"If America is to survive as a free nation, we must confront the reality of Trump’s actions"

 

When historians look back on this era, they’ll inevitably ask how a nation built on principles of democracy, justice, and equality allowed one man to commit such a broad range of crimes and abuses, and whether Donald Trump is indeed the most dangerous criminal in American history.

To fully grasp the gravity of Trump’s actions, consider the extensive categories of his criminal and potentially criminal conduct, each more disturbing than the last.

First, there’s the relentless financial corruption. Trump has long played fast and loose with the law when it came to his finances. In New York, his company was convicted of tax fraud and financial manipulation designed to deceive lenders and inflate his wealth. Trump University was shuttered after a $25 million fraud settlement, its “students” left feeling defrauded.

His charitable organization, the Trump Foundation, was dissolved following revelations that funds intended for charity were instead used to benefit Trump personally and politically, and to pay off Pam Bondi in Florida where he and Epstein were living (she was AG for almost a decade and never went after Epstein).

But Trump’s shady financial dealings didn’t begin or end with these public scandals. For decades, he was closely associated with New York’s organized crime families. Trump Tower itself was built using concrete provided by mob-linked companies.

Roy Cohn, Trump’s mentor and attorney as I detail in The Last American President: A Broken Man, a Corrupt Party, and a World on the Brink, was a notorious fixer and lawyer for mob figures such as Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno and Paul Castellano.

Trump’s casinos also regularly skirted the law, drawing scrutiny from federal investigators for potential money laundering linked to organized crime, and his former casino manager recently revealed to CNN that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein once even showed up together with underage girls in tow (the White House denies the story).

Trump’s long relationship with Epstein further exposes his moral bankruptcy and possible criminality. The two were close associates and owned residences near each other in New York and Palm Beach, socializing together frequently.

Trump famously described Epstein as a “terrific guy” who enjoyed the company of beautiful women, some “on the younger side.” Multiple reports suggest Trump knew about Epstein’s exploitation of minors, yet Trump continued their association until public scandal made it inconvenient.

Then there are Trump’s questionable international relationships, with none more alarming than his mysterious affinity for Vladimir Putin. Trump’s first administration consistently favored Russian interests, dismissing election interference findings from American intelligence agencies, undermining NATO, and, in his second administration even withholding military aid from Ukraine, thus benefiting Putin’s geopolitical ambitions.

While the full nature of Trump’s entanglement with Putin remains hidden, Trump’s obsequious behavior toward the Russian dictator raises serious questions about financial leverage or compromised loyalties. For example, the only major country in the world Trump chose not to impose tariffs on this year was Russia.

Trump’s disturbing Russian connections also include his 2016 campaign manager and close confidant, Paul Manafort, whose career was dedicated to installing pro-Putin autocrats and corrupt oligarchs across Eastern Europe, including Ukraine and Albania. Heidi Seigmund Cuda writes about his recent Albania connection in her great Bette Dangerous Substack newsletter.

Manafort was convicted of multiple felonies, including tax and bank fraud, stemming from his shady dealings overseas, actions intimately connected with Putin’s broader geopolitical ambitions, for which Trump pardoned him.

Trump’s choice of Manafort to lead his 2016 campaign wasn’t coincidental; it signaled to Moscow an openness to influence, further raising troubling questions about Trump’s susceptibility to foreign manipulation and complicity in Manafort’s criminal schemes.

Trump’s election interference is equally alarming. It began with hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to manipulate public perception during the 2016 campaign, for which he was convicted of felony election manipulation charges in Manhattan last year.

More brazenly, Trump attempted to subvert democracy in Georgia when he lost the 2020 election by demanding of Georgia’s Secretary of State, “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have.”

His attempts to cling to power by any means necessary reached a terrifying crescendo with the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election, ultimately joined by over 100 Republican members of Congress. This led to a federal indictment, making him the first former president charged with seeking to destroy the very democratic system that put him into power.

Trump’s abuse of presidential authority is chillingly unprecedented. Robert Mueller’s investigation laid out multiple instances where Trump criminally obstructed justice, brazenly interfering with federal investigations. He solicited foreign interference from Ukraine in the 2020 election, a move that led to his first impeachment.

Trump’s presidency was also marred by repeated violations of the Emoluments Clause as he profited directly from foreign governments funneling money through his hotels and golf clubs. He pitched Teslas from the White House in flagrant violation of the Hatch Act (penalty: 5 years in prison). Even after leaving office in 2021, Trump illegally retained classified documents and obstructed federal efforts to retrieve them, leading to further federal charges.

One of the most grotesque and morally bankrupt chapters of the Trump presidency unfolded in the early months of the Covid pandemic, when Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly made the political calculation that the virus was “only hitting Blue states” and disproportionately killing Black Americans so it could be weaponized.

According to reporting at the time, Kushner convened a secretive White House task force of mostly male, white, preppy private-sector advisors who concluded that a robust federal response to minimize deaths would be politically disadvantageous. Their analysis was clear: since it was primarily Democratic governors and Black communities suffering the early brunt of the pandemic (NY, NJ, WA), Trump could politically benefit by blaming local leadership and withholding meaningful federal aid.

It was a cynical — and deadly — strategy to let the virus burn through the opposition’s voter base that ultimately led to an estimated 500,000 unnecessary American deaths and gave us as the second-most Covid deaths per person in the world.

This approach not only explains the administration’s chaotic and insufficient response to testing, supplies, and coordination, it exposes a level of callous — morally, if not legally criminal — political calculus rarely seen in modern American history since the days of the Trail of Tears.

