Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

US civil rights agency moves to end demographic data collection after 60 years

 

US civil rights agency moves to end demographic data collection after 60 years

“The Trump administration is moving to end a 60-year requirement for private sector employers to submit demographic workforce reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC’s Republican majority voted to rescind the data collection requirement, arguing it could encourage discriminatory practices. Critics, including former Democratic EEOC commissioners, argue the data is crucial for uncovering discrimination patterns and tracking progress since the Civil Rights Act.














NEW YORK (AP) — How many women hold executive-level positions at top U.S. companies? What is the racial and ethnic breakdown of those roles? What is the gender and racial breakdown of the lowest-paid roles at those companies?

The Trump administration is making it harder for the public to know, moving to toss aside a 60-year-old requirement for tens of thousands of private sector employers to submit workforce demographic reports each year to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. 

The EEOC’s Republican majority voted 2-1 Tuesday to rescind the data collection requirement, submitting the proposal to a 30-day public commentary period before final approval. The proposal is a quiet but profound salvo in President Donald Trump’s shake up of civil rights enforcement, ending a practice that has endured through 10 Republican and Democratic administrations. 

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, an outspoken critic of diversity and inclusion practices who has urged white men to come forward with discrimination complaints, argued that requiring companies to submit the annual demographic reports risks encouraging companies to justify discriminatory practices to diversify their workforce. 

“It may promote racial stereotyping at work, and it may encourage employers to engage in discrimination,” Lucas said during a hearing ahead of the vote.

Former Democratic EEOC commissioners and civil rights organizations have denounced the proposal, saying it will deprive the agency of a critical tool for uncovering discrimination patterns and tracking how women and racial minorities have fared since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which created the EEOC and prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin and religion. 

The EEOC, which receives more than 88,000 worker complaints each year, has historically used the data to guide its enforcement priorities and inform some of its investigations.

Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, the sole Democrat left on the EEOC since Trump moved to wrest control of the agency, voted against the proposal.

“Today, the commission discusses whether to turn back time to a period before the civil rights movement, kneecapping its ability to protect workers,” Kotagal said.

Here’s what to know about the reporting requirement and the proposal to end it:

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

How the EEOC has collected the data

Since 1966, the EEOC has required companies with at least 100 employees, or federal contractors with at least 50 workers, to submit a form called the EEO-1 each year. 

The form, which has evolved over time, identifies 10 job categories from “Executive/Senior Level Officials and Managers” to “Laborers” and “Service Workers.” It asks employers to report on the number male and female workers in each job category, as well as the number of workers from different race and ethnicities: Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian, American Indian or Alaska Native and two or more races. 

The data typically covers more than 50 million employees and 73,000 employers nationwide. 

A view into gender and race in the private sector

The EEOC launched during the Biden administration an interactive tool allowing the public to explore historical demographic metrics across industries and job categories. The most recent data is from 2023. Under the Trump administration, the EEOC last collected EEO-1 data for the year 2024 but has not publicly disclosed it. Collection of the year 2025 would have begun this year.

The data shows white men dominating executive and senior manager roles at private companies, though women and minorities have made inroads, especially in the years following the #MeToo and Black Lives Matters movements.

Women remain underrepresented in the top ranks of companies. While they make up nearly half the workforce at the companies surveyed, women held just 34.5% of executives and senior manager roles in 2023. That was up from 29.2% a decade earlier.

White and Asian women made the fastest gains, and by 2023, were no longer underrepresented in senior roles compared to their numbers in the overall workforce. In contrast, Black and Hispanic women remained sharply underrepresented in executive and senior manager roles despite making modest gains.

Asian men have been proportionally represented in senior roles for years, while Black and Hispanic men remained underrepresented in 2023.

Of those demographic groups, only one was overrepresented in senior roles: white men, who made up a third of the overall workforce at the companies surveyed but held 52.7% of executive and senior management roles.

Why the government wants to end the data collection

Lucas said the annual reporting requirements impose “hundreds of millions of dollars” on costs on employers, a burden she argued was unnecessary absent “any allegation, indication, or evidence of discrimination.” 

The move was recommended by Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint that has guided many of the Trump administration’s policies. 

A group of former Democratic EEOC commissioners and legal counselors said there is little evidence that companies are routinely using employment data to engage in quotas or race-based hiring. 

“This is simply inaccurate and unsupported speculation, at odds with the ways in which this data is actually collected, managed and used,” the former officials said in a statement.

