The staff of Mother Jones is, once again, rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Importantly, this is a completely non-exhaustive and subjective list, giving our reporters a chance to write about something that brought joy or discontent. Enjoy.

Destroyed by Watergate and vilified for suggesting that presidents are above the law, Richard Nixon died in disgrace in 1994.

But it turns out he was right. The 37th president was quietly but resoundingly vindicated by the Supreme Court in its Trump v. United States decision in July, when Chief Justice John Roberts declared that “the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”

For Donald Trump—who was indicted for efforts to steal the 2020 election that were seemingly not part of his official duties—that ruling might not have been enough, had he not been bailed out by his November electoral victory. But Nixon could, and did, claim that his efforts to cover up the Watergate scandal were core parts of his duties. Indeed, on the so-called “smoking gun tape” from June 1972, Nixon told his chief of staff to order the CIA to tell the FBI to back off its investigation into the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters because the probe would compromise national security.

That wasn’t really true. But 52 years later, the Roberts court made clear that judges should defer to presidents when their “core” powers are even arguably involved. Based on the justices’ new view of the presidency, Nixon’s infamous justifications would probably have been enough.

“Under Trump v. United States, Nixon’s statement would not amount to obstruction of justice because it related to his ‘official’ duties—that is, supervising the FBI and CIA,” legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin wrote in July.

Plus, what was the FBI even doing investigating a president for crimes? That may have flown in the 1970s, but these days, the Justice Department has a policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. And Roberts, in his ruling, warned against Justice Department activity that might cause presidents to hesitate from “bold and unhesitating” actions in exercising their vast powers. Fear that they might one day be held accountable for crimes could cause commanders-in-chief to fall prey, Roberts warned, to “undue caution.”

Take Nixon. Before Watergate, he exhibited the kind of “vigorous” decision-making that Roberts says leaders untroubled by potential prosecution can engage in. For example, Nixon fearlessly ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia without telling Congress. And he oversaw an extensive campaign of surveillance efforts aimed at suppressing domestic dissent.

By using the FBI for much of that surveillance, Nixon availed himself of the immunity that the high court has since revealed presidents enjoy when they engage in “investigative and prosecutorial decision-making”—a “special province of the Executive Branch”—where absolute immunity reigns.

As the Watergate scandal mounted, Nixon lost the vigor the Roberts court prescribes. The president was reportedly distracted, drinking heavily, and possibly suicidal. “Please don’t ever tell anyone that I cried and that I was not strong,” a sauced president supposedly told Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in 1974. He was a man left unable to “boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties”—as the Constitution turns out to demand.

Things only got worse for Nixon. After his resignation, during a televised 1977 interview with journalist David Frost, Nixon presciently explained: “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” At the time, this reasoning was treated as a damning admission. Even in 2008, it was so widely accepted that Nixon was wrong that his line served as the climax of the Oscar-nominated film Frost/Nixon.

But things change. In January, Trump attorney D. John Sauer gave a “qualified yes” when asked by an appeals court judge if an ex-president would be immune from prosecution, even for having ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political foe. And the argument won! “The president is now a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor later said in a dissent. Trump has said he will nominate Sauer as his solicitor general—the Justice Department official generally responsible for arguing before the Supreme Court.

Critics have accused Roberts and the other five justices in the majority in Trump v. US of ignoring the intent of the Constitution and inventing the “absolute immunity” doctrine in order to impose an ideological preference for expanded presidential powers—or maybe just to help Trump. But these critics fail to credit Nixon with concocting similar arguments a half-century earlier.

Nixon was not a crook. He was ahead of his time. Think he was wrong? Let’s see how Trump’s second term goes.

This story was originally published by High Country News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order on the climate crisis that, among other things, directed the secretary of the Interior to review the potential for clean energy on public lands. Later that year, he set aggressive national targets on green energy: 80% renewable energy generation by 2030 and 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035. Then came the passage of the historic Inflation Reduction Act, which showered the clean energy industry with federal incentives and encouraged private investors to cash in on its explosive growth.

Since Biden’s inauguration, his administration has approved a steady stream of solar, geothermal, and transmission projects across the West. In April, the Interior Department announced that it had permitted more than 29 gigawatts of renewable energy on public lands—an amount nearly equivalent to the total capacity of Washington or Arizona. In the following months, it released a suite of new agency rules and a regional plan aimed at boosting regulatory certainty for clean energy development for years to come.

