In a time when American politics feels more divided than ever, it’s refreshing to imagine a “purple” approach—one that rejects the rigid red-vs-blue binary and instead borrows the strongest, most practical ideas from both Republican and Democratic platforms.

Purple politics isn’t about splitting the difference for its own sake; it’s about putting the best of both worlds to work for the benefit of everyday Americans, their families, and the long-term strength of the country. It prioritizes results over ideology, people over partisanship, and common-sense governance over endless culture-war shouting matches.

A recent video essay titled How Do You Share a Country With People Who Reject Reality? by Cy Canterel captures exactly why this purple mindset matters right now.

Using the tragic Renee Good case as a starting point, the video shows how the same piece of video evidence can produce two completely opposite “realities” for different groups of viewers.

It argues that the real fault line in America isn’t simply left versus right, but between people who can tolerate ambiguity and complexity versus those who crave simple hierarchies, clear rules, and us-versus-them certainty. The speaker invokes philosopher Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance”: a free society cannot tolerate movements that actively seek to destroy pluralism. At the same time, the video urges compassion and “exit ramps” for those trapped in authoritarian thinking—offering legal guardrails, better education in nuance, and non-humiliating ways to step back from extremism.

These ideas line up perfectly with purple politics: protect democratic norms and shared facts without demonizing fellow citizens, and design policies that actually bring people together instead of driving them further apart.

With that spirit in mind, here’s what a purple platform could look like—starting with foreign affairs, then turning to the domestic priorities that would actually rebuild the country. This of course is not an all-inclusive set of ideas, just some highlights to suggest a more moderate, middle, and “purple” path.

Foreign Policy Agenda

• End the post-World War II web of treaty commitments and alliances by accelerating real-world outcomes: either broker lasting peace with potential aggressors or render them incapable of hostile action. For example, bring U.S. forces home from Japan and South Korea, help those nations shift to fully professional militaries, and support them in applying intense diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea until the regime collapses or is forced to negotiate.

• Stop sending billions in foreign aid to build infrastructure or “plant democratic values” in cultures where those ideas may simply not take root. Redirect every dollar to American roads, bridges, schools, and water systems instead.

• Bring all U.S. troops currently stationed abroad back home to defend our own borders and coastal waters. In the future, any American military operation outside the Western Hemisphere should only happen at the invitation of a host nation—and only if that nation pays its fair share.

• Withdraw from the current version of globalism, which has mostly enriched multinational corporations while flattening wages for American workers and offering little real benefit to people in developing nations. Replace it with a global economy that puts consumers and workers first.

• Reduce or cancel the portion of U.S. debt held by China; they lack the military power or global reach to force collection.

• Push for a Unified Western Hemisphere alliance that includes every nation from the Arctic to Antarctica, each keeping its own government but working together on defense, resource development, and economic growth—led by American military strength and know-how. Leave the United Nations and focus on this resource-rich Americas-first bloc instead.

• Restrict non-American traffic through the Panama Canal, charge high user fees, and impose taxes on goods routed around Tierra del Fuego. America and the Americas come first.

These foreign-policy shifts would free up enormous resources while reducing entanglement in distant conflicts that rarely serve ordinary Americans.

Domestic Policy Agenda

The money saved from smarter foreign spending would then flow straight into rebuilding America at home. Use the U.S. military’s construction and engineering units to clear abandoned, blighted sections of cities—giving troops valuable training while opening space for civilian contractors to rebuild infrastructure.

Congress should formally assign border security to the Department of Defense, removing any Posse Comitatus complications and treating the southern border as a national-defense priority rather than a law-enforcement afterthought.

To handle migration humanely and effectively, work with Mexico to create a U.S. “Embassy Annex” on Mexico’s southern border. All migrants would be screened there—on what is legally U.S. territory—so asylum claims and other applications could be processed safely, far from cartels and desert dangers. This single facility, staffed with judges, security, and support personnel, could dramatically slow the current uncontrolled flow until the entire hemisphere stabilizes.Additional domestic reforms would strengthen democracy and accountability:

• Create a national biometric ID card that securely holds multiple federal credentials (Social Security, passport data, veterans’ benefits, etc.).

• Reform the Electoral College so presidential candidates must win the popular vote in each congressional district within a state to earn those electoral votes—forcing candidates to campaign everywhere, not just swing states.

• Ban or severely restrict campaign donations; replace them with a publicly funded pool financed by candidate filing fees and a small payroll deduction from elected officials’ salaries. If private donations remain, limit them to donors or corporations physically based in the representative’s district or senator’s state.

• Pass a constitutional amendment setting one eight-year term for president, vice president, representatives, and senators—with no consecutive second terms. Anyone could run again after sitting out eight years.

• End the practice of using must-pass appropriations bills to strong-arm states into policy changes (the old “55 mph speed limit or lose highway funds” trick). Laws should be made through actual statutes, not budget riders.

• Set a 10-year maximum career limit in any single federal department or agency so bureaucrats can’t entrench themselves forever.

• Regulate lobbyists: require each to be formally sponsored by a member of Congress from their home district or state, and cap the total number at a reasonable multiple of the 535 members of Congress.

• Amend HIPAA to make it illegal for law enforcement, prosecutors, or courts to access anyone’s reproductive-health records—even with a warrant—protecting medical privacy across the board.

Taken together, these ideas form a coherent, people-first agenda. They draw fiscal conservatism and strong defense from the right, while embracing pragmatic humanitarianism and institutional reform from the left.

The video’s call for pluralism with guardrails reminds us that purple politics isn’t naïve compromise—it’s the realistic path to keeping a shared country intact when realities are diverging. It’s about building a nation where facts still matter, opportunity is real, and government works for the many rather than the few. In short, a purple platform that never was could still become the one that actually works.

Not being any type of medical professional myself, only having a masters degree in psychology (Addictions counseling)—I list, in retrospect, some of my wife's past medical history that may well have been “road signs” indicating the growth of her now-known glioblastoma.

My wife is 56 years old now, and over the last ten years she has experienced a series of seemingly unrelated medical issues that, when viewed together in the context of her current diagnosis, paint a clear picture of an emerging tumor in the left cerebral hemisphere. The pathology report confirms a classic primary IDH-wildtype glioblastoma with a full molecular profile that includes TERT promoter mutation C260T, EGFR mutations p.A269V and p.V774M, PTEN mutation p.F21Lfs*3, TP53 mutation p.R262W, CDK4 copy number amplification (13 copies), 7p/7q region copy number gain (3 copies), CDKN2A hemizygous copy number loss, and copy number losses in the 6q, 10q, and 14q regions. MGMT promoter methylation was negative by allele-specific PCR, meaning the tumor is unmethylated and therefore more resistant to temozolomide (Temodar), the chemotherapy commonly used to prevent cancer cells from repairing DNA damage after radiation.

I know, that's a lot of medi-speak, but I want to establish—short of posting all of my wife's info—that this is a real experience we are going through.

Backwards Gazing

The first noticeable signs appeared as general “arthritic pain” in her right shoulder and right knee, with no specific injury or trauma to explain it. Because the tumor sits in the left hemisphere—which controls the right side of the body—these right-sided complaints may have been early motor or sensory disruptions caused by the slowly expanding mass and surrounding edema. At the time, however, they were dismissed as ordinary age-related wear and tear.

Next came a total hysterectomy prompted by a non-malignant mass that had grown on her right ovary. Not long afterward, she required gallbladder removal—not because of stones, the usual culprit, but because the gallbladder was “working too fast,” a hyperkinetic state that may have reflected subtle autonomic imbalance from left-hemisphere irritation.

Her gait began to lose its smooth rhythm, and she noticed a very slight change in the strength of her left leg and foot. Although the left hemisphere primarily affects the right side, early mass effect and edema can sometimes produce subtler or compensatory symptoms. Doctors examined her and found nothing conclusive.

As an ESL speaker whose first language is Korean, she also developed a very slight stutter, especially noticeable when speaking English. Many patients with left-sided glioblastomas retain better fluency in their native language than in a second language they have spoken proficiently for years; the tumor’s location in language-dominant areas selectively taxed her English word recall and articulation while sparing Korean more effectively.

Mentally and emotionally, she has taken medication for mild general anxiety for many years—the effects of being a long time 'Army wife' and mother of 3 children. In the past few years, however, we observed a significant drop in the effectiveness of her anxiety meds along with worsening sleep problems. We now understand these as may having been classic manifestations of cerebral edema surrounding the glioblastoma, which increases intracranial pressure and disrupts normal neurotransmitter balance and sleep regulation. What looked like “just more anxiety” was, in reality, the tumor’s growing footprint inside her skull.

None of these issues, when they appeared one by one over a decade, would have prompted any physician—including a psychiatrist who is also a licensed neurologist—to order a head CT or MRI. Each symptom on its own was explainable by common, benign conditions. Only when viewed retrospectively, against the backdrop of the confirmed molecular diagnosis, do they line up like road signs pointing straight to the left-hemisphere mass.

I have not been able to find anything in medical journals or generally available information that “connects the dots” between a person’s past medical history, cognitive behavior, or mental-health changes and the eventual diagnosis of this specific type of glioblastoma. The tumor’s molecular drivers are considered sporadic, arising from random somatic mutations in neural stem cells rather than from any single environmental or inherited trigger.

Why tell all of you? Because glioblastoma is still widely considered a health issue of usually elderly persons, yet my wife is not elderly. At 56 she is over 50, but not as old as the typical patient. Medical information shows a growing group of people from their mid-30s to mid-60s being diagnosed with the same aggressive type of tumor as my wife’s—a non-methylated, IDH-wildtype glioblastoma. Its DNA profile makes it resistant to temozolomide, the drug used to help prevent cancer cells from repairing themselves after radiation. This makes the tumor much harder to treat. (It is important to keep in mind that no cancer is truly “curable” once you have it; you always live with the knowledge that it could return.)

It probably would not have mattered much if the tumor had been found earlier, other than possibly reducing the current severity of her symptoms. It may have been slightly more operable, but only a little. Operating on a left-sided tumor carries real risks of affecting speech and the ability to walk or move normally.

And maybe the scariest part is that it is not caused by anything known to science. No healthy habits would have prevented it. Whatever is driving this silent increase in cases among people in industrialized nations—particularly in the broad mid-30 to mid-60 age group—is neither clearly identified nor preventable at present. It is something common to both the United States and South Korea, where my wife and I grew up. One memory that comes to mind is us as kids chasing the “smoke truck” driving through our neighborhoods spraying for mosquitoes. They did that in Korea as well. But no one knows for sure, and medical research tends to focus far more on developing new treatments than on investigating possible sources.

I have looked into cell phone use, not that I ever thought it would be the cause—which has been extensively researched, and there is no established causation or correlation with glioblastoma. Besides, my wife never even used a cell phone until about 18 months ago, and even then she used it only for apps, never holding it to her head for calls.

I share our story in the hope that it helps other families and caregivers recognize that a constellation of otherwise ordinary complaints—right-sided pain, unexplained visceral surgeries, gait changes, language quirks in a bilingual speaker, and suddenly refractory anxiety—can occasionally be the quiet heralds of a left-hemisphere glioblastoma. In an era when we have advanced molecular profiling and adaptive platform trials at cancer research centers, earlier awareness might translate into earlier intervention and better symptom management, even if the disease itself remains sporadic and difficult to prevent. Much like early detection and intervention is done for children being found early on with learning disabilities or autism spectrum disorders.

Be willing to advocate for yourself with urgency. If something feels wrong and no one is connecting the dots, say so plainly, document the symptoms, and press for further testing or another opinion. It is better to risk sounding insistent than to let a serious problem go unexplored.

