This year we set even more Historic Recruiting Records, months ahead of schedule. Morale has never been higher. Our Military’s unmatched POWER was on full display during our Celebration of 250 Years of American Independence and, like our Country, the WAR DEPARTMENT has never been ‘HOTTER,’” Trump wrote. “We need to keep it that way, which is why, when Congress returns, we must pass Reconciliation 3.0, with 350 Billion Dollars for Defense, plus THE SAVE AMERICA ACT!“I am calling on House and Senate Leadership to make this their Number One Priority, and ensure that 350 Billion Dollars in Recon 3.0 moves out of the Budget Committee as soon as Congress is back in session. The SAVE AMERICA ACT, which everyone is asking for, paired with the full funding of our Great Department of War, can be passed very quickly, ensuring that the United States of America stays FREE for Generations to come.”The only person, Democrat or Republican, “asking for” the SAVE America Act may be Speaker Mike Johnson. The blatant voter suppression bill still lacks the votes in the Senate, putting Trump’s third massive spending package of his second term in jeopardy. Trump had originally requested $67 billion for the Pentagon be added to the supplemental appropriations bill.To add hundreds of billions more to that and force through voter ID requirements and mail-in ballot bans is a gargantuan task, regardless of how much the president posts.The United States spent over $900 billion on defense last year alone.

Calling out prediction markets for what they are: rigged extraction machines.

As part of the U.S.-backed “Board of Peace” 20-point plan to end Israel’s military assault on Gaza, Hamas is dissolving its civilian governing body in the Gaza Strip. Hamas’s head of administration, Mohammed al-Farra, resigned from his position on Monday. Hamas, which has controlled the territory for nearly two decades, has said that its ministries and staff will stay in place, and that it will still oversee security and policing in parts of Gaza left under its control. The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, NCAG, was formed in January 2026 and is meant to take transitional control. “In practice,” says Amjad Iraqi, senior Israel-Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group, “Hamas is still the de facto governing authority on the Palestinian-populated side of Gaza. The NCAG, the Palestinian technocratic committee that’s supposed to take over those governing duties, is still basically stuck in Cairo and not allowed to enter into Gaza to assume those duties.” Since the deal was signed in October, Israel has continued to uphold its blockade of Gaza, preventing people and aid from traveling through its heavily policed borders. It has also violated the deal’s ceasefire provisions on a near-daily basis, killing nearly 1,100 Palestinians, including women, children and other unarmed civilians. “Very little of this, if any, is actually being called out either by [Board of Peace High Representative for Gaza Nickolay Mladenov] or by the U.S. officials, and what they’re actually doing is allowing Israel to keep bending the terms of the ceasefire, if not openly violating it,” says Iraqi.

Utilities face a dilemma: How to deliver power through dry, windy regions without accidentally starting a catastrophic fire.

The psychedelic treatment is moving through the FDA clinical trial process in Colorado and elsewhere.

