Posts by Rachel Hurley

Thune Just Called Bull on Trump’s Beef Deal

GriftMatrix
Split image: American cattle rancher with empty truck on one side, Argentine beef shipment containers arriving at port on other side, John Thune in center looking conflicted

The Senate Majority Leader sides with ranchers over the president.

Well, I didn’t expect to see John Thune throw a punch at his own party’s president, but here we are.

The Senate Majority Leader just came out against Trump’s plan to flood the U.S. market with Argentine beef. Thune told reporters he thinks the deal undercuts American ranchers, which is a polite way of saying it’s a dumb idea that screws his voters.

You don’t usually see a Senate leader break ranks like this. Their job is to defend the president’s policies, not roast them. But South Dakota runs on cattle, and Thune’s constituents are already struggling with high feed and land costs. Letting in cheap Argentine beef would gut local producers. Farmers who once thought Trump had their backs are now realizing he’s shaking hands with their competition.

Trump’s framing this as a strategic play to counter China’s influence in South America. But ranchers aren’t thinking about geopolitics – they’re thinking about staying in business. They voted for “America First” and got “Argentina First” instead.

Thune’s pushback isn’t just about cows. It’s about survival. He’s signaling to farm-state Republicans that it’s okay to tell Trump no when his deals hit too close to home. Others from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas are reportedly just waiting for someone else to go first. Well, Thune went first.

This also exposes the core contradiction in Trump’s trade pitch. He built his brand on protecting American workers from foreign competition, then cut a deal that does the opposite. The White House’s claim that this will help consumers with lower prices won’t land in places where “cheaper beef” means “fewer ranchers.”

Agriculture groups are mobilizing, warning that Argentine beef doesn’t meet U.S. safety or quality standards. Whether that’s true or not doesn’t matter much – what matters is the politics. And the politics say Trump just handed Democrats a talking point in farm country.

So now Trump’s boxed in. Push the deal, and he alienates his own senators. Kill it, and he looks weak. Either way, Thune just cracked the door open on Republican dissent, and that’s something we haven’t seen in a while.

If you’re a cattle rancher, Thune’s your guy this week. If you’re Trump, you just got outflanked by your own majority leader.

Trump Killed Weather Disaster Database, Volunteers Revived It

Policy Malpractice
Computer server room with unplugged cables and dark monitors, volunteer scientists in background reconnecting equipment while disaster images display on screens

The Trump administration quietly retired a federal database that tracked billion-dollar weather disasters back in May. The database, maintained by NOAA, documented the most expensive storms, floods, wildfires, and other climate-related events in U.S. history. It was a key tool for researchers, policymakers, and insurance companies trying to understand the growing costs of extreme weather.

Now the database is back, but not because the government brought it back. An independent group relaunched it outside the federal system using the same methodology NOAA developed. And the first update shows more than 100 billion dollars in disaster losses that occurred while the tracker was dark.

This is climate data suppression dressed up as bureaucratic housekeeping. The Trump administration claimed the database was being retired for technical reasons and promised a replacement. Five months later, no replacement appeared. Instead, the data simply vanished from public view.

The timing was suspicious from the start. Trump has spent years downplaying climate change and dismissing scientific warnings about worsening extreme weather. Killing a database that showed those warnings were accurate fits the pattern. If the data is inconvenient, get rid of the data.

NOAA’s Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters Database had tracked major events since 1980. It provided a clear picture of how disaster costs were escalating. The total reached over 2 trillion dollars before the database went offline, with costs accelerating sharply in recent years. That trend contradicted Trump’s repeated claims that climate concerns were overblown.

The independent relaunch came from a coalition of climate scientists and data analysts who refused to let the information stay buried. They obtained the historical data, applied NOAA’s methodology to recent events, and published the results. What they found was stunning.

More than 100 billion dollars in disaster losses occurred between May and October 2025 while the federal tracker was offline. That includes massive wildfires in California, severe flooding in the Midwest, and hurricane damage along the Gulf Coast. All of it would have been documented by the NOAA database if it still existed.

The losses are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They represent destroyed homes, ruined businesses, displaced families, and communities that will take years to rebuild. The database existed to make those costs visible so policymakers could respond appropriately. Shutting it down did not stop the disasters, it just made them harder to track.

The administration never provided a coherent explanation for retiring the database. The official statement mentioned outdated technology and the need for modernization, but NOAA scientists said the system worked fine. It was regularly updated and widely used. The problem was not technical, it was political.

Suppressing climate data serves several purposes for the Trump administration. It makes it easier to roll back environmental regulations when the consequences are less visible. It helps fossil fuel industries avoid accountability for their role in worsening climate impacts. And it lets politicians deny the severity of the crisis without inconvenient facts getting in the way.

But data suppression only works if no one notices. The independent relaunch ensures the information remains public even without federal support. That is good for transparency, but it should not be necessary. Americans should not have to rely on volunteer scientists to track information the government is supposed to provide.

