On Saturday night, Trump stood before reporters in the White House’s Brady Briefing Room after an armed 31-year-old man from Torrance, California, was stopped by the Secret Service trying to storm the Washington Hilton in what appears to be an attempted attack on Trump and his gathered Cabinet. The president sounded chastened. “We have to — we have to resolve our differences,” he told the press, a group he has spent the better part of a decade labeling enemies of the people. Some in the press corps, exhausted and rattled after a gunman interrupted their dinner, were grateful for the crumbs. 

“What We Learn About Trump in His Rare Moments of Self-Reflection,” read the title of Matt Viser and Jonathan Lemire’s analysis of Trump’s comments in the Atlantic. 

CNN’s Brian Stelter, who wrote a book documenting the president’s war on journalism in meticulous detail, praised the president for his restraint. “Trump very easily could have blamed the media last night, but instead, he basically said “we’re all in this together,” Stelter concluded on Sunday. 

In taking the post-shooting moment at face value, he essentially vouched for Trump’s gesture. But within hours, the same president whom Stelter had briefly cast as a unifier was back to doing what he has always done: demanding his perceived enemies be punished. 

Trump, following the lead of First Lady Melania Trump, took to Truth Social on Monday afternoon to demand that Disney and ABC immediately fire Jimmy Kimmel, accusing the late-night host of making “a despicable call to violence” for a joke he made three days before the shooting. During a parody on Thursday’s show in which he pretended to give a speech at the Correspondents’ Dinner, Kimmel joked, “Our First Lady Melania is here. Look at her, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.”

The “expectant widow” line was a morbid, vaguely risqué gag, the kind of joke that has been standard fare at the Correspondents’ Dinner and roasts for decades. But Melania Trump, who recently demonstrated a lacking understanding of the Streisand effect with her bizarrely-timed denial of Jeffrey Epstein links, amplified Kimmel’s joke when she demanded Kimmel’s firing on Monday morning. In a formal statement to ABC, she wrote that “people like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate.” With a straight face White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that his joke constituted an incitement to assassination. Steven Cheung, the president’s communications director, called Kimmel “a shit human being.” MAGA media, having been given their marching orders, fanned out across television and social media to amplify the outrage. 

“This was like déjà vu for me today,” Kimmel said in his Monday night monologue, recalling Trump’s unsuccessful campaign in September to get him yanked off air for a joke about reactions to MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk’s killing.

By Tuesday afternoon, the Federal Communications Commission had issued an order directing Disney’s eight ABC-owned television stations to file their broadcast license renewals within 30 days — years ahead of schedule. Chairman Brendan Carr was sitting in the room for the Correspondents’ Dinner, an event explicitly dedicated to celebrating the First Amendment. He attended a tribute to press freedom on Saturday and by Tuesday had weaponized a federal regulatory agency against a broadcaster for airing a comedian’s joke. The rationale offered, officially, is an ongoing investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies. But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic commissioner on the FCC, made clear the timing is no coincidence: “This is unprecedented, unlawful, and going nowhere. It is a political stunt and it won’t stick.”

Then, as if to remove any remaining doubt about the week’s theme, the Justice Department announced late Tuesday afternoon it had secured a second indictment against former FBI Director James Comey on two felony counts tied to a social media post that officials claimed constituted a threat against the president. The case revolves around a picture Comey posted on social media in May 2025 that showed shells on a beach forming the numbers “86 47.” (The number 86 can often refer to getting rid of something, while 47 corresponds to Trump’s current term as the 47th president.) Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. A warrant for Comey was also issued.

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

So in the span of 72 hours, the Trump administration has demanded a television network fire a late-night host for a morbid joke, weaponized a federal regulatory agency to threaten that network’s broadcast licenses and indicted a former FBI director for posting a picture of seashells. All of this in the immediate wake of a shooting the administration has characterized as the product of dangerous anti-Trump rhetoric. The message being sent is not subtle: Threatening language is an outrage when it comes from Trump’s critics, and a protected expression of presidential authority when it comes from Trump himself, or from his aides. Karoline Leavitt, let us remember, told Fox News before the dinner that “there will be some shots fired tonight in the room.” No arrest warrant has been issued for her.

This asymmetry is what makes the media’s earlier willingness to credit Trump for a moment of unity so damaging. It creates the illusion of good faith where none exists, and it suggests that the president’s rhetoric can be evaluated in isolation, as a series of discrete moments, rather than as part of a coherent pattern of behavior. 

In reality, Trump has said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff should be executed for treason. He has suggested, in terms not subtle enough to be called metaphors, that Liz Cheney should face a firing squad. He has trafficked in imagery and rhetoric that has put members of Congress, judges and journalists under security protection. 

Media figures who know better, who have documented the administration’s assaults on the First Amendment in real time, found themselves genuinely moved that Trump didn’t exploit a near-tragedy to score points against the people in the room on Saturday. But far from a credit to the president, it’s an indictment of how far we’ve fallen since he announced his first presidential run in 2015.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner has always been a strange ritual, a night when journalists and politicians gather to roast one another and briefly suspend the usual rules of engagement. Trump’s appearance this year — his first ever as president — and his response to a moment of crisis, offered an opportunity to finally suggest that something had shifted. After all, a decade of escalation has made each individual retreat from baseline decency seem remarkable by contrast. But nothing has shifted.

The attack on Jimmy Kimmel makes that clear. The indictment of James Comey makes it undeniable.

The post Trump makes fools of media with renewed attack on Jimmy Kimmel appeared first on Salon.com.

