Category: Washington Post

  • The best and worst technologies of 2025

    The best and worst technologies of 2025

    It’s my annual tradition to take stock of big themes in technology, with a focus on positive developments for you in the past year. Here is the tally of the mostly good, but occasionally crummy, year in technology for 2025.

    AI that’s useful and less creepy

    I love the motto of Gabriel Weinberg, the CEO of web search and browser company DuckDuckGo: AI should be “useful, private, and optional.”

    DuckDuckGo lets you access chatbots including ChatGPT but insists that the AI companies can’t access your data. (The Washington Post has a content partnership with ChatGPT owner OpenAI.)

    You can turn off AI features in DuckDuckGo, too. I’m hoping that DuckDuckGo inspires more AI kill switches across the internet.

    I’m declaring DuckDuckGo the best technology company of 2025. Even if you never use its products, DuckDuckGo shows that people and companies can challenge the Silicon Valley conventional wisdom that AI is inevitable, inescapable, and insatiable.

    I’m also curious about the just announced encrypted chatbot from Moxie Marlinspike.

    I haven’t tried it yet, but Marlinspike helped create the gold standard encryption that’s used by the Signal app, WhatsApp, Meta Messenger, and Google’s texting app for Android phones. If he can likewise establish a usable, private chatbot standard, that’s a boon for you.

    And I never thought I’d say this, but I’m a convert to AI search technologies for questions and research that don’t work in standard web searches.

    I asked ChatGPT recently for the Stephen King novel featuring a character that carves into the skin of another. (“It.”) I used Google’s AI Mode to poke into technology stock returns since the 2010s. It wasn’t perfect but it was useful to guide more intensive research.

    Using AI search tools isn’t life changing. And AI still has the same problems. It risks draining precious resources, preying on vulnerable minds, wiping out jobs, or choking your favorite websites.

    The worst technology of 2025 is a no brainer: AI “agents,” the chatbots or AI browsers that promised you could just tell AI what to do — order groceries or find the best mattress. Outside a handful of tasks such as software coding, agents are an overhyped mess.

    It became glaring this year that many Americans mistrust, reject, or feel pessimistic about AI even as we use the technology more. That’s not a contradiction. It’s a warning sign.

    The companies that make AI, and those of us who use it, must focus on judicious deployment of AI. We can insist that AI be useful, private, optional, and open about its shortcomings. And we must be clear-eyed about when AI is the wrong tool for the job.

    A technology that beat inflation and got cheaper

    Government inflation figures show that prices of wireless phone service have fallen this year. It shows that corporate warfare can actually help you.

    Mobile phone carriers are increasingly fighting one another for customers. That has showered many people with steeply discounted new smartphones. There’s also a flourishing market for alternative mobile service providers that can save you loads of money.

    The bad news: You can probably expect price increases in 2026 for laptops and some other electronics. Blame AI.

    Gen Z protests and government workers showed technology’s empowering promise

    In the United States, federal government workers who were stunned by the tumultuous start to the second Trump administration swarmed to Signal and Reddit to discuss what was happening, buck each other up, and share their experiences.

    And in countries such as Nepal and Indonesia, young people disappointed in their political leaders used apps such as TikTok, Discord, and WhatsApp to spread memes, organize protests, and even appoint new political leaders.

    These twin movements felt like an echo of the Arab Spring. Those early 2010s uprisings helped cement the idea that people could harness social media to unite against entrenched power.

    As with the Arab Spring, 2025’s technology-aided movements might not bring lasting change. But they did remind us of technology’s promise to empower the little guys.

    Saving the most important for last

    The most important technology of 2025 is:

    YouTube. It’s the place to understand where our culture, technology, and media are headed.

    Google-owned YouTube remains America’s most popular social media service among adults and teens. It tops Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram by a country mile.

    Americans also spend more time watching YouTube on TV than anything else. Netflix is a distant second, according to Nielsen.

    YouTube has spawned news and entertainment empires that couldn’t have existed before, including MrBeast and Ms. Rachel. It’s also increasingly the home for big events such as football games and the Oscars. That combination has grabbed your time, advertisers’ dollars, and cultural influence away from traditional Hollywood and media gatekeepers.

    That makes YouTube the most consequential technology in our lives and — with apologies to Netflix and the Ellison family — the most disruptive force in media and entertainment.

    Runner-up: Smartphones. There will more attempts in 2026 at AI-dedicated smart glasses and other gadgets intended to displace the smartphone as the primary computer for billions of people. But it may be that the killer AI device is still the smartphone.

  • ICE plans $100 million ‘wartime recruitment’ push targeting gun shows, military fans for hires

    ICE plans $100 million ‘wartime recruitment’ push targeting gun shows, military fans for hires

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are planning to spend $100 million over a one-year period to recruit gun-rights supporters and military enthusiasts through online influencers and a geo-targeted advertising campaign, part of what the agency called a “wartime recruitment” strategy it said was critical to hiring thousands of new deportation officers nationwide, according to an internal document reviewed by the Washington Post.

    The spending would help President Donald Trump’s mass-deportation agenda dominate media networks and recruitment channels, including through ads targeting people who have attended UFC fights, listened to patriotic podcasts, or shown an interest in guns and tactical gear, according to a 30-page document distributed among officials in this summer detailing ICE’s “surge hiring marketing strategy.”

    The Department of Homeland Security has spoken publicly about its fast-tracked effort to significantly increase ICE’s workforce by hiring more than 10,000 new employees, a surge promoted on social media with calls for recruits willing to perform their “sacred duty” and “defend the homeland” by repelling “foreign invaders.” The agency currently employs more than 20,000 people, according to ICE’s website.

    But the document, reported here for the first time, reveals new details about the vast scale of the recruitment effort and its unconventional strategy to “flood the market” with millions of dollars in spending for Snapchat ads, influencers and live streamers on Rumble, a video platform popular with conservatives. Under the strategy, ICE would also use an ad-industry technique known as “geofencing” to send ads to the phone web browsers and social media feeds of anyone who set foot near military bases, NASCAR races, college campuses, or gun and trade shows.

    The document was also distributed among ICE officials in the days after the agency published a request for bids seeking contractors who could use “precise audience targeting, performance media management, and results-driven creative strategies” to “accelerate the achievement of [its] recruiting goals.” The language in the published bid closely mirrored language in the strategy document. That same month, DHS awarded two marketing firms nearly $40 million to support ICE’s public affairs office “recruitment campaign,” according to federal awards data.

    It’s unclear how much of the spending and strategy have been carried out. But the plans outlined in the document have coincided with a rush of recruitment ads online seeking Americans who will “answer the call to serve.”

    The rapid-recruitment approach is unlike anything ICE has ever pursued, said Sarah Saldaña, a director of ICE during the Obama administration, who recalled the agency filling its open positions through local police departments and sheriff’s offices with appeals to officers’ interests in federal public-safety work.

    She said she worries that the speed with which ICE is racing to bring on new hires — coupled with the ad campaign’s framing of the jobs as part of a war — will raise the risk that the agency could attract untrained recruits eager for all-out combat.

    The appeal to law enforcement should not be “the quicker we get out there and run over people, the better off this country will be,” she said. “That mentality you’re fostering tends to inculcate in people a certain aggressiveness that may not be necessary in 85 percent of what you do.”

    ICE deferred comment to Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokeswoman, who did not dispute a detailed list of claims and financial figures sent by the Post and said she was “thrilled to see the Washington Post highlight … [the] wildly successful ICE recruitment campaign, which is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

    The agency, she said, has received more than 220,000 job applications in five months and has issued more than 18,000 tentative job offers. More than 85% of the new hires had experience in law enforcement, she added.

    Tricia McLaughlin, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, is flanked by Madison Sheahan, second in command at ICE, and Todd Lyons, acting ICE director, at a May 21 news conference in Washington.

    Congress this summer tripled ICE’s enforcement and deportation budget to about $30 billion by passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, helping to start a hiring spree that officials have said would be necessary to carry out the Trump administration’s promise of the biggest mass deportation in American history. Officials set a goal of 1 million deportations within the first year of Trump’s term.

    To bolster its recruiting, the agency has removed its age limits for applicants and offered signing bonuses of up to $50,000. A job listing on a federal hiring board said the salaries for many deportation officers could range from $50,000 to $90,000 a year.

    Recruitment ads have proliferated across TV, radio, print and podcasts directing viewers to an ICE hiring website that portrays immigration as an existential threat. “America has been invaded by criminals and predators,” reads the website, which includes an image of Uncle Sam. “We need YOU to get them out.”

    On social media, administration accounts have mixed immigration raid footage with memes from action movies and video games to portray ICE’s mission as a fight against the “enemies … at the gates.” “Want to deport illegals with your absolute boys?” one post says. “Are you going to cowboy up or just lay there and bleed?” says another.

    A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is seen in Park Ridge, Ill., on Sept. 19.

    But to reach ICE’s “rapid hiring” goal of about 14,000 new Enforcement and Removal Operations officers, Homeland Security Investigations agents, ICE lawyers and support staff, the strategy document also calls for deploying more finely targeted digital advertising tools that can home in on viewers’ interests and lifestyles.

    ICE recruitment ads, the plan said, would be shown to people with an interest in “military and veterans’ affairs,” “physical training,” or “conservative news and politics” and would target people whose lifestyles are “patriotic” or “conservative-leaning.”

    The strategy said to target listeners of conservative radio shows, country music and podcasts related to patriotism, men’s interests and true crime, as well as any accounts that resemble users with an interest in “conservative thought leaders, gun rights organizations [and] tactical gear brands,” the document said.

    To further attract recruits, the strategy called for spending at least $8 million on deals with online influencers whose followers are largely Gen Z and millennials and who were in the “military families,” “fitness,” and “tactical/lifestyle enthusiast communities.”

    The document did not name specific influencers but said it would focus on “former agents, veterans and pro-ICE creators” who would be expected to host live streams, attend events and post short- and long-form videos and other content to Facebook, Instagram, Rumble, X and YouTube. Blogs, Substack newsletters, and Threads accounts would also be targeted for more “niche communities,” the document said.

    The objective, it said, is to build trust through “authentic peer-to-peer messaging” and to “normalize and humanize careers at ICE through storytelling and lived experiences.” The document said it expected more than 5,000 applicants would come through the influencer program, costing ICE about $1,500 per application.

    ICE has run ads on Google, LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook, targeting the latter to military veterans and “entry-level job” seekers, according to the companies’ ad libraries, which share public data on the platforms’ ad campaigns. Millions more in advertising was slated for delivery to gaming consoles, connected TV devices and streaming services such as ESPN, Fox News and Paramount+, as well as across newspapers, billboards and box trucks, the strategy document said.

    Listeners on Spotify have heard ICE ads calling on recruits to “fulfill your mission,” leading to hundreds of complaints on the music service’s message board. One NASCAR viewer who saw the ads on live streams said in a Reddit post that they changed the channel, and separately told the Post that they had “never felt such distaste for our government airing such ads.”

    Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan, a deputy director at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said ICE’s ads harked back to World War I recruitment posters by using symbols like Uncle Sam.

    The war rhetoric is in line with the Trump administration’s broader efforts to push mass deportations as critical to American security and immigration officials’ work as heroic, she said. But the ads also allow ICE to gloss over the “messy realities of immigration enforcement,” including “the public backlash, the legal pushback and the very real operational constraints.”