My wife’s journey is still unfolding. The unmethylated MGMT status and the DNA composition of her tumor mean standard chemoradiation offers more limited benefit, yet the precision of her tumor’s genetic map also opens doors to biomarker-driven trials targeting very specific pathways to the tumor that are known to neuro-oncologists. We remain grateful for the science that has given us this detailed roadmap and hopeful that sharing our experience contributes, in some small way, to greater understanding and support for others walking this same difficult path, even if only ONE READER comes away from this essay and gets a tumor detected and treated early, I will call it “victory”, with unrequited love, even if I never know you.

Editors note: Please consider donating to the GoFundMe Ted set up to help cover travel and other expenses they’ve accrued during this difficult time for their family.

Ted has also provided his Cashapp where direct donations can be sent: $TEDAGENS

In my interview with Amanda Potter, Democratic candidate for South Dakota House District 9, we talked not just about policy, but about the personal experiences that shaped why she’s running.

Potter moved to Sioux Falls from North Dakota in 2005 and has now spent more than 20 years building her life in South Dakota. She is raising a son, works in health care, and has experience as a nonprofit grant writer focused on child care and education. That background came through clearly in our conversation, especially as she spoke about the pressures facing working families and the need for government to be more responsive to everyday people.

A major focus of her campaign is affordability. Potter pointed to rising property taxes, grocery bills, gas prices and child care costs as some of the biggest burdens facing households in District 9. She argued that when the state has a surplus, residents should actually feel the benefit of it, especially in areas like education and child care that directly affect families and workforce stability.

Education was one of the clearest through-lines in our discussion. Drawing on her grant-writing experience, Potter criticized block grant-style funding approaches that can leave smaller communities at a disadvantage and create uncertainty for schools and child care providers. She also pushed back on what she sees as political overreach into curriculum, saying education policy should be shaped by teachers, experts and people with real experience in the field.

We also talked about her broader message of transparency, bipartisanship and public trust. Potter said she wants government to focus less on division and more on practical, win-win solutions. That included discussion of voting access, gun violence as a public health issue, and the need for accountability when it comes to hyper-scale data center development in South Dakota.

One of the more personal points she made is that she does not see politics as a lifelong career path. She said she wants to serve for a limited time, keep her day job, stay close to family life, and remain grounded in the same realities her constituents face.

At the center of her campaign is a simple idea: people in District 9 deserve to feel heard, respected and represented.

Special thanks to the IBEW 426 for allowing us to use their space.

On March 28, 2026, thousands of Sioux Falls residents gathered at Drake Springs Park for Indivisible 605’s third No Kings Day of Action protest.

The event took place from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and featured a range of speakers and performances. Speakers included city, state, and congressional-level Democratic candidates, while performances featured groups like Singing Resistance Sioux Falls, a newly formed group separate from Indivisible 605 whose mission is “to give music and purpose to protests,” according to organizers.

Protesters gathered around the stage located just west of the Drake Springs Skate Park, while many more lined the sidewalks along the west side of Cliff Avenue and the south side of 10th Street, stretching as far west as the viaduct leading into downtown Sioux Falls.

Event organizers said their official count showed between 3,000 and 3,500 attendees over the span of two hours. A rough visual estimate by reporters at the scene suggests that figure is likely close to accurate.

Groups such as the ACLU of South Dakota and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America were stationed at the park with stands where they spoke with protesters and handed out informational materials on behalf of their organizations.

Those in attendance ranged from the elderly to children whose parents brought them along to witness the peaceful event on the warm but windy Saturday afternoon.

There was no shortage of signs made by protestors expressing the various sentiments associated with the movement. One sign read “DEMOCRACY NOT DICTATORSHIP” with a caricature of Trump wearing a crown.

Others featured statements such as “Trump Let Iran Sell Billions in Oil!! Did They Buy Weapons to Kill Our Troops” and “Time 2 25th the Epstein President”.

A local protest tied to a national movement

Much like Indivisible 605’s second No Kings protest held in October 2025, the overarching theme of the event was to make it known that in America, there are no kings, and that the country is a democracy in which no one individual holds unchecked power. Organizers and protesters alike expressed concerns over what they described as abuses of power and disregard for constitutional rights by the Trump administration.

“As the regime continues to launch one atrocity after another, threats to democracy and civil rights increase and are beginning to impact all Americans,” said Indivisible 605 organizer Roni Wegner. “We are in a war where the Administration cannot agree on a reason why; while our military men and women sacrifice with their lives. The overreach of this Administration and abdication of Congress has resulted in the murder of numerous human beings and placed others, including children, in filthy, torturous detention centers. And now an assault on voting rights has begun. This is not who we are - in America our constitution rules, and under God, every human deserves dignity.”

At this event, Indivisible 605 promoted their Nationwide Red Line Campaign. The campaign asks Members of Congress “who have a red hat” to find their red line and take action to stop the reckless actions of this Administration. “Participants complete a Red Line letter to be delivered to their MOC; a red crayon is included to help them find their red line,” said Roni Wegner with Indivisible 605.

Common issues touched on throughout the event included the importance of organizing and voting in both local and federal elections, ICE deportations, the shootings of Minneapolis residents just months prior, the affordability crisis many Americans say they are experiencing, and how communities can come together to address those concerns.

Speakers call for organizing, voting, and collective action

Samantha Chapman

Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager for the ACLU of South Dakota, gave a speech focused on what she described as threats to constitutional rights and abuses of power posed by the Trump administration. Speaking on behalf of the ACLU’s mission to defend constitutional rights, Chapman said power belongs to the people, not to President Trump, Governor Kristi Noem, or any one administration. She also criticized South Dakota’s new voter law, S.B. 175, as a barrier to participation and urged attendees to check their registration, meet deadlines, and vote.

Amanda Potter

Amanda Potter, a candidate for South Dakota State House District 9, spoke less as a politician than as a neighbor urging people to see protest as part of a long American tradition. Drawing on examples from the Boston Tea Party, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Stonewall riots, Potter argued that progress is never immediate, but depends on ordinary people who are willing to keep showing up. She encouraged the crowd to turn that energy into action by voting in local and state elections, supporting community candidates, and strengthening the communities around them.

Everett Palmer

Everett Palmer urged attendees to stay rooted in history, community, and one another, arguing that lasting action begins with understanding where those struggles come from. He said people come from “a long lineage of freedom fighters” and pointed to efforts to erase Native American history as a reminder that knowledge itself holds power. Palmer encouraged the crowd not to leave feeling powerless, but to support local organizations, make and support art, volunteer, learn more about South Dakota’s communities, and stay engaged politically.

Nikki Gronli

Congressional candidate Nikki Gronli warned that democracy does not vanish all at once, but instead erodes gradually when people fail to defend it. Framing the upcoming election as a critical moment, Gronli urged voters to stay engaged, take action in November, and continue organizing beyond Election Day.

Amanda Kendall

Amanda Kendall, co-founder of Let Sioux Falls Vote, pointed to local examples such as the data center meeting and a petition drive to argue that voting remains one of the most important ways people can reclaim power. She urged people to register, confirm their voter status, and stay engaged over the long term so community voices are not pushed aside.

Julian Beaudion

Julian Beaudion, a U.S. Senate candidate seeking to unseat Sen. Mike Rounds, argued against what he called unchecked power and urged a return to a democracy where power belongs to the people. He framed the rally as both a protest against current leadership and a stand for accountability, representation, and a government that listens to ordinary people.

Jamie Smith

Sioux Falls mayoral candidate Jamie Smith closed his remarks by laying out a vision for the city centered on unity, inclusion, and collaborative leadership, while urging residents to vote on June 2. Emphasizing that “we are better when we work together,” Smith rejected divisive politics and said leaders should “bring us together” and “breach divides” by engaging with different viewpoints and building mutual understanding.

Music and poetry shaped the event’s tone

Performance also played a role in shaping the tone of the afternoon.

In her poem, KC Brauer moved from personal vulnerability to a message of collective strength, telling the crowd that their presence was itself an act of defending democracy. By connecting individual hardship to shared resilience and ending with a unifying chant, Brauer’s poem emphasized that resisting autocracy requires unity, participation, and a deep love for community.

Singing Resistance Sioux Falls took to the stage to provide political relevance to the protest via song in their first ever public appearance.

A visible show of political energy

As the event came to a close Saturday afternoon, attendees slowly filtered out of Drake Springs Park after two hours of speeches, music, and organizing. With thousands turning out, a visible presence along Cliff Avenue and 10th Street, and multiple advocacy groups participating, the gathering reflected a level of political energy that organizers say continues to grow in Sioux Falls.

For many there, the message was straightforward: democracy depends on participation, and local action remains one way to respond to national concerns.

Sioux Falls residents are expected to join a nationwide “No Kings” day of action on Saturday, March 28, with a local protest planned from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at Drake Springs Park, organizers said.

The Sioux Falls event, organized by Indivisible 605, is part of protests planned in more than 2,800 cities across all 50 U.S. states and territories, according to the group. Organizers said they expect thousands of people to attend the local demonstration.

The protest is the third “No Kings” event held in Sioux Falls and follows two earlier demonstrations that drew increasing turnout, organizers said. They said this event will include some different speakers from the previous Sioux Falls protest we covered, along with music and other activities.

Planned programming includes Singing Resistance Sioux Falls, a separate group that performs at protests, and “Signs of Fascism,” an Indivisible 605 effort in which participants display signs highlighting what the group describes as authoritarian features of the Trump administration.

Organizers said the event will also feature booths from local organizations working with people affected by the administration’s policies, giving attendees a chance to connect with advocacy and community groups during the demonstration.

Indivisible 605 said it will also promote its “Nationwide Red Line Campaign,” which encourages participants to write letters to their members of Congress urging them to oppose administration actions. Organizers said attendees will be given red crayons to complete the letters.

They also said the local protest is intended to call attention to what the group sees as threats to democracy, civil rights and voting rights under the Trump administration.

According to organizers, the broader “No Kings” movement is meant to underscore that political power in the United States rests with voters, not individual leaders.

During the New Life Church’s Sunday service on March 15th, Pastor Alex Klimchuck gave more details on their potential acquisition of the properties currently housing Andy’s Top Hat and the old print shop next door.

Klimchuck began his “announcement” by thanking his congregation for “standing up” and “defending the church” following the public backlash they received after the owner of the Top Hat publicly announced the bar’s closure and relocation, and the church’s supposed intent to purchase the buildings to possibly demolish them to make room for a larger parking lot.

Pastor Klimchuck then went on to explain how they became aware of the option to purchase the properties, saying, “Well, a couple weeks ago we found out — because we have friends in the city and people talk — that the bar might not be renewing their lease, they might be going somewhere else. Last week, we found out the bar and print shop next door are going on sale.”

According to Klimchuck, they would need to make an $820k bid with a $20k deposit by March 31st to purchase both properties. He also stated that the church does not have those kinds of funds, but that him and other leaders of the church own their own businesses and make money separate from the church.

There are currently no public listings for these two properties, indicating that the church has been in direct contact with the owner about the potential sale of the properties.

Andy and her employees, who were having a team meeting on the 7th, informed us that members from the church had come down to the bar with cameras, looking to take pictures of “their new building.”

However, in replies made to community members on Facebook on March 11th, Pastor Klimchuck, when asked if the church was in talks with the owner to buy the buildings, said, “not yet, but we will be looking into it for sure!”

We reached out to the church for comment, but have not received a response as of the time of publication.

The Top Hat property itself is not just another downtown parcel. It has long functioned as a neighborhood gathering place and remains part of the older social and commercial fabric of Sioux Falls at a time when much of downtown has been transformed by large-scale development, institutional expansion, and surface parking. That does not decide the legal question of designation, but it does explain why the process deserves public attention.

Our publication has formally started the historic-designation process for the property at 508 S. First Ave. in Sioux Falls, filing materials with the City of Sioux Falls and separately forwarding documentation to the South Dakota Historical Society for review.