Now the LDS church is suing Dehlin and his popular “Mormon Stories” podcast using a surprising legal argument: that the show, which he launched during the early days of podcasting in 2005 and is openly critical of the church, is violating the church’s trademark rights. The podcast’s name and marketing materials, the plaintiffs argue, will “cause individuals to be confused” and believe the podcast “comes from or is affiliated with or endorsed by the Church.” The lawsuit takes special issue with the use of the word “Mormon,” though it also includes complaints that the font and colors used in the show’s logo, as well as images of Jesus and holy light, will cause audiences to mistake the podcast for an official LDS production.

The church denies that the aim of the lawsuit is to silence a popular maverick whose content is widely disseminated by critics of Mormonism. They claim their goal is only to prevent “ongoing confusion about whether ‘Mormon Stories’ is official Church content.” But they can’t be surprised by the widespread public scoffing at the denial, especially in light of the institution’s longstanding hostility to Dehlin.

Whatever the truth of their motivations, church leadership may come to regret this lawsuit. One surefire way to be cast as the villain in American culture is to be seen as censorious. That’s true in cases where the silencing effort is real, such as Donald Trump‘s attacks on late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, which he revived on Monday after the president and Melania Trump criticized a joke the comedian delivered two days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in which he said the first lady had “a glow like an expectant widow.” (Following the apparent assassination attempt that took place on Saturday at the dinner, the joke “became awkward in hindsight,” in the words of the New York Times.)

But even people who aren’t being silenced, such as all the folks crying “cancel culture” after being called names on social media, steal the valor of bona fide free speech martyrs. Being perceived as the victim of censors is a surefire way to gain interest in what you’re saying. Whatever the legal merits of this case, the church is making a mistake, using their money and power to go after an ex-Mormon who publicly questions their beliefs.

Earlier this week Dehlin appeared on the YouTube show of Alyssa Grenfell, another popular ex-Mormon content creator, and the two cast doubt on claims of the LDS church that people are confused about the nature of the “Mormon Stories” podcast, which has also been published in video form for many years. Based on episode titles alone — “Joseph Smith Pursues Teenage Girls in Nauvoo” and “Graduated BYU and Resigned Immediately” are just two examples — the show reads as critical even at a quick glance. This point is underscored in the lawsuit itself, which shows any listener confusion was temporary. “It only took one episode to know it was absolutely not friendly toward the church,” said one person. “I quickly realized” that it “was anti content,” said another.

While the levels of confusion do matter legally, from a big picture standpoint the church just sounds paranoid. If a Mormon were to click on an episode of “Mormon Stories,” the worst that could happen is exposure to arguments and evidence that question and challenge their beliefs. As long as they’re not being forced to continue listening, their rights aren’t being violated. Is the church suggesting their own beliefs are so fragile that even minimum exposure to skepticism is a threat? If so, too bad. In a free society, there is no right to be shielded from information that might cause pangs of doubt.

The church’s lawyers understand this, which is why they take great pains to deny the lawsuit is an exercise in censorship. But the language used throughout the filing to describe potential confusion betrays their fears. A church that felt more assured of its ideology would be confident that its followers could hear differing viewpoints without losing faith. Even with all the testimonials of uncertainty included in the lawsuit, none claim to experienced a crisis of faith because of watching “Mormon Stories.”

The outsize attention the church is paying to Dehlin’s podcast comes at a critical time for the institution. Membership rolls are shrinking. Some experts suggest the numbers are even worse, as most people simply stop believing without officially leaving their temple. The LDS church has a terrible public image,  with only 15% of Americans in a 2023 poll saying they feel favorable toward Mormons, a percentage that ranks them below even atheists and Muslims, two groups that are openly demonized by large segments of the country. The church has, in other words, reason to worry that the explosion of public criticism, enabled by social media, is causing people to turn against them. But again, the whole purpose of free speech is so that powerful institutions like the Mormon church can be held accountable to the public. There is no right to keep your membership rolls high, especially at the expense of robust public debate.

Want more sharp takes on politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Room Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

The church is also suffering from an even bigger blow to its public image than could ever be offered by niche podcasts. “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” a reality television show that chronicles “MomTok” influencers based in Utah, is a huge hit, exposing the messy, complex truth of Mormon culture that exists behind the shiny, happy image of blow-dried perfection the church prefers to highlight. The show has been especially effective at illustrating the toxic purity culture of Mormonism, which encourages young marriage and punishes sexual expression outside the confines of heterosexual matrimony.

“Secret Lives” had already featured two seasons of marital strife and acting out from sexual repression when a big scandal hit. In March, a video recorded in 2023 was posted online showing Taylor Frankie Paul, the star of the show, drunkenly attacking her boyfriend and, in the process, appearing to accidentally strike her child with a barstool. Paul pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after her arrest in that incident, but ABC proceeded to cast her in another reality show, “The Bachelorette,” presumably as a redemption arc story. When the footage emerged, the network decided to cancel her season, showcasing how ugly the altercation was behind all the legalese.

In many ways, Paul’s situation is unique; none of the other women on “Secret Lives” have any such allegations or rumors about them. But the whole sorry story still isn’t great for the Mormon church. Not when there’s a growing chorus of ex-Mormons online, many who have sat down for interviews on “Mormon Stories,” talking about how the church’s sexist, puritanical culture sets young people up to fail. This kind of material damage isn’t just grist for the content mill of Mormon critics. Talking about the human cost of religious dogma is more persuasive to more people than any cold, academic analysis of the rational flaws of Joseph Smith’s theology. That’s why “Mormon Stories” emphasizes lived experiences over scholarly discourse, even if it’s less titillating than reality television content.

It’s hard to say what will happen with this lawsuit. The church could very well prevail on the narrow claim that “Mormon Stories” has violated its intellectual property rights. But on the matter of public reputation, it is sure to lose. The lawsuit makes the church look like they have something to hide. That’s bad enough for any institution, but it is much worse when an organization, like the Church of Latter-day Saints, has a long reputation of secrecy and pressuring members to conceal their true selves to present idyllic images to the public.