“2024 felt like the year where all the pieces finally came together,” said Rachael Hamby, policy director for the Center for Western Priorities, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy and conservation in the West. “A lot of that groundwork has been laid over the past four years, and we’re seeing the culmination of all of that progress.”

But former President Donald Trump’s win in November casts a cloud of doubt over the future of those changes. It’s unclear how the incoming administration will treat existing permits and policies favorable to clean energy. Some experts, however, wager that some of this year’s developments—particularly those that benefit the energy industry at large—could survive; they were, in fact, carefully built to last.

Here are a few of this year’s major developments in public-land clean energy, along with some thoughts on how they might fare in the next four years:

The Western Solar Plan designated more than 31 million acres of public land for potential utility-scale solar development.

In August, the Bureau of Land Management published the final version of a West-wide plan that opens large swaths of federal land to industrial-scale solar permits while protecting the rest for its cultural or ecological significance. Environmental groups had hoped the BLM would keep the map more limited to protect natural  landscapes; after all, meeting the nation’s climate goals requires only 1 million acres of public land. The final version, however, opened roughly four times as much land as environmental groups recommended, ­including part of the proposed Bahsahwahbee National Monument in Nevada.

By opening up such a large area, the administration seemed to favor industry, which will benefit from greater flexibility for siting projects. John Leshy, a professor at UC Law San Francisco and former general counsel for Interior during the Clinton years, said the plan reflects a careful balance between stakeholder groups, adding that Trump’s pick for Interior secretary, North Dakota’s Republican Gov. Doug Burgum, may choose to keep the plan intact. (Burgum pledged an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy for his home state, which receives a third of its energy from wind power, and he may well do the same at the national level.)

Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director for the Center for Biological Diversity, believes that Biden’s plan is the opposite of balanced; he said it exposes far too much of the nation’s natural resources to development. Still, he said, in some regions it was an improvement on the previous permitting framework, which focused primarily on southern Nevada. In any case, he added, “That plan is not going to last. It’ll be gone by summer; that’s my prediction.”

New transmission lines are set to unlock massive energy expansion in the West.

In 2024, the BLM advanced three major transmission lines in Nevada, including Greenlink North, which cuts horizontally across the center of the state; Greenlink West, which runs along its diagonal southern edge; and the Cross-Tie transmission line, which connects substations in Nevada and Utah. Together with the Western Solar Plan, these transmission lines boost the likelihood that Nevada’s public lands will host numerous utility-scale solar projects, a stark reality that has alarmed local leadership.

Transmission lines are critical for the clean energy industry because they allow providers to allocate power more efficiently across regions. In practice, however, these lines frequently transfer both clean energy and fossil fuel-derived power, making them appealing to both sectors of the industry. This year, the Biden administration also sped up permitting times for transmission projects, possibly paving the way for even more construction in the future.

Domestic clean energy supply chains necessary for energy independence ramped up.

Clean energy manufacturing relies on a steady supply of critical minerals. After decades of growing reliance on other countries, bringing clean energy supply chains back to the United States—thereby increasing the nation’s energy independence—was a central pillar of the Biden administration’s climate goals. In 2024, the Interior Department pushed ahead on several major critical mineral projects, including a lithium mine and processing facility in Nevada, a gold and antimony mine in Idaho, and a zinc and manganese mine in Arizona.

Some mines, however, come at a great cost to ecosystems and tribal cultural sites: According to members of the Western Shoshone and environmental groups, the Nevada lithium mine would destroy a fifth of the critical habitat designated for an endangered wildflower, the Tiehm’s buckwheat, and also harm the Cave Spring sacred site.

Next year, the Trump administration is expected to slash funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, reducing financial incentives for domestic mining projects. However, securing critical minerals—which are key to military and technology equipment as well as to clean energy—will likely remain a priority throughout his term.

New agency rules lowered the costs of clean energy development on public land while raising fees for oil and gas.

This year, the Interior Department finalized three major policies: lowering rent and lease fees for renewable energy projects on public lands; raising related fees for oil and gas projects; and elevating conservation to become a key consideration for the Bureau of Land Management, alongside food, energy, recreation and other uses. Together, these changes aim to support renewable energy development on public lands by reducing required payments and providing options to mitigate environmental harm.