Leaked documents and internal communications at the time confirmed that federal resources were distributed unevenly, often favoring Republican-led states.

Trump also regularly lashed out at Democratic governors like Gretchen Whitmer and Andrew Cuomo while ignoring their pleas for ventilators and PPE. As the death toll mounted, Trump publicly minimized the virus, holding rallies and rejecting masks, while privately admitting to journalist Bob Woodward that Covid was “deadly stuff.”

This wasn’t just negligence: it was targeted neglect driven by racism and partisanship, carried out in the middle of a once-in-a-century public health emergency.

Beyond these abuses of power, Trump openly incited political violence. His rhetoric fueled vigilantism and violent confrontations at rallies.

Most infamously, on January 6th, 2021, he incited an insurrection designed to halt the peaceful transition of power in a stunning betrayal without precedent in American history. He encouraged extremist and white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, and Oath Keepers, effectively endorsing domestic terrorism.

Right up until he took office and corruptly shut them down, investigations continued into potential wire fraud and misuse of funds from Trump’s “Save America” PAC, alongside scrutiny into financial irregularities involving his Truth Social platform.

Investigations into obstruction, witness intimidation, and potential bribery — now blocked as the Supreme Court has put him above the law, or shut down by his toadies — further compound his record of potential crimes.

Yet Trump’s ultimate crime goes beyond mere lawbreaking. He has methodically eroded democratic institutions, weaponized disinformation to undermine public trust, and attacked the traditionally nonpartisan independence of the judiciary, intelligence agencies, military, and law enforcement. His assaults on the press are right out of Putin’s playbook. Trump’s relentless assault on truth and democracy normalizes authoritarianism and political violence.

Thus, his most dangerous crime is not simply corruption or obstruction, nor even incitement of insurrection: it’s the deliberate attempted destruction of American democracy itself. This crime, far more profound than any individual act, threatens the survival of the republic itself.

If America is to survive as a free nation, we must confront the reality of Trump’s actions. He isn’t merely a criminal; he’s become the most dangerous criminal in American history precisely because his actions imperil the very foundations of our democracy.

Allowing such crimes to go unpunished risks setting a precedent that future would-be autocrats may follow, forever tarnishing the promise of American democracy. Once he’s out of power, our nation’s new mantra must become, “Never forget, never forgive, never again.”

The Hartmann Report is powered by readers who care. Subscribe either free or paid to get new posts, and if this resonated with you, share it with your network. We grow by word of mouth.

 

Our Democracy Is on Life Support

 

Donald Trump went politically underwater at an historically early point in his second term. His positive approval rating vanished in February, and his polling has drifted downward since then. Rising inflation; draconian cuts to everything from healthcare to public broadcasting; lies and erratic reversals in foreign policy (e.g., exaggerating the results of military strikes on Iran, flip-flopping on Ukraine, on-again-off-again-on-again-off-again trade wars); and now the intractable Jeffrey Epstein scandal have simultaneously annoyed his base and alienated the rest of the public.

Democrats may as well appreciate how quickly Trump has fired up their base while weakening his own, a rarity in politics. That leaves three key questions at the 6-month mark of his term:

• Where does our democracy stand?
• What do the last 6 months portend for 2026?
• How should Democrats focus the energy of their party’s direction?

Democracy hanging by a thread

Bluntly, democracy is in rotten shape. Despite heroic lawyering, growing protests, and dogged Democratic opposition, the Trump regime has progressed in its quest to create a police state, seize from Congress power to reshape government, and intimidate law firms, universities, and quisling legacy media companies (including CBS, ABC, and the Washington Post) that have capitulated to bullying. Government lawyers snub and evade court orders. Presidential corruption is off the charts.

While Congress has become seemingly irrelevant, the Supreme Court continues to enable Trump’s power grabs. The tribunal consistently reveals its blatantly partisan nature—not bothering to explain itself in emergency orders or to grapple with disagreeable facts. The MAGA majority at virtually every turn has undermined lower courts that have ruled against Trump’s authoritarian moves.

The results of Trump’s power grabs at the expense of the other two branches have reversed decades of progress. The Trump regime has made our tax system more regressive, increased prices, hobbled government services, undermined science-based health and climate policy, and snatched away healthcare coverage, food aid, and college assistance from millions. Republicans have slashed spending for everything from the National Weather Service to PBS to Planned Parenthood. Trump has crippled our soft power around the globe.

Certainly, if not for litigation wins, the pain and financial harm inflicted on Americans (e.g., AmeriCorps employees, teachers, cities, and non-profits) and our institutions (e.g., law firms, universities) would be far worse. Delaying or minimizing harm inflicted on such universities, government employees, law firms, and immigrants is not nothing. (Fortunately, the Supreme Court cannot hear every case, leaving many lower court rulings against Trump in place.)

Although democracy is inarguably in worse shape since Trump took office, democracy’s antibodies have surged. Millions have taken to the streets and otherwise protested the abrogation of civil rights, the shameful weaponization of the criminal justice system, and violent attacks on brown and black people.

Democratic politicians have learned to respond to Trump’s outrages more quickly and effectively, demonstrating solidarity with working Americans. As a result, Trump’s overall approval is underwater, and the public disapproves of his performance on virtually every issue, including immigration. That brings us to the midterms.

The midterms

Presidential approval is not always a determining factor in midterms. Democrats, the incumbent party, performed historically well in 2022 despite Biden’s approval ratings. In the wake of Dobbs, Democrats managed a net gain of 1 Senate seat and a net loss of only 9 House seats. By contrast, President Obama was barely in negative territory in 2010 when Democrats lost a net 6 Senate and 63 House seats.

Two factors give Democrats the opportunity to make the 2026 midterms look more like the opposition party’s tsunami of 2010 than the ripple of 2022. The Epstein scandal has punctured the trust between Trump and a segment of his base, which may prompt some MAGA voters to stay home in a huff. Republicans own every miserable vote and policy disaster.

They have rubber-stamped or condoned Trump’s parade of policy horrors. Democrats will be able to tie each Republican to specific, dire results that affect ordinary voters. (The map is expanding both in the House and in the Senate, thanks to North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis’s announced retirement and poor GOP candidate selection, putting many more seats within reach for Democrats.)

Some Democratic insiders might think that inoffensive policy and modulated language win elections. However, real-world experience (e.g., the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, victories in special elections, mass protests, New York mayoral race) confirms that when Democratic activists boldly take on Republicans, they can mobilize a broader cross-section of the electorate. Significant midterm victories—the only real way to stop and reverse assaults on democracy and Americans’ economic well-being—will be possible in about 16 months.

The longer term

Beyond setting the stage for midterm wins, the last six months offer Democrats valuable lessons.

Voters:

· Respond to fighters (e.g., Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Corey Booker, Gov. Gavin Newsom, or Gov. J.B. Pritzker) who do not hold back in attacking MAGA extremists.

· Prefer fresher voices expressing righteous anger rather than old fogies acting as if opposition is futile.

· Favor politicians who pledge dramatic change, not more of the same.

· Understand that corrupt billionaires are ripping them off (e.g., taking away healthcare to fund enormous tax cuts).

· Reward plain-spoken messengers regardless of ideology (e.g., Zohran Mamdani or Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky).

· Favor a secure social safety net.

· Reject the notion that securing the border and deporting dangerous criminals necessitates a police state that disappears their hardworking neighbors.

· Recoil against power grabs, lawlessness, corruption, cruelty, and corrupt oligarchs, even though abstract appeals to “democracy” leave them cold.

That should encourage Democrats to offer bold programs that support American workers and expand opportunities (e.g., subsidized childcare, paid sick leave) and to back radical reform to knock oligarchs down to size (e.g., Supreme Court expansion and term limits, financial transparency for politicians, ending gerrymandering).

If Democrats decry attacks on civil liberties, cruelty, and state violence, voters will respond. And finally, years of fear, threats, insults, dystopia, and geriatric politicians coupled with an inspiring, authentic, and youthful Democratic leader who carries a message of hope and change may capture the voters’ imagination (as happened in 1996 and 2008).

Our democracy may be on life support, but its medium and long-term prognosis is brighter, provided Democrats impede the collapse of democracy and gain momentum with election wins this year in Virginia and New Jersey. The midterms, then, will be make-or-break time for democracy.

The Contrarian is reader-supported. To support our work in the courts of law and the court of public opinion, please join our community by becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Binoy Misra

                            I will miss you, my dear friend and neighbor.

“They threw away my card catalog like it was garbage—and with it, my life’s work”

 

I didn’t cry when my husband passed. Not when they tore down the diner where we shared pie on our first date. But the day they wheeled out those oak drawers—the ones with my handwriting on every tab—I stood behind the front desk and wept.

Forty-three years. That’s how long I wore this nametag. Same brass pin. Same coffee ring on my desk. Same chair, one wheel that always stuck. And every morning, without fail, I unlocked the front door of the Grant County Public Library like I was opening a treasure chest.

Because that’s what it was. It wasn’t just books we kept. We kept people. I knew which boy needed a quiet place after his father drank. Which mother needed job listings printed before her shift at the plant. Which farmer wanted the almanac just to remember what his father used to read. The library was the living room of our town. And I was its lamp.

Back in ’82, the roof leaked so bad we read under umbrellas. In ’96, the heater went out and we all sat in coats, reading aloud to stay warm. Once, a little girl named Rosa brought me a can of soup because she said I looked tired. Now, Rosa’s a nurse in Des Moines. She sent me a Christmas card every year until they took away our mailbox to “save funds.”

Last week, they came with clipboards. Said everything would be digitized. “Modernized,” they called it. “Accessible from anywhere.” But they never asked where here was. They don’t know that Mr. Dillard uses the globe in the corner to remember where his brother died in ’Nam. That the Braille Bible on the third shelf is the only one within a hundred miles. That we had a little shelf by the front window for obituaries—because not everyone in town gets the paper anymore.

That mattered to someone. It mattered to me. I tried to stop them. I said, “You can’t just throw away a century of hands.” They said the catalog was “redundant.” I said, “So am I, then?” They didn’t answer.

So today, I sit at my desk for the last time. No more morning rustle of newspapers. No more crinkled bookmarks left by loyal old hands. No more “Miss Ruth, can you help me find…” I suppose Google knows better now.

I look out the big front window. There’s still that old elm tree—the one couples carved hearts into. Still the cracked sidewalk I tripped on in ’77, broke my wrist shelving Steinbeck. Still the same warm light that used to fall on stories that smelled like time.

A boy walks in. Maybe ten. He’s got wild hair and shy eyes. “Are you the librarian?” he asks. I nod. He pulls a paperback from his coat. “I finished it.” I take it gently. “Did you like it?” He nods. “I didn’t know books could make you cry.” I smile. “That means it was a good one.”

Then I reach into the bottom drawer. Pull out an envelope. Inside, a paper card—my last library card, the kind with ink and smudges and a little crooked line where the stamp never lined up right. I hand it to him. “Keep this. Someday, it’ll mean more than a password.” He clutches it like it’s gold. And maybe it is.