The post Mormons will regret suing an ex-member appeared first on Salon.com.

The survey of 1,282 likely voters, conducted by Impact Research and Lake Research Partners, asked Sun Belt voters in Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas whether or not they preferred a populist economic message or a traditional centrist message across a variety of issues.

Jen Ancona, the chief strategy officer at Way to Win, told Salon that they focused on the Sun Belt in particular because it is less favorable terrain for Democrats and that the party will need to learn to compete there in future elections.

“The Sun Belt is tougher terrain for Democrats, but it’s necessary to fight on that terrain, and Trump has turned into a millstone around Republicans’ neck, which is really giving Democrats an opening,” Ancona said. “In fact, in Southern battleground districts, the percentage of Democrats saying they are ‘extremely’ motivated to vote more than doubles that of Republicans, 72% to 34% — that’s a massive boon to Democrats.”

Specifically, the poll tested whether voters agreed more with a message that blamed corporations and wealthy insiders for making life less affordable, or a traditional centrist Democrat message, blaming government spending, immigration and leadership steeped in undefined liberal cultural values, with the latter message being favored by many influential pro-business centrist Democratic groups. Notably, the survey found that centrist Democratic voters support an anti-corporate populist message over a conventional centrist message 95% to 5%.

(Graphic via Salon)

They tested these messages across different subgroups of voters, including low motivation democrats, independents, “double haters” with an unfavorable view of both parties, and voters who are persuadable, at least at the generic ballot level when they are asked to choose simply between a Republican or Democrat.

The survey specifically asked about the topics of the economy, housing, immigration, crime, corruption and artificial intelligence, measuring how voters in each of the four subgroups responded across these six categories. The pollsters found that voters preferred the economic populist message in 16 of the 24 tests.

Ancona said that one key difference between the conventional message and the populist message is that “the populist message named a clear villain — the ultra-rich and big corporations — while the conventional message did not, simply focusing on middle-class tax cuts.”

In general, the targeted voter groups preferred economic populist messaging across the board on the topic, though the inclusion of Republican voters brought down its overall reception, when compared to more conventional centrist messaging. The worst performance for the economic populist messaging came on the topic of crime, in which most of the target voter subcategories preferred the conventional centrist messaging. One crime, the populist messaging focused on creating safer communities by creating “good schools, jobs, affordable housing, and treatment for mental health and addiction.” The conventional messaging, however, focused on “proven solutions” for fighting crime like “tougher sentences for criminal gun, fentanyl and human traffickers.”

AI was another relative weak spot for economic populist messaging, with most of the subgroups, save low motivation Democrats, preferring conventional centrist messaging, which focused on partnering with the tech industry to “build AI to make sure it protects consumers” without slowing America in its AI arms race against China. The populist messaging, in contrast, focused on “strong federal regulation of AI” in order to “make sure AI benefits all of us, not just tech billionaires who own AI companies.”

Bright spots for economic populist messaging include housing and corruption, with double haters far preferring the economic populist messaging on housing. Similarly, unmotivated Democrats far preferred economic populist messaging on corruption, signaling that a corruption-focused message blaming corporations and wealthy elites could be a turnout winner for the party.

Luke Martin, a partner at Impact Research, one of the pollsters who conducted the survey, told Salon that he views the high-level takeaway as being that economic populist messaging is broadly popular among some of the most important voter blocs — especially in the states where Democrats need to do the most building of their voter base. He also noted that this sort of populist platform is also already being picked up by Democrats from across the ideological spectrum.

“Even candidates that wouldn’t have traditionally been a progressive or populist candidate have started adopting some of this language,” Martin said. “If you look at candidates again that have been viewed more traditionally as moderate, somebody like Angie Craig [in Minnesota], I think, is doing a really good job of using populist messaging framework to talk to voters, even though she is herself not somebody who is traditionally seen as a progressive candidate.”

Martin said that he sees this as part of a broader realignment in the Democratic Party, which is shifting away from a left versus centrist focus and towards a top versus bottom focus, which has made the previous strategy of simply putting up a moderate centrist in hard-to-win districts outdated.

“I think in a lot of ways, Trump changed that equation a little bit, and sort of showed the power of using more populist rhetoric to appeal to lower-income non-college voters, especially white non-college voters, in an effective way,” Martin said.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Despite Democratic gains in the generic ballot nationally, voters still largely prefer Republicans in all of the surveyed Sun Belt states, except Georgia, where voters preferred Democrats by 3 points. Across the battleground districts in these states, which were oversampled for the purposes of this poll, Democrats were even further underwater than across the Sun Belt as a whole, with battleground district voters preferring Republicans by 7 points in the generic ballot. This essentially means these battleground districts are less friendly terrain for Democrats than the states they’re in as a whole.

There was, however, a bit of hope in the generic ballot findings for Democrats in these states, because across most of the Sun Belt states, save Mississippi and Nevada, the most motivated voters heading into 2026 skewed heavily towards Democrats, especially in battleground districts, where Democrats enjoyed a 15-point advantage among extremely motivated voters. Given that midterm elections are often decided by voter turnout as much as by persuasion, this could mean that Democrats are headed towards overperforming expectations in these states come November.

“This is about driving up the margins in tough districts, and pinpointing which Democratic messages actually connect, motivate and persuade the softest parts of our coalition, such as less motivated Democrats and voters who don’t like either party,” Ancona said.

The post Centrism is losing popularity, new data shows. Will Democrats listen? appeared first on Salon.com.