These rules took a tremendous amount of time and effort to put into place, said Hamby, of the Center for Western Priorities, and that was by design: It means that if the next administration wants to unravel them, it will have to follow the same comprehensive, multi-year procedure it took to create them. The US Congress or new agency leadership could still undo each rule, but given that they reflect both industry and community priorities, they retain some broad appeal.

Hamby also pointed to the sheer amount of private investment and market transformation over the past four years, which the new rules only accelerated. “The effect of a lot of this has been to generate momentum for the clean energy transition in the US,” she said. “That is going to be hard to put the brakes on.

It was their first day in battle and the two best friends had just switched places. Bob Fordyce rested while Frank Hartzell crawled down into the shallow foxhole, taking his turn chipping away at the frozen ground. Just then, German artillery fire began falling all around them. With his body plastered to the ground, Hartzell could feel shrapnel dent his helmet. When the explosions finished, he picked himself up to find that his best friend had just been killed in the blur of combat. 

“When you’re actually in it, it’s very chaotic,” Hartzell said. 

The following day, New Year’s Day 1945, Hartzell battled Nazi soldiers for control of the Belgian town of Chenogne. In the aftermath, American soldiers gunned down dozens of unarmed German prisoners of war in a field—a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. 

“I remember we had been given orders, take no prisoners,” Hartzell said. “When I walked past the field on the left, there were these dead bodies. I knew what they were. I knew they were dead Germans.” News of the massacre reached General George S. Patton, but no investigation followed.

This was an untold story that occurred during the epic Battle of the Bulge that began in December 1944 and continued for six weeks, an event that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill described as being “undoubtedly the greatest American battle of the war.” With 700,000 Allied forces involved, it was the largest battle fought by Americans, resulting in enormous numbers of casualties and marking the last offensive on the Western front.

This week on Reveal, reporter Chris Harland-Dunaway investigates why the soldiers who committed the massacre at Chenogne were never held accountable.

This is an update of an episode that originally aired in July 2018. 

Update, December 28: This story has been updated to reflect Donald Trump’s position on the H1-B visa program.

Less than a month before Donald Trump returns to office, two of his most ardent allies have plunged into a fierce online debate over immigration, specifically the government’s visa program that allows American companies to hire so-called “highly skilled” foreign workers.

The clash started on Monday with Laura Loomer, the far-right social media character known for her virulent racism, condemning Trump’s decision to name Sriram Krishnan, a tech investor who was born in India, as a senior adviser on artificial intelligence. Tech leaders, including Elon Musk, weighed in to defend the practice of hiring foreign workers, specifically through the government’s H-1B visa program. (Musk, a naturalized US citizen from South Africa, once held the visa.) The debate has since devolved into a relentless string of petty insults—Loomer likened tech billionaires to “termites” at Mar-a-Lago; Musk called Loomer a troll—as well as accusations of censorship on X as retaliation. At a different point, Vivek Ramaswamy chimed in to register his support for hiring foreign workers. The former presidential candidate and now-DOGE partner blamed an American culture that has so “venerated mediocrity over excellence” that tech companies have no other option but to hire engineers from abroad.

One might be tempted to view this MAGA infighting as a signal that Musk may not be as extreme as the other faithful. Could this mean that the tech billionaire who openly embraced some of MAGA’s most pernicious racism and conspiracy theories is capable of restraint, at least when it comes to matters of business and the economy? Such a takeaway from this online war would be a mistake. After all, the tech billionaire, who just last week endorsed Germany’s far-right AfD party, is simply acting as he always does: framing any argument to be of service to himself. For him, immigration policy should be crafted strictly in terms of what is economically beneficial to a company, or individual’s bottom line. Never mind immigrants who are deemed to be less than “highly skilled.”

As for Loomer, at least you can say she’s consistent: her attacks against Musk are just the newest iteration of her long record of xenophobia and shit-posting.

So who will win this MAGA war? Trump has yet to publicly comment on the acrimony—much less the H1B program that set this all off. But it seems safe to say that the president-elect is unlikely to enjoy Musk’s continued dominance in the headlines, offering yet another opportunity for more of the interpersonal chaos that has always been central to MAGA.