    “We’ve never seen immigration agencies kind of strip down the policy debates to this level of raw imagery and symbolism,” she added.

    The strategy document features on the cover ICE’s second-in-command, Madison Sheahan, who worked as an aide to DHS Secretary Kristi L. Noem when she was governor of South Dakota. In the photo, Sheahan, 28, wears a “police” vest and an ICE badge under the words “Defend the Homeland.”

    The document called for spending “$100 million within one year” as part of an “aggressive” recruitment program that would “saturate digital and traditional media” and prioritize “speed, scale, and conversion at every level.”

    Public ad-tracking figures from Google and Meta show ICE’s digital ad spending so far is a fraction of the strategy’s proposed budget for their platforms. McLaughlin, the DHS spokeswoman, did not respond to questions about how much money had been spent already or whether the strategy had changed.

    Beyond demographic targeting, the strategy document also identified New York, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Boston as “key locations” for finding recruits. The cities have been the targets of intense ICE sweeps and major anti-deportation protests over the last year.

    The largest local recruitment target, seeking up to 1,000 removal officers, is slated for the New Orleans field office. The state of Louisiana has one of the country’s biggest immigrant detention populations, second only to Texas, and the New Orleans field office manages all nine detention facilities in the state.

    ICE has hosted hiring events around the country, including at a Texas job fair earlier this year, during which a former mixed martial arts fighter told the Post he was eager to “work with these guys that are going to arrest you, slam your face on the pavement and send you home.”

    But the strategy has also called for boosting recruitment at major gatherings and sporting events, including a booth at the NASCAR Cook Out Southern 500 in South Carolina in August; a “gym-based recruitment” event with “influencer-style content” at the UFC Fight Night in Las Vegas in November; and a planned sponsorship devoted to “patriotism, strength [and] grit” at the National Finals Rodeo this month in Las Vegas.

    DHS did not say whether all the events proposed in the strategy were carried out, but their ads did accompany several of the events on TV. “ICE commercial during the UFC event tonight?! How gross,” one X user said in October. ICE also posted a bid in November seeking a firm to “identify suitable event locations” for “recruitment and outreach events.”

    The recruitment ads run separately from other large-scale DHS campaigns that celebrate Trump’s immigration agenda and urge undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S. DHS has awarded more than $200 million in contracts this year to People Who Think and Safe America Media, two marketing firms linked to Republican political consultants, federal contracting records show. Representatives from the firms did not respond to requests for comment.

    Those efforts, too, have relied on ad-targeting techniques more commonly used by corporate marketing campaigns. The ad library for Meta, which runs Facebook and Instagram, shows that DHS has spent more than $1 million on “self-deportation” ads in the last 90 days targeted to people interested in “Latin music,” “Spanish as a second language,” and “Mexican cuisine.”

    On a message board for the music streaming service Pandora, some users were furious about the ads they called “fearmongering … propaganda.” One user, who said she is a U.S. citizen who likes listening to reggaeton, said she had been overwhelmed by DHS commercials “implying I am an undocumented immigrant and instructing me to ‘go home’” that played in “nearly every other ad slot I hear.”

    ICE’s ads have drawn criticism from some Democrats, who have called them overly inflammatory. The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), said in October that ICE’s “polarizing recruitment ads” would “only attract MAGA radicals.”

    And some of the platforms on which the ads have run have expressed their own reservations. Earlier this month, a transit operator in Long Beach, Calif., removed ICE recruitment ads from its buses and apologized for the “uncertainty and fear” they may have caused, as was first reported by the Long Beach Watchdog, a local news source.

    Americus Reed, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, said the ICE strategy reminded him of the “Army of One” campaign that the military once used to build up recruits as mighty warfighters critical to safeguarding the American way of life.

    “They’re aiming for that sweet spot of people who’ve got something to prove, who want to have that power, under the guise of patriotism,” he said.

  • Kennedy Center changed board rules months before vote to add Trump’s name

    Kennedy Center changed board rules months before vote to add Trump’s name

    The Kennedy Center adopted bylaws earlier this year that limited voting to presidentially appointed trustees, a move that preceded a unanimous decision this month by board members installed by President Donald Trump to add his name to the center.

    The current bylaws, obtained by the Washington Post, were revised in May to specify that board members designated by Congress — known as ex officio members — could not vote or count toward a quorum. Legal experts say the move may conflict with the institution’s charter.

    Trump took over the Kennedy Center in February, purging its board of members he had not appointed. The months that followed saw struggling ticket sales and programming changes that began to align the arts complex with the Trump administration’s broader cultural aims, culminating with the annual Kennedy Center Honors hosted by the president.

    Days later, on Dec. 18, the board voted to add the president’s name to the institution, and within 24 hours it was on the website and the building itself: “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

    Several artists have announced cancellations at the center as the unprecedented move drew public scrutiny and backlash. Democratic lawmakers and legal experts said it was illegal for the board to alter the name of the living memorial to Kennedy that Congress established. Democrats also claimed that one ex officio member, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D., Ohio), was muted when she attempted to speak out during the Dec. 18 vote.

    Roma Daravi, the center’s vice president of public relations, told the Post that ex officio members have never voted.

    “The bylaws were revised to reflect this longstanding precedent and everyone received the technical changes both before the meeting and after revisions,” Daravi wrote in an email to the Post. “Some members (including ex officio) attended in person, others by phone, and no concerns were voiced, no one objected, and the bylaws passed unanimously.”

    The Kennedy Center lists 34 presidentially appointed board members, including Trump himself as chair, and 23 ex officio seats. The center’s president, Richard Grenell, is also an officer of the board.

    The federal law that established the Kennedy Center designates specific government and federal positions — including the librarian of Congress; the mayor of Washington, D.C.; the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate — to serve as ex officio members.

    The law identifies them as part of the board of trustees, which it directs to maintain and administer the facility as a living memorial. But it does not distinguish between voting and nonvoting members, which has been a point of ambiguity in the days following the vote to rename the Kennedy Center.

    The center’s original bylaws didn’t distinguish voting powers, either. But its most recent tax filings list 59 “voting members” of its governing body — a total that includes both general and ex officio members.

    A former Kennedy Center staffer with knowledge of board proceedings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution, told the Post that ex officio members were “always included in debate and discussion” during their tenure, but the person did not recall a time when those members’ votes were counted.

    “Theoretically they could vote, but our practice was not to have them vote or count toward quorum,” the person said, noting they were not aware of the new leadership’s practices at the center.

    For this report, the Post reached out to all ex officio members with questions about their voting authority and any known changes to it. Some told the Post or other outlets that they understood their current role to be nonvoting, though none addressed whether they were aware of any prior changes to that status.

    “Like a lot of things, this seems to be in dispute,” said one person with knowledge of board proceedings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.) told a reporter Dec. 18: “I don’t have a vote. I don’t know enough about it.”

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) told the Post that he became an ex officio member this year after he became the lead Democrat on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — another ex officio seat designated by Congress — but was not invited to board meetings until his committee began investigating the Kennedy Center last month.

    Whitehouse said the statute “makes no distinction between ex officio and presidentially appointed Trustees when it comes to members’ rights and responsibilities on the board, including voting,” and he accused the Trump-appointed board of attempting to “illegally change the bylaws to silence dissent.”

    A spokesperson for the Smithsonian Institution said that Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III does not vote or attend the meetings. It was unclear whether he had since assuming his role in 2019, but it is not uncommon for high officials serving on influential Washington boards to attend by proxy or not at all.

    Copies of the Kennedy Center’s May and September board meeting minutes, obtained by the Post, showed that many ex officio members were absent or sent a staffer in their place.

    Beatty, who sued the Kennedy Center’s board of trustees Dec. 22 to stop it from adding Trump’s name to the institution, declined to comment for this story. But her lawsuit argues the center’s statute makes her a “a full voting member.”

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) leaves a protest of the Kennedy Center name change in Washington on Dec. 20.

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who is listed as an ex officio member on the Kennedy Center’s website, said he is no longer part of the board. “I was on the Kennedy Center board … in the last Congress,” he told the Post. “So their website is not caught up because I was told when Democrats lost control of the Senate and the Republicans became the majority that I fell off.” (The charter calls for three additional Senate members appointed by the president of the Senate and three House members appointed by the speaker to serve in ex officio seats.)

    Many in high-ranking roles, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.), did not respond to requests for comment.

    The offices of D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and the acting librarian of Congress, Robert Newlen, declined to comment.

    Other changes from the May revision state that the general trustees “serve at the pleasure of the President.” (Previously, that language appeared in the bylaws and the federal statute only in reference to the Advisory Committee on the Arts, a separate body that makes recommendations to the board.)

    They also added language about the ability of officers to make certain appointments, including stating that the chair may appoint the center’s president to act as chief executive.

    The vote by the Kennedy Center’s board to add Trump’s name to the institution marked the most overt effort to date by the president and his allies to remold the storied performing arts center in his image.

    In the days since his name was added to the building, several lawmakers have vowed to fight the change.

    During a rally outside the Kennedy Center on Dec. 20, Van Hollen said he and his colleagues would work to “reverse” the move when Congress returns to session in January. “The day we get back, we can put an amendment on the … Interior appropriations bill to reverse this outrage,” he told the crowd.

    Beatty’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, claimed that the vote exceeded its statutory authority and requested that a judge declare it to be void.

    “Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” the lawsuit says, adding that “Congress intended the Center to be a living memorial to President Kennedy — and a crown jewel of the arts for all Americans, irrespective of party.”

    President Donald Trump, shown attending a showing of “Les Misérables” in June, has made himself a marquee element of the Kennedy Center.

    Last week, Rep. April McClain Delaney (D., Md.) introduced legislation to remove Trump’s name.

    Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine, the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Kennedy Center, along with more than 70 lawmakers in Congress, called for Trump to reverse the renaming effort and remove his name from the building immediately.

    “No board vote nor social media post has the legal authority to change the name without an act of Congress,” the members wrote.

    “We’ll be working to block this disgraceful renaming effort at every possible opportunity and restore the Kennedy Center’s rightful place as our nation’s cultural center without the burden of vanity projects or political influence,” they wrote.

    Roger Colinvaux, a law professor at Catholic University, said his read of the statue establishing the center was “not quite as demonstrative” as Beatty’s, but “I’d argue that the statute does not differentiate among types of trustees in terms of powers and obligations, which would include voting.”

    Colinvaux added that “basic governance principles” “do not allow for the ‘muting’ of members” of an entity’s governing body, which is a “deliberative body.”

    Phil Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a specialist in nonprofit tax-exempt organizations, said it’s worth noting “how ex officio trustees have traditionally operated” at both the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian, of which the Kennedy Center is technically a bureau. He said that a court would also need to consider whether trustees are supposed to be able to remove ex officio members’ powers by amending bylaws.

    That said, the statute says the trustees “have the usual powers,” and “it still strikes me, under what I see so far, that it is reasonable to believe that ex officio trustees might have the right to vote,” he said.

    Ellen Aprill, senior scholar at UCLA School of Law, who has written about the Kennedy Center’s legal status, said even if the bylaws limit voting to general board members appointed by the president, “I believe there is a strong argument that such a bylaw provision violates the Kennedy Center’s charter.”

