The Intercept Briefing

On the eve of his second inauguration, Donald Trump did something no U.S. president had ever done: He launched a meme coin. The cryptocurrency — whose value hinges more on hype than utility — surged to an all-time high of $75.35 a token. The next day, First Lady Melania Trump dropped her own meme coin, debuting at about $13 a share. Both coins have since tumbled, but on Wednesday Trump’s token briefly bumped up again to $15.47 before dipping. The latest surge came after the coin’s official website announced that 220 top meme coin holders will be invited to a gala dinner with the president in May — black tie optional. These tokens, that are not tied to any real world assets, have proven lucrative for Trump and his family. Last month, the Financial Times estimated Trump made upwards of $350 million from the project. While small traders have lost big, the Trump Organization and its affiliates — controlling 80 percent of the token supply — have made hundreds of millions in just trading fees. Trump, once a crypto skeptic, is now the industry’s most powerful advocate. “ He went to a big bitcoin conference in Nashville last July. That's where he declared he would make the U.S. the crypto capital of the planet,” says Intercept reporter Matt Sledge. “And the crypto industry started showering money on him. They saw somebody who would be friendly to their industry.” This week on The Intercept Briefing, Sledge, who covers crypto’s political reach, discusses how investing in the president has paid off for the industry and for the Trump family. “So far in Trump's presidency, things have gone great for the crypto industry. Even as the rest of the economy is on pretty perilous footing, a bunch of crypto companies have seen the SEC and other regulatory agencies drop investigations or lawsuits. Trump has created a 'bitcoin reserve,' and in general, regulators and Congress are behaving much more friendly toward the industry.” For more on how Trump is reshaping the crypto landscape and what it means for the rest of us, listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, we examine the case of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student whose decadelong journey toward American citizenship ended not with the oath of allegiance, but in handcuffs. On Monday, the Columbia student arrived at his long-awaited citizenship interview in Vermont. Instead, immigration agents arrested him, and he now faces deportation to the occupied West Bank. Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., who represents his district, is outraged and told The Intercept Briefing, “If you'll deny due process from somebody who was in this country with a green card for 10 years, who is somebody who talked about peace and connection between Palestinians and Israelis who was looking to build bridges — if this man is somehow a threat to our society, then we are down a sick path.” Mahdawi spoke to The Intercept the night before his fateful appointment and said he understood the risk he might be facing. He is now the ninth Columbia student targeted for deportation. The Trump administration has revoked or changed over a 1,000 student visas, according to Inside Higher Ed. Mahdawi’s case exemplifies how immigration enforcement is being weaponized, says Balint. “ If they're so proud of what they're doing, then show your damn face, then show your ID. Then talk about what grounds you are holding this person. But it's being done in secret, and it is meant to shock and awe and to get the rest of us to remain silent. They have no evidence, they have no details, which is what we're demanding of both Secretary [Marco] Rubio and Secretary [Kristi] Noem." Immigration lawyer Matt Cameron spoke to The Intercept about the broader implications of the administration’s agenda and said that this is much bigger than just students and immigrants. “ It's a message to student protesters obviously to start with, but it's a message to all of us that our free speech is a liability,” he warned. Cameron pointed to the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was illegally deported to El Salvador and is now imprisoned despite no criminal record. The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered the government to facilitate his return, but so far, the administration has resisted. "This is going to be one of the most important cases of our lifetimes,” said Cameron. “ Even for people who don't think they're interested in following immigration issues: This is for all of us. And you know, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia will be all of us pretty soon here if we don't stay on our rights.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump’s presidency continues to challenge all conventional understanding of executive authority. His administration's extensive use of executive orders has reshaped the political landscape, testing established laws, ethical boundaries, and institutional norms. Among those raising alarms is Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who has consistently questioned what happens when governmental powers are directed against the very citizens they were designed to protect. On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, she discusses these concerns, including the administration's immigration enforcement tactics targeting international students — among them, one of her own constituents. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Ph.D. candidate at Tufts University who has a valid student visa, was abducted off the streets by ICE agents. “ She was kidnapped in broad daylight. There is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing. The only — the only — thing that she did was co-author an op-ed centering the humanity and the dignity of the Palestinian people and because that is a dissenting opinion of the hostile Trump administration, she finds herself a political prisoner,” says Pressley. “So I need people to understand that this could be anyone when constitutional rights are being violated, when due process is being violated. It could be you tomorrow for reading a banned book. It could be you tomorrow for suffering a miscarriage. It could be you tomorrow for practicing diversity, equity, and inclusion,” she warns. In a broad ranging conversation with host Jessica Washington, she also raises fundamental questions about executive authority and democratic safeguards. “It was all laid out in Project 2025, which was not a blueprint — it was a playbook. And they're making good on that playbook. And I think people didn't take it seriously,” Pressley points out. “They recognized that a lot of what he was laying out in that playbook was unlawful — was unconstitutional. So they said, how could it ever happen? And yet, you know, here we find ourselves.” And despite widespread criticism and anger about the Democratic Party’s response — or lack thereof — she believes her party is stepping up. “Even though I believe that we are — as a party — being exhaustive, being strategic, [we] have found our footing. I believe we are being more effective as an opposition party in resistance to this hostile administration,” Pressley says. But she acknowledges the Democrats can do more. “ I do believe that we have a sound strategy of litigation, legislation, agitation, mobilization, and I think we are finding our footing. We have to match their energy. They're flooding the zone. We have to do the same thing.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tesla’s stock plummeted more than 30 percent in the first quarter of 2025, losing its post-election gains, as the electric vehicle pioneer grapples with an unexpected challenge: a consumer revolt against CEO Elon Musk's leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency and his political alliances. Once celebrated across the political spectrum, Tesla has transformed from an environmental icon into a political flashpoint. Tesla dealerships have become symbols, explains Lara Starr, who organized a 200-person demonstration in Marin County, California. "You can't disentangle Tesla from Musk, and you can't disentangle Musk from Trump. And the one thing I can say about Musk positively is he has handed us a place in almost every community around the country that is symbolic of everything wrong that is going on in Washington." The impact of this grassroots rebellion is beginning to show in Tesla's financial reports. Global sales have hit historic lows for the company, with particularly sharp declines in traditionally strong markets. Despite Tesla's business challenges, the billionaire poured considerable resources on reshaping America's political landscape. His political spending — including with his super PAC spending $25 million in a single Wisconsin Supreme Court race — has yielded disappointing returns. His preferred candidate was defeated. In this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, reporters Matt Sledge and Sunjeev Bery examine this grassroots rebellion and what it reveals about Musk's power and the future of political activism. "There's been a lot of talk about how the Democrats are in disarray and not sure how to recover from the election last year. But the Wisconsin election — and the way that Elon Musk got involved and personalized it and made it about him himself — gave Democrats an easy yes-no vote on Elon Musk, and I think that was really significant here," says Sledge. He points out how that election is also a rebuke of the Trump–Musk alliance: " It is fascinating that it is happening through this electoral mechanism, and that people are being allowed to give a referendum on this relationship, and that the democratic process is potentially having a direct input on this relationship." Intercept contributor Sunjeev Bery says the Tesla protests are much bigger than just Tesla or Musk. "The Tesla takedown movement has become this astonishing wave of opposition to Trump, the fascist directions of the Trump regime, everything Elon Musk is pushing with DOGE. It's a place where lots of people who are angry about all of the different things that the Trump regime is up to. All of the fires they're setting can come together and focus on Elon Musk, Tesla, and the physical place of his dealerships." Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has emerged as the deadliest war for journalists in modern history. Two Palestinian journalists were killed in Israeli attacks just this week, underscoring the extreme risks faced by reporters in the region. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 165 journalists have been killed since October 2023 — a staggering number that surpasses the total journalist fatalities during the entire span of World War II. The conflict has escalated to a critical point, with Israel resuming strikes on Gaza after breaking a ceasefire with Hamas. Amid this humanitarian catastrophe, journalists persist in their crucial role, risking their lives to document the unfolding events and bring critical information to the world. In response to attacks on Palestinian journalists, Forbidden Stories launched the Gaza Project — a collaboration bringing together over 40 journalists from 12 organizations, including the Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism and The Intercept. Their mission: investigate and expose the unprecedented threats facing journalists in Gaza and the West Bank. On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, Hoda Osman, the executive editor of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism, says the killings have become hauntingly familiar: “A repeated scene seeing a journalist is being killed, and you get the news, and then you see their bodies with a bloodied press vest. And then you see the mourning of their colleagues and their families.” In addition to this extreme risk, Osman says the daily realities confronting Palestinian reporters are difficult to imagine. “I was speaking to a journalist there and she's telling me how hard it is because it's Ramadan and they fast, and at the end of the day at sunset, they're supposed to break fast, but there is no food. And how they're all starting to become extremely weak because of the lack of food. And that was before even the strikes began again,” she says. “Most of them are living in tents,” Osman adds. “A few weeks ago when the weather was really cold, one of the journalists was texting me how they don't know what to do to be warm. They're constantly cold. And then she sent me videos of — it had rained — the whole tent just completely flooding.” But despite all these personal challenges, they keep going. Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"Anything that shows solidarity of Palestine is being mischaracterized quite erroneously as antisemitism. That's the way in which they are trying to get us to stop speaking about Palestine," says Momodou Taal, a Cornell University graduate student and activist now facing deportation after challenging the Trump administration in court. The risks of political speech have escalated dramatically for international students like Taal. He spoke to The Intercept Briefing yesterday, underscoring the chilling reality he and his peers now face. “It’s not just that you might get kicked out of school or suspended,” says Taal, “but you are threatened with deportation and ICE custody now. That's what's at stake here." Late last week, federal officials sent Taal's attorney a midnight email demanding he appear before Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday. The email provided no grounds for the request. This typically marks the beginnings of removal proceedings against an individual in the U.S. Only afterward, over the weekend, did the Department of Justice claim Taal's student visa had been revoked on March 14th by the State Department due to "disruptive protests" and "creating a hostile environment for Jewish students." The timing is telling—just days after Taal, a dual Gambian and British citizen, joined other Cornell plaintiffs in a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of targeting international students for supporting Palestinian rights. In their complaint the plaintiffs state “The First Amendment protects ‘people’ and not citizens alone. This includes non-citizens living in the U.S.” Taal had participated in pro-Palestine protests at Cornell. His legal team argues the order to appear before ICE demonstrates their central claim that deportation is being weaponized "in retribution" for lawful political speech. Despite the pressure, Taal sees the government's actions as evidence of weakness, not strength. "You don't repress to this level when you're in a position of strength. When you have to quell speech, it means that you are realizing that the outside world or public opinion is swaying in one direction. So I think now would not be the time to be afraid. I know it's a very frightening moment, but for me, this is the time to double down." As Tuesday approaches, Taal remains resolute about the potential consequences. "If I have to leave the country, it would be back to the UK. I know the weather's terrible and your listeners probably don't like beans and toast either, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world going back to the UK. I think about what the Palestinians have endured for 76 years and more—what I'm going through pales in comparison." Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After breaking a two-month ceasefire, Israel launched an assault on Gaza on Tuesday, killing more than 400 people in pre-dawn strikes. The death toll continues to climb as airstrikes persist, and Israel pushes forward with a ground invasion. At least 200 children have been killed in recent attacks, according to UNICEF. The assault — the deadliest in over a year — came after Donald Trump gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to break the ceasefire. Netanyahu has warned, “This is only the beginning.” Author Pankaj Mishra argues Israel operates within a “culture of impunity,” emboldened by global far-right movements that admire Israel’s “brazen cruelty.” This week on The Intercept Briefing, reporter Jonah Valdez speaks to Mishra about his latest book, "The World After Gaza,” which examines how the war on Gaza isn’t just another conflict — it’s a turning point reshaping global politics, exposing institutional failures, and forcing a reckoning over who sets the rules on the world stage. “Some of the worst people in the world today are drawn to Israel," Mishra says. “Not because they believe in Zionism, not because they are protective of Jewish population of Israel, but because Israel again represents to them — embodies this opportunity to take whatever you can and hold on to it using extreme violence if necessary.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When government agents surrounded Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil and his pregnant wife outside their New York City apartment over the weekend, it marked a chilling escalation in the battle over free speech in America. Those agents weren't enforcing immigration policy; they were sending a message about the consequences of political expression. After serving as a negotiator during campus protests against Israel's war on Gaza, Khalil became the target of what his attorney called "a profound doxing campaign for two months related to his First Amendment protected activities" — harassment so severe he had desperately sought help from university leadership. Despite being a lawful permanent resident entitled to constitutional protections, Khalil was transported to a detention facility thousands of miles away, effectively "disappeared" for over 24 hours. The political motivation became explicit when President Donald Trump celebrated the arrest on social media, calling it "the first arrest of many to