What happened next is the reason this story matters: the city’s initial response was that Sioux Falls does not do historic designations at the city level, that it only deals with alterations to properties already listed on the National Register, and that designation itself simply follows state action. That position is difficult to square with the plain language of Sioux Falls’ own ordinances.

This matters for more than one reason. The question here is not only whether 508 S. First Ave. qualifies for historic recognition, but whether Sioux Falls follows the preservation process it has already written into law. If the city has a local designation framework on paper, the public has a right to know whether that framework is being applied in practice.

Start with Sioux Falls Municipal Code Chapter 151, the city’s historic-preservation chapter. It does not describe a state-only system. It expressly creates a local register. Section 151.035 states that “the city hereby creates the Sioux Falls Register of Historic Landmarks,” also called the local register. The same chapter lays out local designation criteria in § 151.036, including whether a property is associated with significant events, important people, distinctive architecture, master craftsmanship, a significant historic entity, or the potential to yield important historical information. In other words, the code does not just regulate already-designated places; it establishes a city-run designation framework.

The ordinance is even more specific about who may start the process. Under § 151.037, nominations for inclusion on the local register are made to the Sioux Falls Board of Historic Preservation on a form prepared by the board, and they may be submitted not only by the owner or the City Council, but also by a board member or “any other person or organization.” That language matters. It means a local nomination is not limited to state officials, and it is not limited to property owners alone. The city code itself contemplates that outside organizations can initiate a local-register nomination.

The next steps are also local. Section 151.038 requires the board to notify owners of property nominated to the local register at least 14 days before the hearing and requires published notice in the city’s official newspaper. Section 151.039 says the board must adopt a resolution recommending whether the property does or does not meet the designation criteria, and § 151.040 requires that determination to be mailed to the owner and, if the board finds the criteria are met, forwarded to the City Council for official designation by ordinance. Finally, § 151.042 says the City Council shall either reject the recommendation or designate the property on the local register by ordinance within 60 days after receiving the board’s resolution or an owner appeal. That is a city-level designation process, spelled out step by step in the municipal code.

State law points in the same direction. South Dakota Codified Laws chapter 1-19B authorizes municipalities to create historic-preservation commissions and to act locally. SDCL 1-19B-2 says a municipality may establish a historic preservation commission. SDCL 1-19B-20 says a local governing body may adopt an ordinance designating one or more historic properties. SDCL 1-19B-53 says local governments may impose regulations or restrictions for the protection, enhancement, preservation, and use of historic properties. Those state statutes are enabling laws for local action, not barriers to it.

What the city appears to be referencing instead is a different legal authority: the review of work affecting properties already on the state or national register. SDCL 1-19B-62 allows a municipality to require review of undertakings that may encroach on, damage, or destroy property already included on the state or national register. That is important authority, but it is not the same thing as local designation. Sioux Falls’ own board application page reflects that alteration-review role, stating that certain structural projects on historic properties and in historic districts must be reviewed by the Board of Historic Preservation. But that project-review authority exists alongside — not in place of — the city’s separate local-register process in Chapter 151.

The city’s own records also show that a local register exists in practice, not just on paper. § 151.048 lists 18 properties, districts, parks, and sites that have been reviewed by the board, reported to the City Council, and placed on the register of historic places. Meanwhile, the South Dakota State Register of Historic Places master list, last updated in December 2024, shows a smaller set of Sioux Falls entries in Minnehaha County. That gap is exactly what you would expect if local designation and state designation are separate legal categories rather than one automatic, lockstep process. The National Park Service says the same thing plainly: National Register listing does not automatically invoke local landmark designation, which means local governments retain their own preservation systems.

Put simply, the contradiction is hard to ignore. The city code appears to establish a local designation process, yet the city’s initial response suggested that Sioux Falls does not do historic designations at the city level at all. That discrepancy is not a technical footnote. It is the central issue.

Our outreach to the state also fits the published process. The South Dakota Historical Society says its preservation office works on nominations to the State and National Register of Historic Places, and its National Register guidance says anyone can nominate a property by starting with the State Historic Preservation Office. The National Park Service likewise says nominations can come from property owners, historical societies, preservation organizations, governmental agencies, and other individuals or groups. At the same time, the National Park Service confirms that owners have an opportunity to object, and that if an individual owner objects, the property cannot be listed in the National Register, though it may still move forward for a determination of eligibility. So the state specialist’s comment that owner support is preferred was not unusual; it reflects a real part of the state and federal nomination landscape.

None of this means 508 S. First Ave. is guaranteed to be designated. Eligibility still has to be evaluated, the board still has to act, and the City Council still has to make a decision. But it does mean the public deserves an accurate description of the process. Sioux Falls’ own code says the city has a local register, says nominations may be filed by organizations like ours, and says the Board of Historic Preservation and City Council each have defined roles in deciding whether a property should be added. Our filing did not invent a process. It used one the city already wrote into law.

This is also only the beginning. In the next phase of our reporting, we will examine how city and state officials responded after the filing, what standards were cited to us, and whether those standards appear in the governing law at all. That question extends beyond a single building. If written preservation rules can be narrowed, expanded, or informally rewritten depending on the property in front of officials, then the issue is not just historic designation. It is whether the public can rely on the law as written.

“El Mencho” was the nickname of Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, a Mexican cartel boss best known as the founder and top leader of the Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), one of Mexico’s most powerful and violent criminal organizations.

He was killed in an attempted capture by the Mexican Army, which has led to widespread retaliatory violence — largely “narco-blockades” and arson. Reporting indicates over 200 blockades nationwide in Mexico as of February 22nd, 2026, and numerous deaths of security personnel and cartel members.

What U.S. warnings actually tell us about the operation that reportedly killed El Mencho

On Feb 22, 2026, the language coming out of the U.S. Mission in Mexico was a straightforward, “Shelter in place.”

As Mexico’s security forces reportedly killed Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, known as El Mencho, during an operation in Jalisco, the U.S. alerts spread outward across a surprising geography. The map was the story. Not because it proves who pulled the trigger, but because it shows how quickly officials believed instability could infect civilians areas.

What follows is a timeline tied to what can be verified, separated from what is still rumor dressed up as certainty.

What we can verify and what we cannot

The most important sourcing detail is also the most annoying one. The official U.S. Mission Mexico security alert page existed and was referenced widely, but the page itself was intermittently inaccessible during retrieval in the source gathering used for this write-up. That means the precise posted-at timestamps cannot be quoted directly here from the primary page.

What we can verify with high confidence is the scope and sequence of the warnings because multiple reputable outlets summarized the alert language and listed the affected locations, including the reporting that described a morning alert followed by an expanded afternoon update in the same day.

After speaking with someone I know personally — my Electric Forest camping neighbor from 2019 — I was told their mother-in-law is currently in Mexico. They said that roughly an hour heading out from Puerto Vallarta, in the town of La Manzanilla, roads are closed. She was told by a tour guide to stay in the hotel and not come out.

Timeline of the shelter in place alerts on Feb 22, 2026

Mexico uses local time, and the reporting generally describes the alerts as morning and afternoon rather than giving minute-by-minute timestamps.

A U.S. Embassy security alert summarized by the San Francisco Chronicle directed U.S. citizens in multiple states to shelter in place due to ongoing security operations and related road blockages and criminal activity.

Locations named in the morning scope, as described in that reporting, include: Puerto Vallarta, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Tamaulipas, Guerrero, Nuevo León, and Parts of Michoacán as of the afternoon of Feb 22.

The same day, the alert was expanded, according to the San Francisco Chronicle’s reporting on the afternoon update. The expansion matters because it reaches beyond the immediate footprint of Jalisco and into major tourist corridors.

Locations added or emphasized in the afternoon expansion include: Baja California, Quintana Roo, including Cancún, Cozumel, Playa del Carmen, and Tulum, Areas of Guanajuato, and Areas of Oaxaca.

U.S. government personnel guidance the same day reporting also notes that U.S. government personnel in impacted zones such as Tijuana were directed to shelter in place, a sign the posture wasn’t only about tourists but also about operational risk to U.S. staff. The clearest single summary of that posture in the source set comes from the same San Francisco Chronicle report.

How the alerts correlate with the reported Jalisco operation

The central event was the reported death of El Mencho during an operation in Tapalpa, Jalisco, described as a capture attempt that ended in lethal force. The Associated Press report on the operation and the death is one of the most straightforward, high-credibility accounts in the available reporting.

What happened next is the part that makes the U.S. alert map make sense. Multiple outlets describe a wave of retaliatory violence that included road blockages and vehicles set on fire, the sort of disruption that can leap from one state to another like sparks in dry grass. The Financial Times report on the nationwide violence after the reported killing captures that wider shockwave, and the Associated Press coverage aligns with the same pattern.

This is the core correlation
a high-profile strike in Jalisco, followed by multi-state instability consistent with the embassy’s stated reasons for warning people to shelter in place.

What the geographic spread suggests and what it does not

This is where people get sloppy, because humans love a thriller.

A shelter in place alert is not a fingerprint on a weapon. It is a risk bulletin. When the U.S. expands warnings into places like Quintana Roo, it does not automatically mean the triggering event happened there. It means officials believe conditions could deteriorate there, and that Americans there are exposed in a way that’s worth a public instruction.

The expansion to areas such as Cancún and Tulum can be read as a conservative protective move toward high-density U.S. traveler hubs, especially when uncertainty is high and rumors travel faster than confirmation. The People summary of the shelter in place warnings also frames the alerts through the lens of traveler safety rather than operational attribution.

Extent of U.S. involvement

The extent of U.S. involvement, per credible sources, suggests it amounted to intelligence support and coordination, not direct kinetic action.

The Associated Press reporting describes the operation as supported by U.S. intelligence, which is consistent with how bilateral security cooperation often appears in public record.

The Guardian’s account of the reported killing and its framing also describes U.S. involvement in terms of intelligence support.

So far, there is no credible information showing direct U.S. military action on Mexican soil.

None of the high-credibility sources referenced here substantiate claims that U.S. troops carried out the raid, that U.S. aircraft conducted a strike, or that the operation was executed as a direct U.S. military action.

If you see those claims circulating, treat them the way you treat a fireworks stand selling gourmet vegetables.

Why this day matters beyond the news cycle

Cartels do not evaporate when leaders die. They mutate, they fracture, they retaliate, and they recruit new myths. The CJNG has built a reputation for rapid, spectacular disruption, and the pattern of roadblocks and arson described in major reporting fits that institutional muscle memory.

The U.S. alerts matter because they show how quickly officials believed the ripple could spread. They also show something else, quietly. The border is not a line. It’s a shared weather system. When one pressure front slams into Jalisco, the barometer moves in Cancún, in Tijuana, in the routines of ordinary people trying to get home before dark.

That’s what the warnings tell us. Not who fired. Not who planned. Not what the internet wants to believe.

They tell us where the risk was expected to run.

In this footage, you can see Good’s wife filming and smack talking the agent, claiming she is a veteran. As the agent makes his way around the vehicle, seemingly trying to get a 360° view of the car for documentation purposes, another agent approaches the vehicle demanding she exit. Good’s wife then attempts to re-enter the vehicle, which is the moment Good put the vehicle in reverse.

Moments later, Good starts accelerating and seems to come into contact with the agent, who then fired the fatal rounds — one into her windshield, and two through the open driver side window — ultimately killing her.

By the time Jeffrey Epstein was arrested again in July 2019, the justice system had already failed its first test.

Palm Beach police had done their jobs. Federal agents had opened a trafficking case. Prosecutors had drafted an indictment. And then the Department of Justice cut a secret non‑prosecution agreement that let Epstein plead to minor state charges, kept his “potential co‑conspirators” off the books, and violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by hiding the deal from the girls who were supposed to be protected by it.