    Aprill stressed that the charter includes a variety of public servants, and both majority and minority members of Congress in the Kennedy Center’s governance. “Clearly the intent of the charter provisions was to entrust Kennedy Center guidance to a broad group, not just those appointed by the president,” she said.

    Still, the Kennedy Center’s relatively ambiguous legal status as a public-private entity “makes it difficult to predict how a judge faced with the issues in the case beyond standing would decide,” she said, noting the situation “is likely to give any judge a great deal of freedom in making any decision.”

  • Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Native American senator, has died at 92

    Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Native American senator, has died at 92

    Former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who overcame a hardscrabble childhood to become the first Native American chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and a leader of the effort to build the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, died Dec. 30. He was 92.

    Mr. Campbell died surrounded by his family, his daughter, Shanan Campbell, told the Associated Press. A cause of death was not provided.

    Mr. Campbell, a member of the Northern Cheyenne tribe, represented the western slope of Colorado for three terms in the U.S. House, starting in 1987, and served two terms in the Senate beginning in 1993. In each chamber, he was the only American Indian in office at the time. He immersed himself in public lands, water, and mining issues but made Indian causes the centerpiece of his legislative career.

    In the button-down environs of Capitol Hill, Mr. Campbell stood out by arriving at work on a motorcycle, wearing a ponytail and a bolo tie with a handmade silver and turquoise clasp. His unusual resumé further set him apart from the many former lawyers in Congress.

    In his youth, Mr. Campbell was a member of the first U.S. Olympic judo team. He became a Teamsters union truck driver, an Air Force military police officer, a trainer of champion quarter horses and a successful jewelry designer before entering public service, by his account, on a whim.

    A fiscal conservative and social liberal, Mr. Campbell was elected first as a Democrat and made a high-profile switch to the Republican Party in 1995. He joined the Republicans, in part, he said, to protest Senate Democrats’ defeat of a GOP-backed proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

    He continued to support abortion rights and opposed attempts by some Republicans to cut spending for the federal school lunch program. The program sometimes accounted for “the only meal I got when I was a kid,” he said, recalling a childhood that also included years in an orphanage during the Depression.

    Republicans had recently taken control of the Senate when Mr. Campbell joined their caucus, and they rewarded him with a seat on the Appropriations Committee, which controls government spending. In 1997, he was selected to chair the Indian Affairs Committee.

    His involvement with the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian dated to 1989, when he was a sponsor of legislation that authorized construction of a building on the National Mall and that required the Smithsonian to identify Indian remains and sacred objects in its vast collection and repatriate them to tribes requesting their return. The museum opened in 2004.

    Unlike federal laws regarding water rights or tribal boundaries for Native Americans, the museum legislation “was about respecting their humanity,” said Kristen Carpenter, director of the American Indian Law Program at the University of Colorado.

    John Echohawk, executive director of the Native American Rights Fund, a Colorado-based public interest law firm that has worked for decades to secure the return of Indian remains and sacred objects, said the legislation was a “key part of the process of educating” the public about Indian rights and sovereignty.

    Fascination with judo

    Benny Marshall Campbell was born in Placer County, Calif., northeast of Sacramento, on April 13, 1933.

    His father, who dabbled in jewelry-making and ran a country store, tried to hide his Cheyenne Indian heritage in an era of rampant discrimination. “My father insisted we keep our Indian background a secret,” Mr. Campbell told his biographer, Herman J. Viola. “Don’t worry about it, we were told. Just keep your mouth shut. It doesn’t mean anything; don’t have anything to do with it.”

    His mother, a Portuguese immigrant, suffered from tuberculosis and was in and out of healthcare facilities for much of his childhood. She struggled to look after Benny and his sister while their father, an alcoholic, spent long periods away on drinking sprees.

    “It was all she could do, sick and weak herself, to take care of her little family,” Mr. Campbell recalled to Viola. Sometimes the only food in the house was a can of vegetables. “I remember one day, in fact, when my mother opened a can of peas and gave half of them to my sister and half to me,” he said. “All she kept for herself was the juice in the can.”

    Mr. Campbell was 6 when his mother placed her children in an orphanage in Sacramento, an act that he said he never held against her, given the family’s struggles. They occasionally returned to her care when their father was home.

    At roughly age 12, Mr. Campbell began packing fruit at the many farms in the area. He worked alongside laborers of Japanese heritage and, in one heated moment, found himself in a fight with a young man Mr. Campbell assumed he could easily knock to the ground.

    Instead, to his shock, the man put him on the floor with a judo maneuver — and Mr. Campbell became a “convert” to the sport, he said. He joined a judo club established by Japanese residents in Placer County, and the sport became an obsession.

    He left high school in 1950, during his junior year, to enlist in the Air Force at the start of the Korean War. He chose to be a military police officer, in part, because the training included judo lessons.

    He completed his high school equivalency diploma in the Air Force and, after he left the service, used the GI Bill to enroll at San Jose State College (now university), partly because of its winning judo team. His biographer wrote that Mr. Campbell’s first marriage, which was annulled within months, and his second, to Elaine Morgan, ended, in part, because he “put judo first.”

    After graduating in 1957 with degrees in physical education and fine arts, Mr. Campbell taught art and industrial arts at an elementary school near San Jose. When he learned in 1960 that judo would be introduced in the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games, he quit his job, sold his house and car, and moved to Japan to enroll in a renowned judo program at Meiji University.

    To support himself in Tokyo, he taught English and landed bit parts in Japanese movies. He won a gold medal at the 1963 Pan American Games in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

    The next year, Mr. Campbell was part of a four-man U.S. Olympic team, but a knee injury forced him to drop out during the competition. Stunned and in pain, Mr. Campbell wept openly when he had to forfeit the match, according to his biographer.

    Returning to California, he took a job as a high school physical education teacher near Sacramento.

    In 1966, he married Linda Price, and they had two children, Colin and Shanan. A complete list of survivors was not immediately available.

    Entering politics

    In the late 1960s, a period of protest and cultural resurgence among American Indians, Mr. Campbell joined thousands of Native American young people searching for their roots. He located relatives in the Northern Cheyenne tribe in Montana, became a member of the tribe and took the name Nighthorse.

    Soon, Mr. Campbell moved his family to a ranch in Southwest Colorado and began raising champion show-ring quarter horses. He also made award-winning jewelry with Indian themes, using skills he learned from his father, who taught him how to carve wood and bone and shape metal from coins and tobacco tins.

    With a thriving jewelry business, Mr. Campbell acquired a pilot’s license and purchased a single-engine plane to ease travel to jewelry shows and competitions around the country. One day in 1982, he found himself grounded by weather in Durango, Colo., and met up with a friend who was attending a Democratic Party gathering to nominate a candidate for the state House of Representatives.

    Mr. Campbell, who had not been active in politics, volunteered when no one else agreed to run. He won election that November, with 54% of the vote, and served two terms before narrowly unseating one-term incumbent U.S. Rep. Mike Strang in 1986 in a congressional district that included the cities of Pueblo, Grand Junction, and Durango.

    In the U.S. House, Mr. Campbell successfully co-sponsored legislation to rename the Custer Battlefield National Monument in Montana, which became the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument. The change, according to the National Park Service, was intended “to recognize indigenous perspectives” on the American Indian victory over Lt. Col. George A. Custer and his 7th Cavalry in June 1876. The legislation also authorized a prominent memorial to the warriors who died there.

    In 1987, Mr. Campbell generated support to remove from the House Interior Committee hearing room a century-old painting, titled Death Whoop and depicting an Indian holding a bloody knife in one hand and a settler’s scalp in the other.

    “It’s out of touch with the sensitivity of Indians,” Mr. Campbell told the Associated Press at the time. “It plays on the prejudice of man.”

    After three terms in the House, Mr. Campbell ran in 1992 for an open Senate seat and won the general election with support from organized labor, energy interests, ranchers and Hispanic voters.

    He did not seek reelection in 2004, citing poor health. He had been treated for prostate cancer the previous year.

    Yet it was his vigor that most colleagues recalled.

    On one occasion, he chased down a mugger who had accosted him. In 1995, when he was 62, he used his martial arts skills to help subdue a homeless man who had shoved 92-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R., S.C.) and then attacked a Capitol Police officer.

    Alluding to his colleague’s physical prowess, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) wryly observed when Mr. Campbell retired that “many senators became a little more inclined to vote for his amendments after that.”

  • Is anything real anymore? In 2025, even sports fans started to doubt.

    Is anything real anymore? In 2025, even sports fans started to doubt.

    It may be difficult to remember now — here at the end of 2025, with major sports so entwined with gambling as to make you wonder whether our games still exist to crown champions or merely as fodder for young, twitchy-fingered sportsbook customers — but not so long ago, sports leagues spoke of the gambling industry as if it were the devil itself.

    “It’s evil,” Bud Selig, then MLB’s commissioner, said in November 2012 of the dangers of gambling. “It creates doubt, and it destroys your sport.”

    “Gambling,” NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that same week when asked about threats to pro football’s integrity, “would be number one on my list.”

    Both statements were made under oath, in depositions pertaining to a lawsuit filed by America’s major sports leagues against the state of New Jersey over its plans to legalize sports gambling. Eventually, that case would wind up before the Supreme Court, which in 2018 handed down a landmark decision, Murphy v. NCAA, that effectively legalized sports betting nationwide.

    Faced with that new reality, those same American sports leagues didn’t merely shake hands with an industry they once regarded as the enemy; they leaped into bed with it — and in the process fundamentally altered the way sports are packaged, marketed, and consumed.

    Stadiums plastered with ads for sportsbooks. Broadcasts filled with gambling commercials and commentary on betting lines and odds. An ever-growing menu of live, in-game microbetting opportunities — effectively giving fans a casino in their pocket. In 2024 alone, Americans legally wagered a record $148 billion on sports, more than 95% of it online, and they will almost certainly surpass that figure in 2025.

    But 2025 may also be remembered as the year a reckoning began over the unholy marriage of sports and legalized gambling. Betting scandals rocked the NCAA, the NBA, and MLB. At the same time, the modern phenomenon of athletes being harassed and threatened online by angry bettors grew into something resembling an epidemic. In both cases, the driving force appeared to be the ubiquity and ease of prop bets — those focusing on a specific player’s events or performance as opposed to the outcome of a game.

    Largely as a result, the integrity of games — perhaps the most precious commodity in sports and the one that once united the leagues’ commissioners against gambling — is increasingly being called into question, a trend some are calling an existential threat to the long-term viability of sports.

    “It doesn’t matter if, as I believe, 99.99% of the competition is untainted by gambling,” longtime sports commentator Bob Costas said. “All you need are a few examples for people to make the leap of logic to ‘I can’t trust any of it.’ You have to literally put [the doubts] aside. You have to compartmentalize all of this stuff to have the same relationship you once had to what you’re watching.”

    This month, a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll of 1,032 American adults found plummeting support for sports gambling nationwide, compared with a similar poll conducted in 2022, and widespread concern about the possibility of fixed or rigged outcomes. Some of the largest drops in support for legalized gambling came from frequent sports consumers and those who bet on sports — the ones who know best the havoc it has wrought.