come." On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, we discuss the profound implications Khalil’s case raises for free speech and due process with Edward Ahmed Mitchell, civil rights attorney and national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and Columbia Journalism Review reporter Meghnad Bose. "It's very clear the administration is waging a war on free speech — free speech for Palestine. They said they were going to do it when they took office. And that is what they are doing. Their issue with him is that he is a Muslim who is a lawful, permanent resident of America and he exercised his right to speak up for Palestinian human rights," says Mitchell. Bose adds, “ It's this sort of thinking that if you are somehow critical of a certain position of the United States government, except this isn't even a position of the United States government. You're basically saying, if you're critical of the position of a foreign government — in this case, the Israeli government — that you can be penalized in the United States, even if you've not broken any law.” Mitchell warns even U.S. citizens face risk: "American citizens should be safe in all this, but Stephen Miller and others have said they want to review the naturalization of citizens to see whether or not there are grounds to remove their citizenship. So in the worst-case scenario, you can imagine them trying to find or manufacture some way to target even the citizenship status of people who were lawful permanent residents and then attained citizenship. So they're going all out to silence speech for Palestine." Bose says it's not just about immigration status; the government has other draconian tools at its disposal as well. "They can jail U.S. citizens too. They don't have to deport you or take away your citizenship, he says. “They can incarcerate U.S. citizens too." Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In an address to Congress on Tuesday, President Donald Trump once again cast himself as a divine savior of the American people.“I was saved by God to make America great again,” he claimed as he recounted the failed assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. During his 100-minute speech, Trump made direct appeals to the Christian right, a major segment of his base: “This will be our greatest era. With God's help over the next four years, we are going to lead this nation even higher.” He framed a series of policy proposals — many attacking civil rights for minorities and trans people — as part of God’s plan for the nation. He called on Congress “to pass a bill permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children,” proclaiming “our message to every child in America is that you are perfect, exactly the way God made you.” In some ways, Trump is the kind of political leader the Christian right has been seeking for decades. He has fully championed the movement’s long-held policy priorities: overturning Roe v. Wade, pushing prayer in schools, and curbing LGBTQ+ rights. Now he is taking their movement even further, embedding right-wing Christian ideology into every facet of federal policy. It’s a “broad coalition across Christian denominations,” says journalist Talia Lavin, “whose goal is an extremely socially restrictive agenda.” Lavin, author of "Wild Faith: How the Christian Right Is Taking Over America," argues that today’s Christian right is more receptive to authoritarianism than previous generations. “They've reached a kind of acme or apotheosis of their power and influence, where that sort of attitude towards democracy has attained real relevance in the way we're governed.” On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Lavin and Intercept reporter Jessica Washington examine the Christian right’s growing influence, its long-term strategy, and what, if anything, can be done to curb their vision for the country. Washington warns that many liberals dismiss Trump’s alliance to the Christian right as fringe, missing its deep political impact. “While it's this convenient political organizing tool, it is also a deeply held belief,” she says — one that rejects the idea that Black people and queer people have a rightful place in American leadership. Trump, she adds, validates the belief that only white Christian males are the true inheritors of the nation’s legacy. “Trump is both a product of and an accelerant of this movement.” Countering the rapid lurch toward Christian nationalism, Washington argues, requires solidarity. “We all have to band together and fight this together. And not allowing ourselves to be siloed into different issues. And recognizing that this is an attack on everyone who doesn't fit this very specific mold.” Lavin calls for active resistance — a “joyous cacophony” — to the Christian right’s war on diversity, on the poor, and democracy: “We're gonna be gender rebels. We're not going to accept the gutting of social services. We're not going to accept a king.” Rather than doomscrolling, she encourages people to do “something, anything — feeding someone, attending a protest — whatever it is. All of that is how we win.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP are in peril after the House Republicans passed a budget resolution this week that proposes massive $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, alongside $2 trillion in spending reductions. The math doesn’t add up: There is no realistic way to achieve the necessary savings without slashing entitlement programs that the most vulnerable Americans depend on. While the Republicans claim they won’t cut these programs, they are simultaneously setting up eventual changes. House Speaker Mike Johnson characterized Medicaid as "hugely problematic" with "a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse." This rhetoric echoes that of Elon Musk, who labeled those affected by federal program cuts as the "parasite class." On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Anat Shenker-Osorio, a political messaging expert, and Sunjeev Bery, a foreign policy analyst and Intercept contributor, discuss how Republican messaging is previewing what’s to come and why Trump and his allies have been successful in the court of public opinion. “One of the most persuasive tools that we have in our arsenal is repetition. Messages that people hear over and over, irrespective of their actual content, are rated to be more credible,” says Shenker-Osorio. “Familiarity gives our brains what we call cognitive ease, they give us what's called the illusory truth effect that if you've heard something over and over, like if you've heard government is wasteful, government is wasteful, government is wasteful … then the next time that you hear it, you're like, oh, yeah, that sort of seems true.” Bery believes the way to fight back is by first changing our language. “Republicans are very good at trapping our country and our society with their language. You take something like the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, simply to repeat that phrase is to be trapped by its false logic and by the fraudulent claims of its master, the billionaire Elon Musk,” he says. “We need to use different language entirely. This is an attempt to steal from the American people and hand a fat check to Elon Musk and all the billionaires who stood on stage with Donald Trump during his inauguration. That's what this is.” And while the speed of change and upheaval seems dire, both Shenker-Osorio and Bery remain optimistic. Shenker-Osorio thinks Americans who disagree with the Trump administration’s actions should step up in this moment. “The opportunity, if we were to seize it, is a recognition that the only thing that has actually toppled autocracy, I would argue both in the U. S. past and also, most certainly, in other countries, is civil resistance. It is a sustained, unrelenting group of people showing, not telling, being out in the world, demonstrating their resistance, their refusal, and their ridicule,” she says. “The future is still made of the decisions that we take together. That is what makes the whole thing crumble. And the possibility, not the inevitability, but the possibility of a very different kind of governing regime.” To hear more of the conversation, check out The Intercept Briefing wherever you get your podcasts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Swift and sweeping changes have marked the first month of Donald Trump's return to the White House. Having promised to "fix every single crisis facing our country," Trump wasted no time in making his mark — signing an extraordinary 36 executive orders within his first week in office. On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, politics reporters Jessica Washington and Akela Lacy assess the full scope of changes. Lacy is surprised at how ill-prepared people, especially Democrats, were for these changes. “So much of this stuff was on the wall with Project 2025 and Trump's own words, and yet what I'm struggling to understand is how we knew so much and why everyone is still struggling to play catch up in so many ways,” she says. “ I think broadly what we're seeing is a wholesale test of how to overturn the Constitution. So many of the orders are clearly outside of the law and an example of the administration pushing the limits of our system to see how far they can go and what it can really withstand,” she observes. Washington says one thing the headlines don’t fully capture is the human toll. “There are a lot of human stories in this chaos that get missed, and those are the stories I really want to tell more,” she says. “This is necessarily going to lead us to the darkest of dark places, but when they mass-fired the people who watch our nuclear systems and then had to try and rehire them back — whether or not you're going to be able to take your kid to daycare and get to your job that you need in order to keep a roof over your head, not knowing what's going on with the nuclear system. All of this chaos has very real effects on people,” Washington says. To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Less than a month into Donald Trump's second term, his administration's aggressive restructuring of the government and flirtation with defying court rulings threaten to spark a constitutional crisis. "He could have done all of that lawfully, and instead what he's done is testing the limits of his power in a way we have never seen in this country," says retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner. During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump dismissed concerns about executive overreach and claimed he would respect court decisions. But legal experts warn his broad view of presidential power crosses long held boundaries and is propelling the country into a constitutional crisis. On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Gertner, who is consulting on several cases challenging the administration's actions and is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and The Intercept's senior counsel and correspondent Shawn Musgrave discuss the federal courts’ response so far and what it demonstrates about our system of checks and balances. “I hope that they will realize that one of the two checks on an aggressive president doing unlawful things is that the courts are functioning as a check on his power. I fear that the other takeaway is that Congress is not. The concern about Trump wiping out programs that Congress has approved is a concern that should bother every legislator — Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. That is a core, foundational checks-and-balances issue. And the fact that there is not an outcry from Congress is troubling,” says Gertner. Musgrave adds that it is a real test of governmental structure. “We're in a moment that illustrates the fragility of the system of checks and balances that's held for a couple hundred years. The