Finally, after letting the conflict play out, Trump weighed in on the matter in a Saturday telephone interview with the New York Post. In it, he stated, “I’ve always liked the visas, I have always been in favor of the visas. That’s why we have them. I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.”

So this seems to mean, that in this round, the score is Musk 1/Loomer 0.

Weeks before the Supreme Court’s emergency session that could determine the fate of TikTok in the United States, Donald Trump on Friday issued a legal filing asking the high court to pause the law that would ban the Chinese-owned social media app if it isn’t sold by January 19.

The filing did not comment on the legal arguments of the law, which was signed under President Biden over national security concerns that have mounted in recent years. Instead, it touted Trump as “one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history,” noting his 14.7 million followers on TikTok. The president also echoed TikTok’s arguments that the law illegally restricts the First Amendment.

The filing marks the latest chapter in Trump’s shifting views regarding the popular app after he tried, and failed, to ban it in 2020. After meeting with TikTok’s CEO earlier this month, Trump hinted at possibly intervening before the law’s implementation, saying that he had a “warm spot” for the platform. In March, Trump experienced a similar reversal following a meeting with Jeff Yass, a conservative hedge-fund manager who happens to have a $33 billion stake in TikTok. All of this has come against the backdrop of Trump’s increasing coziness with some of tech’s most prominent billionaires.

D. John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer and nominee for solicitor general, wrote on Friday: “President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act’s deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case, thus permitting President Trump’s incoming Administration the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case.”

Whether the conservative Supreme Court with three Trump appointees will see the president-elect’s views as mere recommendations or as marching orders will be determined soon. As it stands now, the federal ban will go into effect next month—just one day before Trump’s inauguration, when as my colleague Pema Levy reports, an unprecedented era of political corruption will begin.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The United States, with its enormous highways, sprawling suburbs and neglected public transport systems, is one of the most car-dependent countries in the world. But this arrangement of obligatory driving is making many Americans actively unhappy, new research has found.

The car is firmly entrenched as the default, and often only, mode of transport for the vast majority of Americans, with more than nine in 10 households having at least one vehicle and 87 percent of people using their cars daily. Last year, a record 290 million vehicles were operated on US streets and highways.

However, this extreme car dependence is affecting Americans’ quality of life, with a new study finding there is a tipping point at which more driving leads to deeper unhappiness. It found that while having a car is better than not for overall life satisfaction, having to drive for more than 50 percent of the time for out-of-home activities is linked to a decrease in life satisfaction.

“Car dependency has a threshold effect—using a car just sometimes increases life satisfaction but if you have to drive much more than this people start reporting lower levels of happiness,” said Rababe Saadaoui, an urban planning expert at Arizona State University and lead author of the study. “Extreme car dependence comes at a cost, to the point that the downsides outweigh the benefits.”

The new research, conducted via a survey of a representative group of people across the US, analyzed people’s responses to questions about driving habits and life satisfaction and sought to find the link between the two via a statistical model that factored in other variables of general contentment, such as income, family situation, race, and disability.

The results were “surprising,” Saadaoui said, and could be the result of a number of negative impacts of driving, such as the stress of continually navigating roads and traffic, the loss of physical activity from not walking anywhere, a reduced engagement with other people, and the growing financial burden of owning and maintaining a vehicle.

“Some people drive a lot and feel fine with it but others feel a real burden,” she said. “The study doesn’t call for people to completely stop using cars but the solution could be in finding a balance. For many people driving isn’t a choice, so diversifying choices is important.”

Decades of national and state interventions have provided the US with an extensive system of highways, many of which cut deep into the heart of its cities, fracturing communities and bringing congestion and air pollution to nearby residents, particularly those of color.

Planning policies and mandatory car parking construction have encouraged suburban sprawl, strip malls with more space for cars than people, and the erosion of shared “third places” where Americans can congregate. As a result, even very short journeys outside the house require a car, with half of all car trips being under three miles.

Most of the decisions driving this are made at a state level, although Joe Biden’s administration vowed to help rebuild public transit networks beleaguered by the Covid pandemic and to tear down certain divisive highways. However, the federal government has continued pouring far more money into building and expanding roads than in any alternatives to driving. Next year, more than $60 billion in federal funding is planned for roads and bridges.