She persevered and graduated from a high school special education program, then attempted community college. But she struggled to grasp basic tasks and information. She couldn’t get hired, including at McDonald’s. After multiple medical and psychological evaluations and a hearing before a judge, the federal government approved her for the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides a basic income to those with severe disabilities and to indigent older people.

For Burton, now 22, the $994 monthly benefit is lifesaving but not enough to completely support herself on her own. So, like many SSI recipients, she has continued to live with her father, who makes around $2,000 a month as a Philadelphia sanitation worker.

Now, President Donald Trump’s administration is poised to penalize people like Burton simply for living in the same home as their families, according to four federal officials, internal emails and a federal regulatory listing. The administration is working on a rule change that would deduct the value of a disabled adult’s bedroom from their SSI allotment, even if the family members they live with are poor enough to qualify for food stamps. This would mean slashing the benefits of some of the most low-income SSI recipients by up to a third — about $330 a month in Burton’s case — or ending their support altogether.

The effort to cut SSI for families who also rely on food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, was initiated by top White House and Department of Government Efficiency officials last year, multiple Social Security officials said. It marks a second attempt by the Trump administration to quietly but dramatically downsize disability benefit programs overseen by the Social Security Administration, despite those programs’ strict eligibility standards and minimal instances of fraud. White House Budget Director Russell Vought and Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano abandoned a different proposed regulation involving disability payments last year after ProPublica and other news outlets reported on the harm that the plan would cause to hundreds of thousands of largely blue-collar workers in red states. (The disability programs are administered by the Social Security Administration but separate from the retirement program for which the agency is named. The Trump administration has promised not to cut Social Security retirement payments.)

The likely SSI cut will affect not just younger adults with disabilities such as Down syndrome and severe autism who are still living at home with their low-income parents, but also older people with health or financial problems who have had to move in with their adult children on tight budgets. All told, as many as 400,000 poor and disabled people and indigent older people across the United States could have their support cut or eliminated, according to a ProPublica analysis of actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration.

Protecting the SSI program from such a fate is “about how the faithful will be judged, and our care for the most vulnerable,” said Galen Carey, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals and himself the father of a 35-year-old son with Down syndrome who lives at home and receives SSI. Carey said it’s wrong to reduce a disabled person’s SSI benefits for choosing or needing to live with loved ones. “Knowing that they are contributing and not a burden to the family can be a source of great pride,” he said. (Some 40 Down syndrome organizations recently sent a letter to Bisignano expressing their opposition to the planned change.)

The reason this will especially affect SNAP families is complicated. Essentially, under a long-standing federal policy that was updated during the Biden administration, if a household has already demonstrated its poverty via SNAP or other public assistance programs’ own extensive income-reporting requirements, then the family is officially deemed unable to financially support a disabled loved one living at home. (The typical SNAP household that is also supporting a person who receives SSI has an annual total income of just $17,000, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

The Trump rule will undo this approach. It won’t matter if the SNAP program has already determined a family is poor enough to receive aid; anyone living at home beyond age 18 without paying full rent will be treated as if they have a benefactor. The value of their bedroom as well as any income and assets their family may have will be calculated and recalculated as often as every month and deducted from their SSI check.

The SSI rule change is being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, a process that involves editing the draft regulation and considering where it falls on the list of the president’s priorities. Once it’s returned to the Social Security Administration for initial publication, there will be an opportunity for public comment; it could take until next year to be finalized, depending on the amount of opposition it faces.

Presented with a detailed list of this article’s findings, Rachel Cauley, the OMB’s communications director, asserted that “this story is false because it speculates about policies that have not yet been decided.” Asked to specify what was false, Cauley did not identify anything, instead reiterating that the story is “trash.” A Social Security Administration spokesperson said “Commissioner Bisignano remains committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security and serving America’s most vulnerable populations.”

ProPublica interviewed families who rely on the SSI program in Philadelphia and across the country. We talked to a young couple struggling to support not just their kids but also a parent with Alzheimer’s. We heard from a mother, Opal Foster, whose 18-year-old son has Down syndrome and lives at home as he strives to become a chef. And we spoke with a middle-aged woman with schizophrenia and panic disorder who lives with her brother’s family because she can’t hold down a job and fears being left alone in a nursing home.

All of these people could have their SSI benefits cut because they live with family, even though disability advocates, evangelicals and budget experts agree that it’s more humane and less expensive for adults with disabilities to live at home rather than in institutional facilities. The potential cut to Burton’s SSI benefit, for example, would save taxpayers about $11 a day. But if her dad as a result of the reduced support can’t afford to provide for her anymore, then it could cost taxpayers many hundreds of dollars a day or more to house her at a residential facility, according to the state of Pennsylvania’s fee schedules.

Supplemental Security Income, which serves 7.5 million Americans who are unable to make a living because of severe disabilities or destitution in old age, has never been easy to qualify for. Fewer than a third of applicants are approved, and the process often takes years. Recipients of these benefits in turn regularly have their finances reevaluated, and are also intermittently examined by medical and vocational experts, to determine whether their payments will continue.

This paperwork-and-review-heavy process generates hefty overhead. The SSI program distributes just 5% of all Social Security Administration benefits yet accounts for nearly 35% of the agency’s administrative budget. Month after month, staffers have to pore over microscopic changes to SSI beneficiaries’ living arrangements and family members’ incomes and assets.

Current and former Social Security officials have told ProPublica over the past year that the SSI program’s complexities and absurdities remain perhaps the agency’s biggest bureaucratic headache. As ProPublica reported last summer, DOGE did nothing to address this, mostly ignoring SSI despite its obvious inefficiencies. In fact, DOGE and the White House pushed out roughly 7,000 Social Security employees, many of whom had been working on SSI reforms and backlogs.