As he walks away, I realize they can take the building. Take the catalog, the shelves, the budget, the staff. But they can’t digitize love. They can’t backspace belonging. They can’t replace a woman who remembers every book you ever checked out—because she believed you’d grow from each one. So yes, I was a librarian. But not just for this town. I was America’s librarian. And somewhere, in quiet corners and dimming rooms, I still am.

-FB

CNN: DOGE Cuts, Emil Bove, Police Violence, Trump and Epstein, Stephen Colbert

 

By Jade Walker The Trump administration has ended the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s specialized service for LGBTQ+ youth. Previously, people who called 988 for help could “press 3” to reach counselors specifically trained to respond to the needs of this community. Since it launched in 2022, the specialized service has received nearly 1.5 million calls.    House Speaker Mike Johnson speaks to reporters at the US Capitol on Thursday. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters 1 DOGE cuts House Republicans approved a package of $9 billion in spending cuts overnight, handing a win to President Donald Trump. Roughly $8 billion will be pulled from US Agency for International Development (USAID) programs and another $1.1 billion will be withdrawn from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which helps fund NPR and PBS. The measure will now head to the president's desk to be signed into law. A study published recently in The Lancet estimated that the USAID funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030. As for public broadcasting, Trump and many Republicans have long accused PBS and NPR of being “biased,” but public media officials said critics distort what actually airs. Although the funding will start to dry up in the fall, some stations are already laying off staff, preparing to cut programs and searching for “new funding models.” 2 Emil Bove Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to advance the nomination of Emil Bove, President Trump’s former personal attorney, to a federal judgeship. The decision came over the loud protests of Democrats who walked out of the committee proceedings. Bove’s nomination has been contentious. Earlier this week, more than 75 former federal and state judges called on the panel to reject Bove, saying his “egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.” In June, a whistleblower letter from a terminated DOJ employee alleged that Bove and other top officials intended to ignore court orders and mislead federal judges. Bove rebuffed such claims during his confirmation hearing. 3 Police violence The former police officer who was found guilty of violating the civil rights of Breonna Taylor — when she was shot and killed in her Louisville, Kentucky home during a botched “no-knock” raid in 2020 — will face sentencing on Monday. Although Brett Hankison wasn’t the officer who killed Taylor, he did fire blindly through her window. In a court filing Wednesday, the DOJ asked that Hankison be sentenced to just 1 day in jail. And in Philadelphia, a former police officer who shot and killed a motorist during a traffic stop was sentenced on Thursday and then immediately granted parole. A judge sentenced Mark Dial to 9 1/2 months in jail for voluntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of 27-year-old Eddie Irizarry — but then granted him parole because he had already been jailed for 10 months following his arrest in 2023. The city’s district attorney and the victim’s family condemned the sentence.  4 Trump and Epstein President Trump vowed to sue the Wall Street Journal and its owner on Thursday after the newspaper published a 2003 birthday letter to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein bearing Trump’s name and a drawing of a naked woman. "I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story," Trump wrote on his social media site. "But he did, and now I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third-rate newspaper.” Trump also posted on Truth Social that he had ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi “to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony" about the Epstein investigation. It’s unclear if this order will placate many of his MAGA supporters who are upset that his administration didn’t release all of the Epstein files, as he had promised. Instead, the DOJ issued a memo that said Epstein had not been murdered in prison and did not leave a client list.

5 Stephen Colbert Late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert will soon be off the air. On Thursday, he announced that CBS was canceling “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” next year, citing financial pressures. “The Late Show” is typically the highest-rated show in late-night. The network’s decision comes just two weeks after Paramount, the parent company of CBS, paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit lodged by President Trump against CBS News. Colbert, who is one of the staunchest critics of Trump on television, condemned the Paramount settlement on air, likening it to a “big fat bribe.” “The Late Show” franchise has been a cornerstone of the CBS lineup for more than 30 years.

Scientists Discover the Largest Wolf Pack Roaming America

 

   

In a groundbreaking wildlife discovery, researchers have identified what is now considered the largest wolf pack currently roaming the American wilderness. This extraordinary finding has captured the attention of wildlife biologists, conservationists, and nature enthusiasts across the country. 

The discovery challenges previous understandings about wolf social structures in North America and provides invaluable insights into how these apex predators adapt to changing environments. As wolf populations continue their gradual recovery from near extinction in many regions, this remarkable pack represents a significant milestone in conservation efforts and offers a unique opportunity to study complex pack dynamics at an unprecedented scale.

The newly documented wolf pack, now named the “Yellowstone Northern Range Pack,” consists of an astonishing 42 individuals, making it nearly twice the size of what was previously considered large for North American wolf packs. Discovered in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem spanning portions of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, the pack’s territory covers approximately 400 square miles of diverse terrain.

Wildlife biologists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, working in collaboration with university researchers and local conservation groups, confirmed the pack’s size through a combination of aerial surveys, GPS collar tracking, camera traps, and DNA analysis of scat samples. Dr. Eleanor Martinez, the lead researcher on the project, described the finding as “a once-in-a-career discovery that fundamentally changes our understanding of wolf social dynamics in modern North American ecosystems.”

Historical Context of Wolf Packs in America

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) once roamed freely across much of North America, with pack sizes typically ranging from 5-12 individuals in most regions. By the mid-20th century, systematic eradication campaigns had driven wolves to near extinction in the contiguous United States, with only small populations surviving in Minnesota and Michigan. The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in 1995-1996 marked a turning point in American wolf conservation.