system that was set up in the Constitution isn't guaranteed; it has to be protected. And so far, it looks like it's going to be up to the courts to do that,” he says. Gertner says there is another check that isn’t explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but is just as important. “The public will speak in two years in the midterm elections,” she says. “So the public, although it doesn't have a specific role in the next two years before we can vote again on national issues, the public is important here. I think that people should stand up if they think that what's going on is illegal and unconstitutional.” To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump has unleashed a "flood the zone" strategy: a cascade of executive actions aimed at rapidly reshaping the federal government and the country. The scope of changes is staggering: massive reductions in the federal workforce, the dismantling of USAID, signaling departments of labor and education are next, and the firing of Justice Department prosecutors. Trump granted Elon Musk's so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" team unprecedented access to the Treasury Department payment systems. Trump's executive orders aren't just changing policy — many appear to openly challenge existing laws and constitutional boundaries. The sheer volume of changes has left government watchdogs struggling to respond. Amid this whirlwind, a critical question emerges: Where is the opposition? What concrete steps are Democrats taking to counter this aggressive agenda? Currently, the answer is obvious: not enough. On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, foreign policy analyst and Voices contributor Sunjeev Bery says it has a lot to do with who makes up the party leadership. “I'll say that from my perch, what I'm seeing is a window into the broader culture of the elected officials of the Democratic Party. They are not organizers, by and large. They are not people who build and channel power to extract concessions from the powers that be. They are ladder climbers and aggregators of pre-existing power. And that's why the Democratic Party is losing. You have folks like Chuck Schumer, he's not a critic of concentrated wealth. He's a product of concentrated wealth.” Senior politics reporter Akela Lacy says there are some very obvious things the Democrats could be doing. “Movement people are asking the obvious question right now, which is: Why are there any Democrats — at all — voting to confirm a single Trump nominee? That's one of the lowest hanging pieces of fruit,” she says. The Democrats had no plan, Lacy says, despite there being “no confusion about the fact that these nominees were going to be coming up for a vote. And still there were Democrats who voted for several of Trump’s nominees.” Bery, Lacy, and Jordan Uhl also discuss the messaging issues the Democratic Party continues to face, even post-election. “There still seems to be a fundamental failure to recognize that one party is telling a story as to why people are hurting and they are punching down in the naming of who's responsible,” says Bery. “It's undocumented migrants, it's DEI, it's transgender people, this is who Trump is punching down and blaming. The Democratic Party's not punching up. The Democratic Party is not punching,” says Bery. To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing wherever you get your podcasts. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After 15 months of Israeli bombardment, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are returning to northern Gaza as part of the first phase of the long-awaited ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. During his inaugural speech, President Donald Trump pledged to be a peacemaker and claimed credit for securing the deal. But mere hours after promising peace and unity, Trump’s actions and rhetoric pivoted. After his inauguration, he signed an executive order lifting Biden-era sanctions against Israeli settlers in the West Bank meant to curb violence against Palestinians. “In the West Bank, Israeli settlers were regularly attacking Palestinian civilians, forcing them off their land, doing things like burning farms, olive groves, oftentimes injuring or killing Palestinians,” says Intercept reporter Jonah Valdez. “With Trump lifting those sanctions, Israel is getting pretty much another pass to continue its violent land grabs from Palestinians.” [promote promo="israel-palestine"][/promote] In the days since, Trump has suggested moving Palestinians from Gaza to Jordan and Egypt and said, “We just clean out that whole thing.” Before the election, Trump also floated the idea that Gaza could be rebuilt to rival Monaco as a tourist destination. “Close to 70 percent of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged. Experts say that just clearing the rubble from the 15 months of the siege could take more than 20 years. So we're talking about decades here,” says Intercept reporter Akela Lacy. “Another big issue with the reconstruction is that one of the largest aid providers in Gaza is banned starting on Thursday. Under this new Israeli law, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, also known as UNRWA, will be expelled from the territory.” Meanwhile, Trump issued an executive order halting foreign aid, raising concerns about U.S. future involvement in U.N. support. “This started under Biden. Trump comes in and issues this freeze of all humanitarian foreign aid, and people start blaming Trump for cutting funding,” says Lacy. Valdez continues, “There's really no indication that Trump would slow down actual support for the Israeli military. And I think, case in point, is Trump resuming the shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, which had been known to inflict immense loss of civilian life in Gaza.” “The question now is, who is going to get up off their ass and do something about this?” asks Lacy. “Who is