The ancient cephalopod, Nanaimoteuthis haggarti, appears to have been an apex predator that rivaled mosasaurs to rule prehistoric seas.

Mesozoic seas were full of marine monsters. There were snaggle-toothed fish, shell-crushing sharks, and, of course, enormous mosasaurs.

Now, researchers have revealed another dangerous denizen of the ancient deep, one that wielded eight arms, grew to mythic proportions, and likely bit prey with a bone-breaking beak.

Enter the "Cretaceous kraken": Nanaimoteuthis haggarti.

Paleontologists recently examined a trove of fossilized beaks from octopuses that lived between 100 and 72 million years ago. Using the jaws, they estimated the size of the creatures. They found that N. haggarti stretched to about 60 feet long, longer than a city bus and surpassing the largest known giant squid by nearly 20 feet. That makes these ancient octopuses among the largest invertebrates to have ever lived.

The study, which was published Thursday in Science, also suggests that prehistoric vertebrate predators — such as sharks, plesiosaurs, and mosasaurs — may have met their match in these spineless cephalopods.

“It challenges the common view of an ‘age of vertebrates’ in marine ecosystems,” says Yasuhiro Iba, a paleontologist at Hokkaido University in Japan and an author of the new paper. He thinks these octopuses used their massive size, flexible arms, and powerful bites to achieve apex predator status in the ancient ocean.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44676

In yet another crime against journalism in the West Asia region, Israel targeted Lebanese journalists Amal Khalil and Zainab Faraj in a double-tap strike on the town of Al-Tayri in southern Lebanon, on Wednesday, April 22.

While Zainab survived after sustaining a wound to the head, Amal died in the attack carried out against them. The two had taken shelter in a house after an earlier airstrike killed two people in the car traveling in front of them.

According to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health, the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) blocked rescue teams from reaching the targeted house to recover Amal’s body for several hours by launching intensified airstrikes on the area.

Amal and her media institution were threatened many times before her murder

Amal Khalil, who worked with the Lebanese newspaper Al Akhbar since 2006, had previously informed local media outlets about receiving direct threats from Israeli phone numbers between August and September 2024.

She was threatened to leave southern Lebanon and stop reporting about the events there, otherwise she would be beheaded, her house would be demolished, or her media outlet would be targeted. The sender even provided her with details about her movements and whereabouts to further intimidate her.

BREAKINGIsraeli forces are now issuing direct death threats to Lebanese journalists on WhatsApp as well as besieging them.

Al-Akhbar correspondent @AmalKhalil83, who has been documenting the devastation across southern Lebanon, received these messages from an Israeli number…

— Hala Jaber (@HalaJaber) April 22, 2026

Al Akhbar also reported that Amal survived a previous assassination attempt during the 66-day war on September 23, 2004, as she left her family’s house seconds before it was hit by an Israeli airstrike.

The Lebanese newspaper added that the IOF targeted Amal and her colleagues many times between 2023 and 2024, with shells that fell a few meters from them while they were on duty.

UJL calls on the Lebanese state to take action against Israel

The Union of Journalists in Lebanon (UJL) issued a statement strongly condemning the “horrific Israeli war crime”, and renewing its call for the Lebanese state to take the needed action on the following levels:

• Documenting the crimes centrally
• Opening judicial investigations into crimes
• Enacting a law punishing war crimes
• Initiating a request to form a fact-finding committee from the Human Rights Council
• Authorizing the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate war crimes committed by Israel in Lebanon since October 8, 2023

IFJ also labels the onslaught a war crime

Meanwhile, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) joined its affiliate UJL in “strongly condemning the targeted assassination of Khalil”.

Moreover, it reiterated that “deliberate attacks on civilians, including journalists, constitute war crimes.”

CPJ calls the attack on Khalil and Faraj a “grave breach of international humanitarian law”

For its part, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed its outrage about the offensive, warning that the “repeated strikes on the same location, the targeting of an area where journalists were sheltering, and the obstruction of medical and humanitarian access constitute a grave breach of international humanitarian law.”

Direct talks between Tel Aviv and Beirut resume despite the blatant crime

The assassination came less than one week after US President Donald Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, starting on Thursday, April 16.

It was also launched hours before a new round of direct talks between the Israeli and the Lebanese governments resumed in Washington.

It is worth noting that Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam accused Israel of committing a “war crime” by targeting the two journalists, while President Joseph Aoun urged the international community for a “prompt intervention” to “put an end to it”.

However, for many, Beirut’s engagement in the new round of negotiations, despite the horrific crime against the two journalists, alongside countless other violations, represents a contradiction with Salam and Aoun’s statements, and reflects an approach of concession and surrender.

Read more: Israel escalates its assaults on journalists, health workers, and peacekeepers across Lebanon

On the evening of Thursday, April 23, US President Donald Trump announced a three-week extension to the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

The post Israel assassinates veteran Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil in double-tap strike appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.

From Peoples Dispatch via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44738

It’s primary season, this time against a backdrop of heightened concerns and awareness of powerful figures skirting accountability for sexual abuse and misconduct. Survivors of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have “made accountability for sexual abuse and sexual violence an electoral issue,” says Intercept politics reporter Jessica Washington.

One of the biggest stories to shake up politics in recent weeks are sexual assault allegations that upended Rep. Eric Swalwell’s bid to become the next governor of California, forcing the Democratic front-runner to also resign from his House seat. “You also have to give some credit to Democrats as well for immediately moving on these allegations very swiftly,” says Washington.

This week on The Intercept Briefing, Washington and Intercept senior politics reporter Akela Lacy speak to host Jordan Uhl about the themes emerging this midterm election season. They talk about how the crowded California gubernatorial race is boosting Republicans to the top of the ticket to why powerful factions of the Democratic Party are hyperfixating on Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, rather than leveraging Trump’s sinking approval rating. “This is about not wanting to share power with the left,” notes Washington.

They also discuss what makes a candidate or elected official a progressive. “We’ve seen a lot of candidates, particularly 2028 candidates, whether senatorial or gubernatorial, who have had long-standing relationships with AIPAC or demonstrated pro-Israel policy records like Rahm Emanuel, Cory Booker, Josh Shapiro, Ruben Gallego, all come out now against AIPAC or distancing themselves from AIPAC,” says Lacy. “It doesn’t really matter if you’re rejecting AIPAC money, if you aren’t changing any of the policies that you adopt with respect to how the U.S. treats Israel.”

For all that and more listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you listen.

Transcript

Jordan Uhl: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing. I’m Jordan Uhl, an Intercept contributor and your host today, joined by my co-hosts.

Jessica Washington: I’m Jessica Washington, politics reporter for The Intercept.

Akela Lacy: And I’m Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter at The Intercept.

JU: Today we’re bringing you a midterm elections update. Except rather than diving into the various horse races, we’re going to talk about some crucial themes emerging that we’re reporting on here at The Intercept.