Instead, the officials said, tracking such data encourages companies to proactively examine their hiring, promotion, benefits and other policies to ensure they are not unnecessarily erecting barriers. 

Kotagal said the agency has used the data to determine whether a discrimination charge might be part of a deeper pattern at a company. She cited recent investigation of California supermarket chain Vallarta Food Enterprises, in which the EEOC alleges the grocer failed or refused to recruit, hire or promote non-Hispanic individuals. In that case, EEO-1 data showed that “nearly 100 percent of its employees were Hispanic,” Kotagal said. “It’s a key tool in our toolbox.” 

The agency has also issued special reports on demographic employment trends across certain industries or roles

Kotagal highlighted a 2024 report on the tech sector, which showed that women had made virtually no gains between 2014 and 2022, and that workers under 40 years old had actually lost ground. The report also found tech company workers were more likely that others to file age or pay discrimination charges, suggesting systemic barriers to women and older workers in the industry. 

The report has been removed from the EEOC’s website.

Corporate retreat from demographic disclosure

The EEOC is prohibited from publicly releasing an individual company’s EEO-1 form, only publishing the information in the aggregate. In recent years, however, a growing number of the country’s top companies began publicly releasing their forms in response to pressure from shareholders and Democratic elected officials to show transparency in their diversity efforts. 

Many of those companies have complained that job categories in the EEO-1 forms don’t align with their internal structures, a point Lucas echoed Tuesday, saying the categories don’t reflect the modern workforce. But advocates of EEO-1 disclosure argued it’s the only standardized form that allows for comparison across companies, and offer more detail. 

However, the trend toward transparency has started to reverse. 

Companies have started to pull back on publicizing both EEO-1 forms and their own diversity reports, which conservative advocates and the Trump administration have seized on to argue that companies are using discriminatory tactics to add women and minorities to their ranks.

In 2025, 24 companies in the S&P 100 — the largest U.S. publicly traded companies — chose not to disclose their EEO-1 data after having done so the year before, according to Andrew Jones, principal researcher at The Conference Board Governance & Sustainability Center. Still, 60 S&P 100 companies did release the data. 

Meanwhile, fewer companies are publicizing any form of demographic metrics. The number of Russell 3,000 companies that disclosed metrics on women in the workforce fell from 75% in 2024 to 62% in 2025, according to a study by The Conference Board. Those disclosing metrics on minority representation fell from 30.9% to 26.5%.

Why companies may keep gathering data

Companies are still likely to keep track of their demographic data, whether or not they disclose any of those metrics publicly, and even if they are no longer required to submit annual EEO-1 reports. That’s because Title VII requires employers to keep records that could be pertinent to any discrimination investigation, and the EEOC is empowered to request them. 

“What we are generally advising is to stay the course,” Jennifer Robins, counsel in law firm Saul Ewing’s Labor and Employment Group. “Private litigants, employment discrimination lawsuits are not going away, and this data is helpful to defending oneself.”

The EEOC has demanded extensive demographic data from companies to bolster Lucas’ own marquee cases. Those include an investigation into diversity, equity and inclusion practices of sports giant Nike, which Lucas has alleged discriminate against white employees; a lawsuit against the New York Times for allegedly discriminating against a white man who was passed over for a promotion, and an investigation into alleged antisemitism against staff at the University of Pennsylvania

Lucas emphasized Tuesday that the EEOC would continue to demand data in the course of its investigations. Kotagal warned employers that under future leadership, the EEOC could reinstitute the EEO-1 collection.

Jocelyn Frye, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, said she sees the elimination of EEO-1 data as part of an effort to obscure the prevalence of discrimination against racial minorities and women and create of a sense of urgency around protecting white workers from DEI-related policies

But Frye said the data “doesn’t suggest that their top priority ought to be discrimination against white men.

“If the chair is moving forward with an agenda that thinks she ought to be focused on men and ought to be focused on white people, my answer is, ‘Well, does the data tell you that?’” Frye said.