    Overall, 66% of respondents, including 72% of those who have gambled in the past five years, expressed concern that games could be fixed or rigged. If you think those numbers sound high, try this experiment: The next time you’re watching a big game, search for “rigged” along with one of the teams’ names on social media, and prepare to be amazed by the constant stream of users dropping that term as they decry each misplay or blown call.

    “The integrity of American sports is plummeting in terms of public perception,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.) said in a telephone interview. Blumenthal co-sponsored a bill, the SAFE Bet Act, that, while focusing largely on the public health issues surrounding gambling, also would restrict some in-game prop bets. “Americans are becoming cynical and disgusted after all these repeated scandals involving big money corrupting sports.”

    ‘People have been too greedy’

    Americans long ago made peace with the post-reality media environment in which we are living. TikTok’s algorithm pumps fake videos into users’ feeds. Spotify is full of AI-generated pop songs interspersed with real ones. The federal government routinely disseminates altered videos. We can even accept feature-length documentaries “enhanced” with so-called “synthetic materials.” The financial success and relative lack of outrage suggest we have stopped trying to discern between real and fake. We have stopped caring.

    But sports are required to be different. Reality, above all else, is what they are selling. It is the last remaining entertainment enterprise that demands to be viewed live. Remove the authenticity of the competition and the credibility of the outcomes, and the whole thing collapses.

    Only in high-level sports — and only in the name of authenticity — would leagues ban specific drugs and even over-the-counter supplements because they might give one side an unfair advantage, or spend five minutes in the replay booth examining a play from seven different angles because it is imperative above all else to get the call right.

    “No matter how unfair life may be in other arenas,” Costas said, “people turn to sports and expect them to be completely fair.”

    The about-face on gambling is staggering. MLB once banned Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays for taking jobs as casino greeters. Now it tacitly accepts David Ortiz serving as a pitchman for DraftKings, offering new customers the chance to “win Big Papi’s money.”

    The major American sports leagues would never acknowledge that aligning themselves with the gambling industry equated to an abandonment of the mission of integrity or even a compromise.

    “Our highest priority has been protecting the integrity of the game” read a memo reportedly sent by the NFL to its 32 teams in the aftermath of this year’s NBA and MLB scandals.

    “Obviously, our number one priority,” MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred told reporters during this fall’s World Series, “is to protect the integrity of the game.”

    One bedrock axiom of the sports industry’s partnership with sportsbooks is the notion that it is far easier to catch cheaters under the regulated system of legalized sports betting than it was when everything was underground. The scandals making headlines, the industry says, only prove the system of regulation and monitoring is working.

    But experts in the field of sports integrity and gambling say the monitoring entities tasked with flagging suspicious activity can be commercially conflicted because they are the same entities providing the data feeds fueling global betting — a case of “the fox guarding the henhouse,” according to Nick Raudenski, a former criminal investigator for the Department of Homeland Security who now runs a sports integrity consultancy firm. “Integrity and independence,” he said, “have to be championed as fundamental sporting objectives, not a form of detrimental risk to be buried far from view.”

    “The people who should be guarding [sports leagues’] credibility are involved in multibillion-dollar deals with the very product that is bringing [the threat]. People have been too greedy, too fast on the legalization of sports gambling,” said Declan Hill, a professor at the University of New Haven and author of “The Fix: Soccer and Organized Crime.” “It desperately needs [enhanced] regulation. It desperately needs sports leagues to take a long step back.”

    ‘So easily lost and so hard to regain’

    With the benefit of hindsight, the current predicament may have been the inevitable result of rushing to deliver a known addictive product, via an addictive personal device, into the hands of a cohort — young, male sports fans — that is predisposed to risky behavior. Imagine if, at the end of Prohibition, the alcohol industry had the data to know which customers were most susceptible to getting hooked on booze and the technology to put it within reach of those customers anytime, anywhere.

    “This is the dance with the devil that the leagues are doing and have done,” Hill said. “It seemed really attractive at first … but now comes the payment. Now comes the cost.”

    Hill believes one problem is that we have not come to terms with the problem of gambling addiction among the athletes themselves — who, after all, largely come from the same demographic as the consumers targeted by the industry. One study found athletes were four times as likely as the general public to become addicted to gambling.

    Jontay Porter, the former NBA center who received a lifetime ban last year in part for feigning injuries to manipulate certain “under” bets on his performance — incidents that were caught in large part because of integrity monitors that flagged suspiciously large wagers on an obscure player — was addicted to gambling and deep in debt at the time of his transgressions, according to his lawyer.

    “Everything that makes an athlete great makes them susceptible to gambling addiction,” Hill said. “They never give up. They isolate themselves and obsess on overcoming great odds, on doing things people wouldn’t believe were possible. That’s great if you’re an athlete. But it makes you a lousy gambler.”

    The problem of “spot-fixing” — manipulating individual prop bets — has proved to be particularly insidious. Throwing a game or tilting a point spread requires scores of machinations, but prop bets can be swung in an almost undetectable manner by a single athlete: Just one missed free throw, one dropped pass or one double fault can make someone a fortune.

    These prop bets, as well as multi-bet parlays in which bettors stack props and get a much larger payoff if they all hit, have become the sportsbooks’ biggest moneymakers — which is another way of saying they are unlikely to be legislated out of existence despite recent efforts such as state bans of college athlete props and MLB convincing sportsbook partners to cap pitch-level props at $200 each.

    It remains to be seen whether 2025 — for all its upheaval, scandal. and shifting public sentiment — represents a turning point in the relationship between sports and gambling. If anything, the sports gambling industry is still growing, still reaching new customers — one study found gambling ads and logos were shown to viewers at a rate of one every 13 seconds during some broadcasts — and still exploring new products. One of the latest: the NHL’s recent partnerships with Kalshi and Polymarket, predictions markets that allow users to bet on yes-or-no outcomes ranging from sporting events to elections to who will win the latest season of “Survivor.” This fast-growing industry operates outside the licensing and regulatory systems that govern sportsbooks.

    But new and bigger industry models undoubtedly will bring new and bigger opportunities for corruption.

    “You ain’t seen nothing yet,” Hill said. “There is a wave of stuff to come.”

    If that’s the case, it’s fair to wonder how close we are to a breaking point. Already, recent polling, such as the Post-UMD one, suggests the accumulation of scandals has led many sports fans to question the legitimacy of what they are watching. Once the possibility of spot-fixing nestles in your mind, it can be hard to shake. Suddenly, every time a pitcher unleashes a fastball to the backstop, it’s only natural to wonder whether it was an honest mistake — or a dishonest one.

    Such questions, Blumenthal said ruefully of his own sports viewing, are “always in the back of my mind. There’s always something there if a pass is dropped or a pitch is missed. Trust and credibility are so easily lost and so hard to regain.”

  • I’m a couples therapist. Here’s how to have a better relationship.| Expert Opinion

    I’m a couples therapist. Here’s how to have a better relationship.| Expert Opinion

    Relationship advice is everywhere — much of it simplistic, contradictory, or disconnected from how partners actually function. After more than four decades as a couples therapist, I’ve found that lasting improvement rarely comes from grand gestures or clever techniques. It comes from a small set of habits that change how partners talk, listen, and take responsibility when things get hard.

    Here are some of the best ways to communicate with your partner — based on my own experience and the scientific research — to help you improve your relationship over time:

    Start with a positive comment.

    Conversations tend to end the way they begin. Starting with something positive about the other person increases the likelihood of a constructive outcome and signals that your goal is to improve the relationship — not to shame or criticize.

    Pick the right time to talk.

    Just because you’ve worked up the nerve to raise an issue doesn’t mean now is the best moment. Let your partner know you would like to work on something together and ask if this is a good time. If they say no, ask when that would be — within the next week. Unless there’s a genuine crisis, don’t accept indefinite postponement.

    Calibrate the intensity of your complaint.

    Rating your concern on a scale from 1 to 10 can help your partner hear you. A “1” says, “This isn’t a big deal, but I’d like us to address it.” A “10” communicates, “If this doesn’t change, I’m not sure I can stay in the relationship.” Giving your partner some context may help reduce their fear and ultimately defensiveness. It can also alert them that they may need to pay much closer attention than they have been in the past.

    Talk about their behavior, not character.

    Instead of saying, “You’re lazy, selfish, mean,” talk about how their behavior affects you. Say: “When you say you’ll be home by 7 and don’t show up till 8:30, and you don’t call to let me know, I feel hurt, resentful, taken for granted,” instead of, “You’re so self-centered and cruel that you didn’t even have the decency to let me know you’d be late!” The former is more effective because it centers the behavior on your reaction and not the other’s character traits.

    Be direct about what you want or need.

    If your partner asks what you would like for a birthday or holiday, don’t turn it into a test of their love. If you want roses instead of tulips, or a tool chest instead of a massage, say so. When they follow through, treat it as evidence of care — not a failure of their paying attention.

    Become more assertive and set limits around hurtful behavior.

    Healthy relationships require the ability to stand up for yourself without becoming aggressive. If assertiveness doesn’t come naturally, therapy, skills training, or targeted reading can help.

    Learn to take timeouts when emotions run high.

    Once conversations become flooded with emotion, productive communication shuts down. Taking a short break — with a clear agreement to return to the issue — can prevent arguments from becoming destructive. Whoever calls the timeout has to reinitiate the conversation within 24 hours. Use the timeout to calm down and figure out what the other person was trying to communicate, not to consider how you’ll prove them wrong when you reengage.

    Practice active listening.

    Feeling understood often matters more than being agreed with. Take turns talking about your perspective for no more than two minutes each. When you’re speaking, be careful in your language, and when it’s their turn, don’t interrupt or talk over them. When you’re listening, try to focus on understanding your partner, not defending yourself. Take a minute to repeat back what you heard to make sure you understood them correctly before giving your perspective.

    Don’t avoid conflict so completely that resentment builds.

    Keeping the peace by staying silent may feel safer in the moment, but over time it creates emotional distance and bitterness. Separations and divorces occur more commonly as a result of deaths by a thousand cuts rather than a huge, one-time blow-up.

    Don’t expect one person to meet all of your needs.

    Strong relationships are supported by friendships, interests, and sources of meaning outside the partnership. Overreliance on a romantic partner for all of your emotional or social needs creates pressure no one can sustain.

    Talk to your partner the way you did when you were dating.

    Many couples stop investing the time, attention, and affection that once came naturally. Courtesy, curiosity, and warmth shouldn’t disappear with familiarity.

    Catch your partner doing something right.

    People are far more motivated by appreciation than criticism. Rather than comment on when they mess up, compliment them when they get it right. Marital researcher John Gottman discovered that in successful couple relationships, there are five positive interactions for every negative one.

    Take more responsibility for the dynamics you help create.

    Conflict persists through feedback loops. Before insisting that you’re not being heard, consider how well you’re listening. Ask yourself how you may unintentionally bring out the worst in your partner. Responsibility isn’t self-blame — it’s seeing how you react in ways that increase the distance rather than the closeness.

    Don’t wait for your partner to change before you show up differently.

    Many people put their own maturity on hold, waiting for the other to become more communicative, less defensive, or more self-aware. But how you show up should reflect your values, not your partner’s limitations. Even if they struggle to communicate well, you don’t have to mirror their avoidance, silence, or reactivity.

    Don’t wait too long to get help.

    Many relationships that feel hopeless can improve with the right couples therapist. Waiting until resentment hardens makes repair harder.

    Most relationships don’t fail for lack of love; they fail from small, repeated moments of misunderstanding, defensiveness, and a failure to appreciate what the other is doing right. Paying attention to how you handle those moments — especially when things are hard — is often the difference between growing apart and finding your way back to each other.

    You can’t force your partner to grow, but you can decide how you speak, listen and take responsibility. Those choices shape not only the relationship’s future, but your own happiness and resilience.

    Joshua Coleman, PhD, is a clinical psychologist in the Bay Area, keynote speaker, author, and senior fellow with the Council on Contemporary Families. His newest book is “Rules of Estrangement: Why Adult Children Cut Ties and How to Heal the Conflict.” His Substack is Family Troubles.

  • Why Trump’s EEOC wants to talk to white men about discrimination

    Why Trump’s EEOC wants to talk to white men about discrimination

    In mid-December, the nation’s leading workplace civil rights enforcer took to social media to pose a question: “Are you a white male who has experienced discrimination at work based on your race or sex?”

    Andrea Lucas, chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, appeared in the video, urging those who have to contact the agency “as soon as possible.”

    “You may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws,” she says in the video, which has amassed nearly 6 million views on X.

    It was an unusual move, because the EEOC does not typically solicit complaints. But it underscores the sea change at an agency central to President Donald Trump’s civil rights agenda — one that began with executive orders gutting the last vestiges of affirmative action, and buttressed by his purge of the EEOC board and a newly installed Republican majority.

    Now “fully empowered,” the agency will focus on stamping out “illegal discrimination” stemming from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and “anti-American bias,” Lucas said recently in written responses to questions from the Washington Post. Enforcement, including a heightened emphasis on pregnancy and religious bias, will stress “individual rights over group rights,” she said, and eschew identity politics.

    The EEOC’s new priorities come during a year of regulatory uncertainty — it lacked a quorum most of the year, limiting its functions — fueling confusion and uncertainty for employers, workplace experts say. And civil rights advocates contend this pivot detracts from its mission.

    “Chair Lucas has chosen to elevate an asserted concern that lacks empirical support as a significant and widespread problem,” a group called EEO Leaders said in a statement Dec. 23, “diverting scarce enforcement resources from well documented and pervasive forms of workplace discrimination that harm millions of workers in America today.” The group comprises former EEOC and Department of Labor officials.

    Andrea Lucas, testifying at a June hearing on Capitol Hill, was designated chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November, after a 10-month stint as acting chair.

    Lucas said her X post reflects the agency’s effort to “correct underreporting” of forms of discrimination that were neglected by the past administration, adding that “for too long, many employees thought they weren’t the ‘right’ kind of plaintiff, that our civil rights laws only protected certain groups, rather than all Americans.”

    A restrained year

    Founded in 1964 at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the EEOC is charged with enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a worker or job applicant on the basis of race, sex, religion, age, disability, and other factors. Most employers with at least 15 employees are bound by EEOC regulations, which apply to such workplace practices as hiring, firing, promotions, and wages. The agency has recouped billions in monetary rewards for victims of workplace bias and harassment during the last decade.

    Days into his second term — in a break from precedent — Trump dismissed two Democratic members of the independent commission. As a result, it lost the quorum needed to pursue certain cases and overhaul guidance. That changed in October with the appointment of Commissioner Brittany Panuccio, who with Lucas gave the panel a 2-1 GOP majority and a quorum. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, a Democrat, rounds out the commission.

    In past administrations, the EEOC typically filed 200 to 300 merit lawsuits — those in which the agency determined discrimination exists — a year, said Christopher DeGroff, an employment attorney with the firm Seyfarth Shaw. The 93 merit suits the agency filed in fiscal 2025 marked one of its lowest tallies in three decades, he noted in an analysis of its activity.

    Still, the agency’s new priorities were evident in the cases that reached a public resolution or culminated in a lawsuit, DeGroff said. Merit suits alleging discrimination based on race or national origin — historically one of the EEOC’s busiest enforcement areas — hit a decade low in 2025, his research noted. And two of the three cases filed revolved around anti-American bias.

    Meanwhile, 37 of the 93 merit lawsuits the EEOC brought pertained to sex or pregnancy discrimination. Of those, 10 were filed under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and/or the newly enacted Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act, and included lawsuits against Delta Air Lines and meat processor Smithfield alleging they denied accommodations to pregnant employees.

    Religious bias lawsuits were another focus in 2025, with the agency filing 11 merit suits asserting religious discrimination or failure to accommodate religious beliefs. One case was against Apple, over allegations it failed to accommodate a Jewish employee’s request not to work on the weekend due to his faith.

    Apple declined to discuss the case but “strongly denied” the claims in a statement to the Post.

    Disparate impact

    One of the EEOC’s biggest pivots under Trump is to abandon cases filed under disparate impact, a legal theory holding that seemingly neutral policies — such as height or lifting requirements — can have discriminatory outcomes. It stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power, where attorneys used statistical evidence to show how standardized tests prevented Black employees from advancing at a North Carolina energy company.

    Disparate impact is central to civil rights litigation and a key lens though which the EEOC has tackled systemic discrimination, said Jenny Yang, who served as EEOC chair during the Obama administration and worked to expand the agency’s tool kit for addressing systemic discrimination.

    In 2020 for example, Walmart settled a nationwide discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC over a “physical ability test” it used for grocery workers that “disproportionately excludes female applicants.” Walmart agreed to stop using the test and to pay $20 million into a settlement fund for women who were denied grocery order-filler positions because of the testing.

    Disparate impact “advances the core principle that removing unjustified barriers to opportunity helps all Americans thrive,” Yang said.

    In April, Trump signed an executive order barring use of disparate impact by agencies, calling it a “pernicious movement” that ignores “individual strengths, effort or achievement.” Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative think tank specializing in workplace issues, said the debate reflects the broader ideological divide on how to best protect workers’ civil rights.

    “The minute you start saying all Black people this, all Hispanic people this, all women this, you’re just stereotyping,” he added. “The only thing that matters is the individual in front of you.”

    Yang said it’s been “challenging” to see the Trump administration make such changes to an agency that historically ” really valued its bipartisanship and its independence to interpret antidiscrimination laws.” By moving away from disparate impact and targeting corporate diversity efforts, Yang said, the EEOC has been “weaponized to intimidate employers, to retreat from efforts designed to promote equal opportunity, and to really abandon its historic mission to protect some of our most vulnerable workers.”

    ‘Illegal’ DEI

    Shawna Bray, general counsel at the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, said that Lucas’ EEOC is correcting for past administrations that “used the tools in the toolbox to push things up to, and even over, the line because of their goals,” especially with DEI and other social issues.

    DEI refers to practices companies use to ensure equal opportunity in their ranks, from recruiting and mentorship programs to antibias training and employee resource groups. Many companies began reconsidering such policies after the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision rejecting the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

    After the Supreme Court struck down the use of racial considerations in college admissions in June 2023, many companies reassessed their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

    The ruling sparked a wave of activist lawsuits aiming to replicate the order in the employment sphere. Much of corporate America has since opened identity-based programs, such as fellowships and employee resource groups, to people of all backgrounds, ended efforts like antibias training, and rebranded DEI programs with a focus on “belonging.”

    Lucas and others in the Trump administration often refer to “illegal DEI,” but Bray said that she finds the term “a little frustrating” given that such programs only break the law if they show identity-based preference. She also thinks the phrasing has created confusion.

    The EEOC should “have in mind an even application of our civil rights,” regardless of factors such as race, gender, and religious background, Bray said. “The desire to put a thumb on the scale was never consistent with that.”

    While the agency has yet to file a lawsuit over a workplace DEI program under Lucas, DeGroff expects to see such “cases hit the docket” in 2026.

    Valerie Wilson, director of EPI’s Program on Race, Ethnicity, and the Economy, said that priorities like dismantling DEI have “turned the mission of the EEOC on its head, in a way that weaponizes it against the people that it was intended to protect, given the long history of racial discrimination and exploitation” in the United States.

    Lucas contends the EEOC is making up for past administrations that “went hunting for activist matters while closing [their] eyes to overt widespread discrimination occurring against groups it disfavored.” Earlier this year, it issued guidance encouraging workers to challenge DEI policies by their employers.

    Among possible targets are 20 law firms from which the EEOC said it has requested information about their DEI and hiring practices going back nearly a decade.

    Jason Solomon, director of the National Institute for Workers’ Rights, a think tank focusing on private workplace law, wonders whether there is much more for the EEOC to target, given that companies have largely gotten rid of identity-based programs.

    “They may look at the changed landscape and say, ‘We can declare victory because we’ve gotten employers to change a lot of what they’ve done,’” Solomon said.

    Backing away

    Race-discrimination complaints are historically among the most common lodged with the EEOC — 29,000 a year on average since 1997, according to a report from EPI — but 2025 marked “the lowest number of race/national origin-based filings by the EEOC in at least a decade,” Seyfarth’s report states.

    Two of the lawsuits it pursued alleged bias against U.S.-born workers in favor of foreign ones, DeGroff said. One case involved a hotel and resort in Guam, LeoPalace Guam Corp., which agreed to pay $1.4 million to resolve claims that it favored Japanese workers over those from other countries, including the U.S.

    The EEOC also has dismissed cases filed on behalf of transgender workers and stopped processing new gender-identity complaints to comply with Trump’s executive order that prohibits agencies from using federal funds to support gender-identity issues. It also removed “X” as a gender marker option on its discrimination charge intake form, making it harder for workers whose gender identity does not match their sex at birth to file complaints.

    Over the summer, the agency resumed processing some transgender discrimination cases, although the complaints will be subject to a heightened level of review.

  • As rumors swirl after political killings, this GOP lawmaker draws a line

    As rumors swirl after political killings, this GOP lawmaker draws a line

    To Julia Coleman, Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk were just “Melissa” and “Charlie.”

    Coleman, a Republican state senator, knew Hortman, a Democrat, through their work in the Minnesota legislature. The two had discussed reopening the Capitol daycare center, while sitting in Hortman’s office sharing tequila and Milano cookies. Coleman was Turning Point USA’s first Minnesota employee, and Kirk, her first boss, became her friend.

    On June 14, Melissa was shot dead.

    On Sept. 10, so was Charlie.

    Coleman, 34, watched in horror as her social media feeds became clouded with a thickening haze of baseless and speculative ideas about her former colleagues’ deaths.

    “When I see people spreading horrible conspiracy theories that are completely based out of nothing and dishonor the person who passed away, I feel compelled to say something,” Coleman said. “More elected officials have to stop sitting on their hands and start calling it out.”

    That is what she is trying to do.

    On the Sunday after Christmas, Coleman was in her kitchen, making dinner for her family, when she saw a post that infuriated her. The user claimed that Hortman’s assassination was connected to a fraud scandal in Minnesota, and implied that Hortman had known her life was in danger. (There is no evidence supporting either of these claims.)

    “This is sick,” Coleman thought to herself. She began to type.

    “I am a Minnesota Republican legislator. I never agreed with Melissa. Not once. But I’m begging people to stop sharing this conspiracy theory,” Coleman wrote. “Please, unless you have evidence, stop trying to get social media clout off the death of a good person that you know nothing about.”

    Within 24 hours, her post had attracted more than a million views.

    Republican state Sen. Julia Coleman, of Waconia, speaks at a news conference at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul., Minn., on Monday, May 8, 2023, against a Democratic-backed paid family and medical leave bill that was slated for debate later in the day. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski)

    Responses have been mostly positive, she said. Coleman sees conspiracies and misinformation trending more on her own side, the political right, but believes the problem transcends partisan loyalties. In Minnesota, traumatized legislators have stayed away from Hortman and Kirk conspiracy theories, and many have been speaking out against them, Coleman said.

    Hours after her first post, Coleman followed up: “I’ve learned two things today 1) invest in tinfoil (for hats on both sides of the aisle) 2) buy a bunch of jumbo crayons and construction paper for explaining basic concepts to people this upcoming year.” Others, including former Minnesota Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, a Republican, have also come out to slam the rumors.

    Legislators have watched as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, has borne the brunt of recent attacks, with some people claiming baselessly that Walz was involved with Hortman’s assassination.

    The conspiracists have relied on a video of Hortman in tears after she voted to end a budget deadlock by supporting a spending plan that cut health benefits for people who are in the country illegally. Coleman has said that Hortman was upset because she knew people would lose healthcare, and that there is no evidence of any link between the shooting and the scandal, which involves allegations of improper social services payments to dozens of Somali immigrants.

    The Kirk conspiracies are tied to unproven claims that the political activist’s killing was related to his stance on Israel.

    Coleman saw the governor at a bill signing shortly after Hortman was killed. Walz had lost weight. She noticed pain in his eyes. “It’s got to be hard that people are sitting there thinking he did that or would order that to be done just because a crazy man said it to be true,” Coleman said.

    A spokesperson for Walz did not respond to a request for comment.

    After Hortman and Kirk were killed, Coleman had panic attacks. She questioned whether she should quit her job to protect her three young boys. “It was a rough summer and fall. Losing two people to assassinations — I just never thought that sentence would even come out of my mouth,” Coleman said. “The initial reaction was: I have to get out of this if I want my kids to grow up with a mother.”

    Then Coleman thought about who would be left to speak up if people like her were intimidated out of politics. She said she decided she did not want to let fear drive her from public office — but knows the experience will never be the same.

    “It feels like all the magic that was in this job got sucked out of it on June 14,” Coleman said. “Long-standing grudges have been erased because a lot of us just are in the trenches now together.”

    When legislators walk into the House chamber, they see Hortman’s photo and roses on her desk.

    When the doorbell rings at home, they now check their security camera before answering.

    “I’ve seen some people start to speak up, and I hope that my actions [Sunday], which came from a moment of frustration standing in my kitchen, will encourage others to do the same,” Coleman said.

  • As Russia’s war grinds on, its society is fraying

    As Russia’s war grinds on, its society is fraying

    OLKHOVATKA, Russia — The bus from the front lines ground to a halt outside the roadside kitchen, and the soldiers on board limped out into the winter mud.

    Most were missing feet or a leg.

    A water bottle filled with blood swung precariously from a plastic tube attached to one soldier’s stomach as he was helped toward a bench. Another stared blankly at the bloodied stump where his right hand had once been.

    “I would never have signed a contract if I’d known what it’s like out there. Our television is lying to us,” said Fyodor, a young soldier from Siberia. Like others in this article, he is not being identified by his full name to protect him from repercussions for criticizing the war.

    Fyodor’s lower leg had been blown off by a mine two days previously during an advance on Lyman in Ukraine with what remained of his unit. He said he was one of just 10 people left of the 110-strong unit he joined two years ago.

    He had no regrets over the loss of his leg. “It means that I can finally go home — alive.”

    “We’re fighting for fields that we cannot even take,” interjected a fellow soldier, Kirill, also in his 20s, laughing wryly. “This war will never end. … It feels like it’s only just begun.”

    Scenes like this one remain invisible to most Russians, erased by state propaganda and glossy government projects supporting returning veterans. But inside the country, fatigue and resentment are festering beneath the suppression of dissent.

    There is no outlet for public frustration and no relief from the mounting national exhaustion with a nearly four-year-long war that is corroding the country from within and making society more dysfunctional, broken, and paranoid, according to observers and those interviewed for this article.

    Over the last year, the Russian economy has lurched from spectacular growth to near-stagnation. Russia’s digital repression and isolation are deepening as more apps and platforms are banned. According to Western intelligence, more than a million Russian fighters have been killed or wounded — many in battles for marginal gains. And as Moscow’s search for internal enemies intensifies, its machine of repression is turning on its own children and patriots.

    During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with his Human Rights Council this month, film director Alexander Sokurov spoke out against censorship, the country’s suffocating foreign agent laws, the rising cost of living, and the lack of opportunities for young people. “If Russia doesn’t change how it works with young people, it faces a dead end,” he said. Putin said he would respond later to his grievances.

    A former senior Kremlin official told the Washington Post that he was “very worried” about the “dark picture inside Russia.”

    “We can’t turn the clock back easily; political will is needed to reverse this, and it simply does not exist,” the former official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss sensitive matters.

    Bearing the brunt

    In Belgorod, a Russian border city that once enjoyed close links to Ukraine’s Kharkiv — just 46 miles to the southwest — the price of this war is particularly tangible.

    Daily drone attacks have long become part of the routine here. Mud-spattered ambulances and camouflaged air-defense units tear through the center of town. The city’s volunteer networks — integral parts of the war effort that have supported the troops with clothing, food, and equipment where the government has failed — continue to work around the clock, with retirees sewing anti-drone netting and 3D-printing plastic bomb casings for drones.

    Despite the suffering and mass destruction taking place just across the border, Belgorod regards itself as the main victim of this war. The city illustrates the widening gap in Russian society between the indifferent, metropolitan majority and the “warring” few.

    On a cold November afternoon, a group of volunteers helping deliver supplies to the army huddled around a table to eat soup. They told the Post that they felt abandoned by Moscow.

    “They have absolutely no idea what is going on here!” exploded Edik, 52. “In Moscow there are parties, people having fun, going on vacations. How is that possible? Here blood is being spilled, and there they’re celebrating. How can they reconcile that?”

    Several volunteers said they had noticed a lull in donations since the start of the year, as many expected the war to end soon. Yevgenia Gribova, 35, who coordinates a center in Belgorod, said the volunteer movement is facing a crisis. In the first year, she said, people were spending the last of their rubles to support the troops, working constantly, without days off or vacation.

    “Now people want to rest. They want to spend money on themselves rather than on materials for the front lines,” she said.

    But while people said they want to see an end to the conflict, some also spoke of their desire to keep fighting and the need to end the war under the “right” conditions.

    “Everyone still wants to take Odesa. It’s a common opinion: People want to go to Odesa on vacation again,” Gribova said. “For us, this is a civil war between Russians and Russians who have forgotten a bit that they are Russians, that’s all.”

    Belgorod and residents of Russia’s regions bordering Ukraine form part of what pro-Kremlin sociologist Valery Fyodorov, the director of VCIOM polling institution, has defined as “warring Russia”: a minority of the country — roughly 20% — consisting of soldiers, their families, patriotic volunteers, and workers in military factories who consider the war vital for Russia’s survival and who are pushing for victory. The rest, he says, are passively loyal, indifferent to the war, opposed to it but taking refuge in their private lives, or living in exile.

    Dmitry, a deputy commander of a grenade-launcher platoon in Russia’s 116th special purpose brigade, said that Russia would fight for a very long time and “with sticks, if necessary.”

    “Everyone wants to go home. Everyone wants all of this to end. But even tired people carry out their tasks,” he said.

    Return of the heroes

    How does a nation sell to its people a war that is destroying the country — and how does it ensure that it continues?

    To keep the war effort rolling and to stave off discontent, the Kremlin has poured money into projects supporting soldiers and veterans, including the nationwide Defender of the Fatherland State Foundation, which was established in 2023 by Putin and is led by his niece, Deputy Defense Minister Anna Tsivaleva.

    For their sacrifice, soldiers are rewarded with financial benefits, social prestige, and significant employment and education opportunities for themselves and their children.

    Denis Poltavsky lost the sight in his right eye after he was swarmed by drones in battle last year. Unwilling to share many details about his time on the front, Poltavsky said he suffered from extreme PTSD, haunted by nightmares and insomnia.

    But without a doubt, he says, his life has materially improved since returning home. “The support is very extensive. The state is doing everything for veterans and soldiers. … They didn’t abandon us. They keep track of you and provide everything.”

    Poltavsky was paid an initial $51,000 for his injury, plus insurance and a military pension. He has access to free transportation, and tickets to museums and theaters. He recently completed Belgorod’s Time of Our Heroes management and leadership training, and hopes to soon receive a grant for his metalworking business.

    Veterans also have access to round-the-clock support from psychologists, doctors, and volunteers; they are given tax breaks and secure employment, even with disabilities. Belgorod’s program is even offering veterans free land on which to build a house.

    Middlebury College professor Will Pyle, who studies Russia’s economy, has found that in some regions a larger share of Russians report being satisfied with their lives than at any time during the decade preceding the February 2022 invasion. The finding is based on analysis of data from the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey, which is maintained by Moscow’s Higher School of Economics.

    According to Pyle’s research, conducted with the Bank of Finland, the increase in reported life satisfaction is especially pronounced in regions whose economies have benefited from wartime and military-adjacent industrial production.

    This mirrors Fyodorov’s research. “The more depressed the region, the more people have noticed their improvement in life,” he said.

    But underneath the lionizing of the soldiers and this temporary uptick in prosperity is the darker impact of returning veterans and the longer-term social consequences of the invasion. Already, horrific crimes including murders and rapes have been committed by returning soldiers, and many of the convicted criminals who signed contracts to win their freedom have returned home to commit more crimes.

    “Every governor in Russia knows that a wave of problems is coming with the soldiers returning home from the front with serious post-traumatic stress disorder,” said a Kremlin insider, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “And they know the responsibility to deal with this will fall to them.”

    The patriots and the teens

    Since the start of the war, Russia has gone after its dissenters, pursuing LGBTQ+ people, artists, and opposition figures, and made criticism of the conflict and the military illegal. But now, some of the state’s most fervent supporters are running into trouble as well.

    The vocal, ultrapatriotic “Z” military bloggers, initially a backbone of support for Putin’s invasion, have gone on to criticize corruption and shortcomings in the army. The most radical of their leaders, such as ultranationalist hawk Igor Strelkov, were initially jailed. But this fall, they saw their ranks swept by an unexpected purge as the whole movement became the focus of repression.

    In September, authorities branded Roman Alyokhin, a prominent blogger with 151,000 subscribers on Telegram, a foreign agent, a label usually reserved for liberal opposition figures. In October, blogger Tatyana Montyan was declared a “terrorist and extremist.” Another, Oksana Kobeleva, was detained by the police. All had publicly criticized senior officials or other propagandists. The Z community has since turned on itself, with bloggers racing to denounce one another.

    “The moment of unity did not last very long, and after almost four years, we are seeing how people begin to oppose each other as well, deciding which of them is more patriotic,” said military blogger Mikhail Zvinchuk, the founder of the Rybar Telegram channel, which has links to the Defense Ministry.

    He added that the movement became corrupt and embezzled funds that were raised to support the troops. “Over the years, there have been a number of crooks who are trying to exploit the war.”