Jessie, let’s start with you. One of the biggest stories to shake up politics in recent weeks are sexual assault allegations that upended California congressman Eric Swalwell’s bid to become the next governor of California, and appears to have completely ended his political career, forcing him to resign from his House seat. We’ll get into the California governor’s race in a bit. But to start, Jessie, remind us of the sequence of events that led to Swalwell dropping out of the race.

JW: It was a really swift turnaround. In late March, we began to hear on social media from mostly influencers who were talking about stories they had heard from friends, from other women involved in politics, related to allegations against Swalwell. But many of those allegations online were incredibly vague.

[

Related

Swift Swalwell Fallout Suggests the Democrats Have Finally Learned From Epstein](https://theintercept.com/2026/04/14/eric-swalwell-sexual-assault-allegations-midterms-epstein/)

That all shifted on April 10, which was a Friday when a San Francisco Chronicle article dropped accusing Swalwell of sexually assaulting a former staffer. Shortly after that, CNN dropped another story, labeling the former staffer’s accusations asremoved and also detailing sexual harassment allegations from other women. Within hours of that story dropping, over a dozen Democrats pulled their endorsements, including a really high-profile endorsement from Adam Schiff. We also began to hear reports that Nancy Pelosi and Hakeem Jeffries — top Democratic leadership — had called Swalwell to tell him that he should drop out of the governor’s race.

Then over that weekend, on Sunday [April 12] I believe, he dropped out of the race. By Monday, he had resigned from office.

JU: You write in your story that The Intercept has not been able to independently verify the allegations. In a statement posted last week, Sara Azari, a criminal defense attorney representing Swalwell, wrote that the former congressman “categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation of sexual misconduct and assault that has been leveled against him,” calling the accusations “a ruthless and shameless attempt to smear Congressman Swalwell.”

I think that’s something that has been interesting to me. He’s trying to frame all of this as an attempt to stop his candidacy for governor. For me, I see that and think, OK, then why did you resign from Congress? How do you thread that needle, Jessie?

JW: I think that is obviously a question for Eric Swalwell. But I will say that these allegations have been in the ether for years. These are not new allegations, although they are new to much of the public. You talk to people on the Hill, and these are things that they have heard for years.

JU: Now, Jessie, you said it was an unusually swift fallout in part due to the public sentiment around the Epstein files. Could you talk about that?

JW: When I was writing this story, originally, I hadn’t thought about the role of the survivors themselves as much in the story. I’m speaking specifically about Epstein survivors. But we have to give a lot of credit to those women for making sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, making these issues electoral issues — issues that the public really cares about.

The Epstein survivors “made accountability for sexual abuse and sexual violence an electoral issue.”

So you have two things going on. You have the fact that these survivors have made this an electoral issue — made accountability for sexual abuse and sexual violence an electoral issue. And you also have to give some credit to Democrats as well for immediately moving on these allegations very swiftly. From their perspective, it is incredibly hypocritical for them to not hold Swalwell accountable while also running simultaneously on the Epstein files, running on accountability, running on this idea that we have to hold the Epstein class — people who are abusers — accountable. I think they couldn’t run on that effectively and also not hold Swalwell accountable once these allegations were made public.

JU: Now, on Monday, the House Committee on Ethics published a list of 28 representatives who have been investigated by the committee for alleged sexual misconduct. The oldest case dates back to 1976. Recent investigations include Swalwell; Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas; Cory Mills, Republican of Florida who is facing allegations of “sexual misconduct and/or dating violence.” That investigation is ongoing; he denies the charges. And notably a few years have passed but also on the list is Matt Gaetz, Republican and former congressman of Florida.

Jessie, are you seeing more efforts to take allegations more seriously and hold members of Congress accountable?

JW: There definitely is a shift in Congress, and obviously that shift has to do a little bit with Swalwell. We’ve talked about the Epstein files in terms of more of an effort to hold these members accountable for their abuse of women. I will say the fact that there was no movement on Gonzales or Mills until after Swalwell allegations came forth, one could question whether or not Republicans are a faithful partner in this, or if they just see another political opportunity. But there does seem to be at least a rhetorical shift on the Hill when it comes to taking these problems seriously.

AL: I would agree that I think the speed of Democrats consolidating around “Get this guy out of Congress” is new. But I would also say, we did see this moment of reckoning in 2017, 2018, with the first round of “Me Too,” when it appears that a lot of these allegations were already known around that time or had happened prior to that.

JW: That actually came up in my piece when I was speaking to people who had worked both on the Hill and also as campaign staffers. The fact that a lot of these rumors — about Swalwell, but also obviously there are rumors about other politicians, Democratic politicians as well — that these rumors were known, and that people didn’t do anything. What we’re seeing is a reaction to the public being aware of these allegations, and also I would say the severity of the allegations.

[

Related

Attorney for Epstein Survivors Warns That Justice Is Impossible With Bondi as AG](https://theintercept.com/2026/02/13/epstein-survivors-attorney-justice/)

We’re talking about really horrific allegations of sexual assault — we do have to acknowledge again that Swalwell denies — but I think it’s the severity of the allegations and the fact that they were made public. But it is a little soon for Democrats to be patting themselves on the back when many of these allegations were floating around the ether on the Hill.

JU: Interestingly, on Monday, Rep. Nancy Mace, a Republican of South Carolina, introduced a resolution to expel Mills from Congress. I’m curious to see how that goes.

But for both of you, this is actually a sizable potential shakeup in Congress. And we haven’t even talked about others who were facing possible expulsion. Like Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, a Florida Democrat who was found guilty by the Ethics Committee for financial misconduct, which she denied. On Tuesday, she announced her resignation.

What does this all mean for Republican’s majority in Congress? What effect, if any, might it have on which party will hold the majority next?

AL: So right now, Republicans have a slim majority in the House — 217, and one Independent who caucuses with Republicans — to Democrats, who have 213. Democrats are optimistic that they’re going to win back the House in midterms even prior to all of this.

There’s two Republicans that are facing these allegations right now, so off the bat, that doesn’t give Democrats the majority, obviously, but it could potentially help. We don’t know what’s happening with Tony Gonzales or Cory Mills at this point. The fact that two Democrats have now resigned obviously factors into that, but midterm watch, they are expected to potentially win back the House and are even looking at possibly the Senate, obviously, as we’ve been talking about on this show.

I think, if anything, I don’t know that this really plays well for Democrats because Eric Swalwell is the face of this at this point. I don’t know if the floodgates have opened yet, maybe you could say that we’re talking about four or five people at this point. Obviously, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is not a sexual misconduct allegation, but obviously, a shakeup is happening. Who knows what else can happen?

We’re in the height of primary season right now, and it’s going to be a long summer. I imagine that we’re going to see more things continue to come up, especially because the “oppo” people are going crazy right now, so it remains to be seen. But again, the baseline prior to this was: It’s a possibility for Republicans to lose the House. I don’t see this necessarily changing that, but it could complicate things for Democrats if more of them come under fire.