After the Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a major defeat by upholding birthright citizenship last month, an angry Trump took to Truth Social to urge Republican lawmakers to overturn it with legislation. “Congress should start TODAY,” Trump demanded, adding: “No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!”That’s nonsense—five justices affirmed that just about all children born on U.S. soil, including those with undocumented parents, are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. But House Speaker Mike Johnson knows he must appear prepared to obey Trump’s command, so on Fox News Sunday, he declared that House Republicans are examining ways to undo what the Constitution says.“If there’s some legislative fix, we’ll advance that immediately,” Johnson insisted. Note the word “immediately,” which seems to mean “between now and Election Day.” Is this something vulnerable House Republicans will really want to vote on?Doubtful. Indeed, look carefully and you’ll see the beginnings of a pattern: Republicans like Johnson—who know this would be extremely unpopular—are conjuring up a new tone and new language designed to recast it as a modest step, and not as the radical upheaval it would truly represent. Just watch Johnson’s full quote on this matter:🚨 IT'S OFFICIAL: Speaker Johnson announces he's coming up with legislation to STRIKE DOWN rampant birthright citizenship and tourism scams for illegal aliensGOOD! Act fast!"I really enjoyed Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent, everybody should read that. And he explained that… pic.twitter.com/GT2z3kgeV6— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 5, 2026Birthright citizenship might require a mere “legislative fix,” Johnson says, because under it, citizenship has been “devalued” by “birth tourism.” That last phrase has long been a noxious rallying cry on the anti-immigrant right. But in Johnson’s hands, it’s meant to portray the birthright citizenship “problem” as no biggie, as a trivial matter that just needs a little patching up. And note the oh-so-casual tone he strikes throughout, as if he’s discussing an adjustment to marginal tax rates.Or take Vice President JD Vance, who recently described ending birthright citizenship in similarly bland terms. “It’s fundamentally a loophole that exists in our immigration system that rewards illegal aliens,” Vance said on Fox News Sunday. “There are a number of things that we’re already looking at to close that loophole.” Note Vance’s repetition of the word “loophole,” which seems suspiciously deliberate. Why, this would be a mere tweak—akin to a new coat of paint on the garage door or oiling a squeaky hinge, you see.Theoretically, Johnson and Republicans could write legislation that, say, prohibits the grant of citizenship to any babies born to one or two parents who entered illegally and/or were undocumented at the time of the birth. Right now, such a bill would presumably be upheld as constitutional by “only” four Supreme Court justices: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch voted to overturn birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds, and Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority but only on a statutory basis, not a constitutional one.That’s alarming. It means only five justices now believe birthright citizenship is a “foundational guarantee,” explains Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, so opponents need only to “nab one more vote” on the court to create a majority to uphold a congressional statute ending it. So Republicans might try to pass something that might be invalidated now but could test the court again—and lay the groundwork for more efforts later, similar to how Roe v. Wade foes chipped away at it for years before succeeding.The irony to Johnson’s effort to make all this sound trivial is that the problem he identifies—people coming into our country solely to have a baby and scam the system into letting them stay—actually is very insignificant. A brief in the case by over 100 specialists in social science, demography, and other fields notes that the government’s own numbers put such births at far less than 1 percent of overall U.S. births. And even that low figure is almost certainly wrong: The real total, they detail, is far more “infinitesimal.”But the change that Republicans are contemplating would be a moral, substantive, humanitarian, and constitutional earthquake. As Amanda Frost explains, ending birthright citizenship could lead to hundreds of thousands of newborn babies per year going forward remaining undocumented. That would mean they have less earning power as adults, harming the economy. Alternatively, if they are removed (or not born here at all), that means a future of national demographic decline.Here it’s critical to stress that the overwhelming majority of those people would not be the children of “birth tourists.” They wouldn’t be the children of people who came here solely to have babies and are getting “rewarded” for this, as it doesn’t earn the parents legal status in any case. Instead, the parents constitute families already in the process of immigrating here for the same reasons immigrants long have done—to participate productively in our economy and communities and, ultimately, in our democracy.So while Johnson and Vance are aiming their rhetoric at “birth tourists”—an easy-to-demonize group—their actual concern is with the much larger class of people who want to settle here for reasons that are recognizably American. That’s who they want to keep out.Further underscoring the point, don’t overlook Johnson’s assertion that our citizenship is being “devalued” by birthright citizenship. Two of the justices—Thomas and Alito—used similar terms, insisting the children of undocumented immigrants “devalue” and “degrade” American citizenship more broadly. That’s extremely loaded language: As Adam Serwer notes, it echoes Civil War–era language about freedom for enslaved people “degrading” the white race, thus casting all those undocumented children as fundamentally “inferior” to other American-born children.Which is ultimately why all this strikes so hard at our constitutional order. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence forcefully points out that birthright citizenship enshrines the promise of equality in part precisely by overturning “bloodline” as the “marker” of belonging. The key is that the child’s status should not be hereditary. Vance and Johnson want to undo that, reversing what Jackson calls the Fourteenth Amendment’s destruction of “racial caste.”So let’s step back and really appreciate Johnson’s vile two-step. He claims in passing that birthright citizenship “devalues” American citizenship, casually endorsing a disgusting attack on the hallowed principle that a child’s status should depend on birthplace, not heritage or inheritance. Undoing this would be seismic, yet he frames it as a mere “fix” to “birth tourism,” making it sound benign to those who might not immediately appreciate the grand principles at stake here.“The new quote-unquote ‘fixes’ try to shift the public’s focus to the legal status of the parents, away from the geographical birthplace of the child,” Anna O. Law, a historian of immigration law, tells me. “For people who don’t know the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, it might sound plausible. But it would blow a huge hole in the U.S. Constitution. It’s deeply cynical.”It would also be deeply, deeply unpopular. A recent Fox News poll found that 69 percent of Americans think a kid born to an “illegal immigrant” (Fox’s language) should “automatically become a U.S. citizen.” That includes 65 percent of noncollege white voters, 61 percent of rural whites, and even 57 percent of white evangelicals. As Fox quietly reported in March (how often do you hear this finding on the network?), relative to previous years, support for it is up.To be sure, now that Trump and MAGA have taken up this cause, it might shift some Republican voters their way. Focus-grouping by The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell shows some Trump voters are now echoing his own language about it. But still: It’s very, very doubtful that Johnson really wants vulnerable House Republicans to vote on such legislation before the midterms. Yet he’s now been pushed into the position of keeping expectations for a legislative “fix” alive with MAGA—all because he’s required to pretend Trump’s command for legislation is rooted in something real. And Vance will have to champion this when his presidential run starts next year, no matter how unpopular it remains. When he does, he’ll use euphemisms like “loophole” to mask how wildly radical and destructive it is. And it’ll be squarely on us to prevent him, at all costs, from getting away with it.