The Biden administration had tried to do something about SSI’s excessive red tape. Under existing law, disabled people whose families have already established themselves to be poor by qualifying for certain other public assistance programs, such as veterans’ benefits or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, don’t have to do all of the same check-ins, over and over again, to receive SSI. In 2024, Biden added SNAP — which is more widely used now than when these SSI rules were created — to the list of such programs.

This was ultimately an act of government efficiency, said Marianna LaCanfora, who was for years the deputy commissioner for retirement and disability policy at the Social Security Administration, including during Trump’s first term. Safety net programs like SSI don’t have to be so complicated and thus expensive, LaCanfora and others at the agency said. But they often are that way because of all the effort spent triple-checking that the poor are actually poor.

Nevertheless, conservative think tanks opposed the Biden SNAP policy, with some claiming that paying these low-income SSI beneficiaries less could save the federal government $20 billion over the next decade. And the White House included the rule change as one of its agenda items for the SSA heading into 2025. It was part of a broader push by the administration and DOGE to undo anything that the Biden administration had touched.

If enacted, the change will require intellectually disabled young people like Burton as well as very elderly people to file extensive monthly reports if they want to continue their benefits even at the reduced level. They’ll have to provide details about the property where they live: whether it’s leased or owned, as well as the names of anyone in the home, and whether any of these people has any new income or assets. They’ll also have to include documentation of all household bills and expenses, showing how much they do or don’t contribute personally, as well as financial documents such as bank statements and any pay stubs.

Burton will likely have to make an appointment and report in person at a Social Security field office any time her father’s hours or wages change even slightly; any time she and he switch up how they split utility bills; and any time an adult sibling spends even a few nights at the house and helps her with living expenses. If she doesn’t, she could later receive bills accusing her of having been overpaid by Social Security.

For his part, Bisignano, the Social Security commissioner, wants to be seen as a leader who’s making the agency more businesslike and efficient, according to interviews with agency staff and recordings of him speaking in private executive meetings. But the SSI rule change, by all accounts, will increase the administrative burden not just on families like Burton’s but also on the staff who’ll have to constantly assess the living arrangements and family incomes of her and millions of other people.

Given the tension between what the rule will do and the sense of efficiency that Bisignano says he wants to instill at Social Security, some agency insiders told ProPublica that he could still push the White House to drop the plan.

Shy’tyra Burton’s monthly SSI support check is what allows her to contribute to her household, by paying her own phone and internet bills and buying many of her own meals, according to her father, Rondell. “I’m still barely managing, though,” he said. He has largely been a single parent to Shy’tyra and her siblings, who need some support too, although they’re more self-sufficient. Groceries and gas have only gotten more expensive.

Burton is calmer and better at managing her disabilities when she can sense that her family’s economic circumstances are relatively stable, her father said. When he blew out his shoulder last year trying to hurl a heavy recycling bin onto a garbage truck, and had to have surgery and take time off work, the loss of income soon manifested in her behavior, he said. “It’s a trickle-down effect,” he explained. “My daughter absorbs money stress in her body.”

One recent 75-degree afternoon, sitting on the front stoop of the rowhouse where she lives with her dad, Burton was rubbing her hands together vigorously, as if it were cold out. When asked why, she claimed it reminded her of being a baby in the neonatal intensive care unit and touching her parents’ hands through the small opening in her incubator.

Burton still has some childlike ways. She grips her stuffed animals when she’s nervous, which is often. She talks to imaginary friends out loud, the same ones she talked to when she was a girl. What she likes about living at home is in part that she can be herself, and her family will still be there to care for her. She doesn’t like the lack of freedom and that she can’t truly be “out there” like her adult siblings.

Burton wanted to go into the child development field, to help kids growing up with disabilities like hers, but some of the concepts were a bit too difficult. Now, she’s excited by cosmetology and intends to support herself one day as a hair stylist. She spends much of her time practicing on mannequin heads in her childhood room.

The post Trump administration aims to penalize disabled adults who live with their families appeared first on Salon.com.

I buy Greek yogurt constantly. Almost every time I go to the grocery store. And if it’s on sale, well, in this economy, I’m going to buy two. I’m not ashamed to admit that there have been times when those 32-ounce tubs just stare at me day after day, haloed by the refrigerator light, moving further from consumable and closer to petri dish.

But there is a bright side. Even if your greek yogurt is on its last legs, I have found what seems like infinite uses for the tart, creamy product: breakfast, sauces, something vaguely adjacent to dessert. Greek yogurt is one of the few ingredients that has matched my energy in the kitchen: constantly improvising, making it work with what I got, and never letting things go to waste.

Over time, it’s become less of a single-use breakfast food and more of a catch-all solution. When I don’t know what else to do, I reach for it. When I do know what I’m doing, I still reach for it.

Here are the ways I use it most—especially in that final stretch, when the tub is half-full and time is running out.

1. The fake-out pizza night (that’s also tortillas, if you squint)

If you’ve spent any time online, you’ve probably seen some version of the “two-ingredient dough”: Greek yogurt and flour, mixed together into something that feels suspiciously like real dough. I was skeptical, which is usually a sign that something will either completely fail or become a staple.

This one became a staple. Whenever I have a long day at work, or don’t have the energy to cook, this recipe always has my back and has dinner on my plate in less than 30 minutes.

Mix roughly equal parts self-rising flour and Greek yogurt — or add baking powder and salt if you’re using all-purpose — knead it briefly (I like to use a fork at first, then switch to my hands when it starts to form), and suddenly you have dough. Roll it out (don’t forget to flour your rolling pin), bake it with olive oil and toppings. My go-to is ricotta, spinach and chicken. In the end, you have a pizza that definitely won’t compete with your favorite slice, but it doesn’t need to. It’s its own thing: chewy, crisp at the edges, and deeply satisfying in a “I can’t believe I just made a pizza” sort of way.