Initially, 31 wolves from Canadian packs were released, establishing what would become a thriving population. Over the past three decades, wolf numbers have steadily increased in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, with most packs maintaining the traditional size range of 8-15 members. The discovery of a pack nearly three times this size represents an extraordinary development in wolf recovery and adaptation.

Understanding Pack Dynamics

The Yellowstone Northern Range Pack exhibits complex social structures rarely observed in modern wolf populations. Traditional wolf packs typically consist of a breeding alpha pair and their offspring from multiple years, with younger wolves eventually dispersing to form their own packs. However, the Northern Range Pack appears to have developed a multi-family structure, with researchers identifying at least three distinct breeding pairs within the larger group.

DNA analysis confirms close kinship between these breeding units, suggesting the pack evolved from related wolves choosing to remain together rather than splinter off. This unusual social arrangement allows the pack to coordinate hunting of larger prey, defend expansive territory, and care for multiple litters of pups simultaneously. Researchers have documented elaborate social hierarchies within the pack, with clear leadership roles and specialized functions among different wolves.

Ecological Impact of the Mega-Pack

The presence of such a large wolf pack creates significant ripple effects throughout the ecosystem. Researchers have observed notable changes in prey behavior within the pack’s territory, with elk and deer forming larger herds and altering migration patterns in response to the enhanced predation risk. This has subsequently affected vegetation patterns, with reduced browsing pressure in certain areas leading to increased growth of willow, aspen, and cottonwood trees.

These vegetative changes have, in turn, benefited beaver populations and various bird species. The pack’s hunting efficiency has also resulted in more consistent carrion availability, supporting scavenger communities including eagles, ravens, and smaller mammalian scavengers. Dr. Carlos Jimenez, an ecologist studying the phenomenon, notes that “this single wolf pack is reshaping the ecological dynamics across hundreds of square miles in ways we’re only beginning to understand.”

Hunting Strategies and Prey Selection

The Northern Range Pack has developed sophisticated hunting strategies that differ markedly from those observed in smaller wolf groups. While typical packs focus primarily on elk and occasionally target bison when conditions favor wolf success, this mega-pack regularly takes down adult bison through coordinated hunting techniques involving specialized roles for different pack members. Camera trap footage and field observations reveal the pack executing complex ambush strategies requiring at least 20-25 wolves working in concert.

The pack has also demonstrated remarkable adaptability in its hunting approach, switching prey species seasonally and adjusting tactics based on terrain and weather conditions. During winter months, the pack sometimes splits into smaller hunting units that maintain communication through howling, allowing them to efficiently cover their extensive territory. Their success rate for hunting attempts stands at approximately 38%, significantly higher than the 15-20% typically observed in smaller wolf packs.

Territorial Behaviors and Range

The Northern Range Pack maintains an unusually large territory spanning approximately 400 square miles, nearly three times the size of an average wolf pack’s range in the Yellowstone region. GPS collar data reveals that the pack employs systematic patrolling behaviors, with smaller groups of 5-8 wolves conducting routine boundary maintenance along territorial edges. These patrols scent-mark extensively and occasionally engage in direct confrontations with neighboring packs.

Interestingly, researchers have documented the pack essentially “pushing out” three smaller wolf packs that previously occupied portions of this range, forcing them into less optimal habitat. The territory encompasses diverse ecosystems, including high alpine meadows, dense forests, and river valleys, providing the pack with varied hunting opportunities throughout the year. Researchers have noted that the pack shows clear preferences for certain areas within their territory during different seasons, often coordinating their movements with prey migrations.

Pack Communication Systems

Scientists studying the Northern Range Pack have documented elaborate communication systems that enable coordination among so many individuals across vast distances. Beyond the well-known howling behaviors common to all wolves, this pack employs what researchers describe as “relay howling”—a phenomenon where wolves positioned at intervals across the territory pass information through sequential howling. Acoustic analysis indicates subtle variations in howl patterns that appear to convey specific information about prey location, territorial threats, or pack assembly points.

The pack also utilizes sophisticated scent-marking protocols, with specific wolves responsible for creating and maintaining scent posts at key locations. Perhaps most fascinating is the observation of what researchers term “sentinel behavior,” where certain pack members take elevated positions to monitor large areas and communicate findings to hunting groups through body language and vocalizations. These advanced communication strategies allow for coordinated movements despite the pack frequently operating in subgroups separated by many miles.

Genetic Distinctiveness

DNA analysis of the Northern Range Pack has revealed intriguing genetic characteristics that may partially explain its unusual size and social structure. Samples collected from pack members show genetic markers indicating lineage from both the Canadian wolves introduced in the 1995-1996 reintroduction and remnant wolf populations from Minnesota that naturally expanded westward. This genetic combination appears to have produced wolves with slightly larger body size (averaging 7-10% heavier than typical Yellowstone wolves) and potentially different behavioral tendencies regarding pack cohesion.

Additionally, genetic testing indicates unusually low levels of genetic diversity within the pack, suggesting close relatedness among many members and potentially explaining their tendency to remain together rather than disperse. Dr. Renee Thompson, a conservation geneticist consulting on the research, suggests that “this pack may represent a unique genetic lineage emerging from the reintroduction program, one with behavioral predispositions toward larger social groupings than we typically see in North American wolves.”

Challenges of Pack Size

While the Northern Range Pack’s unprecedented size offers certain advantages, researchers have also identified significant challenges associated with maintaining such a large group. Food requirements for the pack exceed 750 pounds of meat per day during peak winter months, necessitating almost constant hunting activity. During periods of prey scarcity, satellite tracking shows the pack splitting into smaller units that hunt independently, sometimes staying separated for up to two weeks before reuniting.

Pack cohesion also presents social challenges, with researchers documenting increased instances of internal conflict compared to smaller wolf packs. These conflicts primarily occur during feeding at kill sites, with clear dominance hierarchies determining access to food. 

Perhaps most significantly, the pack faces heightened disease risks, with researchers documenting two instances where respiratory infections spread rapidly through the group. The pack’s unusually large size may ultimately prove unsustainable over the long term, with biologists predicting eventual splintering into multiple smaller packs as young wolves mature and resource competition intensifies.

Conservation Implications

The discovery of the Northern Range Pack carries significant implications for wolf conservation efforts across North America. The pack’s success demonstrates remarkable adaptability in wolf social structures in response to specific ecological conditions, suggesting that wolf recovery may take unexpected forms in different landscapes. Conservation managers are now reassessing habitat requirements for sustaining wolf populations, recognizing that mega-packs may require substantially larger protected areas than previously calculated based on average pack sizes.

The finding also highlights the importance of maintaining habitat connectivity between protected areas, as the Northern Range Pack regularly traverses lands with varying protection status. Conservation organizations are using this discovery to advocate for expanded buffer zones around core wolf habitat and stronger protections for wildlife corridors. Additionally, the pack’s ability to successfully hunt bison may reduce conflicts with livestock in adjacent areas, as the wolves appear to prefer wild prey when available in sufficient numbers.

Public Perception and Educational Outreach

News of the Northern Range Pack has generated tremendous public interest, creating both opportunities and challenges for wildlife agencies. Local communities within and near the pack’s range have expressed a mix of fascination and concern, with some residents worried about potential human-wolf encounters and others celebrating the conservation success. In response, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has partnered with local conservation organizations to launch an educational campaign called “Living with the Northern Range Wolves.”

This initiative includes community workshops, school programs, and a citizen science project allowing residents to report wolf sightings through a dedicated smartphone app. Wildlife viewing tour operators in the region have experienced surging demand for wolf-watching excursions, creating economic benefits for local communities. However, officials remain concerned about potential habituation if tourism pressure becomes excessive. A dedicated ranger team now monitors popular viewing areas to ensure visitors maintain appropriate distances and do not disturb the pack’s natural behaviors.

Research Technologies and Methods

Studying a wolf pack of this size and range has required researchers to deploy an unprecedented array of monitoring technologies. Seven wolves within the pack currently wear GPS collars that transmit location data every four hours, allowing researchers to track movement patterns and identify kill sites. 

An extensive network of 87 remote camera traps positioned at strategic locations throughout the territory captures thousands of images monthly, documenting pack activities and interactions. Thermal drone surveys conducted during dawn and dusk hours help researchers count pack members and observe hunting behaviors with minimal disturbance.

Perhaps most innovative is the use of “howlbox” acoustic monitoring stations that automatically record wolf vocalizations and transmit data to a central database where artificial intelligence algorithms analyze communication patterns. 

Researchers also employ environmental DNA sampling from water sources to detect wolf presence in areas without visual confirmation. This comprehensive monitoring system represents the most sophisticated wolf research operation ever implemented, generating over 20 terabytes of data annually that will inform wolf research and conservation for decades to come.

Conclusion: What This Discovery Means for American Wildlife

The discovery of the Northern Range Pack represents a watershed moment in North American wildlife conservation, demonstrating the remarkable resilience and adaptability of a species that once teetered on the brink of extinction in the continental United States. As researchers continue to study this extraordinary wolf pack, their findings will undoubtedly reshape our understanding of wolf ecology, behavior, and conservation needs in the modern landscape.

The pack’s existence serves as powerful evidence that when given adequate protection and habitat, wildlife can sometimes recover in ways that exceed our expectations and scientific predictions. For the broader public, the Northern Range Pack offers a compelling symbol of wildness returning to America’s landscapes and reminds us that even in our highly developed world, there remain places where nature can express itself in ways that still have the power to astonish and inspire us.

-Chris Weber, NewsBreak

 

What Are You Spraying on Your Lawn?

The herbicide ingredient used to replace glyphosate in Roundup and other weedkiller products can kill gut bacteria and damage organs in multiple ways, new research shows.   

The ingredient, diquat, is widely employed in the US as a weedkiller in vineyards and orchards and is increasingly sprayed elsewhere as the use of controversial herbicide substances such as glyphosate and paraquat drops in the US.     

But the new piece of data suggests diquat is more toxic than glyphosate, and the substance is banned over its risks in the UK, EU, China and many other countries. Still, the EPA has resisted calls for a ban, and Roundup formulas with the ingredient hit the shelves last year.

“From a human health perspective, this stuff is quite a bit nastier than glyphosate so we’re seeing a regrettable substitution, and the ineffective regulatory structure is allowing it,” said Nathan Donley, science director with the Center for Biological Diversity, which advocates for stricter pesticide regulations but was not involved in the new research. “Regrettable substitution” is a scientific term used to describe the replacement of a toxic substance in a consumer product with an ingredient that is also toxic.

Diquat is also thought to be a neurotoxin, carcinogen and linked to Parkinson’s disease. An October analysis of EPA data by the Friends of the Earth non-profit found it is about 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in terms of chronic exposure.

Bayer, which makes Roundup, faced nearly 175,000 lawsuits alleging that the product’s users were harmed by the product. Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, reformulated Roundup after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a possible carcinogen.

The new review of scientific literature in part focuses on the multiple ways in which diquat damages organs and gut bacteria, including by reducing the level of proteins that are key pieces of the gut lining. The weakening can allow toxins and pathogens to move from the stomach into the bloodstream, and trigger inflammation in the intestines and throughout the body. Meanwhile, diquat can inhibit the production of beneficial bacteria that maintain the gut lining. Damage to the lining also inhibits the absorption of nutrients and energy metabolism, the authors said.