A small sliver of the American public actively chooses to live without a car because they are able to live in the few remaining walkable communities in the US, but for most of those without a car it is a forced deprivation due to poverty or disability.

Being without a car can itself be expensive and isolating, according to Anna Zivarts, who was born with a neurological condition that prevents her from driving. Zivarts, based in Seattle, is the author of the book When Driving Is Not an Option and advocates on behalf of those unable to drive.

“Seattle has a solid bus system but everyone who can afford a car has a car. I’m often the only parent going to any sort of event without a car. Everything is built around cars,” she said.

“We are just locked into a system of driving that is meant to be more enjoyable but isn’t. I walk five minutes with my kid to the school bus stop and yet other parents make that journey to the stop by car. Is this really how you want to spend your life?”

A long-term effort is required to make communities more walkable and bolster public transport and biking options, Zivarts said, but an immediate step would be simply to consider the existence of people without cars.

“We need to get the voices of those who can’t drive—disabled people, seniors, immigrants, poor folks—into the room because the people making decisions drive everywhere,” she said. “They don’t know what it’s like to have to spend two hours riding the bus.”

Elon Musk is nothing if not shameless.

He proved that again this weekend, when he published an op-ed in one of Germany’s biggest newspapers, Die Welt, doubling down on his earlier support for the racist, far-right political party Alternative for Germany (AfD).

In the op-ed—reportedly published online Saturday and in print Sunday—Musk writes that the AfD is “the last spark of hope for this country” and, essentially, that his vast wealth makes his politics a matter of public interest.

“As someone who has made significant investments in Germany’s industrial and technological landscape, I believe I have the right to speak openly about its political orientation,” Musk writes, according to a Google translation of the text. As the country approaches a snap election on February 23, following the November collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government, AfD is polling second, at 19 percent, behind the center-right Christian Democratic Union of Germany.

Musk outlines five areas in which he claims AfD reigns supreme:

• “Economic revival” — Musk praises the party’s focus on de-regulation, writing, “Its approach of reducing government over-regulation, cutting taxes, and deregulating the market reflects the principles that made Tesla and SpaceX successful.”
• “Immigration and national identity” — Here Musk calls for “the preservation of German culture and security” in the face of globalization and immigration.
• “Energy and independence” — Musk lambastes the current German government’s decision to “phase out nuclear power and instead rely heavily on coal and imported gas, as well as volatile wind and solar power.”
• “Political realism” — Musk lauds the party for eschewing “the political correctness that often obscures the truth” (sound familiar?) and argues that the AfD can’t possibly be far-right because its leader, Alice Weidel, “has a same-sex partner from Sri Lanka! Does that sound like Hitler to you? Come on!” (Yes, he actually wrote this.)
• “Innovation and the future” — Musk claims AfD “advocates for educational reforms that encourage critical thinking instead of indoctrination and supports the technology industries that represent the future of global economic leadership.”

His op-ed was published alongside a rebuttal from editor Jan Philipp Burgard, who writes that “Musk’s diagnosis is correct, but his therapeutic approach that only the AfD can save Germany is fatally wrong.”

Burgard notes that the AfD wants to remove Germany from the EU, which he says would be a “catastrophe” given the nation’s reliance on exports and the reliance of German citizens on the EU single market. He further argues that AfD’s isolationist focus could harm its relationship with the US in particular—and “doesn’t Elon Musk want to see many Teslas rolling along Germany’s highways in the future?” And, Burgard points out, Musk’s claims that the party isn’t so bad ignore the reality that Björn Höcke, another AfD leader, has been convicted—twice—of using banned Nazi slogans.

The publication of Musk’s op-ed elicited immediate internal backlash. Die Welt‘s opinion editor, Eva Marie Kogel, announced on X on Saturday that she’d resigned after it posted online.

Musk’s piece was meant to expand upon Musk’s December 20 X post that “only the AfD can save Germany.” (The party thanked him with a public video from party leader Weidel.) But as my colleague Alex Nguyen wrote, AfD is even controversial among Europe’s nationalists.

In May, France’s far-right party led by Marine Le Pen split from the AfD in its European Parliament coalition after the German party’s top candidate, Maximilian Krah, said that a person was “not automatically a criminal” just because they had been a member of the SS, Adolph Hitler’s paramilitary organization. 