___

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.“

Live Updates: Trump Administration Withholds Medicaid Funds for California and Minnesota Over Fraud Claims - The New York Times

Trump Administration Live Updates: White House Withholds Medicaid Funds for California and Minnesota

President Trump buttons his suit jacket.
President Trump returning to Joint Base Andrews on Sunday.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

What We’re Covering Today

  • Medicaid Funds: The Trump administration is withholding more federal funding for Medicaid from two states, California and Minnesota, over allegations of fraud in their public health insurance programs. Read more ›

  • Iran War: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will appear before the Senate Appropriations Committee at 2:30 p.m. Eastern time to ask for $87 billion more to fund the Iran war. Mr. Hegseth and General Caine have not publicly talked about the conflict in depth since May. They are likely to be asked about the recent attacks that killed three U.S. soldiers in Jordan and Iraq and the strategy behind the military’s resumption of strikes in Iran.

  • Intelligence Pick: The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to vote as soon as Tuesday on whether to advance Jay Clayton’s nomination to become director of national intelligence. Democrat lawmakers last week grilled Mr. Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, after he refused to say whether Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won the 2020 election.

Live Updates: Trump Administration Withholds Medicaid Funds for California and Minnesota Over Fraud Claims - The New York Times

Epstein Survivors BREAK SILENCE on Closed-Door BLANCHE Meeting!

 

How Atlanta became the most surveilled city in America | Full Episode - YouTube

 

Monday, July 20, 2026

How Ukraine Brought the War to Russia

 

How Ukraine Brought the War to Russia

“Ukraine’s long-range drone and missile strikes on Russian targets have shifted the war’s balance, potentially leading to its end. This escalation, previously employed by Russia, has garnered attention and support, including from Donald Trump.

Long-range drone and missile strikes on Russian soil have shifted the balance of the conflict—will they be enough to end it?

Volodymyr Zelensky

In recent weeks, Donald Trump—whose attitude toward Ukraine and its President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been notoriously fickle, when not outright hostile—has appeared to warm to Ukraine’s chances in the war with Russia. On the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, he met with Zelensky and later spoke of him in flattering terms, declaring “We’ve actually developed a good relationship. It’s hard to believe.” Trump has a history of favoring those he perceives as winners, and his change in attitude regarding Ukraine seems driven by the country’s newfound ability to strike targets deep inside Russia—“an escalation that can help lead to an end,” Trump said. In Ankara, Zelensky, the inveterate entertainer, riffed on a question from Trump, who asked if Zelensky would consider travelling to Moscow for direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. That would be dangerous, Zelensky said. “There are a lot of Ukrainian drones there.”

Those drones have marked a new phase in the war, defined by the centrality of long-range strikes. Russia has been doing this since the start of the war, terrorizing Ukrainian cities with aerial assaults that have killed thousands of civilians and crippled much of the country’s energy grid for months on end. In June, it launched multiple waves of drones and missiles targeting residential blocks in Kyiv, Dnipro, Kharkiv, and other Ukrainian cities. On July 1st, in Russia’s deadliest attack to date this year on Kyiv, more than thirty people were killed. Five days later, another attack on Kyiv and the surrounding region left at least twenty-eight people dead.“

Trump’s War on Journalists

 

Trump’s War on Journalists

“The recent subpoenas of reporters make clear that the President is trying to threaten the press. Few protections are in place to stop him.

A finger pointing at a microphone.

For years now, in office and out, Donald Trump has been unabashed about his desire to see reporters behind bars. The President’s fantasies can, at times, take on a lurid tone. Campaigning for Republican candidates during the 2022 midterms, Trump assailed the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs, the landmark abortion case, and outlined his preferred approach to identifying the source: “The reporter goes to jail. When the reporter learns that he’s going to be married in two days to a certain prisoner that’s extremely strong, tough, and mean, he will say, he or she, ‘I think I’m going to give you the information. Here’s the leaker, get me the hell out of here.’ ” This April, after it was reported that a crew member was missing from an American fighter jet that had been shot down in Iran, Trump vowed that the person who had spoken to the press would be quickly outed: “We’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security. Give it up or go to jail.’ ”

No one went to jail, but Trump has seized on another opportunity to threaten journalists. Earlier this month, the Times reported that he was forced to ditch his new Air Force One, given to him by the Qataris, for part of the ride home from the NATO summit in Turkey; the plane allegedly lacked anti-missile capabilities. (Trump had claimed that he was taking a last spin in the previous Air Force One “for old time’s sake.”) According to the Times, a senior F.B.I. official asked the newspaper to hold the story, citing national security. The Times declined to comply. Two days later, three journalists received subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury in Manhattan. The Times later reported that the White House had instructed the director of the F.B.I., Kash Patel, to oversee an investigation into the leak, and that Patel had spent the day the subpoenas were issued holed up at the White House—not the ordinary locus for a law-enforcement operation. The Times, in a sealed filing that it sought to have publicly released, moved to quash the subpoenas, saying that they were “brought in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage.”

Judge orders pause on Paramount-Warner merger after challenge from 12 states

 

Judge orders pause on Paramount-Warner merger after challenge from 12 states

“$81bn merger halted for at least two weeks after US states sued to block deal, saying it would ‘extinguish competition’

man in navy pilot uniform stands in front of plane and looks down
Tom Cruise in Top Gun: Maverick, one of Paramount’s biggest box office hits. Photograph: Album/Alamy

A federal judge on Monday ordered Paramount and Warner Bros Discovery to halt their $81bn merger for at least two weeks, allowing states that are challenging the deal more time to see their case through in court.

Twelve states, led by California, sued to block Paramount’s pending buyout of Warner last week – alleging that such a combination would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly moviegoers and cable customers across the US.

The states’ top prosecutors called on Warner and Paramount to not close the transaction until after a court had time to “fully evaluate” their claims. And when the companies refused, they filed for a temporary restraining order – which is what district judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín granted on Monday. That opens the door to a potential preliminary injunction that the states are also seeking to effectively block the deal.

“This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day,” Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, said in a statement following Monday’s order. “History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans’ lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people.”

A Warner-Paramount tie-up would bring together two of the five last legacy studios in Hollywood – as well as host of TV networks, titles filling streaming libraries and news operations. That would include Warner’s HBO Max, fan favorites such as Harry Potter and even CNN coming under the same roof of Paramount-owned CBS, movies including Top Gun and the Paramount+ streaming service.

Paramount did not immediately comment on Monday’s order. But the company, which was bought out by Skydance just last year, has vowed to “vigorously defend” its Warner acquisition. Paramount previously called the states’ complaint “wrong on both the facts and the law”, maintaining that a merger would instead strengthen competition against bigger entertainment rivals. And it touted regulatory greenlights the deal has received elsewhere, including from the Trump administration last month.

The temporary restraining order granted on Monday halts the deal from progressing for at least 14 days, although the pause could be extended for up to 28 days. The court has set 3 August as a date for a hearing on the states’ preliminary injunction motion, although that schedule could also be pushed back“

U.S. Sought Phone Records of Times Journalists and Their Relatives

 

U.S. Sought Phone Records of Times Journalists and Their Relatives

“The Trump administration sought phone records of New York Times journalists and their relatives to identify sources for articles about the security of President Trump’s new Air Force One. The Justice Department issued subpoenas to phone service providers and to compel reporters to testify before a grand jury. The New York Times is challenging these actions, arguing they violate media guidelines and aim to intimidate journalists.

The government is aggressively seeking the confidential sources of Times reporters who wrote about the president’s new Air Force One. The Times has asked a judge to quash the subpoenas.

A street view of a multistory building with "The New York Times" written on it, with the lights on inside and cars and taxis passing in front of it.
The New York Times building at 620 Eighth Avenue in Manhattan.Lucia Vazquez for The New York Times

The Trump administration sought the phone records of several New York Times journalists and their relatives — including one reporter’s mother — in its effort to unmask the confidential sources who had provided information for articles about the security capabilities of President Trump’s new Air Force One jet.

The Justice Department told The Times late last week that it had issued subpoenas to third-party phone service providers seeking several journalists’ phone and text messaging records. That effort was in addition to the subpoenas issued on July 10 that sought to compel reporters to testify before a federal grand jury.

The government’s actions amount to an extraordinarily aggressive and unorthodox attempt by the Trump administration to unearth the confidential sources of independent journalists whose reporting had angered the president.

The additional subpoenas — which also sought information about calls and messages on the phones of two of the reporters’ spouses — were described in a motion filed on Saturday by lawyers for The Times, which is seeking to quash the requests. The motion was unsealed on Monday morning by Judge Arun Subramanian of U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The White House referred inquiries to the Justice Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for The Times declined to comment beyond the motion filed by its lawyers.

The government began a leak investigation into The Times’s coverage days after the news outlet reported earlier this month that federal officials harbored significant concerns about the security capabilities of Mr. Trump’s new, Qatari-donated Air Force One jet. Mr. Trump was enraged by that reporting, and the White House directed the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, to oversee the investigation.

The president had flown on the Qatari-built jet to Turkey, touting its gilded interior to reporters, but then departed on the older Air Force One at the urging of the Secret Service. (Asked on Sunday about the security issues, Mr. Trump said that the new jet would be “maxed out” in “about a month or so.”)

All the subpoenas have been paused until Judge Subramanian rules on The Times’s motion to quash. A hearing is scheduled on the matter for Thursday in Manhattan.

In its motion on Saturday, The Times said that the Justice Department had violated its own guidelines for media subpoenas when it waited a week to notify The Times about the phone record requests, calling the delay “deeply concerning.”

The news outlet also laid out a series of events that it said amounted to a “bad-faith effort to intimidate the journalists and chill their ability to report on the administration.”

The Times said that two of the government’s subpoenas sought phone records dating back to Jan. 1, many months before The Times reported on the Air Force One security concerns. “That time frame strongly suggests that the department is using this investigation not to focus on any purported concerns arising from the July 8 and 9 articles, but instead to forage for information about the journalists’ source relationships more broadly,” the newspaper wrote.

The Times also raised concerns about the government’s attempt to extract the phone records of its journalists’ relatives. The news outlet said that one reporter’s mother was a mental health professional, and another reporter’s spouse was employed in a senior role at a major law firm.

The Times also wrote that, in one instance, the Justice Department served a subpoena for phone records after the newspaper had already filed a motion to quash the subpoenas that sought reporters’ grand jury testimony. The matter of the grand jury subpoenas had already been assigned to Judge Subramanian. But in that instance, the Justice Department asked a different federal judge to formally prevent one phone company from informing The Times about the record request.

“This sequence of events and the timing of the government’s disclosures are deeply troubling for obvious reasons,” The Times wrote in its motion. “They raise pressing questions about the conduct of this purported national security investigation and confirm the absence of any regularity in the department’s use of the grand jury in this case. They also highlight why this court’s intervention is urgently required.”

Michael M. Grynbaum writes about the intersection of media, politics and culture. He has been a media correspondent at The Times since 2016.“

Sunday, July 19, 2026

Scientists Compared Black American DNA to European DNA — The Results Shocked Everyone

 

Janai Norman on Her GMA Departure and Why She's Speaking Out Now | The Joy Reid Show

 

Jamelle Bouie July 18, 2026 Ketanji Brown Jackson Knows What 1776 Meant

 

Jamelle Bouie

Ketanji Brown Jackson Knows What 1776 Meant

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“You’re reading the Jamelle Bouie newsletter.  Historical context for present-day events.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a long essay on the revolutionary meaning of the Declaration of Independence and how it was given life by the Black Americans, free and enslaved, who wielded its language of equality against bondage and racial discrimination. Unexpectedly, the piece made for good reading alongside Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurrence in Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case that was decided just before the Fourth of July.

In Trump v. Barbara, a 6-3 majority of the court struck down President Trump’s 2025 executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship for certain categories of immigrants. But of that majority, only five justices held that the executive order was also unconstitutional, rather than simply unlawful.

The principal dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued that the citizenship clause was a narrow remedy meant exclusively for the formerly enslaved. The 14th Amendment does not, in his view, cover undocumented immigrants or, potentially, anyone that the president deems to be unlawfully on American soil.

Writing primarily in response to Thomas, Jackson challenges this interpretation of the 14th Amendment, showing readers that the authors of the citizenship clause were informed by decades of work performed by Black Americans. Speaking through hundreds of “colored conventions” — which we have discussed before — Black Americans both claimed their “native-born” citizenship and articulated visions of a broad, egalitarian citizenship, based on birth and open to all:

Delegates to the Colored Conventions drew upon their own experiences to successfully argue for a new Constitution — one that protected fundamental human rights, including an individual’s “‘right to own his body and mind’” and “the right of personal security and protection against injuries to our bodies or good name.”

You should read Jackson’s concurrence as a complement to my essay because we are each telling different parts of the same story: the struggle of Black Americans to realize their freedom and, in the process, forge the path to a freer, more equal United States.


What I Wrote

My column this week was a comment on Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who died last weekend:

It is one thing to go with the flow — Graham was a politician, after all — but it is something else entirely to throw caution to the wind and embrace a man you denounced, just months earlier, as inimical to your basic values — a man who was as unfit for the presidency on Jan. 20, 2017, as he was on Jan. 19, 2017. For someone as eager for rank as Graham, the temptation of power — of real influence over the new administration — was too much to resist. When it came time to choose between his career and his values, Graham chose Trump, and it would define the rest of his life.

Also, on this week’s episode of my podcast with John Ganz, we watched Michael Bay’s 1998 disaster thriller “Armageddon.”


Now Reading

Brenda Wineapple on America’s centennial for The New York Review of Books.

Adom Getachew on how 20th-century anticolonial figures wielded the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence for their own struggles, in Dissent magazine.

In Jewish Currents, 23 Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank reflect on their lives and futures.

Adam Serwer on the “colorblind” Supreme Court for The Atlantic.

Zohran Mamdani on Nelson Mandela for The Guardian.


Photo of the Week

A Catholic mission in San Antonio.


Now Eating: Lablabi (Tunisian Chickpea Soup)

Recipe from NYT Cooking.

Ingredients

For crispy chickpeas

  • 1 ¾ cup cooked chickpeas, or 1 (15-ounce) can chickpeas, drained and rinsed

  • 2 teaspoons extra-virgin olive oil

  • ½ teaspoon kosher salt, plus more to taste

  • 1 teaspoon za’atar, plus more to taste

For soup

  • 1 ½ cups dried chickpeas, soaked overnight and drained

  • ¼ cup plus 3 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil, plus more for serving

  • 2 bay leaves

  • 1 ½ teaspoon kosher salt, plus more to taste

  • ½ loaf hearty rustic bread (about 8 ounces)

  • 1 cup chopped onion, from 1 medium onion

  • 6 garlic cloves, minced or finely grated

  • 1 tablespoon ground cumin, plus more for serving

  • 1 tablespoon tomato paste

  • 1 tablespoon harissa paste, plus more for serving

  • 3 tablespoons fresh lemon juice

  • 1 tablespoon finely grated lemon zest, for serving

  • ½ cup chopped flat-leaf parsley, for serving

Directions

Prepare the crispy chickpeas: Transfer chickpeas to a rimmed baking sheet lined with a clean dish towel or paper towels. Cover with another towel (or paper towels), rubbing gently to dry. Remove top towel and let air-dry for at least 30 minutes and preferably 1 hour.

As chickpeas dry, start preparing the soup: In a Dutch oven or heavy stockpot, combine soaked chickpeas, 5 cups water, 1 tablespoon olive oil, bay leaves and ½ teaspoon salt over high heat. Bring to a boil for 2 to 3 minutes, then reduce heat to a simmer, cover and cook until chickpeas are tender, about 1 to 2 hours.

Heat oven to 400 degrees. While chickpeas are cooking, cut bread into thick slices, then tear slices into bite-size pieces. Place bread in one layer on large rimmed baking sheet and toast until crisp and light brown, about 10 minutes. Let cool on pan and set aside.

Finish the crunchy chickpeas: Raise oven temperature to 425 degrees. Remove the towels from baking sheet with the chickpeas, and toss the chickpeas with 2 teaspoons olive oil, ½ teaspoon salt and za’atar until well coated. Roast until golden and crispy, about 13 to 18 minutes, tossing halfway through. When chickpeas are still hot, sprinkle lightly more salt. Taste and add more salt or za’atar, or both, if you’d like.

When the chickpeas for the soup are tender, discard bay leaves. Using a slotted spoon, transfer 2 cups of chickpeas, ½ cup of chickpea cooking liquid and ¼ cup olive oil to a blender or food processor, and purée until smooth.

In a large skillet over medium-high, heat the remaining 2 tablespoons oil until shimmering. Add the onion and cook, stirring occasionally, until softened, about 5 minutes. Add garlic and cook until golden, about 2 minutes. Add the remaining 1 teaspoon salt, 1 tablespoon cumin and tomato paste and cook, stirring, until fragrant, 1 minute. Add a splash of the chickpea cooking liquid to the pan, and bring to a simmer to deglaze, scraping up the browned bits on the bottom of the pan. Turn off heat.

Add chickpea purée and onion mixture to soup, along with harissa and lemon juice, and stir well. Add a little water if soup seems too thick, and more salt, if needed.

To serve, divide toasted bread pieces among soup bowls, then ladle in soup. Garnish with lemon zest, parsley, olive oil, more cumin and some of the crispy chickpeas — you’ll have leftovers. Serve hot, with more harissa on the side.

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va.“