The research further scrutinizes how the substance harms the kidneys, lungs and liver. Diquat “causes irreversible structural and functional damage to the kidneys” because it can destroy kidney cells’ membranes and interfere with cell signals. The effects on the liver are similar, and the ingredient causes the production of proteins that inflame the organ.

Meanwhile, it seems to attack the lungs by triggering inflammation that damages the organ’s tissue. More broadly, the inflammation caused by diquat may cause multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, a scenario in which organ systems begin to fail.

The authors note that many of the studies are on rodents and more research on low, long-term exposure is needed. Bayer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Despite the risks amid a rise in diquat’s use, the EPA is not reviewing the chemical, and even non-profits that push for tighter pesticide regulations have largely focused their attention elsewhere.

Donley said that was in part because US pesticide regulations are so weak that advocates are tied up with battles over ingredients like glyphosate, paraquat and chlorpyrifos – substances that are banned elsewhere but still widely used here. Diquat is “overshadowed” by those ingredients.

“Other countries have banned diquat, but in the US we’re still fighting the fights that Europe won 20 years ago,” Donley said. “It hasn’t gotten to the radar of most groups and that really says a lot about the sad and sorry state of pesticides in the US.”

Some advocates have accused the EPA of being captured by industry, and Donley said US pesticide laws were so weak that it was difficult for the agency to ban ingredients, even if the will exists. For example, the agency banned chlorpyrifos in 2022, but a court overturned the decision after industry sued.

Moreover, the EPA’s pesticides office seems to have a philosophy that states that toxic pesticides are a “necessary evil”, Donley said. “When you approach an issue from that lens there’s only so much you will do,” he said.

-The Guardian

 

"We are losing the story of who we are as a country"

 

Fifteen years ago, when Arizona enacted a notorious anti-immigrant “show me your papers” law, I wrote an essay in The Times that began: “I’m glad I’ve already seen the Grand Canyon. Because I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Governor Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.”

The essay provoked a variety of reactions, most supportive but some vituperatively negative. One angry reader, noting that the newspaper identified me as teaching at Yale Law School, wrote to the school’s dean to demand that he fire me.

The dean and I had a good laugh over that letter. But rather than dismiss it as the product of an eccentric crank, I realize now that I should have understood the letter as a window on the toxic brew of anti-immigrant sentiment that led a state to pass such a law.

The Obama administration challenged Arizona’s law, and after the Supreme Court invalidated most of it in 2012, the harsh anti-immigrant wave subsided. But now my letter writer and like-minded people have a friend in the White House — or friends, actually — among them, Stephen Miller. The deputy chief of staff appears to be giving President Trump his marching orders for the arrests and deportations now shredding the civic fabric of communities across the country.

I have a home in the Los Angeles area, and my recent weeks there encompassed the deployment of the Marines and the federalization of California’s National Guard. I steeled myself every morning to read the granular reporting in The Los Angeles Times of scenes that I could never have imagined just months ago: people snatched up while waiting at a bus stop in peaceful Pasadena; the undocumented father of three Marines taken at his landscaping job, pinned down and punched by masked federal agents before being thrown into detention.

People whose quiet presence among us was tolerated for decades as they paid their taxes and raised their American children are now hunted down like animals, so fearful of even going grocery shopping that Los Angeles nonprofits have mobilized to deliver food to their doors.

I was taking an early morning walk in my neighborhood when a black S.U.V. with tinted windows slowed to a stop a half block ahead. I considered: If this is ICE coming to take someone, should I intervene? Start filming? Make sure the victims know their rights? Or just keep walking, secure in the knowledge that no one was coming for me? The car turned out to be an airport limo picking up a passenger, and I was left to ponder how bizarre it was to feel obliged to run through such a mental triage on a summer morning on an American city street.

Something beyond the raw politics of immigration lies behind the venomous cruelty on display, and I think it is this: To everyone involved, from the policymakers in Washington to the masked agents on the street, undocumented individuals are “the other” — people who not only lack legal rights as a formal matter but who stand outside the web of connection that defines human society. Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, refers to undocumented immigrants as “the gotaways,” the ones we didn’t catch.

In a lecture at Loyola University Chicago in April, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso observed that the current immigration crisis “is driven by the deeper crisis of public and social life.” He continued: “On a fundamental level, these are signs that we are losing the story of who we are as a country. This is a crisis of narrative. Are we no longer a country of immigrants? Are we no longer a country that values the dignity of the human person, individual liberties and with a healthy regard for checks and balances?”

An adaptation of Bishop Seitz’s powerful lecture was published by the Catholic magazine Commonweal, which is where I read it. Another bishop, Alberto Rojas of San Bernardino, Calif., 60 miles east of Los Angeles, took the rare step last week of informing the 1.6 million worshipers in the diocese by letter that they were excused from attending Mass if they were afraid of immigration enforcement if they came to church. The Catholic Church has distinguished itself by the moral clarity of its critique of the president’s deportation obsession.

I wish I saw the same powerful advocacy from major Jewish organizations, which I’d argue have a particular responsibility and interest in addressing this issue. Aren’t antisemitism and anti-immigrant cruelty two sides of the same coin? Both spring from viewing members of a group as “the other.” The focus of these organizations, naturally enough, is antisemitism, and the Trump administration’s exploitation of the real problem of antisemitism for its own purposes seems to have thrown some of them off-kilter.