JW: The “oppo” angle is actually really interesting. It’s something that people who aren’t journalists or aren’t in the political world aren’t that aware of.

Campaigns research each other. They research their opponents, and they come up with these spreadsheets of documents against the opponents — all of their different weak points, including these various allegations that are floating around against them. So during campaign season, you do see people digging up a lot more — I don’t want to call something like sexual harassment “dirt” — but these negative allegations about people. So that’s something that you see a lot in campaign season. That’s why we might end up seeing more and more come out about these candidates.

JU: Now, I want to pivot back to Swalwell and the California governor’s race. This is something I’ve been watching closely as a Californian. It’s a crowded race, even with Swalwell exiting. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra who was previously California’s attorney general, got a boost from Swalwell’s departure, making him tied with billionaire Tom Steyer. Former congresswoman Katie Porter is not far behind them.

Akela, you wrote about a progressive group that is trying to rally Democrats around Steyer. Can you tell us about this group and why they’re endorsing him over other candidates in the race?

AL: Xavier Becerra was polling in single digits pretty much up until Swalwell’s exit. Some polls have shown him pulling ahead or tied. The Emerson poll that everyone was looking at right after Swalwell dropped out, had him at 10 percent — well behind the first two Republican candidates and Tom Steyer, but tied with Katie Porter.

The article that you’re talking about, Jordan, we wrote an exclusive about Our Revolution endorsing Tom Steyer. This is the progressive group that Bernie Sanders founded after his 2016 presidential campaign. They have built their mission around attacking wealth and power in politics, and so endorsing a billionaire raised a lot of eyebrows and questions about that — how endorsing Steyer advances that mission, which I spoke at length with their executive director about.

[

Related

Progressive Group Founded by Bernie Sanders Endorses Billionaire for California Governor](https://theintercept.com/2026/04/20/california-governor-our-revolution-tom-steyer-endorse/)

This is the first billionaire Our Revolution has endorsed. It was fun fact checking that because we were like, how many billionaires have run for office? We pretty much know all of them. It wasn’t JB Pritzker, it wasn’t Michael Bloomberg. That in itself is historic for a group that has fashioned itself in the way that Our Revolution has.

They have recently tweeted [in 2025], “We shouldn’t have billionaires,” so this is what we’re talking about. They were very open about that being a big contradiction, to their credit, I will say. Their view is that in this field, which is extremely crowded, the fact that two Republicans have been leading the race basically since January should give pause to progressives and Democrats about whether they’re going to consolidate behind a candidate or risk handing the seat to a Republican.

Another initial question that I had: What about Katie Porter? She has the longest record in office of a progressive official of the candidates in the pool and the highest name recognition for a progressive. They basically said that she was the first candidate to jump into the race, but she still hasn’t pulled ahead or demonstrated a clear path to victory in polling.

They didn’t speak to this, but I will mention that Katie Porter has faced backlash in recent years after a video surfaced of her yelling at a staffer. I don’t know how much that’s affecting her race right now, but I think that tarnished her image a little bit for some people. I don’t know that the average California voter knows that happened necessarily, but they seem to think that she did not have a chance of winning, basically, was the bottom line.

So they were like, yeah, there are concerns about us endorsing a billionaire, there are questions about how that aligns with our broader project. But in this instance, if the alternative is having a Republican run California for the first time in the last two governors, then they would rather back someone who they say has used his wealth and power to advance progressive ideals, investing in advocacy around climate change and electing progressive officials.

“If the alternative is having a Republican run California … then they would rather back someone who they say has used his wealth and power to advance progressive ideals.”

I will say Tom Steyer has also faced criticism for benefiting from the policies that help billionaires pay lower taxes. Although he himself has said that he and billionaires should pay more in taxes. But I think a lot of people have a lot of questions, which I think are fair, about what he will do in office.

This is also someone who has spent the most on his own race. He spent over $120 million on his gubernatorial campaign so far. This is coming off of spending $300 million on a failed presidential bid in 2020.

They also said that Steyer aggressively sought Our Revolution’s endorsement throughout the entire race and that Katie Porter did seek their endorsement but did so later in the race. They had endorsed against her in the California Senate race in 2020. They endorsed Barbara Lee against Katie Porter, and they said that her campaign’s performance in that race did not inspire confidence that she would be able to win another statewide race.

[Break]

JU: It is a crowded and confusing field for the dynamics you just laid out. The policy differences, the disparity in personal wealth, all of those things make for a tough decision for many people in California on the left. But because of the way the election works here with a jungle primary, the two leading candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation.

Right now, if polling remains the same before the primary in June and more Democrats don’t drop out, California could end up with two Republicans at the top of the ticket come November. Who are those Republican candidates?

AL: Buckle up. [Laughs] Number one, the person who is in first place, we’ll start with Steve Hilton, who is a former Fox News analyst and a former Conservative Party adviser in the U.K.. He worked under Margaret Thatcher, for context. Steve Hilton was born in the U.K. and immigrated to the U.S. He is endorsed by Donald Trump. Pretty run-of-the-mill Republican dude who’s close with Trump.

I’ll leave it at that because the next person is even more interesting. [Riverside County] Sheriff Chad Bianco was a dues-paying member of the Oath Keepers, the group that you may remember from leading the attack on the Capitol on January 6. He was a dues-paying member in 2014; he was not at January 6. He also endorsed Trump. Trump has not endorsed him, obviously, he endorsed Steve Hilton. But those are the two top candidates in the gubernatorial race at this point in time.

JU: Now, I want to mention that this sheriff, Chad Bianco, took it upon himself to seize 650,000 ballots in March to investigate alleged voter fraud. A CalMatters probe found that “his sprawling investigation was based on the thinnest of evidence and raise alarms over how the November elections could be disrupted by the unproven claims of fringe groups and ideologically aligned officials.” For both of you, what do you make of this, and are there other cases of attempts to undermine voters through so-called “election integrity” efforts that you’re watching?

AL: Bianco — people know that he was in the Oath Keepers, but like he’s obviously distanced himself from that, he’s no longer a dues paying member, yada, yada, yada. But that is a direct outgrowth of that kind of extremist, militant, anti-government ideology that that group is built on. That runs as an undercurrent in a lot of these MAGA figures, in terms of undermining democratic institutions in the name of election integrity and this warped, very dangerous dystopian framing of our election system that leads to things like people storming the Capitol on January 6 and trying to overturn the results of the election and trying to hang the vice president. Just want to put a finer point on that.

He’s also part of the “constitutional sheriffs” movement, which sounds scary. They believe that they have more power than the president and the courts and that they’re some of the most powerful officials in the country.