And it’s not just pizza dough. The same mixture can be pressed into flatbreads, folded into something resembling pita, rolled thin for tortillas or even shaped for bagels. It may not be 100% authentic, but it gets the job done and totally impresses all your friends. It’s also handy when you’ve run out of bread and don’t feel like going to the store but still want something warm and homemade.

2. The freezer dessert that’s a perfect night cap

There’s a point, usually late at night, when I want something sweet but not overly involved. This is where Greek yogurt quietly excels.

Spoon it into a bowl, swirl in jam or honey, maybe a little peanut butter or melted chocolate, and a pinch of salt. Freeze it for an hour or two — not long enough to turn it solid, just enough to thicken and chill — and it becomes something surprisingly luxurious. Creamy, slightly tangy, with ribbons of sweetness running through it. You can also freeze this mixture into ice cube trays or popsicle molds to create a perfect mid-afternoon summer snack. Just picture yourself lying out in the sun, your favorite music playing, a good book in your hand. Your skin is slightly shining from perspiration, but you barely feel the heat because you get to enjoy the cold deliciousness of a frozen yogurt pop.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Sign up for Salon’s free food newsletter, The Bite.

If you have more time (or more yogurt to use up), you can lean further in: mix greek yogurt, sugar, vanilla and an egg in a heat proof dish. Bake for about an hour and voila! You have a low-effort cheesecake situation. You can add cocoa powder, chocolate chips, strawberries or anything you desire to the mix before baking to craft your favorite cheesecake flavor. The yogurt does most of the work, giving you that dense, tangy richness without requiring much else.

3. The dip that replaces everything in your fridge

At any given point, I have at least one half-used bottle of dressing in my fridge. Caesar, ranch, something vinaigrette-adjacent. Some of them have only been used once for that one specific recipe I made one time and never again (I’m looking at you blue cheese). That is, until I discovered that greek yogurt can replace most of them pretty accurately.

Stir it with lemon juice, garlic, olive oil and a lot of salt and pepper, and you have a dip that works with vegetables, chips, roasted potatoes—anything, really. Add herbs and you’re in ranch territory. Add tahini and you’re somewhere closer to a Middle Eastern-style sauce. Mix with pulsed chickpeas and garlic for a creamier version of hummus. Let it strain a bit longer and you’re essentially making labneh, thick and spreadable, something you can drag a piece of bread through and call a meal.

There’s a long culinary history behind this instinct. Strained yogurts and yogurt-based sauces show up across cuisines, from tzatziki to raita. What I like about using it this way, though, is how adaptable it is in the moment. It doesn’t require a plan. It just requires a spoon and a willingness to taste as you go.

4. The dinner shortcut for the “set it and forget it” chef

Greek yogurt, at its core, is a jack of all trades. It’s the everyman ingredient. It’s your friend’s dad who’s always around to help fix whatever home improvement, automobile, or general adulting problem you have. Greek yogurt tenderizes, it thickens, it adds richness without tipping into heaviness. All of which is to say: it’s very useful when you’re trying to pull dinner together without overthinking it.

One of the easiest ways to use it is as a marinade. Stir it with spices— paprika, cumin, garlic, whatever you have — coat chicken or salmon, and let it sit for as long as you remember to. When cooked, it forms a lightly tangy, almost caramelized coating that makes it seem like you put in more effort than you did.

It also works as a last-minute sauce. Stir a spoonful into hot pasta with a splash of pasta water and grated parmesan, and you get something creamy and cohesive in seconds. The key is not to overheat it. Think of it as finishing the dish, not cooking it.

It’s that quick, easy, little extra step that takes your dinner from just plain boring ingredients to a complete meal.

5. The better “salad” binder

There is a certain genre of “salad” that has very little to do with lettuce and everything to do with what holds it together: chicken salad, salmon salad, crab salad — the scoopable, sandwichable, slightly retro kind of meal that lives somewhere between lunch and nostalgia.

Traditionally, that binder is mayonnaise. I’ve never been a fan of mayo, which is unfortunate because I love chicken salad. At restaurants I always need to ask if the chicken salad is “dry” before I commit to ordering, and am extremely disappointed on the occasions when it arrives at my table “wet.”

Then I had an epiphany: Greek yogurt could once again be my savior and solution to my problems. It quickly became my default and it works for single servings or meal prepping, if you don’t want to worry about lunch for a few days.

The swap is simple: use yogurt in place of some or all of the mayo. You still get that creamy texture, but with a little more tang, which ends up making everything else taste sharper and more defined.

My go-to is chicken salad with chopped walnuts, crisp Granny Smith apples, and golden raisins. It’s salty, sweet and crunchy, all at once. The yogurt pulls it together without flattening it. It lets the ingredients feel distinct, which is really all I want from a lunch I’ll be eating out of the same container for two or three days.

It also works across the board: flaked salmon with lemon and herbs, crab with celery and a lot of black pepper. We’re not reinventing the wheel here, but for other mayo naysayers, this is a great swap that gives you the same feeling of traditional “salads” but making it a little lighter, a little brighter, and, practically speaking, using what you already have open in the fridge.

6. The baking trick that saves everything (including your bananas)

If Greek yogurt has a secret superpower, it’s this: it can step into almost any baking recipe that calls for sour cream, milk or even oil and do the job just as well. Sometimes better.

It adds moisture, tenderness, and just enough tang to make things interesting. Stir it into muffin batter, and they come out soft and springy. Use it in scones, and you get that tender, slightly crumbly texture without much effort. Add it to cinnamon buns, and suddenly they feel richer, more layered.