going to either create an alternative or do more to hold the leaders, leadership accountable or break from the Democratic Party and do something else?” To hear the whole conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Silicon Valley’s biggest power players traded in their hoodies for suits and ties this week as they sat front and center to watch Donald Trump take the oath of office again. Seated in front of the incoming cabinet were Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, and Trump confidant and leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk. Apple CEO Tim Cook, Sam Altman from OpenAI, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew also looked on. For an industry once skeptical of Trump, this dramatic transformation in political allegiance portends changes for the country — and the world. From the relaxing of hate speech rules on Meta platforms to the mere hourslong ban of TikTok to the billions of government dollars being pledged to build data centers to power AI, it is still only the beginning of this realignment. On this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing, Justin Hendrix, the CEO and editor of Tech Policy Press, and Intercept political reporter Jessica Washington dissect this shift. “Three of the individuals seated in front of the Cabinet are estimated by Oxfam in its latest report on wealth inequality are on track to potentially become trillionaires in the next just handful of years: Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk,” says Hendrix. “Musk is estimated to be the first trillionaire on the planet, possibly as early as 2027.” Washington says there’s more at stake than just personal wealth. “These are people who view themselves as world-shapers, as people who create reality in a lot of ways. Aligning themselves with Trump and with power in this way is not just about their financial interests, it's about pushing their vision of the world.” To hear more of this conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What can we expect when President-elect Donald Trump begins his second term on Monday? This week on The Intercept Briefing, we ask Intercept reporters what’s on their radar as a new president and a Republican-controlled Congress take office. They’ll be watching the tentative ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, the brazenness of oligarchs seeking to profit from the new administration, and threats to reproductive healthcare. Trump’s biggest policy promise has been immigration, with a campaign built around his pledge to conduct “the largest mass deportation operation” in U.S. history. Now Congress is advancing measures that could help the administration achieve its deportation vision by expanding immigration authority to the states. Provisions in the Laken Riley Act, which passed the House of Representatives last week with support from dozens of Democrats, would mandate detention for unauthorized immigrants accused of shoplifting and theft. It would also grant state attorneys generals the power to sue the federal government over who is detained or released by U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement and block people from specific countries from obtaining visas. Historically immigration has been the exclusive domain of the federal government — not states. “We've been trying to raise the alarm,” says Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, Deputy Director of Federal Advocacy for United We Dream, a nonprofit immigration advocacy organization. “This would just totally change the way detention and deportation decisions operate,” says Shawn Musgrave, The Intercept’s Senior Counsel and Correspondent. “The Laken Riley Act doesn't have any provisions that change the powers of local law enforcement,” says Musgrave. But it implicitly “allow[s] an arresting officer to trigger an immediate detention for something like petty shoplifting.” To hear more of this conversation and understand what’s at stake, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court is poised to decide a landmark case on Friday that could reshape social media in America. At stake: TikTok must either break from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or cease U.S. operations entirely. While the government frames this as a critical national security measure, the short-form video app and its creators and users see a direct challenge to First Amendment freedoms. This tension sits at the heart of a broader debate about digital communication and national interests. On this week's Intercept Briefing, Alex Pearlman, aka Pearlmania500, whose videos reach nearly 3 million followers, says the issue is not the app but the way tech platforms operate. He says, “We want regulations of algorithms. We at least need to know what the rules are." And when it comes to the government’s crackdown on TikTok, he says, “Everything that they've accused TikTok of, Facebook has done, either domestically or internationally. Everything that they have screamed could happen with TikTok, when it came to the elections, Elon Musk did openly. And most people know that. Most people see that. And I think it's going to lend to further cynicism when it comes to our institutions and when it comes to how government can actually operate." Intercept senior counsel and correspondent Shawn Musgrave adds, “Tech competitors to TikTok have generally avoided saying very much about the ban. … But these companies obviously stand to benefit incredibly from knocking out their top competitor in the short-video space. It is not really a consideration before the court in the case itself, but I do think it's important to look at some of the background issues. That it's not just about national security and First Amendment. There are also really considerable economic interests here too." Intercept politics reporter Jessica Washington says TikTok isn't just another social network — it's fostering political conversations that