When you dig more into the priorities of AfD leaders, it makes sense that they’re on an island of their own—and why Musk is trying to court them. Some party officials, like Trump, have been clear about their desire to carry out mass deportations. As Mother Jones contributor Josh Axelrod, a Berlin-based reporter, wrote recently:

The AfD’s central pledge is to counteract the so-called Great Replacement, a conspiracy theory that claims white Europeans or Americans are the victims of a plot by nonwhite immigrants to “replace” them and poison their societies. It was the inspiration for shooters to take up arms and target Muslim victims in Christchurch, Jews in Pittsburgh, Black people in Buffalo, and gay people in Bratislava.

“It’s the thing that brings together the far-right in multiple countries,” Heidi Beirich, co-founder of the nonprofit Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, told Mother Jones. 

As Burgard put it in his Musk rebuttal: “Even a genius can be wrong.”

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone.

The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds.

Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.”

That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history.

More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction.

Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment.

Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks.

But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century.

Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change.

History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums.

Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.”

The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost.

In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas.

Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

A news clip making the rounds Sunday morning had CNN’s Dana Bash talking with Chris Sununu, New Hampshire’s Republican governor, about Elon Musk’s potential conflicts of interest. Here, after all, we have a hecto-billionaire with massive federal contracts via SpaceX—and whose carmaker, Tesla, likely wouldn’t have survived without generous state and federal subsidies—serving as an advisor to an incoming president on how the government should be spending its money, or not.

Sununu told Bash he liked that Musk is an “outsider”—an interesting choice of words—who is “not looking for anything.” When she challenged that notion, he responded, “The guy is worth $450 billion” and therefore is “so rich he’s removed from the potential financial influence.”

“I don’t think he’s doing it for the money,” Sununu said. “He’s doing it for the bigger project and the bigger vision of America.” The exchange is worth a listen:

What this tells me is that Sununu doesn’t understand the mentality of excessive wealth and he probably shouldn’t be on the air talking about it. He’s correct, in one sense, that Musk is not doing it for the money. I mean, the guy could probably afford to buy Greenland. But “the greater project and the bigger vision”? That’s the sort of nonsense Col. Potter from the old TV series M.A.S.H. would have called “horse hockey”—among other things.

Musk is doing this for the power—the opportunity to dominate his peers. Let’s not forget that joining forces with Trump put Musk’s wealth, at least on paper, on a very steep upward trajectory. I haven’t done the math, but I’m pretty sure he’s now the richest person who has ever lived on our planet. He doesn’t need money to buy stuff. He needs it to nourish his narcissism.

I interviewed quite a few super-rich folks, and people in their close orbits, while researching my 2021 book, Jackpot, and we talked a lot about these kinds of matters. It became clear that, once a person attains a certain level of wealth, any further accumulation of assets is like a game. It’s all about score-keeping and social comparisons—and also maintaining one’s dynastic position by creating trusts to circumvent gift and estate taxes and pushing to maintain stupid loopholes like the discounted tax rate on carried interest, which even one private equity guy admitted to me was “bullshit,” though he was part of a group that made an annual pilgrimage to DC to lobby for it.

Here’s a abridged snippet from one of my interviews with Richard Watts, an attorney in Southern California who serves as a consigliere for some of America’s wealthiest families. Here he was talking about a conference he’d just spoken at—an annual shindig hosted by Mitt Romney and attended by loads of Fortune 500 CEOs and billionaires with names you’d know, in addition to former presidents and senators and other power players.

“I’m very well off, so I certainly don’t need to be working and doing all that stuff, and I’ve got a beautiful home down by the ocean. But when I spend the weekend with people that probably have a minimum net worth of $500 million, at some point I just have to leave, because you can feel in the discussion the measure is how big you are…

In those situations it’s always about what spectacular thing have you done, invented, created: What do you do? “Well, I own 35 mobile home parks free and clear, and we built them, and we’re going green with all of them. And it’s really been a great, wonderful thing.” And the guy’s 40 years old, and that’s a true story…

Now, if you’re Jamie Dimon, everybody kind of wants to see what you’re thinking and you know, “Hey, that’s a good guy. I want to be around him.” And then if it’s the governor of Maine, or let’s say it’s Mitt or it’s Paul Ryan, these are really interesting people. And the interesting thing is they kind of don’t want to have that discussion, but everyone has it with them. So, it’s like, “Hey Paul, since you’ve been out of the Speaker of the House, what is it you’re doing this year?” “Oh my god, I’m on the board of Fox News.” (And of course Murdoch was there lecturing as well.)

And it’s just this feeling that the only measure in the room—I don’t mean that they always stay this way, I’m just saying when they group together—it’s about who’s got the biggest boat, and I can say that in a lot of different ways that are nasty, but the biggest boat is pretty quickly identified.

One month prior to the election, Elon Musk’s estimated net worth was about $263 billion. Now, at year’s end, it is $437 billion. The “biggest boat” has been identified. It’s Elon and it ain’t even close. Musk would like to keep it that way. and his relationship with Trump helps him do that. So Sununu can spare us the “greater project” nonsense.

This is a dick-measuring contest, no more, no less.

Homelessness in America reached the highest level on record last year, according to new data released by the Department of Housing and Urban Development—and it will likely only get worse, in light of both a Supreme Court decision issued in June and President-elect Donald Trump’s forthcoming presidency.

The annual report—which estimates the number of people staying in shelters, temporary housing, and on the streets on a single night—found more than 770,000 people experiencing homelessness on a single night this past January, up 18 percent from a night in January 2023. The increase in the rate of families experiencing homelessness was even steeper, rising 39 percent from 2023 to 2024. And there was a 33 percent increase in children experiencing homelessness, bringing the amount recorded earlier this year to nearly 150,000 kids. (Experts say the numbers are likely an undercount.)

HUD attributes this rise to “significant increases in rental costs, as a result of the pandemic and nearly decades of under-building of housing,” as well as natural disasters—such as the deadly August 2023 Maui wildfires—that destroyed housing. Other factors include “rising inflation, stagnating wages among
middle- and lower-income households, and the persisting effects of systemic racism [that] have stretched homelessness services systems to their limits,” the report says. (Black people remain overrepresented, accounting for 12 percent of the US population but 32 percent of those experiencing homelessness, according to the report.) California and New York had the highest numbers of people experiencing homelessness.

Some of the nationwide increase, the report notes, was also due to “a result of [communities’] work to shelter a rising number of asylum seekers.” In New York City, for example, asylum seekers accounted for almost 88 percent of the increase in sheltered homelessness. HUD points out that the counts were conducted after Republicans in Congress blocked a bipartisan Senate deal that would have funded border security and before President Joe Biden’s border crackdown via executive action—a reference Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) aimed to use to his advantage.

Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, responded on X that this was a “misdiagnosis of its causes,” adding that he has a report forthcoming on “this easy scapegoating of migrants for the homelessness crisis.”

Despite the bleakness of the data, there were some signs of progress: Homelessness among veterans dropped to the lowest number on record: 32,882—an 8 percent decrease from 2023. The report also spotlights a few places (Dallas, Los Angeles, and Chester County, Pennsylvania) that saw significant decreases in people experiencing homelessness thanks to targeted efforts to increase the availability of housing and other supportive services.

Still, it’s hard not to see the data as an indictment of one of the world’s wealthiest nations, where basic necessities—housing, food, and healthcare—are out of reach to many low- and middle-income families. And, as the report intimates, it is likely that people experiencing homelessness will face even greater challenges in light of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the June Supreme Court decision that essentially greenlit the criminalization of homelessness. (As I have reported, domestic violence prevention advocates expect the ruling will be catastrophic for survivors, given the role abusive relationships can play in driving victims to homelessness.)

Ann Olivia, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said in a statement she hopes the data will spur lawmakers “to advance evidence-based solutions to this crisis.” (Vice President Kamala Harris made new housing construction a key part of her campaign.) Some Democrats agree that politicians have to act—and fast:

“As housing prices increase, homelessness increases,” Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) posted in response to the same AP article. “Homelessness is a housing problem.”

But don’t hold your breath: Trump’s acolytes have signaled their desires to slash the social safety net and enact mass deportations of undocumented people, which experts have said will likely exacerbate the housing crisis given the role immigrants play in the construction industry. The closest his budding administration has come to offering a solution is VP-elect JD Vance’s claim that mass deportations will solve the housing shortage by freeing up units.