But the place I use it most is banana bread, which already exists as a kind of anti-waste ritual. You wait until the bananas are nearly gone — soft, speckled, with that distinct on-the-edge-of-death banana smell — and turn them into something new. Greek yogurt fits naturally into that equation. A scoop or two in the batter keeps the loaf moist for days, extending the life of something that already started as a rescue mission.

There’s something satisfying about that kind of cooking, where one ingredient on its way out helps save another.

The post 6 new ways to use Greek yogurt appeared first on Salon.com.

The insurer, a mainstay in government programs like Medicaid and the ACA exchanges that have been wracked by higher spending, successfully controlled costs in the quarter, leading to $1.5 billion in profit.

The risk of being sued is higher among certain specialties like surgeons, and increases the longer doctors practice medicine, according to the medical association's new report.

Politics shape health concerns

A recent study in Hampton Roads Virginia found that 62% of residents were concerned about the impact of climate change on health. This level of concern varied based on political ideology. Regardless of ideological beliefs, the health impacts of dirty air, contaminated water, and rising temperatures are well documented and affect individuals across all communities. Yet when government actions are embedded in partisan conflict, such as removing the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which empowered the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce emissions standards, it’s difficult to separate issues from political identity.

However, when we shift our conversations from broad environmental policy to local public health, the political divide begins to close. We don’t need consensus on international carbon treaties to agree that our children should be able to play outside during allergy season without relying on an inhaler. We don’t need to share a political party to recognize that our elderly neighbors and outdoor workers deserve protection from increasingly harmful, record-breaking summer heat.

Negative health effects occur independent of whether individuals acknowledge or believe in the underlying cause of those effects. Because climate change is frequently perceived through a political lens, using certain terms or language may distract some audiences and lead them to disengage. Keeping this in mind, clinicians speaking with individual patients and policymakers should purposefully depoliticalize their conversations related to climate and health.

Depoliticizing conversations

Recognizing the role of politics in patient conversations is essential to building trust and influencing health behaviors. Political division can be a significant barrier to health. A key action to counter this division is building trust between clinicians and patients by centering conversations on the health impacts of climate. Avoiding politicized language can help facilitate discussions that are focused on shared health outcomes and evidence‑based care.

Evidence for global warming is undeniable and the health risks are well documented. However, trust between patients and providers isn’t built solely on scientific evidence but rather human connection including open communication, active listening, and empathy. This trusting relationship can provide the basis for transparent discussions about how the impacts of dirty air, contaminated water, and rising temperatures affect health. Clinicians should focus on health impacts while avoiding politically charged language surrounding climate change.

One method to communicate with patients that removes political noise is to talk about common values such as prevention and protection and then offer specific guidance. For example, discussing the importance of using sunscreen and reducing time in direct sun to prevent future skin cancers helps the patient consider preventive measures. While global warming may lead to increases in these cancers, the primary concern of the clinician is to encourage the patient to take preventive action. Depoliticized conversations are important to ensure patients remain receptive, engaged, and responsive to health guidance.

Reframing climate change through a health lens

Depoliticalizing healthcare conversations is challenging since health policy is created through political processes. These processes determine how healthcare is funded, regulated, and conducted. However, partisan politics can introduce harmful aspects into policy, such as discouraging well-established evidence-based practice for prevention, leading to the marginalization of vulnerable populations. Healthcare experts can be powerful agents of change by advocating for independent regulatory agencies empowered to develop and implement policy insulated from political influence.

Climate experts recommend centering conversations on health as an effective strategy to address climate change. Talking about climate change through a health lens makes the issue more personal, immediate, and relatable. We may disagree about the politics linked to climate change conversations, but everyone understands threats to their own health and their family’s well‑being. Resources are available to guide more effective conversations focused on shared values, health impacts, and solutions that motivate understanding and action rather than debate. We recommend joining ClimateRx for support in starting conversations that educate patients about the impacts of climate change on their health.

Health professionals must advocate for non-partisan climate-health policies. Healthcare workers, particularly nurses, are consistently rated among the most trusted professions. Because healthcare professionals are widely trusted sources on climate and health, our engagement with both patients and policymakers is essential to practices and policies that support better health outcomes. Protecting the health, safety, and well-being of our families and communities depends on these conversations.

References

Brenan M. Nurses continue to lead in honesty and ethics ratings. Gallup. January 12, 2026. gallup.com/poll/700736/nurses-continue-lead-honesty-ethics-ratings.aspx

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Effects of climate change on health. cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vector-borne diseases. 2024, March 2. cdc.gov/climate-health/php/effects/vectors.html

ClimateRx. Your health in a changing climate. climaterx.org/climate-health

Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Political polarization poses health risks, new analysis concludes. October 25,2024. publichealth.columbia.edu/news/political-polarization-poses-health-risks-new-analysis-concludes

Dean A, McCallum J. California’s heat standard and heat‑related deaths among outdoor workers. Health Aff. 2025;44(12):1490-6. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2025.00096

ecoAmerica. Climate action guide: 5 steps to effective climate action. 2024. ecoamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5-steps-guide-CAG.pdf

Friebel R, Wallenburg I. Politics in all policies: How healthcare is shaped by political (in)action. Health Econ Policy Law. 2024;19(3):289-91. doi:10.1017/S1744133124000240

Frist WH, Angell SY, Ebi KL, et al. Critical steps to address climate, health, and equity. Health Aff.2025;44(2):171-8. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2024.01008

Hawkins J, Tremblay B, Hawkins RJ, Parrott J. A comparative analysis of relationships among demographics, political affiliation and ideology, climate change, and health perceptions. Nurs Outlook. 2025;73(4):102462. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2025.102462

Ishaq M. American climate perspectives survey 2024, Vol. II. ecoAmerica. July 2, 2024. ecoamerica.org/american-climate-perspectives-survey-2024-vol-ii-blog/

Maslin M, Ramnath RD, Welsh GI, Sisodiya SM. Understanding the health impacts of the climate crisis. Future Healthc J. 202512(1):100240. doi:10.1016/j.fhj.2025.100240

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Evidence. science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

National Association of Counties. Health does not have to be partisan: Talking about health in a way that resonates with everyone. December 11, 2024 naco.org/news/health-does-not-have-be-partisan-talking-about-health-way-resonates-everyone

Romanello M, Walawender M, Hsu SC, et al. The 2025 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Climate change action offers a lifeline. Lancet. 2025;406(10521):2804-57. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01919-1

Rosenbaum E. Making time for more compassionate care. Health Aff. 2025;44(12):1546-9. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2025.00659

 Sharma D. Ensuring sustainable progress: The case for depoliticizing education and healthcare. Int J Res Trends Soc Sci Humanit. 2025;3(2):924-3. ijrtssh.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ijrtssh.vol_.3.issue2_.152.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump and Administrator Zeldin deliver single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. February 12, 2026. epa.gov/newsreleases/president-trump-and-administrator-zeldin-deliver-single-largest-deregulatory-action-us

World Health Organization. Climate change and health. October 12, 2023. who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

Lately, nursing has had to defend its rightful status as a profession while simultaneously responding to the social upheavals reshaping healthcare and our collective lives. It’s no surprise that many of us feel exhausted, even on our days off. And yet, perhaps because of these challenges, enrollment in nursing programs remains strong. It’s reassuring to know that so many are still drawn to the vast possibilities of the profession, eager to contribute their talents in meaningful ways.

But nursing is hard. Nurses are expected to save lives while remaining consistently compassionate and composed, meeting the needs of patients and the demands of the system over long stretches of time. As a member of the nursing faculty, I have the privilege of working with a new generation of nurses who aspire to make a difference. Teaching them the science of patient care is the easy part. The greater challenge lies in helping them see the day-to-day realities of bedside nursing as opportunities for fulfillment, and in cultivating a sense of wonder so they can find meaning and even joy in the work they do.

The power of nurses

During this year’s Nurses Week, the American Nurses Association highlights the “power of nurses.” Beyond the affirming slogan, I like to think that nurses do see themselves as a potent element in the alchemy of patient care. In reality, however, those who do great work rarely dwell on themselves; they’re more often fully absorbed in the task at hand. Many nurses also may perceive a tension between self-promotion and the profession’s core virtues.

At a recent seminar, facilitators asked us to identify our “superpower.” Unfamiliar with the question, I leaned over to the person next to me, assuming we were meant to name a favorite superhero—I was ready to say Wonder Woman. As it turned out, we were being asked to name a personal strength, something that sets us apart. So, I said: I’m good at showing up, as opposed to showing off, which I’m not good at, and arguably no one needs to be.

Presence and prescience

Presence and prescience are often quiet, easily overlooked qualities among healthcare workers. However, they shape some of the most meaningful moments in nursing—for patients and for those learning to become nurses.

The intentional act of being fully attentive—physically, emotionally, and cognitively with another person in the moment—defines presence. It’s more than simply “being there”; it’s conveying, through focus and demeanor, that the patient or learner matters right now. For patients, presence can transform clinical encounters into human ones: a steady gaze, an unhurried posture, a willingness to listen without interruption. And yes, to turn off one’s cell phone. These gestures communicate dignity, often as powerfully as any intervention. In precepting, presence signals to novice nurses that they’re supported. It creates psychological safety, making it easier for them to ask questions, admit uncertainty, and develop confidence.

Prescience, in contrast, is the cultivated ability to anticipate, drawing on knowledge, pattern recognition, and experience to foresee what may unfold. Patricia Benner calls this situational grasp for a sense of salience. It’s not prediction in a mystical sense, but an informed readiness—noticing subtle changes, connecting disparate cues, and acting early. For patients, prescience underlies vigilance, recognizing deterioration before it becomes a crisis and anticipating what needs to be done. In teaching, it allows preceptors to scaffold learning effectively, sensing when a student is ready to take the next step, when to intervene, and when to step back.

A nurse who’s present without prescience may be compassionate but reactive. It will be an impersonation, not an embodiment of nursing. Presence grounds the nurse in the immediacy of human connection; prescience extends that awareness forward, shaping what comes next. A nurse with prescience but without presence may be efficient but distant. The integration of both allows nurses to be patient-centered and anticipatory, deeply human and clinically astute.

On becoming a “good” nurse

The Code of Ethics for Nurses alludes to what it means to be a good nurse in the moral sense. The goodness of a nurse is easier appreciated than apprehended. With the infiltration of artificial intelligence into every aspect of life, it’s caring in the non-saccharine sense that makes us human. Carper was prescient when she wrote that the duty “to care for another human being involves becoming a certain kind of person—and not merely doing certain kinds of things.” When I was young, I wanted to be smart. Now that I’m older, I aspire to be wise. It’s comforting to know there are many things I’m still ignorant of and no longer have anxiety to know it all. But the thing I’m almost certain of is that the shortest distance between health and care is nursing. I hope it’s true.

Fidelindo Lim, DNP, CCRN, FAAN is a Clinical Associate Professor at New York University Meyers College of Nursing.

References

American Nurses Association. Code of Ethics for Nurses. 2025. codeofethics.ana.org/provisions

Carper B. Fundamental patterns of knowing in nursing. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1978;1(1):13-23. doi:10.1097/00012272-197810000-00004c

The hit was in line with HCA’s expectations. The hospital operator is the first of its peers to detail financial impacts from the expiration of more generous subsidies in Affordable Care Act plans.