wouldn't exist anywhere else. “We've seen Twitter, which is now X, move really far to the right. I think anyone who's been on there in recent times can attest to that. We know YouTube also has a pretty right-leaning audience as well and an algorithm. And Facebook and Instagram are very different platforms than TikTok. So I think we lose a lot of those conversations that are happening, important political conversations in different regions, different areas of the world. Important conversations that young people are having with each other.” To hear more of this conversation and understand what’s at stake, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Few journalists have ventured as deep into the shadows of American power as The Intercept's James Risen. A Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Risen waged a remarkable seven-year battle against the federal government to protect his sources, risking imprisonment to defend press freedom. As he prepares to retire from journalism, he joins this week's Intercept Briefing to reflect on his extraordinary career with longtime friend and colleague David Bralow, The Intercept’s general counsel. Recently, Risen has written extensively on Donald Trump and the dangers he poses to American democracy and is working on a new book about Christian nationalism and extremism. He warns about what lays ahead: “Trump has appointed a bunch of lunatics and conspiracy theorists to positions of power and he's turned the government over to oligarchs, so I think it's gonna get bad really, really fast.” And Risen foresees that reporters and news organizations are at even more peril than in the past because of changing public attitudes and the legal approach embraced by those in power. “The wealthy can now use libel law against the press endlessly, not to try to win cases, but just to financially exhaust news organizations,” he says. “In most libel cases brought against news organizations, the other side almost never really cares about winning. What they want to do is impose large costs on news organizations to defend against frivolous libel suits.” To hear more of the conversation, check out this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Originally aired November 15, 2024 In the wake of President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, Democrats and those on the left are grappling with what comes next. On The Intercept Briefing podcast this week, columnist Natasha Lennard critiques the Democratic Party. “You can’t be both at once: You can’t be the party of Wall Street, and you can’t be the party of the working class,” Lennard says. By acquiescing to Silicon Valley and Wall Street, the Democrats failed again “to offer a robust politics that serves the working class." Facing a second Trump term, Lennard says the way forward is a politics of everyday life and radical action that focuses on empowering grassroots movements and labor organizations. “When we look at what people can [do] — involving people at a local level, building community so that it is truly kind of a form of life to be in this politics, rather than just a donation, rather than just a vote, rather than just canvassing even.” In conversation with Jessica Washington and Jordan Uhl, Lennard emphasizes the importance and resilience of the working class. "Nurses unions, food workers unions. Most of the working class in this country are women. And it is a profoundly multi-racial working class. And we have a working class of care workers. And a service economy. And an increasingly growing care economy," she says. "That needs investing in. That needs support. That needs building." To hear more about the future of progressive politics, listen to this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter what the amount, makes a real difference. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept, wherever you listen to podcasts. And definitely leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Among a president’s most profound responsibilities is the power to grant clemency. Now, as President Joe Biden's first term winds down, he faces mounting calls to use that authority to commute the sentences of the 40 men on federal death row. Donald Trump's final months in office marked a stark shift in federal execution policy. After a 17-year hiatus, his administration executed 13 people — the most under any president in over a century. While Biden halted this practice, advocates warn that a second Trump term could restart executions. It's why they're urging Biden to take decisive action now to reduce death penalty sentences to life without parole. On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, reporter Liliana Segura examines the gap between candidate Biden's promises and his actions as president. “By far the most significant thing that Biden could do and should do in my opinion is to make good on his stated opposition to the death penalty, which is something he ran on in 2020. Joe Biden said that he wanted to try to bring legislation to end the federal death penalty and, in fact, incentivize states to do the same. He had language in his campaign platform talking about how life without parole sentences were appropriate alternatives,” she says. According to Segura, the federal death penalty reaches far beyond the most notorious cases and its deterrent effect is questionable — challenging many Americans' assumptions. “This idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is like the myth that will not die. You know, I was in Indiana recently covering this midnight execution, and I'm looking at some of the rhetoric that is out there from the state attorney general, and he is banging that drum about, 'Oh, you know, this is a deterrent to crime.’ There's absolutely no evidence that that is true and there really never has been.” To learn more about what Biden could do, listen to this week’s episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.