For more than a decade, that decision worked. Epstein did his 13 months of Florida “work release,” went back to his mansions and planes, and, according to multiple victim accounts and later lawsuits, kept abusing girls in other locations.

What finally broke the spell wasn’t some sudden moral awakening inside the DOJ. It was a combination of:

• Survivors and their lawyers refusing to go away

• The Miami Herald detonating the Florida cover‑up on A1

• A political climate that was finally punishing institutions for looking the other way on powerful men’s abuse

That’s how you get to Part 2. The 2019 SDNY indictment, Epstein’s death inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), and a long, bipartisan pattern of talking big about accountability while doing very little to expose the full paper trail.

From “Perversion of Justice” to a new indictment

In late 2018, the Herald’s “Perversion of Justice” series did what internal oversight and congressional letters had failed to do. It made the Florida deal a national scandal.

By naming survivors, publishing documents, and walking through the non‑prosecution agreement in plain English, the series:

• Validated what victims and their lawyers had been saying for years about being cut out of the process

• Embarrassed the DOJ and the federal courts

• Put political pressure on everyone who had quietly accepted “that’s just how it worked” in 2008

Federal prosecutors outside Florida were paying attention.

SDNY steps in

On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment charging Epstein with:

• One count of sex trafficking of minors

• One count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors

The indictment alleged that:

• Beginning “in at least 2002” and continuing through 2005, Epstein enticed and recruited “dozens” of minor girls, some as young as 14, to engage in sex acts with him at his Manhattan townhouse and Palm Beach residence

• He paid them cash — typically hundreds of dollars — and in many cases asked them to recruit additional girls, creating a pyramid of “victim‑recruiters” that expanded his access to more minors

On July 8, 2019, SDNY unsealed the charges publicly and announced Epstein’s arrest. Their official case page is blunt. This was not a one‑off vice bust, it was a trafficking conspiracy.

At his bail hearing, prosecutors argued Epstein was an extreme flight risk with a history of manipulating processes and people, including law enforcement. The judge agreed. Epstein was ordered held pending trial at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

The Florida slap‑on‑the‑wrist era was over.

Until MCC reminded everyone that the system can fail in more than one way.

Maxwell moves from the background to the dock

While this part of the series is about Epstein himself, you can’t understand the second case without Ghislaine Maxwell.

The 2019 indictment described a recruiting structure: girls bringing in other girls, cash payments, coordinated travel. It didn’t name Maxwell, but it set up the architecture of the later case against her.

In 2020, federal prosecutors in SDNY charged Maxwell with multiple counts related to:

• Recruiting, grooming, and transporting minors

• Conspiring with Epstein to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts

• Perjury in earlier civil proceedings

In December 2021, a jury convicted Maxwell on five federal counts, including conspiracy to transport minors for criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor.

In June 2022, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison by Judge Alison Nathan. The Justice Department described her, accurately, as having “played a critical role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls” by Epstein over the course of a decade.

Maxwell has appealed and lost at multiple levels. The Supreme Court recently declined to overturn her conviction. Barring extraordinarily unlikely relief, she is in for the long haul.

That conviction is important for two reasons:

1. It legally confirms a conspiracy, not just a lone predator

2. It gives the DOJ and the courts a second set of case files — grand jury transcripts, discovery, internal memos — that the Epstein Files Act now points directly at

But before we get to the paperwork, we have to look at what happened inside MCC.

Inside MCC: what we actually know about his death

On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell in the Special Housing Unit at MCC. The New York City medical examiner ruled his death a suicide by hanging.

That’s the line most people know. The details underneath it are uglier.

Timeline in custody

According to the Justice Department’s Inspector General (OIG), which released a detailed report in 2023, the basic timeline from arrest to death looks like this:

• July 6–8, 2019: Epstein is arrested and brought into federal custody. He’s eventually assigned to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at MCC because of his profile

• July 23, 2019: Epstein is found on the floor of his cell with marks on his neck. There is a dispute about whether this was a suicide attempt or an assault by a cellmate, but everyone agrees it was a red‑flag event

• Late July: Epstein is placed on suicide watch for several days, then downgraded back to the SHU after clinicians determine he no longer meets the criteria

• August 9–10, 2019: Epstein is left alone in his cell overnight, contrary to policy. The two officers assigned to his range fail to make required checks and later falsify logs saying they had. Cameras in parts of the unit are mis‑positioned or not working properly. Epstein is found dead in the early hours of August 10

This is the part of the story where the meme “Epstein didn’t kill himself” takes over. But if you actually read the OIG report — yes, it’s long. No, it’s not fun — you end up with something less cinematic and more infuriating:

A combination of negligence, misconduct, and basic job failures gave Epstein “the opportunity to take his own life,” in the Inspector General’s words.

The documented failures

OIG and press coverage document a list of failures that would get any warden fired even if their most notorious inmate weren’t dead.

Understaffing and overtime:

• Chronic staffing shortages left the unit undermanned

• Officers were working extensive overtime and sleeping on the job

Policy violations:

• Required 30‑minute rounds to check on SHU inmates simply did not happen

• Two officers on Epstein’s unit later admitted to falsifying log entries to make it look like they had done the rounds. They were charged and entered into deferred prosecution agreements

Cellmate and placement decisions:

• Epstein had been removed from suicide watch and returned to the SHU

• Policies calling for a cellmate for high‑risk inmates were not consistently followed. At the time of his death, he was alone

Security systems:

• Cameras in parts of the unit had problems — whether positioning, malfunction, or both

• Video coverage was incomplete or unreliable precisely where you would want it to be bulletproof

When you stack that up, the picture is less “perfect murder” and more “the Bureau of Prisons is a mess, and a uniquely high‑profile detainee happened to be inside that mess when he decided he’d rather die than stand trial.”

That doesn’t make it acceptable. It just makes the failure less mysterious and more structural.

Suicide, homicide, and the conspiracy gap

The fact‑pattern is bad enough that you don’t need a conspiracy to be outraged. But we’re living in a country where no one trusts institutions, especially not on anything involving power, sex, and blackmail.

So it’s worth being very clear about what the official investigations actually say, and what they don’t.

What the official findings say

• The New York City medical examiner ruled Epstein’s death a suicide by hanging

• The FBI investigated and “determined there was no criminality pertaining to how Epstein had died,” according to the OIG report

• The OIG concluded that “numerous and serious failures” by MCC staff — negligence, misconduct, policy violations — gave him the chance to kill himself, but did not find evidence that anyone murdered him

That’s the official record.

Why people don’t buy it

A few reasons, some rational, some not…

Epstein wasn’t a random fraudster. He was a man with deep ties to powerful people on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea that he conveniently died before trial is tailor‑made for suspicion.

Being taken off suicide watch, left alone, guards sleeping, cameras malfunctioning — if you were trying to write a plausible scenario for “if someone wanted him gone, this is how it would go,” it would look a lot like what actually happened.

The DOJ took years to release the full OIG report, dribbled out details through leaks and press conferences, and has historically fought broad disclosure in the case, which does nothing to build confidence.

Add to that the fact that Epstein’s brother hired a pathologist who publicly questioned the suicide ruling based on certain bone fractures, and you get a perfect cloud of “maybe” that never quite resolves into evidence. (That pathologist’s view has not been adopted by any official body.)

Where I land

Given that…

• The OIG’s documentation of serious systemic failures

• The medical examiner’s ruling

• The absence of any credible, evidence‑backed alternative explanation after years of scrutiny

the honest place to sit is:

• FACT: Official investigations conclude Epstein died by suicide, enabled by gross mismanagement and misconduct at MCC

• FACT: The conditions and decisions surrounding his death were so bad they naturally fuel distrust and conspiracy

• ALLEGATION/SPECULATION: Claims that he was murdered by or on behalf of specific people remain unproven. No evidence strong enough to survive serious scrutiny has surfaced yet

If the coming document releases change that, we update. But we don’t pretend we’re already in on the secret.

Trump’s Justice Department: outrage, an investigation, and a narrow lens

Epstein’s death happened under Donald Trump’s first term, with Attorney General Bill Barr overseeing the Justice Department.

The response was loud, but limited.

Trump’s reaction

Within days of Epstein’s death, Trump retweeted a post pushing a conspiracy theory that former President Bill Clinton was somehow involved in Epstein’s death, without evidence. When questioned, he defended the retweet and said he wanted a “full investigation” into what happened at MCC.

This is how Trump tends to use scandals: suggest your opponents might be guilty of something terrible, then position yourself as the guy who just wants answers.

Barr’s promises

Barr publicly called Epstein’s death a “perfect storm of screw‑ups” and vowed to get to the bottom of it. He:

• Ordered the OIG investigation that produced the 2023 report

• Had the DOJ pursue charges against the guards who falsified logs

• Repeatedly emphasized that there would be accountability for MCC’s failures

On that narrow question — what happened in the jail — Trump’s DOJ ultimately did what it said it would: it investigated, documented the failures, and disciplined some of the responsible staff.

What it didn’t do is just as important:

• There was no broad directive to declassify or release the federal investigative file on Epstein

• There was no push to unseal everything from the Florida NPA to the SDNY investigation and Maxwell‑related materials

• FOIA requests and congressional inquiries about Epstein’s broader network and the DOJ’s decision‑making were handled the way sensitive cases are usually handled. Slowly, narrowly, and with heavy redactions

Trump’s political use of Epstein — especially his attempts to pin the entire saga on Democrats and the Clintons — never turned into a structural transparency push while he actually controlled the Justice Department.

It stayed a talking point.

Biden’s Justice Department: a successful prosecution and a cautious shade of sunlight

If you listen to Trump and some Republican leadership now, you’d think Democrats spent the entire Biden term doing everything possible to bury the Epstein story.

Reality is more complicated (and less flattering to anyone).

What Democrats did before and after 2019

A PolitiFact review of Democrats’ record on Epstein transparency, backed by original documents, shows that:

• Before 2019, some Democrats in Congress pushed the DOJ to investigate the Florida plea deal, release records, and call Alex Acosta (then Trump’s Labor Secretary) to testify

• After the Herald series, they pressed for OPR findings, supported CVRA litigation, and asked a Florida judge to unseal more materials

• That pressure helped set the table for SDNY’s 2019 case and for Acosta’s eventual resignation

So it’s not true that Democrats “never cared” until 2025. They did act — imperfectly, unevenly, but measurably.

Biden DOJ: Maxwell conviction vs. file access

Under President Joe Biden, the Justice Department:

• Successfully prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell, secured a conviction on five federal counts, and obtained a 20‑year sentence

• Continued to defend the Florida NPA in court, arguing about remedies long after Epstein’s death

• Often cited the ongoing Maxwell prosecution — and later, related investigations — as reasons not to release certain records or to delay oversight activity

Politifact and other fact‑checks note a pattern familiar to anyone who’s watched the DOJ for more than five minutes. When there is an active high‑profile case, the Department leans hard on “we can’t talk about that, it might prejudice the trial” as a shield against broader transparency.

That argument is not always wrong. You genuinely can’t dump certain discovery materials onto the internet while you’re trying to pick a jury.

But there’s a difference between protecting a specific prosecution and using that as a blanket excuse not to talk about your own past failure.

On that front, Biden’s DOJ:

• Did not move aggressively to declassify internal files about the 2008 plea deal

• Did not champion a dedicated Epstein records law

• Largely left the initiative on transparency to members of Congress like Ro Khanna, survivors, and outside watchdogs

In other words, they were better than the meme (“Democrats did nothing”), but nowhere near as aggressive as they could have been. Once Maxwell was convicted, you might have expected a louder push from a Democratic administration that likes to brand itself as pro‑victim and pro‑accountability.

Instead, most of the energy came from the legislative branch.

The long, slow walk to the Epstein Files Act

By the time we get to 2025, what you see is a bipartisan record that looks something like this…

Republicans:

• Used Epstein as a political cudgel (especially against the Clintons and other Democrats)

• Oversaw the jail where he died and produced a solid, if narrow, OIG report on that death

• But did not, under Trump’s first term, push for a comprehensive records release

Democrats:

• Pushed for investigations into the Florida plea

• Demanded Acosta’s testimony and DOJ internal reviews

• Prosecuted Maxwell successfully under Biden

• But mostly accepted DOJ’s cautious posture on releasing broader files

Neither side was eager to force the issue of exposing everyone in the wider network — elite donors, business leaders, academics, government officials — whose names and roles might show up in the investigative files.

That pressure had to come from somewhere else.

It came from:

• Survivors who spent years reliving trauma in depositions and interviews

• An online public that refused to let the story go, even when the discourse got messy and conspiratorial

• An unlikely partnership between Rep. Ro Khanna (a progressive Democrat) and Rep. Thomas Massie (a libertarian‑leaning Republican) who put an Epstein records bill on the table and refused to shut up about it

When House leadership — Republican and Democrat — dragged its feet, Khanna and Massie used a discharge petition to force a floor vote. The result was a 427-1 House vote and unanimous consent in the Senate for what became the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump eventually signed after fighting it for months and calling the Epstein focus a “hoax” and a distraction.

That story — the law itself, what it actually requires the DOJ to publish, what exceptions it leaves, and how Attorney General Pam Bondi is already maneuvering — is Part 3.

For now, the key point is this…

It should not have taken two presidencies, a botched jail detention, a dead defendant, a convicted co‑conspirator, a $290 million bank settlement, an army of survivors, and an internet full of people screaming “release the files” to get Congress to say, “maybe we should see our own paperwork.”

But it did.

What we know now — and what we don’t

If you strip away the memes and the partisan spin, this is where the factual line sits at the end of Part 2:

• Epstein’s second indictment (SDNY, 2019) confirmed in formal charges what Palm Beach investigators had already seen: a trafficking operation that used underage girls as both victims and recruiters across New York and Florida from at least 2002 to 2005

• Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction and 20‑year sentence legally established that Epstein didn’t do this alone, and that at least one member of his inner circle has now been held criminally responsible

• Epstein’s death in MCC was, according to every official investigation we have, a suicide enabled by gross negligence and misconduct by BOP staff and leadership — not a proven homicide

• Both Trump’s DOJ and Biden’s DOJ did pieces of the job — one investigated the death, the other prosecuted Maxwell — but neither was eager to open the full investigatory record to the public without being forced

• It took congressional hardball and public pressure to get a law on the books that finally says, in writing, that embarrassment and reputational harm are not valid reasons to hide public records in a case like this

What we still don’t know, even after the OIG report and the Maxwell trial:

• The full extent of who inside government and law enforcement knew what, and when, in the years between the Florida deal and the 2019 indictment

• How many people — especially in institutions like banks, universities, and foundations — had enough information to know something was deeply wrong and chose to look away anyway

• Whether the files will reveal any currently unknown crimes or just an uncomfortable level of proximity and complicity from people whose public brands depend on not being anywhere near any of this

That’s where the Epstein Files Transparency Act comes in. It’s not a magic wand. It’s a legal crowbar. And in Part 3, we’re going to pry.

We’ll walk through:

• What the law actually forces DOJ to release (and by when)

• What categories of information can still be withheld or blacked out

• What’s already starting to surface in the first wave of court fights and document dumps

• Who, if anyone, has faced real consequences since Congress finally decided to stop pretending this was just one man’s crime

Because if this system can bend itself around Jeffrey Epstein twice, the only real test of the new law is whether it can stand up, finally, to the people who helped him.

Together with the sources in Part 1, this set of documents and straight‑news reporting gives us enough to distinguish what’s fact, what’s allegation, and what’s still guesswork in the second half of Epstein’s story. Part 3 will lean heavily on the text of the Epstein Files Act, early release fights, and newly exposed correspondence to see who, if anyone, is finally losing the protection the system gave them for decades.

Citations

I’m focusing here on straight‑news and primary‑document sources for the second arrest, the MCC death, and the partisan transparency record.

1. SDNY 2019 indictment and case materials

   • U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, case page for United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), summarizing the July 8, 2019 charges for sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy. Department of Justice

   • Federal court order summarizing the indictment and arrest timeline. U.S District Court

   • Fact checks and copies of the 2019 indictment describing charges, timeframe (2002–2005), and the “victim‑recruiter” structure in New York and Florida. Factually

2. Ghislaine Maxwell conviction and sentence

   • DOJ press release: “Ghislaine Maxwell Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to Sexually Abuse Minors,” U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY. Department of Justice

   • Fact checks summarizing her 2021 conviction on five counts and the 20‑year sentence imposed in June 2022. Factually

   • Coverage of her appeals and the Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn the conviction. Factually

3. Epstein’s death and the OIG report on MCC

   • DOJ Office of Inspector General report (2023) on Epstein’s custody and death at MCC, detailing staffing shortages, falsified logs, cellmate issues, and camera problems. DOJ OIG+2Factually

   • NPR reporting on the OIG findings and the conclusion that negligence and job failures contributed to Epstein’s suicide. NPR Illinois

   • New York City medical examiner’s suicide determination as referenced in coverage of the OIG report. NPR Illinois

4. Trump’s and Barr’s responses to Epstein’s death

   • Fact checks detailing Trump’s retweet of a Clinton‑focused conspiracy theory and his subsequent call for a “full investigation.” Factually

   • Reporting and commentary on Barr’s description of a “perfect storm of screw‑ups,” his ordering of the OIG investigation, and his deposition comments that Trump was shocked by Epstein’s suicide. DOJ OIG

5. Democrats, Biden DOJ, and transparency record

   • PolitiFact: “Have Democrats always been interested in Epstein case transparency? We looked back,” tracing Democratic letters and efforts to scrutinize the Florida plea and push DOJ for records. PolitiFact

   • Press release from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz summarizing Democratic actions, including calls for Acosta to testify, DOJ investigations, and requests to Florida courts to release records. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

   • Fact checks and explainer pieces from outlets like Al Jazeera on whether Democrats acted during the Biden years on Epstein transparency or left most of the initiative to Congress members like Khanna and Massie. Al Jazeera

6. Epstein Files Transparency Act and bipartisan dynamics (for the setup to Part 3)

   • AP: Trump’s November 2025 signing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the 427–1 House vote, unanimous Senate consent, and the law’s requirement that DOJ release unclassified files within 30 days with limited redactions. AP News

   • Guardian and Politico coverage of Republicans warning AG Pam Bondi not to bury the files and DOJ’s renewed effort to unseal Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials under the new law. The Guardian

7. Financial institutions, settlements, and broader context

   • Reporting on JPMorgan Chase’s roughly $290 million settlement with Epstein victims for allegedly enabling his abuse by ignoring red flags while profiting from his business. Mediaite

Despite a rough and unsuccessful attempt to get both and I added to the livestream, I streamed for just shy of two hours last night to go through the House Dem’s release of photos and video from Epstein’s Island.

House Dem’s also claimed to have bank records from JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank. They added that they’ve sent requests and are waiting for more records from 20 additional banks.

Earlier in the night, while doing some research to prep for the stream, I discovered that many of the photos included in the release weren’t as “new” as the media and House Dem’s were claiming.

O'Keefe Media Group (OMG) had published photos back in May, 2025, including many of the same rooms, areas, and personal belongings that were being touted as “never-before-seen”. OMG has requested a “full retraction” of the that claim.

I checked this morning to see if any outlets made corrections to state that James released them prior. As of 10:00 a.m., some did, and some did not.

Who did:

• CBS

• ABC

Who did not:

• USA Today

• The Independent

• The Guardian

• Axios

• PBS

• Time

Thank you , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

And here is a small collection of images from the Dropbox release for you to check out. I’ll put a link to the full collection at the bottom of the photos section.

Some photos released by House Democrats

You can click this LINK to access the Dropbox yourself, if you’d like to view all 200+ images/videos.

Get more from Jeremy Mercier in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

In November 2025, the Epstein Files Transparency Act passed the House 427–1 and the Senate by unanimous consent. Days later, Donald Trump signed it — after fighting it for months — and ordered the Justice Department to cough up all unclassified Epstein records within 30 days, with only narrow carve‑outs for active investigations and victim privacy.

So what happened in this case that finally forced Congress to demand sunlight, and why didn’t they do it the first time?

You don’t get to the Epstein Files law in 2025 without understanding what the system already knew by 2008 and chose to bury. This first part is about that decision: the timeline of abuse, the Palm Beach case, the non‑prosecution agreement (NPA), and the roles that prosecutors, institutions, and social gatekeepers played in helping Jeffrey Epstein walk away.

Not because of a clever technicality.

Because they decided to let him.

He didn’t come out of nowhere

If you only know Epstein from the island memes and the 2019 arrest, the story looks like this: mysterious financier appears, runs a trafficking operation, gets caught, dies in federal custody, conspiracy theories forever.

Reality is a lot more boring — and worse.

A pattern going back at least to the 1990s

By the time Palm Beach police ever heard his name, there was already a decade‑long pattern in motion.

In the 1990s, women like Maria Farmer later described being abused or witnessing abuse linked to Epstein and his circle in New York and other locations. Those accounts eventually surfaced in court filings and reporting, but they didn’t trigger a serious law‑enforcement response at the time.

According to a later timeline reconstructed from investigations and court records, Epstein’s pattern was already set:

• A wealthy older man with no obvious, legitimate explanation for his wealth

• A rotating group of young women and girls, many recruited by other girls with the promise of cash

• A stable of properties where he could isolate victims

The properties as crime scenes

The core of Epstein’s real-estate footprint is not a mystery. It’s in court filings and estate documents:

• A waterfront mansion in Palm Beach, Florida

• A massive townhouse on East 71st Street in Manhattan

• “Zorro Ranch” in New Mexico

• A Paris apartment

• Two private islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including Little St. James, which locals had already nicknamed “Pedophile Island” long before the rest of the world caught up

Victims and witnesses consistently place abuse in all of these locations. Some of that only became public during the Maxwell trial and later civil cases. But the core pattern — and the Palm Beach house in particular — was sitting in front of law enforcement by 2005.

Palm Beach: the case that should have ended him

The modern paper trail really starts in Palm Beach, Florida.

The 2005 complaint

In March 2005, the parents of a 14‑year‑old girl reported to Palm Beach police that Epstein had sexually abused their daughter at his mansion during what was supposed to be a “massage.”

Palm Beach PD opened an investigation. Over the next year:

• Detectives identified dozens of potential underage victims, many telling similar stories of being recruited by another girl, brought to the mansion, and paid cash for escalating sexual contact

• They built a case that looked a lot less like “one bad incident” and a lot more like a structured system — recruitment, payment, repeat visits, referrals

The state’s first response: undercharging the pattern

Despite the volume of evidence, the Palm Beach County state attorney’s office presented only a narrow case to a grand jury in 2006. The result was a single state charge: solicitation of prostitution.

Police were furious. They believed they had built a case with multiple underage victims and a clear pattern of exploitation. Instead, they saw a powerful defendant get treated like a run-of-the-mill vice bust.

So they did something rare. They pushed upward, urging federal authorities to step in.

By July 2006, the FBI had opened a broader federal investigation looking not just at Palm Beach, but at other locations where the same pattern might be playing out.

For a brief moment, it looked like Epstein might actually face the kind of federal sex‑crimes case that ruins powerful men for real.

That’s not what happened.

The non‑prosecution agreement: the most important document in the story

If there is a single piece of paper that explains why we’re still talking about Epstein in 2025, it’s the federal non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) negotiated in 2007–2008.

This is the “sweetheart deal.” And it’s worse than the meme version.

What the plea “deal” actually did

According to the Justice Department’s own Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and multiple independent reviews, here’s the structure:

Epstein would plead guilty in Florida state court to two prostitution‑related charges:

• Felony solicitation of prostitution

• Procuring a person under 18 for prostitution

In return, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida would:

• Decline to bring federal charges in an already‑developed sex‑trafficking case

• Grant immunity to “any potential co‑conspirators” identified in the investigation

• Seal the agreement and never tell the victims it existed

Epstein then:

• Received an 18‑month county jail sentence (he served about 13 months)

• Was given extensive work‑release, leaving jail for up to 12 hours a day, six days a week, supposedly to work at an office

• Registered as a sex offender, but kept his mansions, his social life, and his network

That’s not a normal outcome in a case where law enforcement has identified dozens of potential minor victims.

Who signed off — and how DOJ judged itself

OPR was eventually forced to look at its own house. In a 2020 report, it concluded:

• Then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta had full authority to approve the NPA

• Federal prosecutors in his office negotiated and executed the deal

• The decision to resolve the case this way reflected “poor judgment”, especially in failing to notify victims

• OPR did not find provable “professional misconduct” or direct improper influence tied to Epstein’s wealth or connections

In plain language: “Yes, this was awful. No, we’re not calling it a violation of our own rules.”

The important part is less the internal label and more the facts OPR confirms:

• There was an active federal investigation

• Prosecutors had drafted a federal indictment

• They chose to shut it down with an agreement that immunized unnamed co‑conspirators and kept victims in the dark

That’s not a technicality. That’s a policy choice.

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act: the victims sue their own government

The decision to hide the deal from victims didn’t just look bad. It was illegal.

The CVRA case

Represented by lawyers like Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, several victims sued the government under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that federal prosecutors had violated their rights by secretly cutting the deal.

The CVRA isn’t a suggestion, it promises basic things like:

• The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of court proceedings

• The right to confer with prosecutors

• The right to be treated with fairness and respect

In February 2019, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra agreed with them: federal prosecutors violated victims’ rights by structuring and executing the NPA in secret.

He called out:

• The secrecy of the negotiations

• The failure to notify victims as required by law

• The way the deal effectively shut down the federal case while victims were led to believe it was still active

Then — and this part is important — the courts wrestled with what remedy the law actually allows. Victims ultimately didn’t get the NPA voided retroactively. Epstein was already dead by then, and the procedural mess is its own saga.

But the core finding stands. The DOJ broke its own victims’ rights law to protect this deal.

That’s the kind of failure that usually leads to hearings and reforms.

In Epstein’s case, it took more than a decade and a front‑page investigation to get even that much.

Enablers and gatekeepers: the ecosystem around Epstein

The obvious villains are Epstein and his co‑conspirators. The less obvious villain is the ecosystem that made it possible for his abuse to run for years and for his first case to be defused.

The recruiters and fixers

Victims repeatedly describe being recruited by other young women — often only slightly older than they were — who were themselves paid by Epstein to bring in more girls.

That ecosystem includes:

• Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted in 2021 of multiple counts related to recruiting and trafficking minors for Epstein, now serving a 20‑year sentence

• Other assistants and staff who scheduled “massages,” managed travel, handled cash, and smoothed logistics. Their names appear throughout civil suits and investigative files, even if they never saw the inside of a criminal courtroom

Without that layer, Epstein is just a rich creep. With it, he’s running a pipeline.

The prosecutors and the Department of Justice

The most uncomfortable “enablers” aren’t in his Rolodex. They’re in case captions.

• Local prosecutors in Palm Beach who undercharged the case after police identified a pattern

• Federal prosecutors who negotiated immunity for “any potential co‑conspirators” instead of testing their case in open court

• A Justice Department that needed outside pressure and a media investigation to even admit it had “poor judgment”

When people talk about “elite impunity,” this is what they mean. It’s not a shadowy global cabal. It’s normal institutions choosing to bend the rules for the right defendant and then telling themselves it was a close call.

The money and the social legitimacy

Epstein’s mysterious wealth and connections helped cushion all of this.

For years, he was deeply tied to billionaire Leslie Wexner, serving as Wexner’s money manager, holding power of attorney, and acquiring properties linked to Wexner before Wexner says he cut him off around 2007.

Major institutions — universities, foundations, banks — took his money, his donations, and his introductions. In exchange, he got prestige, access, and people who would vouch for him as a serious philanthropist.

That doesn’t mean every person who went to a dinner at his townhouse knew what he was doing. It does mean he wasn’t some fringe weirdo hiding in a bunker. He was baked into social, financial, and political networks.

And those networks made it easier to see his behavior as a PR problem instead of a criminal one.

Where Trump fits in this first chapter — and where he doesn’t

If you spend any time online, you’ve seen wildly confident claims about Trump and Epstein: that Trump “ran” Epstein, that he was secretly behind the 2008 deal, that he’s on some definitive “client list.”

The record we actually have is a lot narrower — and also not flattering.

The early‑2000s Trump–Epstein overlap

We know, from contemporaneous reporting and more recent fact‑checks, that:

• In 2002, Trump told New York Magazine that Epstein was a “terrific guy” and that they both liked “beautiful women… on the younger side”

• They moved in the same Palm Beach and New York social circles in the late 1990s and early 2000s, showing up together at parties and in photographs

• Trump appears in flight records at least once on an Epstein‑linked plane, on what’s been described as a short hop between Florida and New York

None of that is nothing. It’s a documented social association with a man Trump now insists he “was never a fan” of.

What Trump did not do in 2008

Now the key point for this part of the story: the Florida plea deal and NPA happen in 2007–2008.

Trump is not president. He’s a private citizen with a golf empire and a reality show.

The Justice Department’s OPR report and independent analysis of the NPA don’t show him or his administration anywhere near the decision‑making chain:

• The NPA was negotiated and signed by prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, under U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, with input from Main Justice

• OPR found that Acosta had the authority to make the deal and that, while he exercised “poor judgment,” there wasn’t evidence of outside political pressure dictating the outcome

There’s plenty to say about Trump’s later handling of the Epstein saga — his shifting public statements, his use of the case as a political weapon, his current DOJ’s games around the files. That’s for Part 2 and Part 3.

For this first chapter, the honest summary is:

• FACT: Trump was socially acquainted with Epstein, praised him publicly in 2002, and shared overlapping spaces in Palm Beach and New York

• FACT: There is no evidence Trump had any role in the 2008 plea deal or NPA. Those decisions were made by DOJ and Florida prosecutors

• ALLEGATION: Various civil suits and online claims have tried to tie Trump to specific criminal conduct in Epstein’s orbit, but none has been proven in court

If future document releases change that picture, we adjust. But we don’t backfill the record from memes.

What the system knew by 2008 — and what it chose to do

By the time Epstein walked into the Palm Beach County jail in 2008, here’s what the system already had:

• A 2005 complaint from the parents of a 14‑year‑old

• A local police investigation that found dozens of potential victims and a repeating pattern

• An FBI probe into conduct in Florida and beyond

• A drafted federal indictment for sex crimes that could have carried real time

• A growing awareness inside DOJ that this was not a one‑off vice case, but a serial predator with resources and reach

And then…

Federal prosecutors negotiated a secret agreement that:

• Killed the federal case

• Immunized unnamed “potential co‑conspirators”

• Concealed itself from victims in violation of federal law

Epstein served about a year in conditions most people would describe as lightly supervised work‑release, then went back to his network of properties.

For more than a decade afterward, he continued to move through elite spaces until the Miami Herald’s Perversion of Justice investigation detonated the story in public and forced the federal system to touch it again.

If you wrote that arc as fiction, an editor would tell you it’s too on‑the‑nose.

But this is the part that explains why, in 2025, Congress suddenly pretended to discover a passion for transparency. The Epstein Files law isn’t about a single island or a single dead defendant. It’s a late reaction to the first time the justice system looked at all of this and chose to make it go away.

Part 2 is about what changed when Epstein was finally arrested again in 2019 — and why that second chance ended with another failure, another official story, and another wave of people who don’t believe a word of it.

Citations & Further Reading

(Grouped roughly by topic; not exhaustive, but enough to follow the paper trail.)

Epstein’s abuse, properties, and early investigations

1. Julie K. Brown, “Perversion of Justice” series, Miami Herald. (Miami Herald)

2. “Perversion of Justice: A Miami Herald investigation,” Miami Herald (Dec. 19, 2019). (Miami Herald)

3. “Timeline: Jeffrey Epstein’s federal investigations before 2019,” Factually. (Factually)

4. “What properties were in Jeffrey Epstein’s estate?” Factually. (Factually)

5. “Where is Jeffrey Epstein’s island — Little St. James?” CBS News. (CBS News)

6. “Jeffrey Epstein timeline: How the Palm Beach County case led to 15 more years of sex abuse,” Palm Beach Post / syndication. (Blue Water Healthy Living)

The 2005–2008 Palm Beach case and federal NPA

7. “What was the outcome of the 2005 investigation into Jeffrey Epstein?” Factually. (Factually)

8. “What charges did Jeffrey Epstein face in his 2008 Florida case?” Factually. (Factually)

9. “Key details of Jeffrey Epstein’s 2008 Florida plea deal,” Factually. (Factually)

10. DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility, “Investigation of the USAO-SDFL’s Resolution of Its 2006–2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein” (Nov. 2020). (Department of Justice)

11. Kenneth A. Marra, “Opinion and Order” (Feb. 21, 2019), finding CVRA violations in the secret NPA. Summarized in CBS News and Factually. (CBS News)

Enablers, Wexner, and institutional ties

12. “What evidence ties Leslie Wexner to Jeffrey Epstein before 2019?” Factually. (Factually)

13. Gabriel Sherman, “The Mogul and the Monster: Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s Decades-Long Relationship With His Biggest Client”, Vanity Fair (2021). (Vanity Fair)

Trump and Epstein (pre‑2019)

14. “Fact Check: Did Donald Trump call Jeffrey Epstein a ‘terrific guy’?” Newsweek. (newsweek.com)

15. “What we know about Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” Vox (2025). (Vox)

Epstein Files Transparency Act (for context in the intro)

16. H.R. 4405 – Epstein Files Transparency Act, Congress.gov. (Congress.gov)

17. “Epstein Files Transparency Act,” Wikipedia summary (legislative history and vote counts). (Wikipedia)

18. Michael Balsamo, “Trump signs bill to release Jeffrey Epstein case files after fighting it for months,” Associated Press (Nov. 19, 2025). (AP News)

This op-ed was originally published by Michael Iverson, President of the Committee on Political Education for the IBEW 426 out of Sioux Falls, SD, and member of the Sioux Falls Regional Labor Federation.

Michael Iverson

Politics with a class oriented perspective.

The following polemic is in response to recent conversations regarding data centers and the clamoring drive to build them, ultimately ignoring the massive damage they will cause now and in the future.

Ever since the explosion in popularity of AI, data centers have been on the tip of every corporate executive’s tongue, pushing the incessant need for them and the so-called “good jobs” that they will bring to local economies. Bankrupt Representatives like Dusty Johnson have no problem pushing his agenda forward, saying that South Dakota can do data centers “right”, citing how much money these buildings will bring in property taxes as a boon for South Dakota. But there is a hidden cost that is being paid by the working class in building these behemoths that is intentionally being obscured by the ruling class in its drive towards absolute dominance of not only in implementing AI into every facet of society, but also in the massive increase in surveillance that comes with it.

First, let’s explore the immense impact on the environment and the working-class that these data centers represent. It cannot be understated the sheer amount of power needed to maintain data centers. Americans across the country are pushing back on data centers for many reasons, one of them being that a typical data center consumes enough power for 100,000 houses, some being over 20x that, according to NPR. Not only that, but residents near centers run by Meta cite constant noise, water usage, and skyrocketing electric bills as the consequences of living near them.

Having spoken to fellow electricians and linemen on the matter, some have brought up the fact that data centers often have redundant loops, so they are fed from multiple substations. In the case of an outage, the city might not have power, but the data centers will continue to run unimpeded. Others have cited policies in place that put priority of data centers over even that of hospitals in the event of a partial grid shutdown.

AI and Corporate Dominance

Make no mistake, corporations are not falling over themselves to implement AI into every facet of society with benevolent intentions. Not only are corporations always scraping data to collect on every person across the globe, but many are using that data for surveillance. From flagging visa holders for signs of political dissent online, to being on school devices, to every corner of a city. The use of AI to map a person’s every move gives vibes similar to the 2002 film Minority Report, a movie about individuals harboring psychic abilities able to see a crime before it’s committed in order to arrest the individual.

But on top of surveillance is the more open-faced explanation: companies want access to AI so they can cut down their workforce and raise profit margins. In particular, we’ve seen the video game developing industry hit especially hard with layoffs as companies scramble to implement AI into their tools. Some, like Activision, aren’t even attempting to hide it anymore, as the latest Call of Duty title saw flagrant use of AI for various in-game items. Being a company worth tens of billions of dollars, Activision has more than enough money to pay its developers.

While Hyman Lumer wrote The Promise of Automation and How to Realize It in the 1950s, his analysis of automation can also be applied to the current application of AI.

“Technological improvements, as we have seen, serve to reduce the worker’s share in his product, and thus to widen the gap between production and the market.

Automation, with its tremendous expansion of productivity, threatens to displace workers and to widen the gap between productive capacity and mass purchasing power to a vastly greater degree than ever before. It therefore greatly intensifies the menace of economic crisis. Indeed, the full development of automation, coupled with the successful harnessing of atomic energy, would create prospects of such a degree of unemployment as to be utterly devastating.”

Should AI be implemented in a way that relieves workers of menial labor and improves their livelihood, then the case could be made for its existence. As it stands, AI instead serves to enrich the ruling class at the expense of the working class.

Trade Union Complicity

Amongst all the negatives of data centers and their complete takeover of people’s lives and the electrical grid, trade unions are full steam ahead in their approval. To gain a better understanding of potentially why, we need to look back at the past decades.

During McCarthyism, the AFL-CIO unions launched a campaign of expulsion against militant elements within them. Slowly, unions lost their momentum and their power in favor of making deals with the bosses and labor peace. No-strike clauses were signed, and the rank-and-file were slowly shut out of running their unions in favor of business-friendly leadership that wouldn’t rock the boat. Today, the trade unions push the “top-down organizing” tactic that focuses on organizing contractors as signatories in the union instead of organizing the workers, followed by an election sponsored by the NLRB (that is, if the NLRB can even facilitate such an election, given that they are practically defunct with no quorum).

Every action either increases working-class power or shunts it. In the event of viewing contractors as more of a priority to organize than workers, this ultimately weakens the unions that are meant to be an embryo for working-class power. The implementation of no-strike clauses, leadership that favors labor peace rather than fighting for its rank-and-file, and the overall ideology of business unionism have chipped away at union militancy.

Fast forward to today, in the midst of an economic downturn, and the unions have put themselves in a position of promoting data center work because it is the only booming section of construction. Unions have left themselves in a position, because of their unwillingness to seriously organize the working class, that they are willing to sacrifice people’s health and promote unfettered surveillance if it means getting their members on a jobsite. If unions had maintained their militancy and organizing in the rank-and-file, they would not be in the current predicament they find themselves in.

After I wrote about the House’s 427–1 vote to force the release of the Epstein files, the big open question was whether the Senate would smother it in “concerns” and procedure. The Senate just passed it unanimously, by unanimous consent, with no amendments.

No roll call. No one forced to go on record as a “no.” Chuck Schumer asked for unanimous consent to pass the House’s Epstein Files Transparency Act the moment it arrived. John Thune’s Republicans stayed quiet, and silence in Senate rules is consent. The same bill the House passed 427–1 is now headed, unchanged, to Donald Trump’s desk.

So in less than a day, Congress — the same institution that has slow-walked Epstein transparency for years — suddenly stands virtually unanimous. One recorded “no” in the House, zero in the Senate. That isn’t a moral awakening. It’s raw political math. Blocking this, or even obviously watering it down, had become riskier than letting it through.

Trump has already said he’ll sign the bill. DOJ, in turn, has 30 days to cough up the files — with room to redact for victims and real investigations, but not for “embarrassment” or “political sensitivity.”

Congress has finally put its signature on transparency.

In a town that can’t agree on what day it is, the House of Representatives just did something close to unheard of. It voted 427–1 to force the Department of Justice to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Read that again.

On one of the most radioactive topics in American public life, the political class suddenly discovered near-total consensus. The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed with only a single “no” vote, ordering DOJ to publish its unclassified records on Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — including communications, investigative materials, and references to government officials — with victims protected but “embarrassment” and “political sensitivity” explicitly not accepted as excuses.

That margin matters more than any speech delivered today. When 427 members sign off on cracking open a can of worms that potentially implicates their donors, peers, and allies, it tells you they’re more afraid of us than of each other.

The bill now walks into the Senate’s procedural swamp, where “concerns about victims” and “national security” can still be weaponized to stall, dilute, or bury it. DOJ will get its chance to hide behind “ongoing investigations” and black highlighters.

The almost-unanimous vote isn’t the end of the story, however. It’s just the beginning.

Edit: Added details showing where support for the ban stemmed from — per Axios.

Note from the Editor: As an avid proponent of medicinal and recreational marijuana, I had high hopes (pun intended) that under the Trump administration, we’d see some moves in favor of further legalization and expanded recreational access for the public. During his first term, Trump had made a few pro-hemp moves that led many to believe he’d continue in that direction in his second term.

Lets take a look at that record…

In December 2018, Trump signed the Hemp Farming Act into law, which:

• Removed hemp (≤0.3% delta-9 THC) from the Controlled Substances Act

• Legalized hemp as an ordinary agricultural crop at the federal level

• Opened the door for the huge CBD and hemp-derived products market

Additionally, Trump granted commutations and pardons to a number of people with non-violent drug and cannabis offenses, including at least a handful specifically tied to marijuana.

In Trump’s first term, he commuted 16 people and pardoned 6 individuals for cannabis offenses. However, there are still thousands of people in federal prison for cannabis awaiting relief. Trump has already shown a willingness to use his clemency power, but it is not clear if that will be extended to those with cannabis offenses.

Not all the marijuana related actions Trump took in his first term were pro-cannabis. In 2018, Jeff Sessions rescinded the Cole memo, which removed Obama-era guidance telling prosecutors to mostly leave state-legal marijuana businesses alone.

In the memorandum, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directs all U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities. This return to the rule of law is also a return of trust and local control to federal prosecutors who know where and how to deploy Justice Department resources most effectively to reduce violent crime, stem the tide of the drug crisis, and dismantle criminal gangs.

This action by Trump’s admin left many analysts giving him a “mixed” or “negative” score regarding his stance on cannabis, despite those positive first-term actions.

Where we’re at now — Trump 2.0

Trump had stated in 2025 that he would review whether to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug to Schedule 3, which would significantly ease the federal restrictions and penalties on its use and production. The move to reschedule was initiated under the Biden admin in 2023, and has yet to come to fruition. According to Marijuana Moment, the White House confirmed roughly three months ago that the process is still ongoing. Here are some profound words from the President:

Some people like it. Some people hate it — people hate the whole concept of marijuana, because it does bad for the children [and] it does bad for people that are older than children.

But we’re looking at reclassification, and we’ll make a determination over the next few weeks — and that determination, hopefully, will be the right one.

I’ve heard great things having to do with medical [cannabis], and I’ve heard bad things having to do with just about everything else. But medical, for pain and various things, I’ve heard some pretty good things — but for other things, I’ve heard some pretty bad things.

However, “hidden” within the bill to fund/re-open the government that was passed on November 12th, was language re-criminalizing most consumable hemp-derived THC products.

It mainly targets “intoxicating” hemp-derived products, such as Delta-8, many delta-9 beverages and edibles, THCA products, and other synthetic or chemically converted cannabinoids. It also caps THC in consumable products at about 0.4 mg per serving or container, which would effectively knock almost all current hemp THC drinks and edibles off the market.

Industrial hemp (fiber, grain) and non-intoxicating CBD products with only trace THC are intended to remain legal.

I spoke with an employee of a local Boos Boys liquor store in Sioux Falls, who asked to remain anonymous. When asked how this might impact their business, they responded:

This is going to be a huge hit to our partner’s and our own business, as THC products have become a huge portion of our sales.

Employees at the Downtown Sioux Falls Common Sense location also expressed similar concerns, as sale of these hemp-derived products has been a boon for many local businesses.

The ban is set to go into effect a year from the day the bill was signed into law, so stock up now while you still can.

Who wanted this to happen?

In an article from Axios covering the funding bill, published on November 15th, they gave additional insights into whose been pushing for this move, and who fought against it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) waged a last-minute fight against it, threatening to hold up the bill until he got a vote on an amendment to strip the THC language, but Republicans were largely united on ending the shutdown.

The other side: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) authored the 2018 Farm Bill but has been a leading proponent of closing the THC loophole, arguing that companies have exploited it to create intoxicating substances.

39 state attorneys general signed a letter on Wednesday asking Congress to outlaw intoxicating hemp products at the federal level.

Public health officials have argued that the products’ lack of oversight and regulation pose risks to minors.”

Considering this, it seems unlikely there will be enough momentum coming from any direction to move the needle on the ban before it goes into effect next November.

With Thanksgiving fast approaching, a question on many American’s minds is something like, “How am I supposed to remain civil with my crazy MAGA uncle?” or “How do I avoid cussing out my Trump-deranged mother-in-law?”

These are valid questions. You can’t control what people say, and you definitely can’t control what they believe. And there may not be a clean, easy answer.

But I can tell you what the answer is not.

You shouldn’t exclude family members from the holiday just because of their political views, unless there’s a serious safety or well-being issue. Shutting people out only deepens the divide, eliminates any chance for better understanding, and can even push both them and you further into your own extremes.

I know — that’s a big ask.

“Why should I invite my crazy MAGA uncle when he calls everyone retards and shouts ‘Make America Great Again!’ whenever the idea of feeding hungry people comes up?”

I get it. No one said coexisting with people who seem diametrically opposed to your worldview would be easy.

But it is a sign of maturity when you extend an olive branch to someone you may see as too far gone — a lost cause, even. And remember: this isn’t some stranger you bumped into on a random Thursday morning while debating which overpriced pumpkin latte to waste your money on.

This is family.

They are something — someone — to be grateful for.

Despite their staunch opposition to your perspective, this might be the one thing they’ve been looking forward to all year: the family getting together to celebrate what there is to be thankful for. To celebrate each other’s presence, your lives, and whatever blessings you share.

That’s the space where healing and unity become possible again.

So instead of pre-emptively politicizing what’s supposed to be a time of celebration and togetherness, let it simply be what it’s meant to be.

This op-ed was originally published by , President of the Committee on Political Education for the IBEW 426 out of Sioux Falls, SD, and member of the Sioux Falls Regional Labor Federation.

Michael Iverson

Politics with a class oriented perspective.

Governor Larry Rhoden has now stated numerous times that he refuses to use state funds to alleviate any disruption felt by the delayed SNAP benefits to South Dakotans. Instead, he’s opted to rely on food centers, charities, nonprofits, and churches to carry the load. His excuse? South Dakota doesn’t have that kind of money. For food, that is. When it comes to funding a new prison, funding ICE raids in our neighborhoods, or lighting up Mount Rushmore, then he has all the funds he needs. We can scoff at the fact that lighting Rushmore costs ~$30/day, but the criticism lies in it being a higher priority than feeding people.

If you visit Governor Rhoden’s social media, he is largely absent from anything that is going on, save for his photo op at Feeding South Dakota in Rapid City, but otherwise, he’s fishing, talking to big investors, and claiming he loves this state when putting up the Christmas tree in the Capitol.

How can a governor proclaim to be such a proud citizen of his state when he can’t care about its most vulnerable constituents? Close to 75,000 people in the state rely on SNAP, rents and mortgages are up, and food prices are up. Yet, the governor refuses to use any state funding to help anyone. Rhoden loves being a critic of the government, yet is part of the same apparatus. Sounds like the solution is to look inward.

Watch Michael Iverson speak at the Sioux Falls “No Kings” protest on October 18th, 2025.

State Representative Marty Overweg also commented on the lapse in benefits, stating that he doesn’t believe “people will starve”. Having known many people who grew up in poor households who got by on mere dollars for dinners, it’s incredibly tone deaf to wave away the concept that people often have to skip meals because they simply can’t afford them. Overweg’s concept of starvation seems to only pertain to an extreme situation instead of an individual having to choose between eating three meals a day for a week or putting gas in their car.

It’s puzzling to wonder why people like Rhoden or Overweg are devoid of any compassion for their fellow human beings. It seems, however, that Rhoden’s brand of conservatism thrives on cruelty. It’s a kind of narcissism that somehow views any benefit or service as “bureaucracy” or “bloat”, but turn to the topic of prisons, police, ICE raids, and deportations, and suddenly there’s a blank check.

Let Them Live: Why Freedom, Not Fear, Builds Stronger Kids

Children grow best when they’re allowed to stretch beyond our reach. Yet modern parenting, fueled by fear and amplified by screens, has turned freedom into a luxury. The irony is sharp. the world has never been more connected, yet our trust in it has never been smaller.

The “helicopter parent,” once a caricature, is now a cultural norm. The University of Mary Washington found that college students with helicopter parents reported higher anxiety and lower self-efficacy — the belief that one can handle life’s challenges without constant intervention. Another study from the American Psychological Association linked this over management to reduced problem-solving skills and emotional resilience. In other words, every time we rush to rescue, we steal the small struggles that teach strength.

What’s quietly at stake here isn’t just independence — it’s the soul’s sense of agency. Freedom isn’t a reckless gamble; it’s a vote of confidence in a child’s ability to meet the world. Letting them walk to school, fall from a bike, or argue their way through friendship isn’t negligence — it’s nourishment. Each bruise, each triumph, builds the invisible scaffolding of self-belief.

Technology, for all its gifts, has supercharged our fears. A single viral story can make every parent feel the world is full of lurking danger. Media thrives on our protective instincts, blurring the line between prudence and paranoia. The result is a generation raised under constant observation — children who grow up fluent in caution but strangers to courage.

And here’s where soul enters the conversation. Life, at its healthiest, moves through trust. When we assume good in others — when we believe in safety before threat — we open a channel for joy and creativity. Neuroscience agrees: positive expectancy triggers dopamine pathways that increase motivation and social connection, shaping both mood and resilience. To trust first is to live as though the world will meet you halfway. That belief, in turn, tends to make it true.

The spiritual law mirrors the psychological one: the energy you send out returns. A family culture of fear manifests fear; one of faith manifests freedom. Children sense it instantly. If parents move through the world convinced that danger waits around every corner, kids internalize that script. But if they grow up in households where exploration is celebrated — where mistakes are lessons, not liabilities — they carry that confidence into every dimension of their future.

This article was inspired by Lenore Skenazy’s TED Talk on Free-Range Parenting and her ongoing work through FreeRangeKids and LetGrow. Her mission — helping parents rediscover trust, freedom, and community — embodies what modern childhood desperately needs: not more supervision, but more belief in children’s innate wisdom to navigate the world.

To let children live freely is not to abandon them. It’s to model trust — in themselves, in others, in the world’s essential goodness. It’s a radical act of optimism in a time of surveillance and suspicion. Freedom becomes the language through which the soul learns to speak.

Trust first, always. That’s how dreams start walking on their own.

How Parents Can Nurture Independence and Trust at Home

1. Let Them Try, and Sometimes Fail.
   Give children real responsibilities, like cooking a simple meal, walking the dog, or managing a small budget. Resist the urge to correct immediately. Confidence grows from doing, not watching.

2. Designate “Freedom Hours.”
   Set aside unstructured time with no screens, no schedule, and no adult guidance. It could be an hour in the backyard or a walk to the park. Boredom is often the doorway to imagination.

3. Model Trust Out Loud.
   When your child takes a risk — social, creative, or physical — say, “I trust you to handle it.” That affirmation teaches them self-belief through your faith, not your fear.

4. Talk About Media and Fear Honestly.
   Discuss why scary news stories get shared and why the world isn’t as dangerous as headlines suggest. Teach critical thinking early; media literacy is emotional armor.

5. Rebuild Community.
   Reconnect with neighbors. Organize shared outdoor play. Familiarity breeds trust, and community is the antidote to fear. As Let Grow advocates, “Independence grows in safe, connected neighborhoods.”

6. Practice “Trust First” Living.
   With both kids and strangers, begin from a place of goodwill. Assume good intentions. Speak optimism. It trains the nervous system toward openness rather than anxiety — and children mirror what they feel around them.

7. Celebrate Effort, Not Control.
   Praise curiosity, persistence, and kindness — not perfection or obedience. This helps children find joy in growth rather than fear of failure.

Freedom isn’t the opposite of safety — it’s the root of real strength. When parents choose trust over fear, they don’t just raise capable kids; they raise confident, compassionate souls ready to meet the world without shrinking from it.

Author’s Note: On Trust, Manifestation, and the Soul of Parenting

At the heart of it all, I believe parenting is an act of faith. Not blind faith, but a deliberate trust in life’s rhythm — that things unfold as they should when love leads the way. The energy we project as parents, as people, becomes the environment our children grow within. When we live through suspicion and fear, we manifest walls. When we live through trust and joy, we manifest gardens.

Manifestation, in its truest form, begins in perception. If you see the world as dangerous, it reflects danger back to you. But if you teach your children to see it as an open, generous place — one that responds to kindness and courage — they grow into co-creators of that reality. Trust, then, isn’t naïve. It’s powerful. It’s the soul’s quiet way of saying: I believe in life, and I believe in you.

Letting go isn’t losing control—it’s creating space for magic to move.

I’ve spent my entire life in grocery stores. I am a fourth-generation grocer and President & CEO of GF Buche Co., a family business that has operated in rural and tribal communities for 120 years. Some of our customers are the poorest people in the United States and live in the most remote areas of South Dakota. I know the role local grocers play in our communities.

And right now, that need is growing.

The government shutdown has thrown the future of SNAP benefits into uncertainty for November, creating immediate hardship for families in tribal and rural communities. The South Dakota Department of Social Services has warned that future funding is uncertain, and communities must be ready to respond.

Families are anxious, wondering if and when they’ll be able to put food on the table next month. Children should not be burdened with this fear, nor should they sense the stress of parents deciding whether to skip meals. Even if benefits do land, the scheduled cuts coming in 2026 keep me up at night. Because I know exactly who will pay that price.

Parents working multiple jobs. Children relying on school lunches for their most dependable meal and sometimes their only meal. Elders choosing between groceries and medication. Veterans who have served their country now struggle to feed themselves.

When Washington plays politics, real families go hungry.

Midnight on SNAP Day

Every month, when SNAP benefits arrive, we keep our stores open late in the communities that need us most. If you stand in one of my stores at midnight when benefits hit, you’ll see the truth firsthand: two shopping carts — one for groceries and one padded with a blanket where a child sleeps while their parents finally shop for food. Exhaustion. Hunger. Relief. For some families, this is the first food they’ve had in days.

There is nothing hypothetical about that moment. It happens every single month in South Dakota.

Hunger in Rural America Looks Different

In places like Pine Ridge, Mission, Marty, and Lower Brule, hunger isn’t about poor choices, it’s about barriers built into geography and economy — long distances, lack of transportation, limited access to jobs.

Across our state, more than 113,000 South Dakotans, including one in five children, struggle with food insecurity. These aren’t statistics in my stores. They are customers. They are real people we see every day.

This Isn’t Political — It’s Personal

I’m not interested in pointing fingers or arguing about which political party should take the blame. I’m interested in making sure kids don’t go to bed hungry while Congress plays games over a shutdown.

What’s happening to the most vulnerable isn’t a bargaining chip, it’s a moral failing.

It’s wrong, they’re playing with people’s lives. That these things are happening in this state, let alone this country, is unacceptable. We need to do better.

South Dakotans pride ourselves on taking care of one another. When one neighbor struggles, others lift them up. That’s not charity, that’s who we are. When one neighbor faces a hard year, the rest of us come together to ensure no one is left behind.

But right now, policies written thousands of miles away are pushing more families to the edge.

SNAP Works — Cuts Will Hurt the Wrong People

SNAP isn’t a luxury, it is the backbone of food access for struggling households.

It supports:

• Working parents whose wages haven’t kept up with inflation

• Seniors stretching every dollar

• Kids who deserve nourishment to learn and grow

• Veterans who deserve better than survival mode

When SNAP dollars enter a rural grocery store, they support the entire community. They keep doors open, shelves stocked and jobs local.

Cutting this support, especially during a shutdown, is not responsible governance.

We Are Doing Our Part — Washington Must Do Theirs

Through our nonprofit, Team Buche Cares, we are launching an Emergency SNAP Support Program to provide $100 grocery certificates to as many families affected by the loss of SNAP support as funds will allow. 100% of Team Buche Cares funds go directly to food assistance — no administrative fees, no delay. We are doing everything we can to fill the gaps. We help where we can, including urgent grocery assistance when a family requests support, because hunger doesn’t operate on a government timeline.

Other nonprofit partners across the state are working hard and need support, because philanthropy cannot replace federal responsibility. Even in South Dakota, one of the most generous states in the nation, we cannot solve hunger solely through good intentions and fundraisers. Donors help thousands. SNAP helps tens of thousands.

Hungry Children Shouldn’t Have to Wait

What’s happening right now isn’t a policy debate to the families we serve. It’s dinner. Stability. Survival.

It’s time for Congress to remember:

• You can’t delay a child’s next meal because negotiations stalled

• You can’t cut food support for seniors and call yourself pro-family

• You can’t treat SNAP like a bargaining chip and deny the reality on the ground

This is about what kind of country we choose to be.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers on federal budgeting, but I do know this — at an early age, my father taught me that it is our moral obligation in the grocery business to make sure nobody goes hungry. That has been my guiding principle in the work I do, and the work my team does at GF Buche Co. and Team Buche Cares, every single day.

In the United States of America, in the heart of South Dakota, no child should have to worry about eating.

So, here’s what I’m asking Congress to do:

• End the shutdown

• Fully fund SNAP for November

• Reverse the cuts planned for 2026

• Remember the families living with the consequences

My family built our grocery stores on one belief — food is love, food is dignity and food is hope. I am simply continuing their work for a new generation that needs us more than ever.

South Dakotans take care of each other. Caring for our neighbors, sharing in times of plenty and ensuring no one is forgotten, those are the values that make our state strong.

It’s time for Washington to do the same.

Author Bio: RF Buche is the President & CEO of GF Buche Co. and Founder of Team Buche Cares. He is a fourth-generation grocer serving rural and tribal communities across South Dakota, where his family’s business has operated for 120 years.

SNAP Emergency Donation Fund link: teambuchecares.org