[

Related

ICE Poses a Real Threat to Our Elections](https://theintercept.com/2026/03/06/democrats-dhs-ice-reform-midterm-election-integrity/)

I think this sort of campaign of election interference that we’ve seen balloon, particularly during Trump’s first term, and again, taking shape in his second term under the guise of election integrity is one of the harder things to cover, for us. But it’s one of the most insidious forces that have far reaching ramifications for democratic elections and voting rights more broadly. But it’s one of the hardest things to cover until after it happens.

“It’s one of the hardest things to cover until after it happens.”

So we’re at the point right now where this is not a huge issue in primary season. There’s already been some reporting on how Trump officials are talking about this and not necessarily about what’s being done, but that they’re definitely open about talking about sending ICE to polls. Talking about getting rid of voter protection measures or election integrity measures at the state level. We’ll likely see more of that ramp up between when primary season ends and in November. So it’s a little hard to say right now, but this is definitely part of their playbook.

JW: We’ve definitely seen Trump and his allies really talk about voter integrity and try and shift this narrative.

[

Related

In Trump’s Georgia Indictment, a Tale of Two Election Workers](https://theintercept.com/2023/08/17/trump-indictment-georgia-election/)

Obviously, I think as most of our listeners know, voter fraud is incredibly rare. The measures that the Trump administration is suggesting wouldn’t really target any of those, again, incredibly rare instances of voter fraud. We’ve also seen allies of the Trump administration, obviously on Capitol Hill, try and push through the Save Act, which would make it much harder for many different groups to vote because of the increased requirements on documentation. That failed this week in the Senate.

As Akela mentioned, the Trump administration has been floating the idea of sending ICE to the polls. We know that former Attorney General Pam Bondi had asked for the voter rolls in Minnesota as well. So there’s this confluence of different groups connected to the Trump administration, connected to some of these more fringe movements that are working to make this election much more difficult for many different groups to vote.

JU: In 2024, we saw Democrats running to the center on issues like immigration and transgender rights. But this year we’ve seen more Democrats style themselves as progressives, especially when it comes to immigration and issues like AIPAC funding. Are candidates paying a penalty for appearing inauthentic on those issues?

JW: I did a story about this earlier this year, focused on Seth Moulton and the fact that in 2024, he was one of the main Democrats really coming out and pushing anti-transgender rhetoric, saying that Democrats supporting transgender rights publicly had led to a backlash among voters.

[

Related

Seth Moulton Saw Trans Rights as a Political Liability. It Could Doom His Senate Campaign.](https://theintercept.com/2026/03/19/seth-moulton-ed-markey-senate-democrats-trans/)

Now he’s running in 2026 in Massachusetts against one of the most progressive senators in the country, Ed Markey. So we’re seeing a different shift of tone from him. He’s obviously not making those same comments that he was making in 2024, but he’s also talking about his record on LGBTQ rights, trying to shift the narrative around him. It’s not only not working, there’s a backlash that we’re seeing toward inauthenticity. Now, whether or not the average voter is paying attention in that way, I’m not sure. But certainly when you’re looking at people who are more politically plugged in — and primary voters tend to be much more politically plugged in — there is more of a backlash for inauthenticity and for shifting on issues without a sincere apology or a sincere conversation about why your viewpoints have changed.

JU: There’s a lot of discourse online around who is a progressive candidate and whose questionable past or background or lack thereof should be overlooked because they are saying the right things currently. What do you both think? Do you think these criticisms are just unhelpful purity tests or that people should be taking a more critical look at the candidates they are championing?

AL: I feel like this question about purity tests is a little bit ill-fitted to what we’re actually talking about, which is, what are candidates’ policies? It’s not so much about a purity test. It’s a question of, is what you’re running on actually what you do in office? That’s not a purity test, I don’t think.

[

Related

AIPAC Is Retreating From Endorsements and Election Spending. It Won’t Give Up Its Influence.](https://theintercept.com/2025/12/30/aipac-campaigns-elections-israel-congress/)

Candidates who have been very vocal about abolishing ICE or rejecting AIPAC money or these clear litmus tests — which they are litmus tests — know that is something that’s going to be on their record. It’s not something that they can waffle on once they’re in office. If you say you’re not going to take AIPAC money and then you take AIPAC money, people are going to find out. If you say I’m going to abolish ICE, and then you don’t abolish ICE, people are going to find out.

Whereas, incumbents who may have voted for moderate or conservative immigration policy in the past who are now coming out and saying, “Abolish ICE,” or candidates like Cory Booker who have taken tons of AIPAC money and boasted about texting with their president and been to their annual policy conferences — coming out and saying that he’s no longer taking AIPAC money as part of a broader pledge to reject corporate PAC money, not singling out AIPAC because he obviously doesn’t want to draw their ire. That is a fair case for people to ask questions about “OK, what does this actually mean?” And again, that’s not a purity test because he’s adopting the purity test. It’s like, what is he actually going to do?

We’ve seen a lot of candidates, particularly 2028 candidates, whether senatorial or gubernatorial who have had long-standing relationships with AIPAC or demonstrated pro-Israel policy records like Rahm Emanuel, Cory Booker, Josh Shapiro, Ruben Gallego, all come out now against AIPAC or distancing themselves from AIPAC.

In Josh Shapiro’s case, he says like, they don’t give to governors, I’ve never taken AIPAC money. But he has a very pro-Israel policy record and has fashioned himself as someone who is resisting the wave of criticism of Israel in the Democratic Party and standing firm in his pro-Israel bonafides, while still saying that he’s critical of Netanyahu and stuff like that.

Cory Booker was asked about this recently on Pod Save America, where they were pressing him on why he refused to call Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal. It doesn’t really matter if you’re rejecting AIPAC money, if you aren’t changing any of the policies that you adopt with respect to how the U.S. treats Israel.

[

Related

Democrats Are Split Over What It Means to Block Israel Weapons Deals](https://theintercept.com/2026/04/19/israel-weapons-military-aid-arms-embargo-democrats/)

Cory Booker did vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s measures to block the sale of bombs and bulldozers to Israel. So that was a shift in his position. That’s the kind of thing where you can say, well, this litmus test worked; if he’s actually changing his policy on this, then people don’t have a reason to necessarily question the proclamations that he’s making.

But I do think people should be asking questions beyond “Does this person take AIPAC money?” They should be asking where do they stand on all of these other policy questions that they’ll be voting on once they’re elected or reelected.

“It doesn’t really matter if you’re rejecting AIPAC money, if you aren’t changing any of the policies that you adopt with respect to how the U.S. treats Israel.”

JW: To Akela’s point, you can’t have Democrats who voted for the Laken Riley Act, which makes it much easier to deport people in the United States, who are then now decrying what Trump and ICE are doing in the streets and saying they’re going to hold Trump accountable when in office — when they haven’t been holding ICE accountable while in the legislature.

JU: On the topic of online discourse, for several weeks now, powerful factions within the Democratic Party have been going after Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. It started to pick up about a month ago after he participated in a convoy to deliver food, medicine and solar panels to Cuba, a country in which President Donald Trump’s oil embargo has led to a humanitarian crisis.

