The Dictatorship
Texas’ ban on this new technology is short-sighted and un-American
Starting Sept. 1, Texas joins six other states in banning the sale of cell-cultivated meat. It’s a move that feels more symbolic than substantive — after all, cell-cultivated meat is still in its infancy, produced in limited quantities and approved for sale among only a few companies. Yet the symbolism matters. Instead of embracing a tool with enormous potential to address pressing global challenges, some lawmakers are slamming the door before we’ve even had a chance to explore what’s possible.
For Texas lawmakers to ban this technology now is, frankly, shortsighted — and un-American.
Cell-cultivated meat — sometimes called lab-grown meat — is real animal meat produced by taking a small sample of animal cells and growing them in a controlled brewery-like environment. No slaughter is required. The goal is to create a more humane option that could reduce the environmental and health downsides of conventional meat production.
The bans run counter to the very values Texas often claims to champion: entrepreneurship, free markets, consumer choice.
Consider the environmental context. Traditional meat production is responsible for a staggering share of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water use. And it drives habitat loss on a scale that endangers biodiversity worldwide. Cell-cultivated meat is not yet a perfect solution — current production methods remain energy intensive — but early studies suggest that with continued innovation, it could dramatically reduce land use, pollution and carbon emissions compared with industrial animal agriculture.
If we’re serious about tackling climate change, we need more options on the table, not fewer.
There’s also a public health dimension. Industrial animal farming is a breeding ground for zoonotic diseases and a major driver of antibiotic overuse, which accelerates the rise of resistant bacteria called superbugs. Cell-cultivated meat sidesteps many of these risks. Grown in sterile facilities, it doesn’t require anywhere near as many antibiotics, nor does it involve the dense confinement of animals that facilitates viral outbreaks. In a world where pandemics have reshaped our collective memory, ignoring safer food technologies is a gamble we cannot afford.
And then there’s the ethical dimension. Every year, tens of billions of land animals (and trillions of sea animals) are raised and slaughtered in conditions most people would rather not think about. Cell-cultivated meat offers an alternative that allows consumers to enjoy the taste of meat without the moral trade-offs. Even for those who do not personally object to torturing and/or killing animals, the simple fact that a more humane option exists should be cause for curiosity, not prohibition.
But here’s where the argument against bans becomes even clearer.
First, these laws are bad for the states themselves. Banning cell-cultivated meat doesn’t just block consumers from trying a new food. It also disincentivizes universities, startups and investors from putting down roots in states like Texas.
The cell-cultivated meat industry is still young, but it is already attracting billions of dollars in research funding, venture capital and private partnerships. By saying “not here,” Texas is essentially exporting those dollars, jobs and opportunities to more welcoming regions. At a time when states are competing fiercely to attract high-tech industries, this decision ensures Texas will lose out.
Second, these bans are bad for the nation. When American states reject innovation, they send a clear signal to companies: build elsewhere. And “elsewhere” increasingly means China, Singapore or Europe — regions that have been more open to experimentation. The U.S. risks repeating the mistake we made with solar panelswhere hesitation at home allowed foreign competitors to dominate the market.
Do we really want the future of meat production — a technology that could reshape agriculture, trade and climate policy — controlled by other countries simply because we were too quick to shut the door?
Third, these bans are un-American. At their core, they run counter to the very values Texas and other states often claim to champion: entrepreneurship, free markets and consumer choice. To limit what scientists can researchwhat entrepreneurs can build and what consumers can buy is government overreach, plain and simple.
If cell-cultivated meat is truly unappealing, then consumers will reject it, and the companies making it will fail. That’s how markets work. But to pre-emptively prohibit a technology before it has even had the chance to compete? That’s not protecting freedom — it’s stifling it.
For Texas lawmakers to ban this technology now is, frankly, shortsighted — and un-American.
So why are states like Texas, Florida and Alabama banning cultivated meat? The justifications offered are often thin. Some politicians argue it’s about protecting rancherswho fear economic displacement. Others appeal to “naturalness,” casting cell-cultivated meat as strange or unsafe. But history shows that dismissing new food technologies out of fear rarely holds up. Pasteurization, refrigeration and even “artificial ice” all faced initial skepticism before becoming mainstream. The idea that protecting ranchers requires banning potential competitors is particularly puzzling in states that otherwise champion free markets and innovation.
Of course, cell-cultivated meat is not a silver bullet. Critics are right to note that the technology is still expensive, scaling is difficult and its environmental advantages depend on how production evolves. But those are reasons to support research, not to prohibit it outright. If cell-cultivated meat succeeds, it could reduce our dependence on industrial animal farming. If it fails, it won’t be because Texas banned it in its early days — it will be because consumers didn’t want it, or the economics didn’t work out. That’s how innovation should rise or fall: on its merits, not on premature political bans.
At its heart, this debate is not about whether Texans — or anyone — should eat cell-cultivated meat tomorrow. It’s about whether we will allow innovation to flourish so that people can decide for themselves. Banning a technology before it has even had a chance to prove itself is not conservative. It is not pragmatic. It is not wise. It is anti-American.
Texas prides itself on independence, grit and innovation. Banning cell-cultivated meat betrays those values. Rather than fearing the future of food, the Lone Star State — and the rest of the nation for that matter — should be shaping it.
Brian Kateman is a co-founder and the president of the Reducetarian Foundationa nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing consumption of meat, eggs and dairy to create a healthy, sustainable and compassionate world. He is the author of “Meat Me Halfway” — inspired by a documentary of the same name — and the editor of “The Reducetarian Cookbook” and “The Reducetarian Solution.” He is an adjunct professor of environmental science and sustainability at Kean University and teaches environmental communications at Fordham University.
The Dictatorship
What Trump’s threat against Iran’s desalination plants means for Mideast
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to target Iran’s energy infrastructure, including the country’s desalination plants. Such a move — and Iran’s possible targeting of the plants of its Gulf Arab neighbors — could have devastating impacts across the water-starved Middle East.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said if a deal to end the war isn’t reached “shortly” and the Strait of Hormuzwhere much oil passes via tankers, is not immediately reopened, “we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched.’”
The biggest danger, analysts warn, may not be what Trump could do to Iran, but how Tehran could retaliate. Iran relies on desalination for a small share of its water supply while Gulf Arab states depend on it for the vast majority.
Hundreds of desalination plants sit along the Persian Gulf coast, putting individual systems that supply water to millions within range of Iranian missile or drone strikes. Without them, major cities — such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates or Doha, Qatar’s capital — could not sustain their current populations.
“Desalination facilities are oftentimes necessary for the survival of the civilian population and intentional destruction of those types of facilities is a war crime,” said Niku Jafarnia, a researcher at Human Rights Watch.
While less reliant on desalination, Iran’s water situation is dire
See how desalination works. (AP Animation: Panagiotis Mouzakis)
After a fifth year of extreme drought, some Iranian media reports say reservoirs supplying Tehran, the country’s capital, are below 10% capacity. Satellite pictures analyzed by The Associated Press also show reservoirs noticeably depleted. The country still draws most of its water from rivers, reservoirs and depleted underground aquifers.
Israeli airstrikes on March 7 on oil depots surrounding Tehran produced heavy smoke and acid rain. Experts warned the fallout could contaminate soil and parts of the city’s water supply.
“Attacking water facilities, even one, could end up being harmful to the population in such a severe water scarcity context,” Jafarnia said.
Before the war that Israel and the United States launched on Feb. 28, Iran had been racing to expand desalination along its southern coast and pump some of the water inland, but infrastructure constraints, energy costs and international sanctions have sharply limited scalability.
Across the Gulf, many desalination plants are tied to power stations
The Mina Al-Ahmadi oil refinery operates in Kuwait, March 20, 2026. (AP Photo, File)
The Mina Al-Ahmadi oil refinery operates in Kuwait, March 20, 2026. (AP Photo, File)
In Kuwait, about 90% of drinking water comes from desalination, along with roughly 86% in Oman and about 70% in Saudi Arabia. The technology removes salt from seawater — most commonly by pushing it through ultrafine membranes in a process known as reverse osmosis — to produce the freshwater that sustains cities, hotels, industry and some agriculture across one of the world’s driest regions.
Even where the plants are connected to national grids with backup supply routes, disruptions can cascade across interconnected systems, said David Michel, senior fellow for water security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“It’s an asymmetrical tactic,” he said. “Iran doesn’t have the same capacity to strike back … But it does have this possibility to impose costs on the Gulf countries to push them to intervene or call for a cessation of hostilities.”
Desalination plants have multiple stages — intake systems, treatment facilities, energy supplies — and damage to any part of that chain can interrupt production, according to Ed Cullinane, Mideast editor at Global Water Intelligence, a publisher serving the water industry.
