Connect with us

News

Christine Blasey Ford aims to own her story with 'One Way Back'

Published

on

Christine Blasey Ford aims to own her story with 'One Way Back'

Christine Blasey Ford speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 27, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

Michael Reynolds/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michael Reynolds/AP


Christine Blasey Ford speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 27, 2018, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

Michael Reynolds/AP

Christine Blasey Ford said civic duty compelled her to come forward when she learned Brett Kavanaugh was President Trump’s top choice for a Supreme Court opening in the summer of 2018. But her testimony did not change the ultimate result of Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her at a party back when they were teenagers in the Washington, D.C., area. When it was Kavanaugh’s turn to testify, he denied it happened.

Advertisement
Cover of One Way Back
Cover of One Way Back

In her new book, One Way Back, she writes “My story just can’t be about the three months in 2018 when my life exploded in front of the world’s eyes. My life weaves together surfing, statistics, motherhood, friendships, and politics.”

In an interview on Morning Edition, Ford said it was only a couple of years ago that she felt ready to revisit how her life was upended by Kavanaugh’s rise to the exalted position on the U.S. Supreme Court. Tired of an endless smear campaign, she decided it was time to write her own story.

While she moved far away from Washington, Ford says what she experienced there in her teenage years left an indelible mark. Reluctant to testify in a public setting, Ford forged ahead nonetheless. She writes that part of what gave her the strength to do so was her love of surfing; Ford equates the experience to facing the intensity of ocean waves. “You’ve got to take the wave and you might wipe out. You might get crushed and held under by three waves or you might get a great wave, you know? But you’re going to have to take it,” she told NPR’s Michel Martin.

Ford received tens of thousands of letters from supporters and detractors. She would have to hire a security team, take her family into hiding after threats to kill her, and she would see her character and sanity assailed for years.

But she also became a symbol of courage and hope to untold numbers of people. Following is an interview between NPR’s Michel Martin and Christine Blasey Ford. It has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

To hear the broadcast version of this conversation, use the audio player at the top of this page.

Advertisement

How did you come to share your story with the judiciary committee?

When I saw the short list, I was concerned and felt that I at least needed to share the information, not necessarily publicly, but let the government know that that had happened to me and that possibly they would want to look into some of the other candidates on that list.

Why did you think that was important to do?

I felt like as a citizen that it’s our responsibility to weigh in when we have relevant information for a job of that level of esteem and importance. I grew up in Washington, D.C., so I had high reverence for all of our governmental institutions and the Supreme Court as a child visiting there on field trips, that seemed to be where we send the best of the best. And I just felt a sense of patriotism and civic duty that I needed to let someone know and that they could then decide if it was of import.

This is years after Anita Hill was subpoenaed to testify, after it became known that she had had what she said was an experience of sexual harassment with Clarence Thomas when they both worked together. And that was a very bruising experience, you know, for all involved. Do you remember the whole experience with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas? Did you think it would be like that or did you think it would be different than that?

Advertisement

I do remember that very well, and I remember most about that is her level of detail in recalling the incidents. I was hoping that it was not going to be similar. I was very scared of the idea of sitting in front of the Senate, and I was hoping that there was some other way that it could play out where I could share the information with the senators without having to sit in Washington, D.C., with them in that big room where she sat.

One of the things that surprised me, people may remember this from the coverage even at the time, is that the committee really did not want to hear from you. Did you find that surprising after all these years after Anita Hill was subpoenaed to testify against Clarence Thomas, and they were heavily criticized for this. At the time, the Judiciary Committee was all male. That was one of the issues sort of at play here .But did you think it would be different all these years later, that they really did want to hear from you?

I did overestimate how interested they would be in this information. I really thought that it was important for them to know and that they would want to know. And I viewed myself as helpful like I was trying to be helpful to them and apparently that was not how they necessarily viewed it and it became highly politicized.

When a decision was made and it was clear that you were then going to testify, can you even sort of describe what it was like to be in the middle of that?

I was still ambivalent about speaking publicly in front of the Senate. I wanted to meet with them privately. And I wrote a letter saying that I felt that was the best thing to do for his family and for my family and would reduce sort of the amount of attention and the circus around it and as well as the threats to both families. So that was my preference but it didn’t happen that way. They wanted to have an open hearing. I wasn’t watching it or thinking about how it connected to a MeToo movement or to another hearing. I was just trying to get through it.

Advertisement

What made you finally decide to cross that threshold? I was struck by your saying up to the last minute you were not sure you were going to go through with it. Why do you think you did?

Well, I certainly had a phone and email inbox full of messages of people telling me not to do it, either for caring reasons or for reasons where they were trying to scare me. And then I also had text messages and emails full of people from all over the world saying, we need you to do this as survivors. And so I had a lot of people, weighing in on what I should do. And it seemed like it was about 50-50 and finally I thought, this is so stressful, maybe this will just end the stress and that maybe if I testify, it’ll be over.