I really can’t believe that attacks on Piker’s character are continuing for this long. If you Google his name, multiple stories come up that are just a few days old, from The Hill and The Atlantic and the New York Post. There are real issues that the party establishment could focus on, like Trump’s sinking approval rating, the war, the economy, and ongoing threats to our democracy. But yet, they appear to be hyperfocused on Piker’s influence. What do you all make of this?

AL: It’s mind-numbingly stupid. This is just a straw man thing, I don’t know how to say it better than that. Hasan Piker is a straw man. He has never spoken for the Democratic Party. He’s a streamer that candidates are either going on his show or campaigning with. And yes, you can say well the left or Democrats often criticize shows that candidates go on, because they’re outright Nazis or they were at the Capitol on January 6 or something and that’s just not what we’re talking about. I think the false equivalence between someone like a Nick Fuentes or like an outright white nationalist working with or campaigning with Republicans, and somehow drawing a parallel between that and Democrats talking to Hasan Piker — it’s insulting to people’s intelligence to try to make that comparison.

[

Related

The Democrats Don’t Know Who They’ll Be in 2028. Michigan May Offer an Answer.](https://theintercept.com/2026/04/09/michigan-senate-abdul-el-sayed-mallory-mcmorrow-hasan-piker/)

I think because a lot of people don’t know who he is, or the context, unfortunately gets swept up in thinking that this is something that they should actually be paying attention to and trying to make a decision about. It is an illustration of how broken our media and political ecosystems is that national outlets spending air time covering this as if it’s a real news development — because that fuels the fire. That’s why we’re still talking about it, and that’s why we’re talking about it on this show. But hopefully with a better take.

JW: This is about not wanting to share power with the left. This isn’t about the comments that Hasan Piker made. This isn’t about, oh, Democrats shouldn’t be on this platform or that platform. These are some of the same people who were pushing Democrats to go on Joe Rogan.

“This is about not wanting to share power with the left.”

So it doesn’t hold water. This is about not wanting to share power with the left, wanting to weaken one of its, to them, one of its strongest and loudest voices. It’s an attack on the left. It’s not about Hasan Piker or about Twitch or anything else.

JU: You can’t tell me that Democrats have a problem reaching young men and then when you have somebody who does reach young men and has pulled them to the left — you will see in his audience, in his chat, in his fans’ comments, many people will admit to being sucked into the right-wing pipeline and admitting and thanking him for pulling them out. You can’t tell me that you have a problem and he is not part of the solution, and expect me to think that is a sound argument.

[

Related

The Futile Quest to Build a “Liberal Joe Rogan”](https://theintercept.com/2025/05/31/liberal-joe-rogan-democrats-men/)

It is about narrative control. It is about preserving legacy institutions and part of it is about weaponizing hollow accusations of antisemitism, and that’s why you see groups like the Anti-Defamation League take shots at him.

In parallel, there’s also a threat to the status quo and their corporate ties. That’s why centrist group Third Way has been pushing this. And then it’s about where the party sits, like you say, both of you — it’s about not ceding power to the left, not including the left in this “big tent.” That’s why you have never-Trumpers who they say they’re former Republicans, but by their acts demonstrate, at least to me, that they still are Republicans also joining that growing chorus.

It is, in my opinion, misguided and shortsighted.

JW: Third Way pushing this is just— the fact that this was a group that was earlier saying, we can’t talk about diversity, we have to move against transgender rights, let’s take away actual rights in order to win. But now the line is, oh, well, if we win, but we win with Hasan Piker, that’s going to be the worst thing in the world. The whole thing is a little bit laughable. They’re willing to sacrifice actual human rights, but what they’re not willing to do is have anyone sit down with Hasan Piker.

AL: It’s easier to blame someone who isn’t responsible for your policy failures for being popular. That’s not the reason that Third Way is unpopular. It’s because they’re bad at what they do.

JU: So when it comes to actual issues people are unhappy about, a new AP poll shows that Trump’s approval rating on the economy is sinking even more, due to his policies from tariffs to new wars in the Middle East. That’s on top of violent immigration raids, the handling of the Epstein files, and more signs of a weakening economy as the Fed reports zero net job creation in the private sector, and the Wall Street Journal reporting we’ve entered an “era of mega-layoff[s].” Meanwhile, the Trump family’s business empire is growing exponentially this term. Is Democratic leadership leveraging any of this? How is it showing up in campaigns? What are you both seeing? And are there signs that any of this will cost Republicans control of the House and maybe Senate?

JW: I think this is really coming up in Democratic campaigns in this word “affordability.” We’re hearing every single campaign talk about the fact that the United States is not affordable for working-class people. That’s clearly a shot at Trump’s economy. That’s really how I see Democrats capitalizing on it, mostly in campaign season.

AL: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has been talking about how many federal jobs the Trump administration has lost or cut with various cuts to different agencies. And yes, as Jessie said, this is showing up as an affordability chorus among different Democratic campaigns. Affordability, sure, is a unifying message — but I think being able to tie the fact that there is a net zero job creation to Trump seems like something that they should be screaming from the hilltops all together at once.

It’s hard to tell in situations where they are hitting the message correctly because we have spent a lot of time on this show criticizing Democrats for not having a clear or focused messaging campaign. But when leaders might be getting the message out, like what is the party doing as a whole to have a unified front on that or directly tie it to Trump, I think is something that they’re still not quite on par with Republicans on.

I keep thinking about the first federal government shutdown under Trump, when you went to the White House website, and it was like, “Democrats have shut down the government.” We don’t see that kind of succinct counter-messaging from Democrats.

I’m reading this headline from a Schumer press release, and it’s so long. I’m just going to read it to you: “SCHUMER REVEALS: AS TRUMP ATTACKS & EVISCERATES FEDERAL WORKFORCE, NEW YORKERS PAY THE PRICE WITH OVER 8,000 FEDERAL JOBS LOST IN THE PAST YEAR ALONE ACROSS NY – WITH DAMAGING CUTS TO LOCAL SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICES, VETERANS AFFAIRS, USDA OFFICES, AND OTHER VITAL FEDERAL SERVICES.”

Like, that’s not a slogan. That’s the Senate minority leader’s press office putting this out. It feels like there should be some sort of unified campaign. I’m not a political strategist, but when you look at the messaging next to each other, what Republicans are doing and what Democrats are doing, it seems like a missed opportunity to really hit the nail on the head on who’s responsible for this.

JW: You see Democrats talking about affordability hitting on Trump, but I think you’re right that there’s a real opportunity for Democrats to hit Republicans over the head with this, and we’re not seeing it as aggressive as we know Republicans would be in this alternate situation.

JU: This is going to be an interesting midterm, and I will look to both of you for guidance and clarity as things get even more chaotic. I want to thank you both for joining me on The Intercept Briefing.

AL: Thank you, Jordan.