“None of these assets are any more protected than any of the municipal areas that are currently being hit by ballistic missiles or drones,” Cullinane said.
Two women from the Iranian Red Crescent Society stand as a thick plume of smoke from a U.S.-Israeli strike on an oil storage facility late Saturday rises into the sky in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)
Two women from the Iranian Red Crescent Society stand as a thick plume of smoke from a U.S.-Israeli strike on an oil storage facility late Saturday rises into the sky in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)
The Gulf produces about a third of the world’s crude exports and energy revenues underpin national economies. Fighting has already halted tanker traffic through key shipping routes and disrupted port activity, forcing some producers to curb exports as storage tanks fill.
“Everyone thinks of Saudi Arabia and their neighbors as petrostates. But I call them saltwater kingdoms. They’re human-made fossil-fueled water superpowers,” said Michael Christopher Low, director of the Middle East Center at the University of Utah. “It’s both a monumental achievement of the 20th century and a certain kind of vulnerability.”
Trump’s comments came as the conflict intensified, with Tehran striking a key water and electrical plant in Kuwait and an oil refinery in Israel coming under attack, while U.S. and Israeli forces launched a new wave of strikes on Iran.
US and Gulf governments have long recognized the risk
Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike in Dahiyeh, Beirut’s southern suburbs, March 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, File)
Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike in Dahiyeh, Beirut’s southern suburbs, March 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, File)
A 2010 CIA analysis warned that attacks on desalination facilities could trigger national crises in several Gulf states, and prolonged outages could last months if critical equipment were destroyed. More than 90% of the Gulf’s desalinated water comes from just 56 plants, the report stated, and “each of these critical plants is extremely vulnerable to sabotage or military action.”
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have invested in pipeline networks, storage reservoirs and other redundancies designed to cushion short-term disruptions. But smaller states such as Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait have fewer backup supplies.
Desalination has expanded in part because climate change is intensifying drought across the region. The plants themselves are highly energy-intensive and emit massive amounts of carbon, while their coastal locations make them vulnerable to extreme weather and rising seas.
Past Mideast conflicts have seen attacks on desalination plants
Workers walk in an area at a degassing station in Zubair oil field, whose operations have being reduced due to the Mideast war triggered by the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, near Basra, Iraq, March 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Leo Correa, File)
Workers walk in an area at a degassing station in Zubair oil field, whose operations have being reduced due to the Mideast war triggered by the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, near Basra, Iraq, March 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Leo Correa, File)
During Iraq’s 1990-1991 invasion of Kuwait, retreating Iraqi forces sabotaged power stations and desalination facilities, said Low, from the University of Utah, while millions of barrels of crude oil were deliberately released into the Persian Gulf, which threatened seawater intake pipes used by desalination plants across the region.
Workers rushed to deploy protective booms around the intake valves of major facilities but the destruction left Kuwait largely without fresh water and dependent on emergency water imports. Full recovery took years.
In recent years, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels have targeted Saudi desalination facilities as tensions escalated.
International humanitarian law, including provisions of the Geneva Conventions, prohibit targeting civilian infrastructure indispensable to the survival of the population, including drinking water facilities.
___
Follow Annika Hammerschlag on Instagram @ahammergram.
___
The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment
The Dictatorship
Comer’s excuses for DOJ fall flat as he concedes it ‘botched’ Epstein files
“Botched.” That was apparently House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer’s, R-Ky., assessment of the Justice Department’s handling, or mishandling, of the Epstein files under President Donald Trump. Comer made his critical comments to BLN on Monday night, awkwardly enough, during an attempt to defend the administration from criticism.
Comer also cast some blame on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims for delaying the release of files related to the late sex criminal, suggesting that class action lawsuits and victims’ demands for redactions have caused holdups, despite a federal law and congressional subpoena requiring the release of the vast majority of files related to Epstein.
This explanation doesn’t account for the department withholding documents detailing sexual assault allegations against Trump and other wealthy Epstein associates (all of whom have denied any wrongdoing). Comer’s excuse also doesn’t seem to explain a heavily redacted document that details a 2015 probe by the Drug Enforcement Administration into whether Epstein and others used drugs in connection with a prostitution ring. And of course, it doesn’t account for the inadequate redactions that exposed many victims’ names and personal details when some documents were initially released.
When BLN’s Jake Tapper noted the Trump administration has not released the files as mandated and has redacted names of individuals in Epstein’s inner circle, the chairman was seemingly forced to concede.
“Well, I think the Justice Department has botched this,” Comer said. “I don’t think anyone in America — Republican or, you know, avid Trump supporter — would defend the way that this has been rolled out.”
Some might say “botched” is too generous a characterization, given it suggests there was, at some point, a meaningful attempt to meet public expectations and comply with the law.
I can also think of more than a few Republicans who have defended and continue to defend the way the administration has handled the Epstein files, including TrumpAttorney General Pam Bondi and House Speaker Mike JohnsonR-La.
Comer himself has repeatedly thanked the administration for its “commitment to transparency.”
But Comer’s comment Monday was a prime example of the honesty that slips out of the chairman when he’s trying to defend Trump and his allies while discussing Epstein. Another example came in early March, when he said the DOJ in Trump’s first term moved to kill a 2019 state probe into Epstein’s New Mexico ranch.
“The federal government asked New Mexico to stop their investigation, I believe back in 2019, of that ranch,” Comer told Fox News. “So there’s just so many questions about how the government failed the victims and how government failed in trying to prosecute Epstein sooner. I mean, this whole thing doesn’t make sense.”
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
The Dictatorship
Hegseth’s unprecedented embrace of Christian nationalism sparks backlash
Toward the end of Monday’s briefing, a reporter reminded White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt that Pope Leo XIVin remarks delivered on Palm Sunday, said God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” Citing a Bible passage, the pontiff added, “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood.”
Asked for her reaction, Leavitt replied“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with our military leaders or with the president calling on the American people to pray for our service members and those who are serving our country overseas.”
Part of the problem, of course, is that no prominent political figures have argued there is something wrong with praying for service members. But the other element to this is some are going far further than simply calling on the public to pray for U.S. troops.
Take Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for example. The Washington Post reported earlier this week:
[L]ongtime norms are being upended by the proselytizing Christian campaign of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, say multiple former high-ranking military officials and experts on religion and law. Rather than boosting cohesion through a more universal spiritual uplift, they say, the new approach violates the Constitution and undermines the bonds of mutual respect between troops that are essential, especially in wartime.
The scope of the beleaguered Pentagon chief’s embrace of Christian nationalism is quite broad. In recent months, Hegseth has:
- led Christian prayer services in the Pentagon’s auditorium;
- invited radical Christian nationalist figures to speak at official prayer services;
- used social media to promote messages that suggest his faith should dominate over other religious traditions; and
- argued during an official press briefing that Americans should take a knee and pray “in the name of Jesus Christ,” at the same briefing in which he quoted Scripture.
At an event last week, Hegseth took matters to a new level when he prayed for U.S. troops to inflict “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy. … We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.”
In case this isn’t obvious, Hegseth is as free as every other American to worship, or not, as he pleases. His religiosity is his own business.
But as has become clear in recent weeks, the defense secretary isn’t just exercising his faith in line with his conscience, he’s also erasing the First Amendment’s church-state line and incorporating Christian nationalism into his wartime message in ways without precedent in the American tradition.
Retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell during Powell’s tenures as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, told the Post, “The American military has had a remarkable ride of equanimity and fairness and justice and all manner of good adjectives with regard to religion. It’s done this in a way that’s really remarkable — until now.”
The New Republic’s Greg Sargent had a related report this week:
If Hegseth truly believes his war on Iran is unfolding in accordance with his conception of biblical law — the highest authority of all — then that explains why he treats all those niggling secular constraints as unbinding on him. Maximum violence and killing of the enemy — who cry out to God but, unlike Hegseth, don’t get an answer back from Him — are affirmatively good.
‘It’s not the way somebody who claims to be a person of God — a religious person — should think,’ [Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona]who has flown many combat missions himself, told me. War, he added, ‘is a morally and ethically complicated thing for any person. Any serious warfighter struggles with it.’ If we don’t wrestle with this, Kelly said, we’ll ‘start to lose ourselves.’
Looking ahead, there are limited options to curtail the defense secretary’s public advocacy of Christian nationalism — Donald Trump could intervene, though that seems exceedingly unlikely — but Hegseth’s critics are not powerless. On the contrary, some of the Pentagon chief’s policies related to religious promotion have already sparked litigationwhich opens the door to possible court-imposed limits. Watch this space.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’