The 100 billion dollar figure is also likely an undercount. The independent group had to rely on insurance claims, news reports, and state-level data to reconstruct disaster costs. NOAA’s original database had access to federal resources and standardized reporting that made the numbers more accurate. Losing that infrastructure means losing precision.

Climate change is making extreme weather more frequent and more expensive. That is not a political opinion, it is observable reality. The costs show up in insurance premiums, federal disaster aid, and local budgets strained by repeated emergencies. Pretending those costs do not exist by hiding the data does not make them go away.

The relaunch also highlights how vulnerable federal climate research has become under Trump. If a president can simply shut down databases that document inconvenient facts, scientific integrity is at the mercy of whoever holds office. That sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations of any party.

NOAA employees were reportedly frustrated by the decision to retire the database but were overruled by political appointees. Career scientists understand the value of long-term data collection. Political leaders focused on short-term messaging do not care. The clash between science and politics is not new, but it is getting worse.

The independent group that relaunched the database has committed to maintaining it as long as necessary. That could mean years if the Trump administration refuses to restore the federal version. It also means relying on donated time and resources instead of stable government funding.

This is a ridiculous way to track a national crisis. Weather disasters are not partisan. They hit red states and blue states. They cost taxpayers billions in federal aid regardless of who is president. Having accurate data should be basic governance, not a political football.

But here we are. A volunteer effort is doing the job the federal government abandoned because the data was politically inconvenient. That tells you everything you need to know about how seriously the Trump administration takes climate change.

The 100 billion dollar figure will keep growing as more disasters hit and the costs compound. At some point, the numbers will be too large to ignore even for the most determined deniers. But until then, we are left piecing together information that should be readily available from official sources.

If you think tracking weather disasters should not require a volunteer rescue mission, that is a reasonable position. If you think the government should not suppress data because it contradicts the president’s preferred narrative, that is also reasonable. But reasonable is not the world we are living in right now.

Coast Guard Gets Luxury Jets While Troops Work Without Pay

GriftMatrix

Noem signs $200 million contract for private aircraft during shutdown

The government may have run out of money for paychecks but somehow found $200 million for private jets.

While Coast Guard crews are working without pay through the third week of the shutdown, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem just approved a sole-source contract for two Gulfstream G700s – luxury aircraft normally reserved for billionaires and Bond villains. Her signature is on it. No competitive bids, no emergency justification. Just a “need” for nicer wings.

Democrats in the House sent her a letter reminding her that she personally approves every DHS contract over $100,000. They also noted she’s one of the primary users of these planes. So this wasn’t some autopilot procurement mix-up – it was a choice. A $200 million choice made while Coast Guard families are visiting food banks.

The Coast Guard’s mission doesn’t stop when budgets do. Forty-two thousand service members are still out there saving lives, interdicting smugglers, and guarding ports – all without paychecks. Meanwhile, the Secretary of Homeland Security apparently decided the department’s biggest operational gap was “insufficient legroom.”

Gulfstream G700s are top-of-the-line luxury jets – leather seating, onboard suites, full entertainment systems. DHS already owns aircraft suitable for official travel. This was about comfort and optics, not capability.

Noem has built her brand around fiscal restraint and “supporting the front lines.” Yet here we are: frontline workers unpaid, leadership airborne in a $200 million contradiction. The same administration insisting we can’t afford federal salaries somehow found the cash for luxury interiors.

Noem calls this shutdown a stand for “responsible spending.” If this is responsibility, I’d hate to see indulgence.

How to Read Me

How Things Work

I’ve been meaning to write this post for 6 months. Better late than never I guess. Of course, only a small percentage of you will even see it – but whatever.

Here’s a thought experiment for you.

I’ve noticed many times over the years – some people read my comments as defensive or insulting when I’m really just being dry and unbothered.

The reason is simple misinterpretation.

I read an article a long time ago about how psychologists have found that the way your parents spoke to you can become your inner voice – that little narrator in your head that processes everything you read and hear. If you grew up with defensive or accusatory parents, that’s probably how you’re reading most things, including my comments. These attitudes get embedded in your earliest childhood experiences and stick with you into adulthood.

Now – while your inner voice is programmed, it can also be reprogrammed – through awareness or just life experience – knowingly or unknowingly. Just like some people take on their parents’ religion without question, others can out right reject it.

Anyway, often when I write something straightforward – no emotion, no agenda, just stating facts – some people’s brains automatically add a defensive or aggressive tone that isn’t there. They’re filling in the blanks with their own assumptions and feelings. It’s like they’re reading everything through a filter installed decades ago.

Research shows that people think others understand their messages about 90 percent of the time, but the actual number is closer to 50 percent. That’s a massive gap. And without tone, facial expressions, or body language, text communication forces people to project their own emotional state onto whatever they’re reading.

I’ve struggled with understanding this many times over the years – as you probably have too – thinking that you have communicated something so clearly and then being shocked when someone misinterprets you.

Here’s the thing – my comments should be read in the tone of Daria Morgendorffer – from the 90s Daria cartoon.

Daria observes absurdity and hypocrisy in a completely flat, monotone delivery. She’s not trying to be mean – she’s just calling out what’s ridiculous about a situation. Zero emotion. Just observation with a side of sardonic commentary. That’s my natural state in text.

But some people read me like I’m Kathy Griffin – loud, aggressive, confrontational. When really I’m just… there. Existing. Saying words. Pointing out contradictions. Being direct.

And people often confuse directness with meanness. I don’t do the whole sandwich method of criticism where you say something nice, slip in the real point, then say something nice again to soften the blow. I just say the thing. If someone asks a question, I answer it. If someone’s wrong about something, I correct it. There’s no malice in that – it’s just efficient communication.

This style is usually only a problem for women. People expect us to be “nice” and nurturing, like the whole world is our child. But I communicate with other adults like they are adults. And that may because since I do not have any children (by choice) – I’ve never had to code switch.

That being said – when people communicate with me in a kind and respectful way – I tend to mirror that back.

People tend to assume the worst when the intent of communication isn’t clear, which is probably an evolutionary thing. Our brains still have that negative bias that once alerted our ancestors to potential dangers, and now it just makes us read “OK” as passive-aggressive.

Fun Fact: People who know me in real life have been calling me Daria-like for years. Whether that’s because I actually have that personality or because I absorbed it from working on the same floor as the Daria team at MTV in the late 90s when I was in my 20s – who knows. Probably both.

The RATC character is literally designed to be the anti-Curtis Yarvin. I saw this ridiculous photoshoot where he was wearing a moto biker jacket trying to look edgy, so I put her in one too. The heart sunglasses also serve a specific purpose – they signal that there’s love behind everything I say. Because in the end, I do want the best for everyone.

When I worked with musicians, I’d often have to remind clients that if they thought I was being too critical, it was only because I wanted them to succeed. I respected them enough to be honest with them instead of blowing smoke up their ass. Same principle applies here.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

But don’t get me wrong – to be clear – I don’t care if people disagree with me.

Disagreement is fine. Debate is fine. What gets old is when people come in hot and antagonizing, or when they take a simple factual statement and somehow turn it into a personal attack in their heads. And I admit I sometimes do this too, but honestly, I don’t even mind being insulted as long as you can take it as well as you give it. That’s just fair play.

Anyway, this whole misinterpretation thing is worth thinking about.

Next time you read something and feel yourself getting defensive or offended, ask yourself if the words actually say what you think they say, or if you’re hearing them in a voice that isn’t there. Maybe you’re reading them in your mom’s disappointed tone or your dad’s critical voice, when really they were just written by some person who types the same way they’d order coffee – direct, no frills, moving on with their day.

The point isn’t that I’m being misunderstood and everyone needs to adjust for me. The point is that we’re all walking around projecting our childhood baggage onto neutral text all day long, and maybe – just maybe – we should all take a breath before assuming someone’s being a jerk when they’re really just being… dry.

Okay – good talk.

Protests Don’t Win Overnight, They Build the System That Does

How Things Work
Massive crowd holding American flags and No Kings signs stretching across National Mall with Capitol building in background

No Kings rallies are recruiting grounds, not final battles

I’ve seen a lot of people say that the No Kings Protest really didn’t move the needle, and they don’t see what the point is.

And they’re right to say marches alone rarely change policy. I’ll say it plainly: rallies do not reopen a shuttered government. They do not flip a single vote in Congress overnight. They are not a shortcut to ending authoritarian moves.

But that is exactly why they matter. Protests are the recruiting ground, not the final battle. They convert passive resentment into active participation. They teach people how to organize permits, marshals, speakers, and media. They build local networks that can register voters, staff campaigns, pressure elected officials, and sustain boycotts or strikes if things get worse. That’s the slow, boring work that actually shifts power.

If you think the arc of democratic defense bends on a single march, you misunderstand how movements work. If you think the last step looks like a march, you’re missing all the other steps. The last step – the one that would seriously force an authoritarian pivot – only becomes thinkable after years of escalating civic engagement, institution-building, and yes, anger that ran out of legal and electoral channels. I am not going to map out those steps. I will not sketch plans to overthrow anything. That is illegal and reckless, and I would NEVER do such a thing.

So I accept the critique: showing up is insufficient. But I also accept the other truth: showing up is necessary.

Each protest is recruitment and rehearsal. Each one widens the pipeline from outrage to action. The people who show up today learn how to do the harder, less photogenic labor tomorrow. And the more who flow into that pipeline, the harder it becomes for an authoritarian push to succeed without encountering organized resistance.

Call the marches symbolic. Fine. Symbols are also scaffolding. If those scaffolds swell into durable institutions, then meaningful pressure follows. If they evaporate, so does the chance to stop something far worse. Which is why I keep showing up and asking how we make the next step less likely to be a last resort.