JW: Thank you.

JW: And that does it for this episode.

This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Nara Shin is our copy editor. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.

Slip Stream provided our theme music.

This show and our reporting at The Intercept doesn’t exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at theintercept.com/join.

And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. Do leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.

Let us know what you think of this episode, or If you want to send us a general message, email us at podcasts@theintercept.com.

Until next time, I’m Jordan Uhl.

The post “Me Too” Comes Back To Congress appeared first on The Intercept.

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44788

Independent US journalist Ken Klippenstein says Washington stepped up intelligence activities against the Vatican following Trump’s spat with the Pope

The administration of US President Donald Trump has been “spying” on Pope Leo XIV as part of a years-long intelligence campaign by Washington against the Vatican, US investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein said in a report released on 24 April.

Klippenstein – an independent, Washington-based investigative journalist who formerly wrote for The Intercept – cited sources as saying that Trump’s recent comments on the new Pope were taken by the intelligence community as “a directive to prioritize spying on the Vatican.” Trump had said earlier this month that Pope Leo was “terrible on foreign policy” and “weak on crime.”

According to Klippenstein’s sources, Washington has “for years” been spying on the Vatican.

“The CIA has human spies working inside the Holy See bureaucracy. The NSA and CIA seek to intercept telecommunications, emails, and texts. The FBI investigates crimes committed against and by the Vatican. The State Department closely follows the ins and outs of Papal diplomacy and politics. All of these agencies liaise with the Vatican’s own foreign policy, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies,” the report stated.

Klippenstein pointed to a “longstanding – and quietly extensive – relationship between the US national security apparatus and the Vatican” involving diplomatic, law enforcement, and cybersecurity cooperation.

Much of it is “genuine” but also serves as a “convenient cover for collecting intelligence.”

From thecradle.co via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44810

At times, the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran seems to be fought less on the battlefield than in the realm of perception. What the diplomatic cables released by POLITICO reveal is not just a temporary deterioration of Washington’s image, but something deeper: a growing asymmetry in the ability to shape the global narrative, where Iran is gaining unexpected advantages through the intensive use of a digital ecosystem based on artificial intelligence.

Far from classic propaganda, Iran’s communication strategy combines speed, adaptability, and a keen understanding of local audiences. Memes, AI-generated satirical videos, and social media campaigns not only challenge U.S. actions but also ridicule its leaders, eroding their symbolic authority. The case of the “Lego”-style videos produced by the firm Explosive Media — which garnered millions of views before being taken down — illustrates the extent to which humor and digital aesthetics can become effective political weapons.

This approach contrasts with the rigidity of the U.S. communications apparatus. According to the cables, Washington’s embassies have been instructed to limit themselves to repeating official messages, with no leeway to adapt content to local contexts. In a saturated and dynamic media ecosystem, this lack of flexibility amounts to a tactical retreat. Moreover, the internal climate under the Donald Trump administration—marked by centralized decision-making and an emphasis on loyalty—has fostered caution and even paralysis among diplomats, weakening the ability to respond in real time.

The impact of this communication gap is evident in three key scenarios: Bahrain, Azerbaijan, and Indonesia.

In Bahrain, a historic ally and home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet, the Iranian narrative has succeeded in sowing doubts about Washington’s commitment to Gulf security. The perception that the U.S. prioritizes the defense of Israel over its Arab partners has gained traction, amplified by social media that portray the U.S. military presence as a risk rather than a source of protection. The absence of an effective counter-narrative has allowed these ideas to take root even in a traditionally controlled media environment.

In Azerbaijan, where relations with Washington had been improving following a recent peace summit, the shift is more subtle but significant. Local media have moved from neutral or positive coverage to a critical stance, questioning the lack of a U.S. strategy in the conflict. Here, Iranian messaging has not necessarily generated sympathy for Tehran, but it has contributed to eroding U.S. legitimacy, which in geopolitical terms can be equally decisive.

The case of Indonesia is perhaps the most concerning for Washington. As the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, its public opinion carries considerable symbolic and strategic weight. There, Iran has deployed a sophisticated campaign that combines appeals to Islamic solidarity with anti-colonial narratives, portraying the U.S. and Israel as imperialist powers. The use of innovative formats—such as Morse code messages or interactive content—demonstrates a capacity for experimentation that contrasts with the static communication of U.S. embassies.

The risk, according to the diplomats themselves, is not so much that populations will fully embrace the Iranian vision, but rather that anti-American sentiment will reach levels that limit the room for maneuver of allied governments. In Indonesia, for example, this could result in reduced security cooperation, even when shared strategic interests exist.

In this context, the war of narratives takes on a structural dimension. Iran, despite its economic and military limitations compared to the United States, has found in digital communication a force multiplier. Its ability to operate across multiple platforms, adapt to diverse cultural codes, and exploit the adversary’s weaknesses allows it to compensate for other disadvantages.

For Washington, the challenge is not merely communicational: it is a manifestation of its growing loss of soft power. For decades, the United States dominated the symbolic arena through Hollywood and its cultural industries. Today, however, even in that arena, it is Iran that is gaining the upper hand. If drones and missiles pierce the U.S. security umbrella in the Persian Gulf, their effects are amplified on the symbolic level: every viral meme and every Iranian satirical video contributes to cumulatively eroding the credibility of the American superpower. The gap between its material power and its capacity for persuasion is becoming increasingly visible.

Originally Published in Spanish on April 19 in La Izquierda Diario

The post Another Front in the Asymmetric War: Iranian AI Vs. the U.S. Narrative appeared first on Left Voice.

From Left Voice via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44825

military contractor Palantir is helping the IRS analyze dozens of different data sets on Americans to investigate a broad range of financial crimes, according to records shared with The Intercept.

Since 2018, the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation division has used Palantir’s Lead and Case Analytics platform to aggregate and analyze a sprawling list of sensitive federal databases and data sets.

Public records detailing Palantir’s IRS contract, obtained by the nonprofit watchdog group American Oversight and shared exclusively with The Intercept, reveal the immense volume of data plugged into the military contractor’s software. The LCA uses both Palantir’s Gotham and Foundry applications to facilitate “analysis of massive-scale data to find the needle in the hay stack,” the contract paperwork says.

Documents indicate the IRS has paid Palantir over $130 million for these services to date.

Palantir’s LCA is ostensibly directed toward cracking down on fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes. According to a 2024 agency privacy impact assessment, IRS “Special agents and investigative analysts … utilize the platform to find, analyze, and visualize connections between disparate sets of data to generate leads, identify schemes, uncover tax fraud, and conduct money laundering and forfeiture investigative activities.”

[

Related

Trump Wants to Put You in a Massive, Secret Government Database](https://theintercept.com/2026/03/17/government-surveillance-centralized-database-privacy/)

The IRS use of the software, launched under Trump’s first term and expanded under Biden, is now in the hands of an IRS Criminal Investigations office that has drastically scaled back its pursuit of tax cheats and pivoted, under Trump’s direction, toward investigating “left-leaning groups,” the Wall Street Journal reported in October.

“The real concern is the consolidation of vast amounts of sensitive personal data into a single system with minimal transparency — especially one built and operated by a contractor like Palantir, whose business model is premised on integrating data and expanding surveillance capabilities,” American Oversight director Chioma Chukwu said in a statement to The Intercept. “Its platforms have been used in deeply troubling contexts, from immigration enforcement to predictive policing, with persistent concerns about overreach, bias, and weak oversight.”

Palantir did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the IRS.

“The real concern is the consolidation of vast amounts of sensitive personal data into a single system with minimal transparency — especially one built and operated by a contractor like Palantir.”

The contract documents reviewed by The Intercept reveal that these “disparate sets of data” are vast. Palantir’s LCA allows the IRS to quickly search and visualize “connections from millions of records with thousands of links” between databases maintained by the IRS and other federal agencies. According to the contract documents, this data includes individual tax form and tax returns as well as Affordable Care Act data, bank statements, and transactions, and “all available” data compiled by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Its view apparently extends to cryptocurrencies including bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, and Ripple. “The application would sit on top of a singular repository of identified wallets from seized servers utilizing dark web data obtained from exchangers such as Coinbase,” the documents note.

The program places an emphasis on mapping social relationships between the targets of an investigation. That includes analyzing a “network of people and the relationships and communications between them,” such as “calls, texts, [and] emails events.” The use of “IP address analysis” within LCA allows the IRS to “Identify suspects more easily” and “Establish (new) relationships among actors.”

These investigative functions are continuously updated, the materials say, through ongoing close work between Palantir engineers and IRS personnel.

[

Related

Palantir Will No Longer Profit Off of New Yorkers’ Health Data](https://theintercept.com/2026/03/24/palantir-new-york-city-hospitals-contract/)

The intermingling of sensitive data on millions of Americans comes at a time of increased global skepticism and opposition toward Palantir, which, despite its military-intelligence origins, has a thriving business with civilian agencies like the IRS. The use of Palantir software at the U.K.’s National Health Service, for example, has created an ongoing political controversy across Britain, while a similar contract with the New York City public hospital network was recently canceled following public protest.

The contract is also active at a time when IRS Criminal Investigations has been coopted to aid in the broader Trump administration’s aggressive agenda. In July, ProPublica reported that the agency was working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provide “on demand” data to accelerate deportations. Last year, the New York Times reported that Palantir, founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel, was central to an administration effort to increase data-sharing across federal agencies.

“The question isn’t just what it can do — it’s who it will be used against.”

The company’s right-wing politics and eagerness to facilitate U.S. and Israeli military aggression abroad, NSA global surveillance, and ICE deportations has also made many weary of its access to incredibly sensitive personal data. A recent post on the company’s Palantir’s X account summarizing a book by CEO Alex Karp triggered an immediate backlash from those unnerved by the manifesto’s fascistic bent. The bullet points extolled the virtue of arms manufacturing, argued the Axis powers were unfairly punished after World War II, called for a reinstatement of the draft, condemned cultural pluralism, and claimed that wealthy elites are unfairly persecuted.

“When the government can map relationships, track behavior, and generate investigative leads across data sets at this scale, the question isn’t just what it can do — it’s who it will be used against,” Chukwu said. “Entrusting that infrastructure to a company known for opaque, security-state deployments only heightens those risks.”

The post Palantir Is Helping Trump’s IRS Conduct “Massive-Scale” Data Mining appeared first on The Intercept.

From The Intercept via This RSS Feed.

https://x.com/kmcnam1/status/2047375168482247153

https://x.com/Popstonox/status/2047517669344072177

Smart Person reply

sorry but Mark Twain already made the perfect reply to this bullshit line of reasoning about 150 years ago

https://x.com/lukeisamazing/status/2047301286186352897

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44304

Hamas stressed in a statement on Sunday, April 19, the necessity of obligating Israel to implement all the terms of phase one of the US-brokered Gaza ceasefire deal, as a prelude for launching phase two of the agreement.

The statement was released after the movement held a series of meetings with mediators and Palestinian factions in Egypt’s capital, Cairo, last week, to explore ways to complete the implementation of the agreement terms.

Hamas asserted that it dealt with the deliberations positively, affirming its keenness to continue coordinating with the mediators to reach “an acceptable agreement” based on the initiative of US President Donald Trump, and the understandings formulated in the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, in order to end the humanitarian suffering in the Gaza Strip.

Moreover, the movement accused the Israeli occupation of not adhering to most of its pledges and continuing to violate the agreement on a daily basis. It also emphasized that any agreement must include the complete withdrawal of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) from the entire besieged enclave, alongside the start of the reconstruction process.

Israel committed over 2000 violations during phase one of the agreement

Hamas’ demands came after the IOF committed over 2000 violations since phase one of the deal came into force on October 10, 2025.

According to health sources, at least 780 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli airstrikes across the war-torn territory as a result of these violations.

Meanwhile, the death toll of Palestinian people killed by Israel in Gaza since October 7, 2023, has risen to 72,560, with the latest reports from the United Nations indicating that 38,000 women and girls were among the fatalities. 

The post Hamas demands that Israel implement phase one of Gaza ceasefire appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.

From Peoples Dispatch via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: https://news.abolish.capital/post/44357

Brendan Carr // CSPAN

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

Today, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that the FCC would be seeking comment on whether the TV Parental Guidelines rating system needs to be changed to address shows with transgender or nonbinary characters. The public notice, which Carr posted on twitter this morning, seeks to weaponize the TV ratings system to restrict shows that include such characters—asking whether programs that contain "the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes" should "be rated differently or contain relevant descriptions." Though the FCC's direct authority over the TV ratings system is limited—the system is voluntary and industry-run, and streaming platforms like Netflix and Disney+ can maintain their own standards—the FCC retains enormous coercive power over broadcast networks and their parent companies, many of which also operate streaming platforms. The move comes after a series of attacks on network television weaponizing the FCC for political purposes, including Carr's threats to revoke broadcast licenses over news coverage of the Iran war and his targeting of ABC over late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. It appears to be an attempt to extend "Don't Say Gay"-style policies—which have restricted discussion of LGBTQ+ people in classrooms across red states—to national television ratings.

“Years ago, Congress passed a law that empowers parents to decide the types of TV programs that are appropriate for their kids by standing up a TV show ratings system. But recently, parents have raised concerns with the industry’s approach—including with ratings creep. Specifically, they argue that New York & Hollywood programmers are promoting controversial issues in kids programming without providing any transparency or disclosures to parents. This undermines the whole point of the law and the ratings system parents rely on. The FCC is now seeking comment on whether the industry’s approach provides parents with the types of information and disclosures relevant to them today,” Carr wrote on twitter. However, the actual document posted alongside his statement tells a more specific story—it primarily centers on gender identity.

