Trump officials address ‘chemtrails' conspiracy theories while spreading misinformation, experts say
'This is an intriguing strategy … in an administration that, depending on agency, is actively promulgating conspiracy theories or at least conspiratorial thinking,' said Timothy Tangherlini, a professor at the Berkeley School of Information who studies the circulation of folklore and conspiracy theories.
On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched a website about contrails, trails of white vapor emitted aircrafts. Conspiracy theorists call the streaks 'chemtrails' and believe they contain polluting chemicals meant to achieve mass sterilization, weather control or other nefarious plots. Though 'it is reasonable to ask questions', those beliefs are inaccurate, the page makes clear.
Officials also launched a second webpage focused on geoengineering, which correctly notes that schemes to 'cool the Earth by intentionally modifying the amount of sunlight' are 'being studied'. It says 'current federal research activity should not be interpreted as endorsement', though without explicitly stating that these efforts have not been widely practiced.
The websites were published as baseless rumors swirled claiming weather-altering technology fueled recent catastrophic flooding in Texas. The EPA, however, says it 'planned long ago to release these new online resources' which it had been 'working on for months'.
'Regarding the flooding, EPA stands ready to help Texans get back on their feet in the wake of this tragedy,' a spokesperson said.
Sijia Xiao, a postdoctoral researcher at Carnegie Mellon University who for a 2021 study interviewed 20 current and former chemtrails believers, said the conspiracy theory attracts many people looking for simple explanations to tragedies.
'Several participants in my interviews, they related chemtrails to their personal health problems or environmental concerns like pollution,' she said. 'And in this example of the Texas flood, I think people are trying to attribute a clear cause to a real life issue.'
But as it addresses false causes of the floods, Trump has continually shunned research into the climate crisis, which he has dismissed as a 'hoax'. Research shows the deluge in the US south-west would have been less intense if not for the climate crisis, caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
'Rather than addressing climate change – which makes floods like those in Texas, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Illinois more intense, more deadly and more frequent – Trump's EPA is wasting taxpayer money chasing baseless conspiracy theories that scientists debunked years ago,' said the Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a climate hawk. 'It's a distraction from the Trump administration's free pass to big oil on its pollution.'
Since Trump re-entered the White House in January, EPA has slashed funding for climate research, removed all mentions of climate from federal websites, and cut staff for weather forecasting and scientific agencies. He has also cracked down on climate accountability efforts, including lawsuits accusing big oil of a conspiracy to spread climate misinformation.
The president has also repeatedly referred to green regulations as a 'scam' and repeated climate denialist talking points, while his administration has spread misinformation about elections and vaccines. As recently as two months ago, Robert F Kennedy Jr, Trump's health and human services secretary, also suggested that the chemtrail conspiracy theory is real, saying in a televised town hall he would 'do everything in my power to stop' their spread.
Even after Zeldin announced the new initiative, Kennedy appeared to maintain his position, praising the administrator and Trump for taking on the 'diabolical mass poisoning of our people, our communities, our waterways and farms, and our purple mountains, majesty'.
'It's all contributing to this environment, this idea that you should have low trust in institutions,' said Tangherlini, the folklore expert. 'And when you have low trust in institutions and in the information sources that you have access to, you are going to come up with a plausible story that resonates.'
Some have been able to integrate the new EPA websites into those stories, claiming they merely provide evidence that the government is continuing to cover up information about chemtrails.
'Conspiracy theory is a self-fulfilling feedback loop where everything can be turned into evidence of supporting their beliefs,' said Xiao.
Though the chemtrail belief is not based in reality, real conspiracies have existed through American history, said Tangherlini, including ones that involved the cover-up of covertly sprayed chemicals.
Today, the Trump administration is openly dismantling protections against toxic and planet-warming pollutants, allowing corporations to truly conspire against the American people, said Aaron Regunberg, climate accountability project director at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
'Just like big tobacco lied about cigarettes causing cancer, big oil has spent decades running a vast conspiracy to deceive the public on climate change,' he said. 'That's why Maga [Trump's Make America Great Again movement] wants us talking about this chemtrails garbage – because there's a real conspiracy implicating their big oil cronies that they don't want the American people to think about.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Why it's really the British we have to thank for the atom bomb
Manhattan, Mayson, Maud. One of these is synonymous with the race to build an atomic bomb during the first half of the 1940s. But we ought to have heard of all three, argues Gareth Williams in his book The Impossible Bomb – a pacy and potent mix of wartime politics and high technology. Williams sets out to recover the role of British scientists in building the bomb, but there's no triumphalism here. Pinned to a noticeboard in his study, Williams tells us, is a black lapel badge bearing the logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Now an emeritus professor at the University of Bristol, Williams grew up in the post-war years fearing that he might see a 'mushroom cloud boiling up into the sky above the rooftops'. Williams was motivated to write this book after discovering some declassified government papers pertaining to a secretive 'Maud Committee'. He later heard a scientist who'd worked on the British hydrogen bomb make a striking claim: that without Britain's help, the United States wouldn't have been able to create a working atomic bomb until after the Second World War ended. This isn't, it must be said, a new idea. As Williams accepts, it was put forward by a war correspondent named Ronald Clark back in 1961. But myth-making in America about the birth of the nuclear age has long sidelined British figures, and still does. American Prometheus (2005), the Kai Bird and Martin J Sherwin biography on which the Oscar-winning film Oppenheimer (2023) was based, all but reduces the British contribution to a man hosting a dinner party at Los Alamos. After some helpful preliminaries on the history of atomic physics, The Impossible Bomb begins in the 1930s, as trepidation among scientists is growing. The destructive potential of