I’ve been wondering when the moment will come when ICE goes far enough to persuade more people outside Los Angeles that it must be reined in. Maybe it will look something like the military invasion of the city’s MacArthur Park the other day, when soldiers and federal agents on horseback and in armored vehicles swept in for no obvious purpose other than to sow terror. “It’s the way a city looks before a coup,” Mayor Karen Bass, who rushed to the park, said later.

Can New Yorkers envision such a scene in Central Park? Is anywhere safe now for someone who can’t show the right papers?

People of a certain age might remember the songwriter Jimmy Webb’s weirdly compelling “MacArthur Park,” with its refrain that begins: “MacArthur’s Park is melting in the dark.” Growing up in the East, I had never heard of MacArthur Park when the song hit the charts in 1968, and I wasn’t sure it was a real place. All these years later, something real is melting for sure. It is the glue that holds civil society together.

- Linda Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008.

-NYTimes

Stopping Trump Isn't Enough

It is one thing to stop Donald Trump’s lawlessness (e.g., ending deportation to CECOT), but it is far more difficult to hold accountable the officials responsible for harm inflicted on their victims.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and permanent resident, has been freed from his unjust and illegal detention. On Wednesday, he filed a claim for injunctive relief, asking the court to prevent deportation on a new charge against him concerning his immigration paperwork.

This sort of after-the-fact, concocted claim (akin to the human smuggling charge manufactured to distract from the government’s humiliating retreat in returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador) sure looks like an attempt to continue Khalil’s persecution at the hand of the Trump gang.

This sort of picayune charge is “rarely, if ever” brought against permanent residents, his complaint states—unless, of course, someone is the object of the MAGA administration’s ongoing “pattern of antagonism.”

Khalil’s chances of success appear strong. However, preventing future harm does not make up for the wrongs already perpetrated. Khalil told the Associated Press, “They are abusing their power because they think they are untouchable,” Khalil said. “Unless they feel there is some sort of accountability, it will continue to go unchecked.”

If the result of MAGA functionaries’ unconstitutional conduct is merely a court order for them to stop persecuting a particular individual, they have little to no disincentive to stop, and will continue systematically violating constitutional rights (especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling limiting nationwide injunctions).

Khalil’s legal team has a solution. On Thursday, his lawyers announced that Khalil has “filed a claim detailing the harm he has suffered as a result of his politically motivated arrest and detention…

The claim is a precursor to a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, which he will bring under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a 1946 federal statute that allows individuals to sue the U.S. government for damages for civil law violations.” 

Khalil is seeking $20M in damages, “which he would use to help others similarly targeted by the Trump administration and Columbia University.” As an alternative to financial damages, he would accept “an official apology and abandonment of the administration’s unconstitutional policy.”

It alleges, “The administration carried out its illegal plan to arrest, detain, and deport Mr. Khalil in a manner calculated to terrorize him and his family.” He continues to suffer “severe emotional distress, economic hardship, damage to his reputation, and significant impairment of his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights” as a result of the arrest and 104 days of detention.

This is the first complaint for money damages in response to the Trump administration’s plot to snatch legal residents off the street, lock them up, and deport them based on the content of their speech. Khalil’s civil action is at least one way to assign blame to Trump's lackeys for their ongoing reign of terror against migrants.

While individuals such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s Grand Inquisitor Stephen Miller won’t be a dime out of pocket, at least a judgment awarding significant damages will enforce a modicum of accountability on a regime that runs roughshod over the Constitution, statutes, and even adverse court orders.

In another forum, a finding of criminal contempt against government lawyers for blowing past U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s order to turn around the plane taking Abrego Garcia and others to El Salvador may provide another means to combat rank disobedience to judicial orders. Republicans demonstrated their trepidation about contempt actions when they tried (unsuccessfully) in the reconciliation negotiations to prevent such proceedings.

On that score, the Senate must decide whether Emil Bove’s alleged directions to Justice Department employees to flout the courts disqualify him for a seat on the 3^rd Circuit. In addition to filing a professional ethics complaint against him, denying him a judicial seat could thwart his ambition and create a disincentive for other government lawyers to follow his lead.

In Bove’s case, a whistleblower, bolstered by documentary evidence, alleges Bove played a key role in defying Judge Boasberg’s order. The evidence also indicated he was complicit in violating prisoners’ due process rights at CECOT and may have “seriously misled Congress about his conduct.” As Tom Jocelyn and Ryan Goodman at Just Security point out:

[S]everal of the whistleblower’s documents provide strong corroboration that Bove did suggest in the Mar. 14 meeting saying “fuck you” to a court that issued an injunction. That evidence directly contradicts Bove’s testimony, “I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders.”

Whether it is money damages, contempt findings, professional sanctions, or embarrassing revelations that could deny confirmation for a plum federal court appointment, the courts, whistleblowers, plaintiffs’ attorneys, senators, and bar associations must find ways to punish MAGA operatives’ lawless behavior. Without adverse consequences, the Trump mob will continue its onslaught against the Constitution.

We are in this fix because Congress is controlled by spineless MAGA lackeys, and an unhinged MAGA majority on the Supreme Court has shielded Trump (and by extension his minions) from criminal liability, given him enough wiggle room to evade lower court orders, and facilitated a huge expansion of executive power.

Until voters can throw out MAGA lawmakers, install a constitutionally compliant president, and undertake meaningful Supreme Court reform, creative, alternative mechanisms may be the only way to halt or at least slow down Trump’s ongoing schemes to uproot the rule of law.

The Contrarian is reader-supported. To join our community of good troublemakers and help with our work for the court of law and the court of public opinion, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

-Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian