SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
political violence
Calls to Impeach Bondi Mount After Nude Photos of Possible Victims Released in Epstein Files
Rep. Yassamin Ansari ripped the Justice Department's "indefensible and horrifying disregard for the victims," and stressed that "rich and powerful men continue to evade accountability for their heinous crimes."
Feb 02, 2026
Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari on Sunday called for the impeachment of US Attorney General Pam Bondi after the Department of Justice published dozens of unredacted nude photos of young women or teenagers as part of its legally required release of files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The DOJ released the final batch of documents on Friday, well beyond the December 19 deadline established by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Although President Donald Trump signed the law, his ties to the late billionaire and heavy redactions of previously released records have fueled concerns about the process.
While reviewing the more than 3 million pages published last week, New York Times journalists found "nearly 40 unredacted images" of "nude bodies and the faces of the people portrayed," the newspaper reported. "The people in the photos appeared to be young, although it was unclear whether they were minors. Some of the images seemed to show Mr. Epstein's private island, including a beach. Others were taken in bedrooms and other private spaces."
The paper continued:
The Times notified the Justice Department on Saturday of nude images that journalists had encountered and flagged more of them on Sunday. A spokeswoman said that the department was "working around the clock to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of personally identifiable information, as well as any files that require further redactions under the act, to include images of a sexual nature."
"Once proper redactions have been made, any responsive documents will repopulate online," the spokeswoman said.
Officials have largely removed or redacted the images that the Times flagged for them. The images appeared to show at least seven different people, although the Times did not seek to identify them.
Flagging the report on social media late Sunday, Ansari (D-Ariz.) declared that "this is an indefensible and horrifying disregard for the victims by Trump's US Department of Justice. They are still withholding the full Epstein Files, and rich and powerful men continue to evade accountability for their heinous crimes. Attorney General Pam Bondi should be impeached."
Even before the nude photos were discovered, progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) similarly called for Bondi's impeachment on Friday, pointing to not only her DOJ's handling of the Epstein files, but also its efforts to force Minnesota to turn over voter data and the arrest of journalists, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon.
Since Friday, survivors of Epstein's abuse have also slammed the DOJ, with 18 of them saying in a joint statement that the latest release "is being sold as transparency, but what it actually does is expose survivors. Once again, survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed, while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. That is outrageous."
“As survivors, we should never be the ones named, scrutinized, and retraumatized while Epstein's enablers continue to benefit from secrecy. This is a betrayal of the very people this process is supposed to serve," they continued. "This is not over. We will not stop until the truth is fully revealed and every perpetrator is finally held accountable."
CNN reported Monday that lawyers Brittany Henderson and Brad Edwards requested "immediate judicial intervention" by US Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer to address at least "thousands of redaction failures on behalf of nearly 100 individual survivors whose lives have been turned upside down by DOJ's latest release."
"There is no conceivable degree of institutional incompetence sufficient to explain the scale, consistency, and persistence of the failures that occurred—particularly where the sole task ordered by the court and repeatedly emphasized by DOJ was simple: Redact known victim names before publication," the attorneys wrote.
While the DOJ didn't reply to the outlet's request for comment, Henderson said in a statement to CNN that "with every second that passes, additional harm is being caused to these women. They are scared, they are devastated, and they are begging for our government to protect them from further harm."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tulsi Gabbard Hit With Whistleblower Complaint So Classified It Needs to Be Locked in a Safe: Report
The attorney representing the whistleblower called it "confounding" that it took Gabbard’s office eight months to send a disclosure to Congress.
Feb 02, 2026
A whistleblower last year filed a complaint against US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard whose contents are so sensitive that the complaint itself has reportedly been locked in a safe.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that the complaint was filed in May, and it set off "a continuing, behind-the-scenes struggle about how to assess and handle it, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint."
The Journal's sources say that the complaint is so classified that no one in the US Congress has even laid eyes on it, as disclosure of its contents could cause "grave damage to national security."
A letter written by Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower's attorney, to Gabbard in November accused her office of trying to block the complaint from reaching members of Congress by failing to provide guidance about how it should be handled while minimizing national security risks.
Gabbard's office told the Journal that it is working to get the issue resolved but that it is taking time because of the sensitive nature of the complaint, which it dismissed as "baseless and politically motivated."
However, Bakaj told the Journal that he doesn't believe Gabbard's office is making a good-faith effort to disclose the complaint to Congress.
“From my experience, it is confounding for [Gabbard’s office] to take weeks—let alone eight months—to transmit a disclosure to Congress,” he said.
The Journal was not able to verify the contents of the complaint against Gabbard, and Bakaj told the paper that its contents are so highly classified that he has not been allowed to view it.
Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit legal organization where Bakaj serves as chief legal counsel, called on Monday for Congress to open an investigation into Gabbard "for hiding high-level intelligence... for nearly eight months," as well as for "her attempts to bury a whistleblower disclosure about her own actions," as required by US law.
National security attorney Mark Zaid, who co-founded Whistleblower Aid, praised the organization's work in representing the whistleblower and declared in a social media post that Gabbard and her office "have a lot of explaining to do."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Federal Food Aid Became Politically Polarizing—and What to Do About It
By focusing on the facts and the program’s broad benefits, Americans can move past partisan divides and recognize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the bipartisan, practical tool it truly is.
Feb 02, 2026
On January 31, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson requested that Congress pass federal legislation to make the Food Stamp Program permanent. Up to that point, the program had operated as a pilot in select counties and states, serving about 380,000 participants. The Food Stamp Program expanded dramatically in the ensuing decades, driven largely by a recognition of domestic hunger. It has also undergone many changes—notably 2008 legislation that changed the name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in part to fight the politicized stigma of receiving food assistance.
Today, the program is without a doubt one of the most effective food assistance programs in reducing food insecurity and poverty across the United States. The US Census Bureau reports that supplemental nutrition assistance lifted nearly 3.6 million people out of poverty in 2024, the most recent year for which full data are available.
What’s more, every dollar in SNAP benefits generates about $1.50 in economic activity, as recipients spend their benefits at grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and small businesses. This ripple effect strengthens communities, keeping businesses open and workers employed.
Looking solely at the data, it would seem the anti-hunger program would be viewed by the vast majority of US voters as a practical solution that helps families put food on the table while also supporting local economies. After all, the vast majority of SNAP recipients are children, seniors, and people with disabilities, not the able-bodied adults who are often misrepresented as the main beneficiaries in political debates. And many rural communities, which tend to vote conservatively, rely heavily on this nutrition assistance, with some of the highest SNAP participation rates found in states that lean Republican.
The politicization of social welfare programs generated long-lasting shifts in voting behavior.
Yet in spite of its broad social and economic benefits, food assistance has been a politically contested issue ever since it was enacted more than five decades ago, often shaped by ideological and racialized narratives. This polarization persists today, exemplified by the massive cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the 2025 Republican budget reconciliation bill (commonly referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) that was passed by the 119th US Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump in July 2025.
In new research, I, together with co-authors Troup Howard at the University of Utah and William Mullins at the University of California, San Diego, examine the process through which policy-based polarization emerges and persists over time. Using the historical expansion of the federal Food Stamp Program between 1961 and 1975 as a case study, we provide empirical evidence that the politicization of social welfare programs generated long-lasting shifts in voting behavior. Understanding this history and its persistence is essential to making sense of current debates over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The Rollout of the New Federal Food Stamp Program Amid the Civil Rights Movement
The historical rollout of the Food Stamp Program provides a case study in how social and economic policies become polarized and how those divisions persist across generations. Political views on food assistance are emblematic of the deeply partisan divide over social insurance programs and racial attitudes, which consistently emerge as key fault lines in US politics, reflecting deep-seated ideological and historical divisions.
Even though political polarization is often framed as a natural consequence of personal preferences and ideological sorting, such an interpretation overlooks the strategic role of political parties in shaping public perception for electoral advantage. We find that these behaviors persisted well beyond the first two decades—through 2020, as detailed in our research, and arguably even more so today.
The Food Stamp Program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has played a critical role in the network of US social programs for more than half a century. After state- and federal-level experimentation, the program was rolled out nationwide between 1964 and 1975 to combat food insecurity and improve nutrition among low-income Americans. The program currently supports 42 million people, including nearly 1 in 5 American children. Research consistently demonstrates its effectiveness in reducing poverty, stabilizing household food consumption, and improving long-term health and economic outcomes.
The initial rollout of the Food Stamp Program coincided with a period of intense legal and political transformation, marked by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the broader dismantling of Jim Crow laws that legally discriminated against Black Americans across the South. In this context, the introduction of a federal food assistance program was not merely a policy shift but also became a political flash point.
Our analysis provides, to the best of our knowledge, the first causal estimates on the racial politicization of social programs. Using individual-level voting data, we find three key results:
- The introduction of the Food Stamp Program heightened racial polarization in voting behavior.
- This effect was strongest among individuals who were adults at the time of the rollout of the Food Stamp Program.
- The resulting political divide persists in voter registration patterns and electoral outcomes today, more than a half a century later.
How the Food Stamp Program Generated Decades-Long Political Polarization
When a government program is first implemented, voters are often uncertain about its long-term effects. This initial ambiguity provides political parties with an opportunity to shape public perception through strategic political moves, particularly in the early stages of a policy’s rollout. Politicians can change the narrative framing surrounding discussions about the program. Or they can steer political resources away from the program and bring into focus other politically polarizing issues. Or they can set agendas that cater to specific groups of voters in an effort to offset any political advantages the opposing party might be accruing from public discussion about the policy.
These are classic partisan political strategies, and we show in our research that political parties, recognizing the potential to consolidate their voter base, have incentives to selectively target different demographic groups with distinct messaging. Even when a policy itself does not explicitly favor one group over another, partisan political moves can amplify political divisions and solidify long-term realignments in voter preferences.
To implement our analysis, we used a comprehensive dataset covering the universe of US voters as of 2020. We then compared the voting behavior between individuals who were adults when the Food Stamp Program was introduced in their county and those who were younger at the time. This methodology, which incorporates a rich set of fixed effects and demographic controls, including age, race, and gender, ensures that our findings are not driven by geographic variation, cohort effects, or broader shifts in political attitudes between 1960 and 2020.
SNAP is often misunderstood or misrepresented, but at its core, it is a practical program that helps families meet basic nutritional needs.
The results reveal the lasting impact of the Food Stamp Program on partisan affiliations. White voters who lived through the Food Stamp rollout as adults were significantly more likely to be registered as Republicans—and less likely to be Democrats—in 2020, compared with White voters who were younger, especially those who were born in a world where the Food Stamp Program was already an established feature of US social programs.
In contrast, Black and Hispanic voters who lived through the Food Stamp rollout as adults were significantly more likely to be registered as Democrats or Independents than Black and Hispanic voters who were younger. Racial polarization in partisan affiliations is an order of magnitude larger than electorate-wide effects, underscoring the extent to which food assistance became a racialized political issue.
Further analysis of voting behavior conditional on party affiliation reveals additional layers of polarization. Exposure to the rollout of the program increased the likelihood of white Republicans turning out to vote while simultaneously boosting turnout among Black and Hispanic Democrats. This divergence suggests that the politicization of food assistance not only influenced party registration but also reinforced voting engagement along racial and ideological lines.
Moreover, when focusing on individuals who registered to vote before the age of 25—a group likely to be more politically engaged—we observe even stronger effects, highlighting the formative role of early political experiences in shaping long-term partisan identity.
Taken together, these findings illustrate how social policy can serve as a catalyst for enduring political realignments. The case of the Food Stamp Program suggests that initial framing and partisan efforts can have consequences that extend well beyond the policy itself, shaping voting behavior for generations.
The program’s name shift in 2008 to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and its catchy acronym SNAP was intended to partially address this polarization that had developed over many decades. Beyond reducing the stigma associated with “food stamps,” the rebranding sought to counter the racialized and partisan narratives that had taken root during the program’s early rollout by emphasizing nutrition, work, and temporary assistance. By reframing food assistance as a modern, employment-adjacent social support rather than a form of welfare, policymakers aimed to make the program more politically durable amid persistent partisan scrutiny—even as the underlying political divisions documented in our analysis continued to shape debates over the program’s scope and funding.
How to Bridge the Partisan Divide over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
As contemporary debates over social programs continue—not just about SNAP benefits but also in the context of the expansion of Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the recent cuts to Medicaid in 2025—understanding the historical roots of this polarization is critical. The long-run political consequences of early policy framing should be a central consideration in both policymaking and electoral strategy. And the long-run economic fallout if partisan politics are successful in further diminishing social insurance programs could include substantial contractions in local economic activity as federal SNAP dollars are withdrawn from communities.
To make discussions about SNAP benefits less partisan, it is important that views about the program become decoupled from partisan politics. Yet separating the program from political narratives and stereotypes can be challenging. SNAP is often misunderstood or misrepresented, but at its core, it is a practical program that helps families meet basic nutritional needs.
By focusing on the facts and the program’s broad benefits, as documented in this issue brief, Americans can move past partisan divides and recognize the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for what it truly is—a bipartisan investment in food security, economic stability, and the well-being of US families.
This piece was first published by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s ‘Jaw-dropping’ Conflict of Interest with the UAE Defies Common Sense
Feb 02, 2026
The Wall Street Journal revealed new details on an unprecedented business deal where foreign leaders from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) bought a massive stake in Trump’s World Liberty crypto company, a few months before the Trump administration approved the sale of America’s most advanced AI chips to the UAE. These chips were previously withheld from the UAE due to national security concerns. But since then, the deal with UAE royals has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars directly into the pockets of the Trump family.
In response to this news, Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, issued the following statement:
“The jaw-dropping Wall Street Journal report reveals that through a complicated, secret deal, a United Arab Emirates (UAE)-linked company effectively deposited $187 million directly into the bank accounts of the president and his family, and is now primary business partner with the president’s family.
"There’s no precedent for this in American history. This deal contravenes the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, the most basic ethics standards and plain common sense. It fundamentally and unavoidably compromises U.S. foreign policy, raising the question of whether Trump is conducting foreign policy to advance American interests or his own bottom line.
“The White House says the deal poses no conflict of interest for the president. The administration is making a regular practice of asking the American public not to see what is right before their eyes. The American people aren’t having it.
“And, if the administration actually believed there was no conflict, why was the deal kept secret?
“Among other matters involving the UAE, the Trump administration has approved the sale of advanced AI chips to the country, despite fears from national security officials that the technology may be diverted to China. Perhaps the administration would have reached the same decision authorizing the chip sale in the absence of the president’s business arrangement, but we’ll never know – precisely why business deals like this should not exist.”
Most Popular