    In Russia’s second city, St. Petersburg, security services have found a different target: teenagers.

    At the Izmailsky courthouse last month, masked police officers escorted two teenage musicians from their hearing to the secret service cars waiting outside. The pair, 18-year-olds Diana Loginova and Alexander Orlov — from the street band Stoptime — had just had their arrest extended for a third time. Orlov, the guitarist, fist-bumped one of his friends as he exited the courthouse. Officially, they stood accused of blocking the entrance to a metro station during an impromptu street concert this autumn, but their true crime was their viral performances of anti-war songs.

    To many, the consequences of Stoptime’s performances were inevitable. But the young musicians’ case sent a chill through this still-liberal Baltic city, where street performances are an integral part of local culture.

    Copycat acts and musicians performing in solidarity with the imprisoned band members in the Urals and other cities in Russia were also arrested and charged as security services moved swiftly to crack down on the slightest flicker of dissent. Now, even singing the wrong kind of music can get you jailed, a development many regard as a return to the days of the Soviet Union.

    The hearing in St. Petersburg was tense, at times Kafkaesque, as the defense lawyer unpacked the details of the performance in question. “There are approximately 47 meters between the entrance to the metro and the spot where they were performing. It is therefore impossible that the people who stood in a circle around Stoptime could have blocked that space,” she said.

    Loginova, known by her stage name, Naoko, spent the last 20 minutes in the courtroom clasping her mother’s hands. “I really hope this is the last time they arrest me,” she whispered. Irina, her mother, smiled and held her daughter close, looking dazed. “Don’t you remember that they said that they would let you go on the first night? It’s now been a month.”

    What made Stoptime’s rebellious music performances so striking was that they came at a time when free, creative spaces and opportunities to escape are fading fast.

    “The very fact that they performed such songs was captivating,” said Ivan, 26, a history teacher, who attended many of their performances. “It was like an echo of normal life in our time. These are songs you want to listen to: They are kind, they’re meaningful, they promote universal human values, they remind that you can overcome things.”

    He said in Russia right now the state is trying to build a strict loyalty based on behaving a certain way “in order to simply exist.” Around him he has watched people accept a situation they were once horrified by and shift into a survival mode.

    On Nov. 23, the Stoptime musicians were secretly and unexpectedly released, and they immediately fled the country. They were spotted in early December in Yerevan, Armenia, performing the same opposition songs that got them arrested.

    Others have not been so lucky.

    Tatiana Balazeikina’s 19-year-old son, Yegor, is three years into his seven-year sentence for terrorism after he attempted to throw a Molotov cocktail at a local military registration office in 2023. Yegor is one of hundreds of teenagers and children arrested for anti-war protests, sabotage, or treason since the war began.

    “Stoptime were singing what so many people already had on the tip of their tongues,” Balazeikina said from her home an hour south of St. Petersburg. “This is dissent. And the only way for this state to remain what it is is to cut off all these signs of dissent right at the root.”

    She believes young people present a special kind of threat to the Kremlin.

    “These young people who essentially have nothing to lose except their freedom are very dangerous,” she said. “And if those young people are not only capable of thinking but can also sing what they think … that’s an even bigger threat.”

  • How RFK Jr. upended the public health system

    How RFK Jr. upended the public health system

    On his way to being confirmed as the nation’s top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promised lawmakers he would do nothing that “makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines.”

    Almost 100 days into the job, amid rising measles outbreaks and congressional scrutiny of his messaging on vaccines, Kennedy made clear behind the scenes that he wanted to reshape the nation’s immunization system.

    Kennedy, the founder of a prominent anti-vaccine group, presented several top federal health officials with a new vision.

    “Bobby has asked for the following changes,” Kennedy’s deputy chief of staff for policy at the time, Hannah Anderson, wrote to the officials in a May 19 email later reviewed by the Washington Post.

    Among his requests was to replace the entire membership of an influential independent committee of experts that makes recommendations for how and when to vaccinate Americans. Kennedy also asked the panel to reconsider a long-standing recommendation that all newborns get a hepatitis B vaccine and to revisit the use of multidose flu shot vials, which contain a mercury-based preservative.

    Anti-vaccine activists have criticized those vaccines for years, claiming they unnecessarily endanger children. Career federal scientists who learned of Kennedy’s asks said they represented a sea change for shots that have been extensively studied and deemed safe.

    “At that point we were just bracing for upheaval,” said Demetre Daskalakis, who was then the CDC’s top respiratory diseases and immunization official.

    Kennedy would get what he wanted. The May 19 email reveals his previously undisclosed influence on some of these changes in a highly unusual way, according to legal experts and former and current health officials, showing how Kennedy has wielded government power to overhaul a public health system he has blasted as corrupt and ineffective.

    Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said of the email: “All this was was a suggestion.”

    “This was a newly reconstituted committee, and the secretary was providing a North Star to make sure suggestions were communicated to the members for consideration,” Nixon said.

    Over the course of the year, Kennedy’s actions have alarmed public health experts, medical associations, and current and former health officials, who say he is eroding trust in science and dismantling confidence in long-standing public health measures.

    “I do feel shocked by how quickly he has been able to implement these things that he has clearly been pretty passionate about for many years,” said Kerry Kennedy Meltzer, Kennedy’s niece and a physician who this year released email exchanges with her uncle in an attempt to foil his Senate confirmation to lead HHS.

    Kennedy has challenged years of public health messaging on vaccines, including instructing the CDC to contradict the long-settled scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. His once-fringe views have moved to the center of the nation’s health strategy amid a growing distrust in the medical establishment after the coronavirus pandemic.

    “It is now acceptable to talk about all these issues,” said Leslie Manookian, a leader in the “medical freedom” movement, which opposes vaccine mandates. “The person that we have most to thank for that is Bobby Kennedy, together with President Trump.”

    Kennedy has maintained the backing of the White House and a warm relationship with President Donald Trump, whom he speaks to often, as the two aligned on their Make America Healthy Again initiative to encourage better nutrition and address chronic disease and childhood illness, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    Besides his heavy focus on immunizations, Kennedy has also taken on the food industry. Next year will test, ahead of the midterms, whether he can deliver sweeping change on this more broadly popular agenda.

    This account of Kennedy’s ascent and leadership since becoming HHS secretary is based on interviews with almost 100 current and former federal health officials, Kennedy allies, public health experts, and others. Many spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail private conversations or internal deliberations, or out of fear of retaliation.

    In response to an interview request, Kennedy said in a text message: Wapo has been more consistently unfair, biased, and inaccurate, and it’s reporting about me than any other major outlet. Im not inclined to validate that bias with an interview.”

    He referred the request to Stefanie Spear, a top aide, who said Kennedy wanted to share a Substack article with a Post reporter that described the “invisibility of vaccine injury,” adding Kennedy could perhaps do an interview after the first of the year.

    The HHS media relations office did not answer detailed questions for this article but in a statement commented on the email from Anderson and identified what Kennedy has done so far.

    “Under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is exercising its full authority to deliver results for the American people,” Nixon said.

    “In 2025, the Department confronted long-standing public health challenges with transparency, courage, and gold-standard science — eliminating petroleum-based food dyes from the nation’s food supply, removing the black box warning for many menopause hormone therapies, lowering drug prices, advancing [Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network] reform, streamlining prior authorization, investing in rural health, accelerating biosimilars, doubling funding for childhood cancer research, launching an agency-wide AI strategy, and increasing transparency in drug advertising,” Nixon added. “HHS will carry this momentum into 2026 to strengthen accountability, put patients first, and protect public health.”

    RFK Jr.’s rise to power

    In August 2024, Kennedy strode onto a stage in Arizona to suspend his long-shot independent presidential bid. Flanked by American flags, he explained why the scion of a famous Democratic family was endorsing a Republican, Trump.

    “I asked myself what choices must I make to maximize my chances to save America’s children and restore national health,” Kennedy said.

    Kennedy quickly became viewed as one of the campaign’s top surrogates, bringing along some voters who might not have backed Trump. Before winning the presidency, Trump promised to let Kennedy “go wild on health.”

    Although some Trump aides had weighed making Kennedy, a lawyer, a White House health czar, Kennedy told Trump he wanted to be considered as HHS secretary, according to three people familiar with the matter. Donald Trump Jr. and Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist who was fatally shot this year, advised Kennedy that he needed to be in charge of an actual bureaucracy to make lasting change and avoid being sidelined, one person said. Trump Jr. and Turning Point USA, Kirk’s organization, did not respond to requests for comment.

    Just over a week after Election Day, Trump tapped Kennedy to helm the nation’s sprawling health department, an almost $2 trillion portfolio responsible for administering health insurance, approving drugs and medical devices, and responding to infectious-disease outbreaks.

    The luxury Florida beach house of Mehmet Oz — a physician and former daytime television star who is now the nation’s Medicare and Medicaid chief — quickly became ground zero for pushing MAHA’s agenda and securing Kennedy’s position in Washington, according to multiple attendees. Those weeks forged an alliance among some who challenged the medical establishment, including Del Bigtree, head of the anti-vaccine group Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), and Spear, a longtime ally to Kennedy in his environmental and anti-vaccine advocacy, and newer people in Kennedy’s orbit, such as Calley Means, a health entrepreneur.

    One night, several of those at the beach house bonded over listening to the Grateful Dead, according to Michael Caputo, who was Trump’s HHS spokesperson in 2020. They viewed the book Good Energy — a bestseller, written by now-surgeon general nominee Casey Means along with her brother Calley, that promotes healthy eating and exercise to optimize metabolic health — as MAHA’s bible, he said.

    “Food expanded the movement overnight,” Bigtree, who was Kennedy’s communications director during his presidential campaign, said in an interview.It was an easier topic to sell to moms across America.”

    On Capitol Hill, Kennedy’s messaging pushing for healthier, less-processed foods proved far more popular than his views on immunization.

    Kennedy’s confirmation largely hinged on Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), a physician and chair of the Senate health committee, who begged Kennedy to disavow his false claims linking vaccines and autism and raised concerns about Kennedy’s involvement in vaccine safety litigation.

    “[Does a] 71-year-old man who has spent decades criticizing vaccines and who’s financially vested in finding fault with vaccines, can he change his attitudes and approach now that he’ll have the most important position influencing vaccine policy in the United States?” Cassidy asked during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing.

    As Cassidy vacillated, Vice President JD Vance stepped in to help negotiate his eventual support, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    In a speech on the Senate floor, Cassidy detailed the commitments he received from Kennedy in exchange for his vote, including to protect the nation’s vaccine infrastructure. All but one Republican voted yes: Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a childhood polio survivor who said he would “not condone the re-litigation of proven cures.” A week later, McConnell announced he would not seek reelection.

    Cassidy’s doubts proved prescient. Within months, Kennedy found ways to bypass some of his pledges.

    A fierce critic becomes the boss

    Kennedy has called for the ouster of what he describes as “corrupt, industry-captured” federal health officials, arguing the health department had failed to keep Americans healthy.

    “I’m not scared to disrupt things,” Kennedy said at a recent event at George Washington University.

    Since February, health agencies have been inundated by continuous waves of departures involving more than 30 high-ranking senior career leaders — representing decades of experience on managing infectious-disease outbreaks, administering billions in research dollars, and overseeing the nation’s drug supply, according to a Post review.

    Thousands more staffers were laid off in what some called the “April Fools’ Day massacre,” a sweeping purge and proposed reorganization of the health agencies. Some including lead poisoning specialists and lab scientists were rehired, but many administrative support staff, communications staffers, and program officers are among those who remain laid off.

    As secretary, Kennedy brought in fierce critics of the public health COVID-19 response and federal health agencies more broadly. Bigtree told the Post that candidates for top health roles were questioned to see whether they agreed with some of Kennedy’s longtime vaccine safety priorities.

    Under Kennedy, prominent figures in the anti-vaccine movement have been working within the department on vaccine safety issues, including Lyn Redwood, a former leader of the anti-vaccine group Kennedy founded, Children’s Health Defense, and David Geier and Mark Blaxill, two longtime proponents of false claims that vaccines can cause autism. The three did not return requests for comment.

    In a statement, White House spokesperson Kush Desai said Kennedy and his team at HHS are restoring “Gold Standard Science and accountability to our public health bodies” after the medical establishment pushed “unscientific lockdowns and mask mandates” during the coronavirus pandemic.

    Kennedy has accused public health agencies of being dishonest during the pandemic. He repeated that criticism, arguing the government overreached on COVID vaccines, when a reporter asked how to avoid the violence the CDC witnessed in August, when a gunman incensed by coronavirus vaccines attacked the agency’s Atlanta campus.

    Public health and medical experts say the turnover in staff and leadership has hollowed out the federal government’s scientific capacity to anticipate and respond to health threats.

    “For people who are still left at the [CDC], there is chaos and confusion, and morale is at an all-time low,” Aryn Melton Backus said at a November rally in support of public health. She was a health communication specialist placed on administrative leave as part of pending layoffs from the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, which has funded state tobacco control programs.

    The reduction of CDC staff and programs is being felt across the country. In Georgia, where smoking is the leading cause of preventable death, state officials cut a tobacco control and prevention program. An online concussion training that many school youth sports coaches must complete will no longer be updated with the latest research. Local officials who want to fluoridate their drinking water to improve oral health no longer have access to technical experts who can help calibrate the proper levels.

    As Kennedy upended the public health workforce, he leaned into his more broadly popular messaging around overhauling the food industry. He has posted on social media more than twice as frequently about food than vaccines while in office, according to the Post’s analysis of his personal accounts and official HHS accounts. Last summer, almost 1 in 3 social media posts focused on food.

    He often highlights posts about companies pledging to remove artificial dyes from food products, which has been one of his signature efforts.

    Some in the food sector have been trying to accommodate Kennedy and downplay differences with his initiatives, in hopes of avoiding MAHA criticism, according to two people involved in the industry. That is a stark shift for an industry accustomed to viewing the GOP as an ally.

    “Wanting to eat simpler foods, more real foods, look at the ingredients, all of that is not a Democrat hippie thing anymore,” said Vani Hari, an author, activist, and Kennedy ally who also writes under the name of the Food Babe. “It’s a Republican thing, too, now.”

    Kennedy returns to his core issue: Vaccines

    As Kennedy sought senators’ support to become health secretary, he told them he supported the childhood immunization schedule, including the shot for measles, which he had previously described falsely as increasing the odds of spreading the virus.

    In the past, Kennedy had decried the “exploding vaccine schedule,” claiming that the series of vaccines recommended to children is linked to the rise of autism, chronic disease, and food allergies. Medical experts have argued that these purported links have no basis in evidence and that the increase in vaccinations has successfully combated more disease. He wrote a book in 2014 calling for removal of the mercury-based preservative thimerosal from vaccines. He questioned why newborns should get the hepatitis B vaccine, which health authorities say is safe, claiming on an online show that it “poisoned” kids.

    Kennedy faced his first big test on vaccines soon into his tenure. A measles surge had started in an under-vaccinated region of Texas, driving the country’s largest annual case tally in at least 33 years and threatening to end the nation’s measles elimination status.

    At first, Kennedy downplayed the severity of the outbreak and later, under pressure, acknowledged vaccines prevent the virus’ spread. But he muddled that message by also falsely claiming the vaccines were not safety-tested and contained aborted fetal debris — a stark contrast from the first Trump administration’s unequivocal support for vaccination during a 2019 outbreak.

    He repeatedly offered to send Texas doses of vitamin A, an unproven measles treatment in the U.S. embraced by vaccine skeptics as an alternative to immunization, even though the vitamin is primarily used for malnourished children abroad and public health workers and doctors said their focus was vaccination, according to a top state health official, Jennifer Shuford.

    In June, he fired every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which makes vaccine recommendations, setting in motion plans to remake the vaccine system. Kennedy argued the panel had become “little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine” with members too closely tied to the pharmaceutical industry. He selected new members, some of whom had histories of criticizing vaccine guidance. The former CDC director, Susan Monarez, said she was fired in August for refusing to be a “rubber-stamp” to the new committee.

    The panel has voted on some of Kennedy’s requests detailed in the May email from Anderson, who is no longer with HHS and did not respond to requests for comment.

    The vaccine panel voted in June to remove thimerosal — which the CDC had concluded is safe but Kennedy and his allies have decried as unnecessarily exposing children to mercury — from the rare multidose flu shot vials that contain it. In that same meeting, they vowed to form a work group to look at vaccines that have not been subject to review in more than seven years, in line with Kennedy’s request.

    The panel over several months grappled with how to revise the guidance for all newborns to receive a hepatitis B vaccine. It ultimately voted in December to stop recommending the shot when the mother tests negative and instead to encourage those parents to consult doctors about whether and when to begin vaccination.

    José Romero, who began serving on ACIP in 2014 and chaired the panel from 2018 to mid-2021, described Kennedy’s asks to the committee as “extremely” unusual.

    “The secretary is within his legal rights to make these suggestions or requests, but it’s unheard of as far as I know,” said Romero, who was a top health official in Arkansas during the pandemic and then at the CDC. He now consults for the pharmaceutical industry on vaccines and is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics infectious diseases committee.

    An HHS official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of legal concerns, said that the career CDC official who oversees ACIP sets its agenda and that members of the committee are ultimately responsible for writing the questions they vote on.

    In reference to the May email, the official said HHS officials worked with the CDC’s administrative officer for the vaccine panel to communicate the suggestions to the members, but those suggestions were not directives.

    Joseph Hibbeln, a neuroscientist who has become a dissenting voice on the vaccine panel, said committee members have not been given clear answers when they have asked who is determining which vaccines they are scrutinizing.

    Robert Malone, a prominent critic of coronavirus vaccines who is now the panel’s vice chair, said that he did not know how the agenda items were developed but that there would be nothing “nefarious” about Kennedy or other top Trump administration officials “contributing” to agenda items because the panel’s job is to provide advice.

    During the panel’s December meeting, Kirk Milhoan, chairman of the vaccine committee, was overheard telling another member that he felt “a little bit like puppets on a string as opposed to really being an independent advisory panel,” according to a transcript of the exchange captured by videoconferencing software and reviewed by the Post. He later told the Post he was referring to pressure from outside groups critical of changes to vaccine recommendations, not the administration.

    ‘Raise the risk, bury the benefits’

    Kennedy and his aides have repeatedly said the Trump administration is not limiting access to vaccines for those who want them, but is instead working to help people make informed decisions. Critics say they are exaggerating the downsides and obfuscating the value of immunization.

    “The secretary and his committee have stopped doing the hard job of balancing the risks and benefits of vaccines,” said Dan Jernigan, who oversaw the CDC’s vaccine safety office. He described their playbook as “raise the risk, bury the benefits, sow confusion, drive down use.”

    In the late summer, Jernigan and two other high-ranking officials resigned in protest over what they called an unscientific and politicized approach to vaccines.

    In one instance that alarmed career staff, Kennedy wanted Aaron Siri, a top lawyer for the anti-vaccine movement, and perhaps Paul Offit, a scientist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who is a prominent proponent of vaccines and critic of Kennedy, to speak publicly during the June meeting of the new vaccine advisers, according to three former health officials familiar with a meeting where a CDC senior adviser relayed the secretary’s request. Siri has been involved in legal challenges to school vaccine mandates and petitioned the government to reconsider its approval of Sanofi’s stand-alone polio vaccine.

    But the plan to invite Siri fell apart after objections from career CDC staff and legal advisers who raised concerns about providing a platform to a man who has repeatedly sued the agency seeking data about vaccine safety on behalf of ICAN, the anti-vaccine group. Kennedy was informed of those concerns, one of the officials said.

    After almost six months and an exodus of CDC leaders, Siri was invited to the agency’s headquarters for the December meeting of the vaccine advisers and spent more than 90 minutes arguing that the history of childhood immunization in the U.S. is marred by insufficient research and improperly performed vaccine clinical trials. HHS did not answer questions from the Post about Siri’s appearance.

    Siri said he has a “significant knowledge base” about vaccines based on his legal work, including regularly suing health authorities and deposing and cross-examining leading vaccinologists. “If you were standing in my office with me right now, you would be looking at a bookshelf that is filled with medical textbooks on vaccinology, immunology, infectious disease, and pediatrics,” he said.

    Cassidy, the Republican senator, reacted with shock to Siri’s appearance at ACIP.

    It was his latest frustration with the health department’s handling of vaccine issues under Kennedy, including the revisions to the CDC website language on autism. The page includes an asterisk after the header “Vaccines do not cause Autism,” explaining that the header was not removed as part of an agreement with Cassidy. But the revised webpage also claims that the assertion that vaccines do not cause autism is not evidence-based and that health authorities ignored studies supporting a link.

    Cassidy’s office declined repeated requests for a formal interview. Approached at the Capitol and asked about Kennedy’s vaccine commitments, Cassidy said, “You can compare those actions to those commitments I enumerated in my floor speech, and I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.”

    But what were his conclusions? “I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

    The looming fight

    Kennedy has spent much of this year laying the groundwork for bigger changes to the nation’s vaccine and food policy.

    Findings from investigations Kennedy commissioned into the causes of autism, the safety of vaccines, and whether fluoridated water harms children are expected to be released.

    The Trump administration is weighing plans to shift the federal government away from directly recommending most vaccines for children and to more closely align with Denmark’s immunization model of suggesting fewer shots, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    Kennedy plans to release revised federal dietary guidelines for healthy eating habits early next year, which will be partly tied to when Americans are making New Year’s resolutions, according to a federal health official. Kennedy has said the guidelines will focus on eating whole foods.

    The health department is also hoping to finalize a plan as soon as next year to require labels on the front of food and drink packages to alert Americans about unhealthy foods. Under Kennedy, health officials are working internally to determine the best approach to the labels, which were first proposed in the Biden administration, according to two people familiar with the matter.

    Meanwhile, Kennedy has crisscrossed the country to support governors who have restricted using food stamps to buy soda and candy and signed bills to remove artificial dyes from school meals. Some MAHA proponents want to see another wave of policies next year that would promote nutrition education and also challenge long-standing public health practices such as vaccine mandates. The nonprofit advocacy group MAHA Action has met with almost 20 top state officials as it pushes for states to embrace the movement.

    “Bobby Kennedy is doing the work he was put on the planet to do,” said Tony Lyons, president of MAHA Action.

    Kennedy’s allies say he’s just getting started. They hope he will be secretary for eight years.