The document states, “Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents. Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.” It then poses a series of loaded questions: “Are parents aware that children watching programs rated TV-Y, TV-Y7 and TV-G may contain the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes? Should such programming be rated differently or contain relevant descriptions so that parents can make informed decisions?” The document also asks whether “additional faith-based organizations” should be given seats on the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board—the industry body that oversees the ratings system.

From the FCC Public Notice

The TV Parental Guidelines rating system was established in 1997, after Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board has overseen the system since, applying familiar ratings like TV-G and TV-PG to programming across broadcast television. Cable television and streaming platforms like Netflix, Disney+, and Hulu are not subject to the FCC's regulatory authority and are not required to use the system, but have voluntarily adopted the same rating categories for consistency—meaning that any changes to how the system treats transgender content could ripple across the entire television landscape even without a legal mandate. While the FCC cannot directly change how the industry rates its programming, under Carr it hasn't needed to—the agency has repeatedly used legally dubious threats to pressure networks into self-censorship, and this public notice sends the same kind of signal to an already skittish industry.

If networks bow to this pressure, the impact on LGBTQ+ programming could be enormous. Transgender and nonbinary characters in children's television are already vanishingly rare—GLAAD's most recent report found just one transgender character on all of broadcast television. Youth shows could see what little representation remains stripped out entirely, as networks preemptively remove trans and nonbinary characters rather than risk a ratings penalty or government scrutiny.

The pressure extends well beyond broadcast: Disney owns both ABC, which requires an FCC broadcast license, and Disney+, which does not. NBCUniversal owns NBC and Peacock. Paramount owns CBS and Paramount+. When Carr threatened ABC's station licenses over Jimmy Kimmel, it was Disney that pulled Kimmel off the air—and Disney also owns the streaming platform that produced The Owl House, one of the most beloved queer animated shows in recent memory, which Disney canceled after its creator said it didn't fit the company's "brand." The parent company dynamic means that FCC pressure on a broadcast license can cascade into content decisions on streaming platforms the FCC has no jurisdiction over. And the FCC appears to know this—the document explicitly targets streaming platforms despite having no regulatory authority over them, asking, "Is there disparity in ratings among different viewing platforms; i.e., is the same program consistently rated when it airs on broadcasting, MVPDs, and streaming platforms? Are streaming platforms more broadly interpreting what is allowable in categories intended for audiences under TV-Y14?"

The targeting comes at an already devastating time for queer animation. Beloved shows with LGBTQ+ characters have been systematically canceled or ended, and the shows that remain are under increasing pressure to strip queer content. Disney removed a transgender storyline from the Pixar series Win or Lose before it aired, with the company stating that parents should discuss such topics with children "in their own time"—the exact framing the FCC's public notice now uses. Disney+'s "Junior Mode" parental controls were found to filter out LGBTQ+ content entirely from kids' profiles. Anonymous Pixar employees have alleged that executives demanded they cut queer content, writing in a letter that "nearly every moment of overtly gay affection is cut at Disney's behest."

“It is hard to imagine just a few years ago when Pixar’s own Luca (2021) was celebrated within the community for its queer themes. Now, the queerness of Pixar’s Luca no longer seems like the result of a studio being held back by higher powers from telling an openly queer story but rather the result of Pixar leadership’s own mandate to relegate any queer characters to the background. I am no longer certain that the studio would have even released the same cut of Luca in 2025 as it did in 2021, such is the frighteningly fast normalisation of queer erasure in mainstream media, including animation, that has occurred in the last couple years,” writes Oliver Vigni, a fantasy/animation writer.

The public comment period is open now through May 22, 2026. Anyone can submit comments opposing this effort through the FCC's Comment Filing System under MB Docket No. 19-41. LGBTQ+ organizations, parents, animators, and allies are encouraged to make their voices heard—the FCC is required to consider all comments submitted during the period.

Erin In The Morning is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a subscriber.

From Erin In The Morning via This RSS Feed.

The Admin's name is Kaplan by the way

comment by @Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Hey there, Kaplan.

So, this is quite clearly now just a witch hunt by you.

For anyone else who is curious, this is what happened.

A user by the name of Luminous was an admin on Anarchist.nexus. They banned MrKaplan from a community for posting zionist apologia. Luminous also had 'Kill all Zionists' as their display name. MrKaplan took this as a personal death threat. Instead of speaking with any other admin from Anarchist.nexus and reporting the behavior, MrKaplan instantly defederated from Anarchist.nexus.

In the next couple of days, Kaplan messaged other users/admins of Lemmy about the defederation and (from my understanding) suggested defederation to others as well. It was then posted about in the Piefed matrix channel. This led to PugJesus, someone who I abhor, actually saying something I agree with.

The conversation moves elsewhere. One bit of input that stands out is this. It will become important in a second.

In basically every situation, Kaplan is told that they're wrong or overreacting but Kaplan cannot see past the 'death threat' to their own mistake.

So, I messaged Kaplan. Conversation goes on and one thing is made clear

Kaplan never spoke with anyone and ran all of this off of an assumption. There was inconsistencies in how the different people felt because they were different people and not one organism. What was individuality instead came off as obliviousness and Kaplan took it personaly. See what I mean by it became important? Kaplan is talking about a 'lack of moderation' over something that Kaplan literally never reported or talked to anyone about and instead just made assumptions over.

@Ruud@lemmy.world, this is what you're backing. You went out of your way to make an instance that wasn't going to be reddit and you went ahead and re-created Spez, an admin who personally takes out their own feelings on anyone that they don't like and is trying to control the narrative of the entirety of the fediverse.

Friendly reminder to everyone. Check back a couple of months ago on this community and look at the post about JordanLund. A moderator who was openly lying to the admins in public but the admins took weeks to decide to do literally nothing. But a single user on another instance meant that MrKaplan was able to defederate it all.

This behavior from Kaplan is, quite literally, the reason that I left lemmy.world.

Don't believe me? Here's the last message I sent Kaplan during the Jordan garbage.

Funny. Jordan requires a ton of deliberation, reasons in the TOS, and you're all 'working on it' but a single user says something you don't like so instant defederation?

Edit: Quick note but every other post on this community has been featured. This one isn't. So you're making an announcement but you're not really announcing it. Any response to this, Kaplan?

Edit 2: Kaplan is just blatantly lying. As demonstrated above, Kaplan has literally zero evidence of this claim other than things "feeling odd".

extra content about why does this admin has absolute power? https://mander.xyz/post/50871498/26701551

Kaplan cannot be removed from the admin team.

Every other major admin has stepped down in the past few months or taken massive steps back. Kaplan is effectively all that there is left. Thats why these actions were taken instantly and without any deliberation. Kaplan has no one to answer to anymore. @Ruud@lemmy.world just handed over total control of the instance. Whether or not Ruud wanted to remake reddit, he certainly has.