The level of smear media and a report from the Senate or from half of the committee with allegations that are salacious and criminal, that felt really gut wrenching for me because those were the people that I set out to help. So to me, that’s kind of the hardest part is setting out as a citizen and feeling you have a patriotic duty and a higher calling and that you’re willing to sustain some level of backlash. But to have the actual people that you’re trying to help be the people who are involved in that backlash is a little bit difficult to come to terms with. And part of why I wrote the book is I don’t want it to be the case that other people don’t come forward. So I wanted to show that no matter how scary this is, it is something you can live through and survive and come out the other side.

Nina Kravinsky produced the audio for this story. Meghan Sullivan edited the digital version.

Advertisement

News

New video shows fatal Minnesota ICE shooting from officer’s perspective

Published

on

New video shows fatal Minnesota ICE shooting from officer’s perspective

People participate in a protest and noise demonstration calling for an end to federal immigration enforcement operations in the city, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026, in Minneapolis.

John Locher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

John Locher/AP

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota prosecutor on Friday called on the public to share with investigators any recordings and evidence connected to the fatal shooting of Renee Good as a new video emerged showing the final moments of her encounter with an immigration officer.

The Minneapolis killing and a separate shooting in Portland, Oregon, a day later by the Border Patrol have set off protests in multiple cities and denunciations of immigration enforcement tactics by the U.S. government. The Trump administration has defended the officer who shot Good in her car, saying he was protecting himself and fellow agents.

The reaction to the shooting has largely been focused on witness cellphone video of the encounter. A new, 47-second video that was published online by a Minnesota-based conservative news site, Alpha News, and later reposted on social media by the Department of Homeland Security shows the shooting from the perspective of ICE officer Jonathan Ross, who fired the shots.

Advertisement
This image from video made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross via Alpha News shows Renee Good in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026.

This image from video made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross via Alpha News shows Renee Good in her vehicle in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026.

Jonathan Ross/AP/ICE


hide caption

toggle caption

Jonathan Ross/AP/ICE

Advertisement

Sirens blaring in the background, he approaches and circles Good’s vehicle in the middle of the road while apparently filming on his cellphone. At the same time, Good’s wife also was recording the encounter and can be seen walking around the vehicle and approaching the officer. A series of exchanges occurred:

“That’s fine, I’m not mad at you,” Good says as the officer passes by her door. She has one hand on the steering wheel and the other outside the open driver side window.

“U.S. citizen, former f—ing veteran,” says her wife, standing outside the passenger side of the SUV holding up her phone. “You wanna come at us, you wanna come at us, I say go get yourself some lunch big boy.”

Other officers are approaching the driver’s side of the car at about the same time and one says: “Get out of the car, get out of the f—ing car.” Ross is now at the front driver side of the vehicle. Good reverses briefly, then turns the steering wheel toward the passenger side as she drives ahead and Ross opens fire.

Advertisement

The camera becomes unsteady and points toward the sky and then returns to the street view showing Good’s SUV careening away.

“F—ing b—,” someone at the scene says.

A crashing sound is heard as Good’s vehicle smashes into others parked on the street.

Federal agencies have encouraged officers to document encounters in which people may attempt to interfere with enforcement actions, but policing experts have cautioned that recording on a handheld device can complicate already volatile situations by occupying an officer’s hands and narrowing focus at moments when rapid decision-making is required.

Under an ICE policy directive, officers and agents are expected to activate body-worn cameras at the start of enforcement activities and to record throughout interactions, and footage must be kept for review in serious incidents such as deaths or use-of-force cases. The Department of Homeland Security has not responded to questions about whether the officer who opened fire or any of the others who were on the scene were wearing body cameras.

Advertisement

Homeland Security says video shows self-defense

Vice President JD Vance and Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in posts on X that the new video backs their contention that the officer fired in self-defense.

“Many of you have been told this law enforcement officer wasn’t hit by a car, wasn’t being harassed, and murdered an innocent woman,” Vance said. “The reality is that his life was endangered and he fired in self defense.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has said any self-defense argument is “garbage.”

Policing experts said the video didn’t change their thoughts on the use-of-force but did raise additional questions about the officer’s training.

“Now that we can see he’s holding a gun in one hand and a cellphone in the other filming, I want to see the officer training that permits that,” said Geoff Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina.

Advertisement

The video demonstrates that the officers didn’t perceive Good to be a threat, said John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who has written extensively about officers shooting at moving vehicles.

“If you are an officer who views this woman as a threat, you don’t have one hand on a cellphone. You don’t walk around this supposed weapon, casually filming,” Gross said.

Ross, 43, is an Iraq War veteran who has served in the Border Patrol and ICE for nearly two decades. He was injured last year when he was dragged by a driver fleeing an immigration arrest.

Attempts to reach Ross at phone numbers and email addresses associated with him were not successful.

Prosecutor asks for video and evidence

Meanwhile, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said that although her office has collaborated effectively with the FBI in past cases, she is concerned by the Trump administration’s decision to bar state and local agencies from playing any role in the investigation into Good’s killing.

Advertisement

She also said the officer who shot Good in the head does not have complete legal immunity, as Vance declared.

“We do have jurisdiction to make this decision with what happened in this case,” Moriarty said at a news conference. “It does not matter that it was a federal law enforcement agent.”

Moriarty said her office would post a link for the public to submit footage of the shooting, even though she acknowledged that she wasn’t sure what legal outcome submissions might produce.

Good’s wife, Becca Good, released a statement to Minnesota Public Radio on Friday saying, “kindness radiated out of her.”

“On Wednesday, January 7th, we stopped to support our neighbors. We had whistles. They had guns,” Becca Good said.

Advertisement

“I am now left to raise our son and to continue teaching him, as Renee believed, that there are people building a better world for him,” she wrote.

Protesters confront law enforcement outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

Protesters confront law enforcement outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Friday, Jan. 9, 2026.

Adam Bettcher/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Adam Bettcher/AP

The reaction to Good’s shooting was immediate in the city where police killed George Floyd in 2020, with hundreds of protesters converging on the shooting scene and the school district canceling classes for the rest of the week as a precaution and offering an online option through Feb. 12.

On Friday, protesters were outside a federal facility serving as a hub for the immigration crackdown that began Tuesday in Minneapolis and St. Paul. That evening, hundreds protested and marched outside two hotels in downtown Minneapolis where immigration enforcement agents were supposed to be staying. Some people were seen breaking or spray painting windows and state law enforcement officers wearing helmets and holding batons ordered the remaining group of fewer than 100 people to leave late Friday.

Shooting in Portland

The Portland shooting happened outside a hospital Thursday. A federal border officer shot and wounded a man and woman in a vehicle, identified by the Department of Homeland Security as Venezuela nationals Luis David Nico Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras. Police said they were in stable condition Friday after surgery, with DHS saying Nico Moncada was taken into FBI custody

Advertisement

DHS defended the actions of its officers in Portland, saying the shooting occurred after the driver with alleged gang ties tried to “weaponize” his vehicle to hit them. It said no officers were injured.

Portland Police Chief Bob Day confirmed that the two people shot had “some nexus” to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Day said they came to the attention of police during an investigation of a July shooting believed to have been carried out by gang members, but they were not identified as suspects.

The chief said any gang affiliation did not necessarily justify the shooting by U.S. Border Patrol. The Oregon Department of Justice said it would investigate.

On Friday evening, hundreds of protesters marched to the ICE building in Portland.

The biggest crackdown yet

The Minneapolis shooting happened on the second day of the immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities, which Homeland Security said is the biggest immigration enforcement operation ever. More than 2,000 officers are taking part and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said they have made more than 1,500 arrests.

Advertisement

The government is also shifting immigration officers to Minneapolis from sweeps in Louisiana, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. This represents a pivot, as the Louisiana crackdown that began in December had been expected to last into February.

Good’s death — at least the fifth tied to immigration sweeps since President Donald Trump took office — has resonated far beyond Minneapolis. More protests are planned for this weekend, according to Indivisible, a group formed to resist the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

News

Trump administration can’t block child care, other program money for 5 states: Judge

Published

on

Trump administration can’t block child care, other program money for 5 states: Judge

A federal judge ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot block federal money for child care subsidies and other programs aimed at supporting needy children and their families from flowing to five Democratic-led states for now.

The states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York argued that a policy announced Tuesday to freeze funds for three grant programs is having an immediate impact on them and creating “operational chaos.” In court filings and a hearing earlier Friday, the states contended that the government did not have a legal reason for holding back the money from those states.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was pausing the funding because it had “reason to believe” the states were granting benefits to people in the country illegally, though it did not provide evidence or explain why it was targeting those states and not others.

The programs are the Child Care and Development Fund, which subsidizes child care for children from low-income families; the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which provides cash assistance and job training; and the Social Services Block Grant, a smaller fund that provides money for a variety of programs.

The five states say they receive a total of more than $10 billion a year from the programs.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, who was nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden, did not rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but he said the five states had met a legal threshold “to protect the status quo” for at least 14 days while arguments are made in court.

The government had requested reams of data from the five states, including the names and Social Security numbers of everyone who received benefits from some of the programs since 2022.

The states argue that the effort is unconstitutional and is intended to go after Trump’s political adversaries rather than to stamp out fraud in government programs — something the states say they already do.