splitting the atom is dawning on them, just as Europe appears once again to be moving towards war. The Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard begs colleagues to stop publishing their ideas on nuclear fission, and asks the editor of Physical Review to record the date of manuscript submissions on the subject – thereby preserving claims to originality – then lock them away in a drawer. When these efforts meet with mixed results, Szilard helps to compose a letter to US president Franklin D Roosevelt in 1939 – co-signed by Albert Einstein – urging that America try to beat Nazi Germany to the bomb. This moment is often treated as the origin of the Manhattan Project. But Williams argues that most scientists in the United States were, at this point, unconvinced that an atomic weapon was feasible in the near-term. They were more interested in developing radar, and were confident that if America were drawn into the war, their conventional forces would see them through. In the early years of the conflict, the most promising work on a bomb was happening in Britain. Enter Maud, a committee formed in Britain in the spring of 1940. (Though its name was written in capitals as MAUD, and thus was usually taken to be an acronym, the letters didn't stand for anything.) It came about in response to a document created by two expatriate German physicists working at the University of Birmingham: Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls. The Frisch-Peierls memorandum sketched out the theory behind a 'super-bomb', to be created using uranium-235. By the summer, Williams tells us, Maud involved four universities (Cambridge, Oxford, Liverpool, Birmingham) and boasted five Nobel laureates, including James Chadwick and John Cockcroft. In its final report, in 1941, the committee concluded that a super-bomb could be made in two years: great excitement followed, and an organisation was formed to work on the project, with the usefully abstract name of the 'Tube Alloys Directorate'. Williams excels at interweaving the technical challenges of the subsequent months with the vicissitudes of politics. We find Churchill and Roosevelt wary of one another, at first, on the question of atomic co-operation. 'Mayson' was Roosevelt's proposal for Anglo-American partnership; but for a time, at least, Churchill wanted a British bomb, independent of the Americans. It wasn't to be. American help turned out to be indispensable in building a 'super-bomb'. In the end, British scientists had to set aside their own work on Tube Alloys and travel to the USA – to Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge – to help on what became the Manhattan Project. Chadwick was among around 84 British scientists making the journey, and neither of the bombs detonated over Japan in August 1945, concludes Williams, would have been possible without them. Through Frisch and Peierls, we experience the profound anxiety of Jewish refugees living in Britain during these years; they were only too aware of how they would likely fare if the Nazis won the race to build a bomb. Across the water in Germany, great minds such as Werner Heisenberg were hard at work trying to make that happen. We encounter British and American spies working around the clock to ascertain the state of the Nazi effort, and to thwart it wherever they could. The Americans considered abducting Heisenberg during one of his research trips to Switzerland. Williams's labours in the archive have been considerable, but the result is a significant contribution to our understanding of 'the most significant international collaboration of the 20th century'. It's eminently readable, too: to follow the development of nuclear weapons requires the explanation of plenty of science, but Williams succeeds, deploying vivid analogies and simple sketches. A spherical aluminium container for a globe of uranium oxide, constantly turning in order to keep heavy water circulating, is an especially memorable one. Williams compares it to 'an oversized glitterball that someone had forgotten to switch off after the last dance'. ★★★★★
Daily Mail
8 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Husband's disgusting act after his wife was diagnosed with brain cancer: 'What the hell was going on'
A woman battling cancer has shared heartbreaking messages from her husband, who left her and took all their who is undergoing treatment for a brain tumour, said her condition has been severe, involving multiple surgeries and treatments. 'My husband of six years up and vanished, drained our mutual account and sent me this when I asked what the hell was going on,' she wrote on a post shared to social media. Despite her illness, she remained devoted to her husband. 'My condition is foul, I've had multiple surgeries, treatments, etc … But I've always been faithful, I still cooked him dinners up until this happened. He's pretty convinced I'm dead to rights, I personally think I have a chance …' Alongside her post, Marie included an MRI scan showing the tumour and a text message from her husband explaining why he left. 'Listen, it's been hard, I can't handle watching you die,' the message read. 'I feel alone, I feel trapped, I'm not sure where or what I'm going to do … I've invested a lot during your treatment so I'm recouping what I put in plus extra for my future. I can still have one.' He went on to tell Marie she should 'be happy for me, that I can live for us both.' He also sent her three disturbing videos, then appeared on camera holding a bottle of wine while talking about another woman 'She is the one that makes me happy. Everything, she meets my needs and you don't and you won't and you haven't,' he said. 'I'm at the point now where I'm feeling alone when I'm with you, and small.' A recent study published in The Times revealed men were more likely to leave their wives after a cancer diagnosis. The study looked at more than 25,000 couples across 27 countries during an 18-year period and found that divorce was more likely when the wife was sick. And if it was the husband who had health issues, the couple was no more likely to split than if both were healthy. Professor Alex Broom, a sociologist at the University of Sydney, said the findings highlight a troubling imbalance in caregiving within relationships. 'Research has often shown that women bear the brunt of caring responsibilities at both ends of life - the early years and the twilight years,' he told 'But also, that the men in their lives can be ill-equipped to provide them with care and support when they need it, whether in the context of serious illness or at the end of life.' 'The reality is, women do a disproportionate amount of informal caring, and receive less, on average, themselves -often at critical moments.'
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
From muscle endurance to immunity, it's WOMEN who are the stronger sex
Asked to imagine someone 'strong' and perhaps you'd conjure up an image of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his weightlifting heyday, all gleaming biceps and pecs. The world's fastest man, Olympic running legend Usain Bolt, might also come to mind. But what if we chose different qualities to define strength rather than merely the ability to lift heavy things briefly or move fast for a short period of time?