Jessica Ranucci, a lawyer in the New York Attorney General’s office, said in the Friday hearing, which was conducted by telephone, that at least four of the states had already had money delayed after requesting it. She said that if the states can’t get child care funds, there will be immediate uncertainty for providers and families who rely on the programs.

A lawyer for the federal government, Kamika Shaw, said it was her understanding that the money had not stopped flowing to states.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

National Park Service will void passes with stickers over Trump’s face

Published

on

National Park Service will void passes with stickers over Trump’s face

The Interior Department’s new “America the Beautiful” annual pass for U.S. national parks.

Department of Interior


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Department of Interior

The National Park Service has updated its policy to discourage visitors from defacing a picture of President Trump on this year’s pass.

The use of an image of Trump on the 2026 pass — rather than the usual picture of nature — has sparked a backlash, sticker protests, and a lawsuit from a conservation group.

The $80 annual America the Beautiful pass gives visitors access to more than 2,000 federal recreation sites. Since 2004, the pass has typically showcased sweeping landscapes or iconic wildlife, selected through a public photo contest. Past winners have featured places like Arches National Park in Utah and images of bison roaming the plains.

Advertisement

Instead, of a picture of nature, this year’s design shows side-by-side portraits of Presidents George Washington and Trump. The new design has drawn criticism from parkgoers and ignited a wave of “do-it-yourself” resistance.

Photos circulating online show that many national park cardholders have covered the image of Trump’s face with stickers of wildlife, landscapes, and yellow smiley faces, while some have completely blocked out the whole card. The backlash has also inspired a growing sticker campaign.

Jenny McCarty, a longtime park volunteer and graphic designer, began selling custom stickers meant to fit directly over Trump’s face — with 100% of proceeds going to conservation nonprofits. “We made our first donation of $16,000 in December,” McCarty said. “The power of community is incredible.”

McCarty says the sticker movement is less about politics and more about preserving the neutrality of public lands. “The Interior’s new guidance only shows they continue to disregard how strongly people feel about keeping politics out of national parks,” she said.

Advertisement

The National Park Service card policy was updated this week to say that passes may no longer be valid if they’ve been “defaced or altered.” The change, which was revealed in an internal email to National Park Service staff obtained by SFGATE, comes just as the sticker movement has gained traction across social media.

In a statement to NPR, the Interior Department said there was no new policy. Interagency passes have always been void if altered, as stated on the card itself. The agency said the recent update was meant to clarify that rule and help staff deal with confusion from visitors.

The Park Service has long said passes can be voided if the signature strip is altered, but the updated guidance now explicitly includes stickers or markings on the front of the card.

It will be left to the discretion of park service officials to determine whether a pass has been “defaced” or not. The update means park officials now have the leeway to reject a pass if a sticker leaves behind residue, even if the image underneath is intact.

In December, conservation group the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C., opposing the new pass design.

Advertisement

The group argues that the image violates a federal requirement that the annual America the Beautiful pass display a winning photograph from a national parks photo contest. The 2026 winning image was a picture of Glacier National Park.

“This is part of a larger pattern of Trump branding government materials with his name and image,” Kierán Suckling, the executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told NPR. “But this kind of cartoonish authoritarianism won’t fly in the United States.”

The lawsuit asks a federal court to pull the current pass design and replace it with the original contest winner — the Glacier National Park image. It also seeks to block the government from featuring a president’s face on future passes.

The America the Beautiful National Parks Annual Pass for 2025, showing one of the natural images which used to adorn the pass. Its picture, of a Roseate Spoonbill taken at Everglades National Park, was taken by Michael Zheng.

The America the Beautiful National Parks Annual Pass for 2025, showing one of the natural images which used to adorn the pass. Its picture, of a Roseate Spoonbill taken at Everglades National Park, was taken by Michael Zheng.

Department of Interior


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Department of Interior

Not everyone sees a problem with the new design. Vince Vanata, the GOP chairman of Park County, Wyoming, told the Cowboy State Daily that Trump detractors should “suck it up” and accept the park passes, saying they are a fitting tribute to America’s 250th birthday this July 4.

Advertisement

“The 250th anniversary of our country only comes once. This pass is showing the first president of the United States and the current president of the United States,” Vanata said.

But for many longtime visitors, the backlash goes beyond design.

Erin Quinn Gery, who buys an annual pass each year, compared the image to “a mug shot slapped onto natural beauty.”

She also likened the decision to self-glorification: “It’s akin to throwing yourself a parade or putting yourself on currency,” she said. “Let someone else tell you you’re great — or worth celebrating and commemorating.”

When asked if she plans to remove her protest sticker, Gery replied: “I’ll take the sticker off my pass after Trump takes his name off the Kennedy Center.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending