Tag: JD Vance

  • Sen. Chris Coons and U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean are headed to Denmark as Trump pushes to acquire Greenland

    Sen. Chris Coons and U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean are headed to Denmark as Trump pushes to acquire Greenland

    As President Donald Trump threatens to acquire Greenland, Sen. Chris Coons is boarding a plane to Denmark to push back.

    Coons (D., Del.), who opposes the president’s takeover proposal, is bringing a bipartisan group of House and Senate members on a mission to highlight the longstanding relationship between the U.S. and Denmark, which has control over defense and foreign policy in the semi-autonomous territory, located northeast of Canada.

    Coons said in an interview Wednesday that the delegation will meet with Danish and Greenlandic government and business leaders to discuss issues including Arctic security and strengthening trade relations.

    “Denmark has been a strong close and trusted ally for decades and this is a chance for a bipartisan and bicameral delegation from Congress to go and communicate our respect and appreciation for their close partnership,” he said.

    He said he hopes the visit clarifies “there are folks in Congress who do not support an aggressive engagement.”

    Coons noted Danish soldiers fought alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and suffered some of the highest casualties per capita. The delegation will lay a wreath to commemorate that sacrifice on their trip.

    Joining Coons will be Democratic U.S. Reps. Sarah McBride of Delaware, Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Gregory Meeks of New York, and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis from North Carolina. The delegation will be in Copenhagen Friday and Saturday. Some members of the delegation will continue on to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

    Trump has threatened to annex Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, into the United States, contending it’s an issue of national security to prevent Russia or China from taking it over.

    Coons called that rationale “puzzling,” given leaders of Greenland and Denmark have assured him on previous visits that they are happy to collaborate with the U.S. to amp up American military presence in the country and work together on arctic security issues or to explore investments in mineral resources.

    “I asked are you aware of any foreign threats, cyber, or other incursions?” Coons said of a previous conversation with Denmark Minister of Foreign Affairs Lars Løkke Rasmussen. “Nope, none.”

    Leaders in Greenland this week said they wanted the territory to remain part of the kingdom of Denmark.

    “Greenland does not want to be owned by the USA,” Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a news conference Tuesday in Copenhagen. “Greenland does not want to be governed by the USA. Greenland will not be part of the USA. We choose the Greenland we know today, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.”

    Denmark officials have warned an attack on Greenland, which is part of Denmark and thus under the protection of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, would destroy the alliance, which has been a pillar of U.S.-European relations since 1949.

    Trump has been seemingly undeterred by foreign protestations. He said on social media Wednesday that “anything less” than U.S. control of Greenland is “unacceptable,” arguing the United States needs the territory for national security purposes, which could in turn strengthen NATO.

    “NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “Anything less than that is unacceptable.”

    Dean, who also went on a trip to Denmark in April, said in an interview she hopes to convey “the president’s notion is wrongheaded, dangerous, inane and not something we support.”

    Dean said if the president wants to boost security in Denmark he might consider increasing the number of U.S. military bases there, which has precipitously declined, rather than trying to take control of the country.

    Dean also encouraged her Republican colleagues to speak out against the president’s comments.

    “If somehow this president unleashes military action against Greenland, against the kingdom of Denmark — it will destroy 80 years of a NATO partnership that has kept the world in a more peaceful place,” she said. “It’s just a sick irony that this is the same president who so wishes he could win the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland Wednesday, a meeting that ended with plans for a working group but also highlighted the “fundamental disagreements” between the nations.

    Coons and Dean’s trip comes as tensions have risen internationally.

    The government of Greenland and Denmark’s Ministry of Defense said there would be an increased military presence in the territory starting Wednesday due to “security tensions,” CNN reported.

    Elsewhere, European leaders continue to reject Trump’s calls to control the semi-autonomous territory. French President Emmanuel Macron warned Wednesday that the consequences of the US trying to seize Greenland from Denmark would be “unprecedented.”

  • A man who broke windows at JD Vance’s home in Ohio has been detained, the Secret Service said

    A man who broke windows at JD Vance’s home in Ohio has been detained, the Secret Service said

    A man who broke windows at Vice President JD Vance’s Ohio home and caused other property damage was detained early Monday, the U.S. Secret Service said.

    The man was detained shortly after midnight by Secret Service agents assigned to Vance’s home, east of downtown Cincinnati, agency spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement emailed to The Associated Press. He has not been named.

    The Secret Service heard a loud noise at the home around midnight and found a person who had broken a window with a hammer and was trying to get into the house, according to two law enforcement officials who were not publicly authorized to discuss the investigation into what happened and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The man had also vandalized a Secret Service vehicle on his way up the home’s driveway, one of the officials said.

    The home, in the Walnut Hills neighborhood, on hills overlooking the city, was unoccupied at the time, and Vance and his family were not in Ohio, Guglielmi said.

    The Secret Service is coordinating with the Cincinnati Police Department and the U.S. attorney’s office as charging decisions are reviewed, he said.

    Vance, a Republican, was a U.S. senator representing Ohio before becoming vice president. His office said his family was already back in Washington and directed questions to the Secret Service.

    Walnut Hills is one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods and is home to historic sites, including the Harriet Beecher Stowe House.

  • JD Vance says America is a ‘Christian nation.’ Is it?

    JD Vance says America is a ‘Christian nation.’ Is it?

    During Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest 2025, held on Dec. 21, I heard Vice President JD Vance say that America was founded as, and always will be, a Christian nation. I strongly disagree.

    Not because we have failed to live up to that standard (we have), but because no nation-state can rightly claim that title. Scripture never supports such claims. Nations may be influenced by God, restrained by God, or even blessed by God, but they are not the Kingdom of God.

    Two hundred and fifty years ago, 13 British colonies did something unprecedented in human history.

    Their most remarkable act was not just rebellion itself — rebellions had happened before — but the nature of their rebellion. They did not cast off one king to enthrone another. They rejected the very premise that sovereignty ultimately belonged to any earthly monarch.

    Instead, they declared that all people are created equal and endowed with certain “unalienable rights” not by a crown, but by God, our creator. These were not merely political claims; they were moral assertions rooted in a Judeo-Christian worldview that affirmed human dignity as a gift, not a privilege.

    This declaration was, of course, an act of war not just against England, but the feudal worldview. Over the next eight years, these colonies fought the most powerful military force on Earth for the right to govern themselves — and they won.

    What followed was one of the most remarkable political achievements in history: a constitutional framework designed not to grant rights, but to protect rights already given by Almighty God.

    This undated engraving shows the scene on July 4, 1776, when the Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Philip Livingston, and Roger Sherman, was approved by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

    Governing powers were divided, totalitarian authority was restrained, and freedom was placed in the hands of the people. John Adams captured this intent with striking clarity when he wrote: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    The founders understood that liberty could not survive without moral virtue — and that virtue could not be legislated.

    These principles still work today — but only when we the people take an active role in self-government. Our freedom is not self-sustaining. It requires discipline, restraint, and moral courage from each generation. When citizens abdicate responsibility, power inevitably consolidates. Self-rule depends upon self-control.

    The founders also stumbled grievously over the question of slavery. Many knew it was morally wrong, yet they compromised, deferred, and left its resolution to future generations. That failure should never be minimized. But neither should it be used to dismiss the ideals of freedom themselves. The principles were sound. The people were flawed.

    History reminds us that liberty must be defended, expanded, and, at times, redeemed by those willing to pay the price.

    Many of the original signers were Christians, and they understood a core principle of God’s Kingdom: It is transcendent. When Jesus was questioned by political authority, he stated plainly, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Jesus did not come to establish a nation-state or seize political power. He formed a people whose true citizenship transcends borders, flags, and governments.

    This truth must direct how, as Christians, we live as Americans. As citizens of a nation-state, we have real obligations. Citizenship is not passive. It requires obedience to just laws, respect for civil authority, and a commitment to the common good.

    It also demands vigilance. We must be willing to challenge laws and policies that violate the God-given freedoms of others — especially religious liberty. Obedience without conscience is not virtue; it is mere compliance.

    America was shaped by Judeo-Christian principles, but it was never intended to be a theocracy. America’s unity is powerful precisely because we do not have a state religion. Faith compelled by law is no faith at all. Genuine belief cannot be coerced; it must be chosen. The Gospel advances by witness, persuasion, and sacrificial love, not by legislation or force.

    I say this as a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ: The church does not need the power of the state to fulfill its mission. History shows that when the church weds itself too closely to political power, it loses its prophetic voice and relinquishes its spiritual authority.

    America is not the Kingdom of God, and it was never meant to be.

    But neither is it a historical accident nor a moral improvisation. It is something far more fragile: A people united in the conviction that liberty flows from God, not the state, that government exists to safeguard rights it did not create, and that faith must remain free.

    If we confuse America with the Kingdom of God, we will ultimately diminish both — robbing the nation of its moral responsibility and the Gospel of its eternal power.

    The Rev. Dr. Michel J. Faulkner, a former NFL player, community leader, pastor, and registered Republican, is chair of the board of directors of the Philadelphia Council of Clergy.

  • 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.

  • Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, criticizes Bondi and opines on Trump in Vanity Fair

    Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff, criticizes Bondi and opines on Trump in Vanity Fair

    WASHINGTON — Susie Wiles, President Donald Trump’s understated but influential chief of staff, criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and offered an unvarnished take on her boss and those in his orbit in interviews published Tuesday in Vanity Fair that sent the West Wing into damage control.

    The startlingly candid remarks from Wiles, the first woman ever to hold her current post, included describing the president as someone with “an alcoholic’s personality” and Vice President JD Vance as a calculating “conspiracy theorist.” The observations from Wiles, who rarely speaks publicly given the behind-the-scenes nature of her job running the White House, prompted questions about whether the chief of staff might be on her way out.

    Wiles pushed back after the piece’s publication, describing it as a “hit piece” that lacked context, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the “entire administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

    As for Trump, he told the New York Post that he had not read the piece and, when asked if he retained confidence in Wiles, said: “Oh, she’s fantastic.”

    Trump also agreed that he does have the personality of an alcoholic, describing himself as having “a very possessive personality.”

    A senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal thinking, dismissed the notion that Wiles might leave because of the profile, saying if top staffers were rattled by negative news coverage, “none of us would work here.”

    Wiles’ candor was so unusual that Rahm Emanuel, who served as chief of staff to former President Barack Obama, said that when he first saw her comments, he thought he was reading a spoof. He said he could not recall a chief of staff giving such a candid interview — at least “not while you hold the title.”

    Emanuel said the role often involves public remarks that promote the president’s agenda, but not sharing personal views about “everything, everybody” in the White House.

    His advice to Wiles: “Next time there’s a meal, bring a food taster.”

    Candor from the ‘ice maiden’ who stays behind the scenes

    The interviews with Vanity Fair were themselves uncharacteristic for Wiles, who cut her reputation as someone who brought order to the president’s chaotic style and shunned the spotlight so much that at Trump’s 2024 election night victory party, she repeatedly shook her head and avoided the microphone as Trump tried to coax her to speak to the crowd.

    “Susie likes to stay sort of in the back,” said Trump, who has repeatedly referred to her as the “ice maiden.”

    Most members of his cabinet, along with former and current White House officials, posted statements praising Wiles and criticizing the media as dishonest.

    But neither Wiles nor the members of the administration who came to her defense on Tuesday disputed any details in the two-part profile, including areas where she conceded mistakes and seemed to contradict the administration’s official reasoning for its bombing of alleged drug boats in the waters off the coast of Venezuela.

    Though the Trump administration has said the campaign is about stopping drugs headed to the U.S., Wiles appeared to confirm that the campaign is part of a push to oust Venezuela’s authoritarian leader, Nicolas Maduro, saying Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.”

    Wiles pushed back but without any denials

    After the comments were published, Wiles disparaged the Vanity Fair report as a “disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history.”

    “Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story,” she wrote in a social media post. “I assume, after reading it, that this was done to paint an overwhelmingly chaotic and negative narrative about the President and our team.”

    Trump, in an interview with the New York Post, said he was not offended by Wiles’ remarks, including her description of him as someone with “an alcoholic’s personality,” which she said she recognizes from her father, the famous sports broadcaster Pat Summerall.

    The president, who is a teetotaler and had a brother who struggled with alcohol, said: “I’ve said that many times about myself. I’m fortunate I’m not a drinker. If I did, I could very well, because I’ve said that — what’s the word? Not possessive — possessive and addictive-type personality. Oh, I’ve said it many times, many times before.”

    Vance, speaking in Pennsylvania on Tuesday about the president’s economic agenda, said that he had not read the Vanity Fair piece. But he defended Wiles and joked that “I only believe in the conspiracy theories that are true.”

    “Susie Wiles, we have our disagreements. We agree on much more than we disagree, but I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States, and that makes her the best White House chief of staff that I think the president could ask for,” Vance said.

    He said his takeaway was that the administration “should be giving fewer interviews to mainstream media outlets.”

    The chief of staff criticizes the attorney general

    Wiles, over the series of interviews, described the president behind the scenes very much as he presents himself in public: an intense figure who thinks in broad strokes yet is often not concerned with the details of process and policy. She added, though, that he has not been as angry or temperamental as is often suggested, even as she affirmed his ruthlessness and determination to achieve retribution against those he considers his political enemies.

    Wiles described much of her job as channeling Trump’s energy, whims, and desired policy outcomes — including managing his desire for vengeance against his political opponents, anyone he blames for his 2020 electoral defeat, and those who pursued criminal cases against him after his first term.

    On Epstein, Wiles told the magazine that she had underestimated the scandal involving the disgraced financier, but she sharply criticized how Bondi managed the case and the public’s expectations.

    Wiles faulted Bondi’s handling of the matter, going back to earlier in the year when she distributed binders to a group of social media influencers that included no new information about Epstein. That led to even more calls from Trump’s base for the files to be released.

    “I think she completely whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Wiles said of Bondi. “First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk.”

    Bondi did not address the criticism when she released a statement supporting Wiles.

    Wiles also said at one point that Trump’s tariffs had been more painful than expected. She conceded some mistakes in Trump’s mass deportation program and suggested that the president’s retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies has gone beyond what she initially wanted.

  • Indiana Republicans defy Trump and reject his House redistricting push in the states

    Indiana Republicans defy Trump and reject his House redistricting push in the states

    INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana’s Republican-led Senate decisively rejected a redrawn congressional map Thursday that would have favored their party, defying months of pressure from President Donald Trump and delivering a stark setback to the White House ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

    The vote was overwhelmingly against the proposed redistricting, with more Republicans opposing than supporting the measure, signaling the limits of Trump’s influence even in one of the country’s most conservative states.

    Trump has been urging Republicans nationwide to redraw their congressional maps in an unusual campaign to help the party maintain its thin majority in the House of Representatives. Although Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina went along, Indiana did not — despite cajoling and insults from the president and the possibility of primary challenges.

    “The federal government should not dictate by threat or other means what should happen in our states,” said Spencer Deery, one of the Republican senators who voted no on Thursday.

    When the proposal failed, cheers could be heard inside the chamber as well as shouts of “thank you!” The debate had been shadowed by the possibility of violence, and some lawmakers have received threats.

    The proposed map was designed to give Republicans control of all nine of Indiana’s congressional seats, up from the seven they currently hold. It would have effectively erased Indiana’s two Democrat-held districts by splitting Indianapolis among four districts that extend into rural areas, reshaping U.S. Rep. André Carson’s safe district in the city. It would’ve also eliminated the northwest Indiana district held by U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan.

    District boundaries are usually adjusted once a decade after a new census. But Trump has described redistricting as an existential issue for the party as Democrats push to regain power in Washington.

    “If Republicans will not do what is necessary to save our Country, they will eventually lose everything to the Democrats,” Trump wrote on social media the night before the vote.

    The president said anyone who voted against the plan should lose their seats. Half of Indiana senators are up for reelection next year, and the conservative organization Turning Point Action had pledged to fund campaigns against them.

    Inside the state Senate chamber, Democratic lawmakers spoke out against redistricting ahead of the vote.

    “Competition is healthy my friends,” said Sen. Fady Qaddoura. “Any political party on earth that cannot run and win based on the merits of its ideas is unworthy of governing.”

    In the hallways outside, redistricting opponents chanted “Vote no!” and “Fair maps!” while holding signs with slogans like “Losers cheat.”

    Three times over the fall Vice President JD Vance met with Republican senators — twice in Indianapolis and once in the White House — to urge their support. Trump joined a conference call with senators on Oct. 17 to make his own 15-minute pitch.

    Behind the scenes, James Blair, Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff for political affairs, was in regular touch with members, as were other groups supporting the effort such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.

    “The administration made a full-court press,” said Republican Sen. Andy Zay, who was on the phone with White House aides sometimes multiple times per week, despite his commitment as a yes vote.

    Across the country, mid-cycle redistricting so far has resulted in nine more congressional seats that Republicans believe they can win and six more congressional seats that Democrats think they can win. However, some of the new maps are facing litigation.

    In Utah, a judge imposed new districts that could allow Democrats to win a seat, saying Republican lawmakers violated voter-backed standards against gerrymandering.

    Despite Trump’s push, support for gerrymandering in Indiana’s Senate was uncertain. A dozen of the 50 senators had not publicly committed to a stance ahead of the vote.

    Republican Sen. Greg Goode signaled his displeasure with the redistricting plan before voting no. He said some of his constituents objected to seeing their county split up or paired with Indianapolis. He expressed “love” for Trump but criticized what he called “over-the-top pressure” from inside and outside the state.

    Sen. Michael Young, another Republican, said the stakes in Washington justify redistricting, as Democrats are only a few seats away from flipping control of the U.S. House in 2026. “I know this election is going to be very close,” he said.

    Republican Sen. Mike Gaskill, the redistricting legislation’s sponsor, showed Senators maps of congressional districts around the country, including several focused on Democratic-held seats in New England and Illinois. He argued other states gerrymander and Indiana Republicans should play by the same rules.

    The bill cleared its first hurdle Monday with a 6-3 Senate committee vote, although one Republican joined Democrats in opposing it and a few others signaled they might vote against the final version. The state House passed the proposal last week, with 12 Republicans siding with Democrats in opposition.

    Among them was state Rep. Ed Clere, who said state troopers responded to a hoax message claiming a pipe bomb outside his home Wednesday evening. Indiana state police said “numerous others” received threats but wouldn’t offer details about an ongoing investigation.

    In an interview, Clere said these threats were the inevitable result of Trump’s pressure campaign and a “winner-take-all mentality.”

    “Words have consequences,” Clere said.

  • Why these red state Republicans are resisting Trump’s efforts to expand GOP power

    Why these red state Republicans are resisting Trump’s efforts to expand GOP power

    INDIANAPOLIS — In 44 years in Indiana’s legislature, Vaneta Becker had never before had a call with the White House.

    President Donald Trump was on the line that day in October, urging her and her GOP colleagues to redraw the state’s congressional map to help Republicans in next year’s midterm elections. She told the White House she opposed the idea, and a week or so later got a voice message from an aide asking for a follow-up conversation. Becker called back to leave a message of her own.

    “I’m not going to change my position,” Becker, 76, recalled saying. “You’re wasting your time on me, so just focus on somebody else.”

    Indiana, a state Trump won by 19 percentage points last year, is serving up an unusual amount of resistance to his plan to carve up congressional districts around the country. Since this summer, Republicans in four other states have rejiggered their maps to give their party as many as nine more seats part of a larger plan aimed at retaining power in Congress after next year’s elections.

    But in Indiana, a contingent of GOP state senators has politely but persistently said no. The GOP opponents told Trump and Gov. Mike Braun (R) they weren’t on board and last month 19 of them voted with Democrats to end a legislative session without acting on redistricting. Trump and his allies kept pressing, and the state House passed a plan last week that would likely give Republicans all nine of the state’s congressional districts, two more than they have now.

    The leader of the State Senate, Rodric Bray, agreed to bring the senators back to the state capitol to take up the issue even though he was among those who had voted to end the session. They are expecting to vote Thursday.

    Opponents include longtime Republican lawmakers like Becker who got involved in politics years before the rise of Trump and his Make America Great Again movement. Hoosiers bristle at meddling from Washington, even when it comes from allies, the opponents say.

    The state senators have been increasingly on edge in recent weeks as they endured intimidation — political and physical — and a stream of hoax police reports that seemed designed to draw large law enforcement responses to their homes.

    States draw their congressional districts after the census, and lawmakers from both parties often try to maximize their advantage. Years of litigation sometimes follow, but state lawmakers typically don’t redraw their lines in the middle of the decade unless a court orders it. Trump has rejected the usual way of doing business, demanding Republican-led states make immediate changes.

    So far, Republicans have not netted as many seats as they’d hoped because Democrats have counteracted them by adopting a new map in California and are trying to do the same in Virginia and other states. Opponents of a new GOP-friendly map in Missouri submitted more than 300,000 signatures to the state to try to block it from going into effect until a referendum on it can be held.

    But the GOP resistance in Indiana stands apart, in large part because Republicans across the country have readily acquiesced to Trump’s demands and threats on a range of issues.

    Trump may yet prevail. But the rare instance of pushback here could offer warning signs to Trump that his grip on the party may be loosening amid slides in his public approval rating. A vote against a new map in Indiana would add to his woes as Republicans fret over their ability to hold onto the House next year.

    What happens in Indiana will have effects elsewhere. If Republicans reject the map here, Trump may put more pressure on officials in other states. If they go along with the plan, Democrats in Illinois and Maryland who have resisted redistricting may feel they need now to jump into the fight.

    Time is running short because election officials, candidates and voters need to know where the lines are well ahead of next year’s primaries. But the fight over maps will continue for months. Republicans in Florida are poised to draw a new map and GOP lawmakers in Utah are trying to reverse a court decision that is expected to give Democrats one of the state’s districts.

    In Indiana, lawmakers have been debating whether to redraw the lines since August, but they didn’t see the proposed map until the House unveiled it last week. The map would break Marion County, the home to Indianapolis and the state’s largest African American population, into four districts, diluting Democratic votes. It would likely doom the reelection chances of Democratic Reps. Frank J. Mrvan and André Carson, the only Black member of Indiana’s congressional delegation.

    Trump has hosted Indiana officials at the White House. He’s dispatched Vice President JD Vance to the state twice. In October, he and his aides held their conference call with Indiana state senators to talk up redistricting. At the end of the call, the senators were told to press a number on their phone to indicate whether they supported redrawing the map, even though they were yet to see how the lines would change.

    On Wednesday night, Trump lashed out at the State Senate leader on Truth Social, calling Bray “the only person in the United States of America who is against Republicans picking up extra seats” and warning that lawmakers who oppose the changes were at risk of losing their seats.

    A White House official said earlier that Trump’s team is “not arm twisting. Just outlining the stakes and reminding them western civilization stands in the balance of their decision.”

    About 800 of Becker’s constituents in southwestern Indiana have told her they are against the plan and about 100 have told her they’re for it, she said. Sitting in her wood-paneled cubicle Tuesday in the state capitol, she slid a constituent’s letter out of its envelope.

    “Mid-decade redistricting at the request of President Trump will unnecessarily intensify the already deep partisan divisions in our country,” the man wrote. “Even bringing this topic up in the Indiana legislature will ratchet up the antagonism.”

    Voters know the push is coming from Trump, and many are not afraid to criticize him for it, even if they otherwise support the president, she said. Becker declined to say whether she’d voted for Trump but said she’s “not crazy about him,” especially after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    Trump is not letting up on his push. Last month the president called out State Sen. Greg Goode (R) in a post on Truth Social, saying he was “very disappointed” that he opposed redistricting even though Goode had not taken a position. Later that day, Goode said, someone falsely told police he had murdered his wife and barricaded himself in his house. Police kicked in the door just after Goode got out of the shower, while his wife and son were getting Christmas decorations in the basement, and officers pointed their guns at Goode’s chest, he said.

    Goode, who serves as the state director for U.S. Sen. Todd Young (R., Ind.), said he didn’t blame Trump for the incident. He got a call from Trump the next day, which he described as polite. Trump called Goode again on Monday, as the state senator was listening to the redistricting debate in committee.

    “It was not a pressured call at all,” Goode said. “The overarching message really from day one is the importance for the Republican Party to maintain control of the United States House of Representatives.”

    Goode said he won’t decide how he’s voting until he hears the final debate among the senators. He’s voted for Trump three times and takes his opinion seriously, but also is listening closely to his constituents, who have overwhelmingly told him they oppose redistricting, he said.

    On Friday, hours after the State House passed the map, Trump named Goode and eight other state senators in a social media post as needing “encouragement to make the right decision.” The conservative group Turning Point Action has claimed it will team up with other Trump-aligned organizations to spend $10 million or more on primaries in 2026 and 2028 against GOP state senators in Indiana who vote against the map. Several Republicans, including Becker, said they’re skeptical the groups would spend so much against members of their own party.

    State Sen. Travis Holdman (R) got a call from the White House a couple of weeks ago asking if he would come to Washington to talk about redistricting, but he declined because he couldn’t miss work as a banking consultant. Adopting a new map now would be unfair, he said, and he doesn’t think the president’s team could change his mind.

    “I voted for Donald Trump in every election,” he said. “I really agree with his policies. We just disagree on this issue.”

    Republicans control the State Senate 40-10, and at least 16 of them would need to vote with Democrats to sideline the map.

    Supporters of the altered map said they want to ensure Republicans hold onto Congress and are responding to districts Democrats drew favoring their party years ago in states they control. Indiana State Sen. R. Michael Young told his colleagues on Monday that the Supreme Court had blessed letting states draw districts for partisan advantage, holding up a recent decision that upheld a new map in Texas.

    “For all those people who think they’re lawyers in Indiana, who think it’s against the law or wrong, the Supreme Court of the United States says different,” he said.

    Others have made their opposition clear, with some saying they’re pushing back on what they call bullying. State Sen. Mike Bohacek (R) grew incensed last month when Trump called Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) “seriously retarded” in a social media post. Bohacek, who has a daughter with Down syndrome, said in a social media post that Trump’s “choice of words have consequences.”

    “I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority,” Bohacek wrote in his post.

    In the State House, Rep. Ed Clere was among 12 Republicans to vote against the map. He believes Trump’s MAGA movement is starting to crack, but doesn’t think that’s what’s behind the GOP resistance to redistricting in Indiana. It stems from a sense of independence that is, he said, “part of Indiana’s DNA.”

    Becker agrees.

    “Hoosiers are very independent,” she said. “And they’re not used to Washington trying to tell us what to do.”

    GRAPHIC

  • WTF? Embracing profanity is one thing both political parties seem to agree on

    WTF? Embracing profanity is one thing both political parties seem to agree on

    WASHINGTON — As he shook President Barack Obama’s hand and pulled him in for what he thought was a private aside, Vice President Joe Biden delivered an explicit message: “This is a big f— deal.” The remark, overheard on live microphones at a 2010 ceremony for the Affordable Care Act, caused a sensation because open profanity from a national leader was unusual at the time.

    More than 15 years later, vulgarity is now in vogue.

    During a political rally Tuesday night in Pennsylvania that was intended to focus on tackling inflation, President Donald Trump used profanity at least four times. At one point, he even admitted to disparaging Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries” during a private 2018 meeting, a comment he denied at the time. And before a bank of cameras during a lengthy cabinet meeting last week, the Republican president referred to alleged drug smugglers as “sons of bitches.”

    While the Biden incident was accidental, the frequency, sharpness, and public nature of Trump’s comments are intentional. They build on his project to combat what he sees as pervasive political correctness. Leaders in both parties are seemingly in a race now to the verbal gutter.

    Vice President JD Vance called a podcast host a “dips—” in September. In Thanksgiving remarks before troops, Vance joked that anyone who said they liked turkey was “full of s—.” After one National Guard member was killed in a shooting in Washington last month and a second was critically injured, top Trump aide Steven Cheung told a reporter on social media to “shut the f— up” when she wrote that the deployment of troops in the nation’s capital was “for political show.”

    Among Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris earned a roar of approval from her audience in September when she condemned the Trump administration by saying “these motherf— are crazy.” After Trump called for the execution of several Democratic members of Congress last month, Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) said it was time for people with influence to “pick a f— side.” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the administration cannot “f— around” with the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who on Monday announced her Senate campaign in Texas, did not hold back earlier this year when asked what she would tell Elon Musk if given the chance: “F— off.”

    The volley of vulgarities underscore an ever-coarsening political environment that often plays out on social media or other digital platforms where the posts or video clips that evoke the strongest emotions are rewarded with the most engagement.

    “If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the social media companies,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, said Tuesday night at Washington National Cathedral, where he spoke at an event focused on political civility. “It’s not a fair fight. They’ve hijacked our brains. They understand these dopamine hits. Outrage sells.”

    Cox, whose national profile rose after calling for civility in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination in his state, approved an overhaul of social media laws meant to protect children. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the state law.

    Tough political talk is nothing new

    Tough talk is nothing new in politics, but leaders long avoided flaunting it.

    Recordings from Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, for instance, revealed a crude, profane side of his personality that was largely kept private. Republican Richard Nixon bemoaned the fact that the foul language he used in the Oval Office was captured on tape. “Since neither I nor most other Presidents had ever used profanity in public, millions were shocked,” Nixon wrote in his book In the Arena.

    “Politicians have always sworn, just behind closed doors,” said Benjamin Bergen, a professor at the University of California-San Diego’s Department of Cognitive Science and the author of What the F: What swearing reveals about our language, our brains, and ourselves. “The big change is in the past 10 years or so, it’s been much more public.”

    As both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential campaign, the question is whether this language will become increasingly mainstream. Republicans who simply try to imitate Trump’s brash style do not always succeed with voters. Democrats who turn to vulgarities risk appearing inauthentic if their words feel forced.

    For some, it is just a distraction.

    “It’s not necessary,” said GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring next year after winning five elections in one of the most competitive House districts. “If that’s what it takes to get your point across, you’re not a good communicator.”

    There are risks of overusing profanity

    There also is a risk that if such language becomes overused, its utility as a way to shock and connect with audiences could be dulled. Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has talked about this problem, noting that he used swear words in his early routines but dropped them as his career progressed because he felt profanity yielded only cheap laughs.

    “I felt like well I just got a laugh because I said f— in there,” he said in a 2020 interview on the WTF podcast with fellow comedian Marc Maron. “You didn’t find the gold.”

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston said Trump “doesn’t care about being politically correct, he cares about making America great again. The American people love how authentic, transparent, and effective the President is.”

    But for Trump, the words that have generated the most controversy are often less centered in traditional profanity than slurs that can be interpreted as hurtful. The final weeks of his 2016 campaign were rocked when a tape emerged of him discussing grabbing women by their genitals, language he minimized as “locker room talk.” His “shithole” remark in 2018 was widely condemned as racist.

    More recently, Trump called Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey “piggy,” comments that his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, defended as evidence of a president who is “very frank and honest.” Trump’s use of a slur about disabled people prompted an Indiana Republican whose child has Down syndrome to come out in opposition to the president’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts.

    On rare occasions, politicians express contrition for their choice of words. In an interview with The Atlantic published last week, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, dismissed Harris’ depiction of him in her book about last year’s presidential campaign by saying she was “trying to sell books and cover her a—.”

    He seemed to catch himself quickly.

    “I shouldn’t say ‘cover her a—,” he said. “I think that’s not appropriate.”

  • New U.S. National Security Strategy slams Europe as greater threat than Russia or China

    New U.S. National Security Strategy slams Europe as greater threat than Russia or China

    Ordinarily, I wouldn’t recommend perusing the annual National Security Strategy of the United States of America. It generally summarizes the foreign policy direction in which the current administration is headed, and makes for lengthy, dry reading.

    But the new 33-page document is so shocking — even given what we already know about this administration’s behavior — that Americans need to pay attention.

    The NSS 2025 ignores the real security threats the U.S. faces in favor of praising white nationalist policies at home and demanding our democratic allies adopt the same. It promotes the myth that President Donald Trump can create a stable world by doing “deals” with authoritarian Moscow and Beijing.

    As for Russia’s invasion and brutalization of Ukraine, no word, except for chastising Europe for obstructing Trump’s efforts to force a pro-Russian “peace” plan on Kyiv. No wonder Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov quickly announced that the report was “largely consistent with our vision.”

    The document envisions a world in which Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping dominate the globe in concert, each controlling his own sphere of influence; it labels Trump’s intended control over the Western Hemisphere the “Monroe Doctrine Trump Corollary.”

    In reality, if Trump pursues this megalomaniacal mirage, he will facilitate the efforts of China and Russia to undermine U.S. security, destroy U.S. alliances, and dominate the world.

    What’s so revealing about the NSS is how much it has changed from the 2017 version released after Trump’s first year in office. Back then, the strategy referenced “the revisionist powers of China and Russia [who] want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests.” Russia, the document added, “aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners.”

    The security threat from both countries has only worsened since then. What has changed is the personnel around the president.

    Gone are the professionals and knowledgeable advisers (except for Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has largely been pushed to the sidelines). Present are the sycophants who flatter Trump’s brilliance and advance the white nationalist MAGA line.

    It’s no wonder there’s no reference to rising Chinese military threats to Taiwan. Or to massive Chinese cyberattacks on our country. One, called Salt Typhoon by U.S. intelligence agencies, has compromised U.S. telecommunications networks; another has penetrated U.S. infrastructure, including water supply plants, electricity grids, and transportation.

    Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

    Yet, in typical contradictory behavior, the Trump administration just halted plans to impose sanctions on China’s Ministry of State Security in response to Salt Typhoon.

    The security plan devotes pages to Trump’s penchant for trade deals and tariffs with Beijing, which it claims will ensure U.S. superiority in advanced technology.

    In another capitulation, however, Trump just agreed that Nvidia can sell advanced H200 chips to China, threatening that very U.S. superiority in advanced technology. Trump apparently wants to avoid displeasing Xi before traveling to Beijing for a summit in April. The president doesn’t want to interfere with his hopes of closing a brilliant trade deal.

    In other words, national security can be ignored when it contradicts the prospect of illusory economic gains — whether it be deals with China or Russia. And the president counts on his brilliance to secure both with his pals Putin and Xi (although he has repeatedly been bested by each of them).

    This fatal flaw is at the heart of NSS 2025.

    But the uglier and more gut-wrenching flaw is the document’s attack on Europe, its democratic values, and its support for Ukraine.

    The 2017 NSS read: “A strong and free Europe is of vital importance to the United States. We are bound together by our shared commitment to the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.”

    The “Promoting European Greatness” section of the new NSS echoes Vice President JD Vance’s tirade against European democracies, which I heard firsthand at the Munich Security Conference in February. Rather than speaking about the Russian war on Ukraine that threatens all of Europe, Vance denounced Germany for not inviting the extreme right, neo fascist Alternative für Deutschland party into a governing coalition.

    The 2025 NSS contends that Europe is on the verge of “civilizational erasure” because of immigration policies; instead, it promotes (white) nationalist, anti-immigration political parties. It slurs the European Union for its multilateralism (which the United States promoted after World War II, and which brought political and economic stability to the continent).

    And instead of supporting NATO allies as Russia attacks them with drones, cuts their underwater cables, and conducts sabotage and assassinations on European soil, the White House blames the Europeans for “regarding Russia as an existential threat.”

    “Our goal,” the document reads, “should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory.”

    There is something truly sick here.

    President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands before their meeting at Gimhae International Airport in Busan, South Korea, in October.

    Trump thinks China and Russia are his potential partners, while Europe is in the way — on Ukraine, on human rights, on warnings about Russia, on its own regulation of technology. Forget about common values or shared commitment to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

    Unabashed to intervene in domestic European politics, the document calls on Europeans to restore “strategic stability” with Russia, meaning pressure Kyiv into signing a deal that consigns Ukraine to permanent domination by Moscow.

    And the U.S. wants Europe to take over most of NATO’s conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles by 2027, an impossible feat.

    Moreover, the White House is actively promoting as part of its “security strategy” the success of radical white nationalist parties in Britain, France, Germany, and elsewhere that are pro-Moscow and eager to do any and all business with Beijing. In other words, a Europe led by parties that are hostile to American security interests.

    The NSS 2025 envisions an alliance of authoritarian governments and their imitators, including Russia, China, the United States – and far-right European parties that dislike NATO, want to end the European Union, and prefer deals with dictators to defending democracy.

    This is what Trump advocates, although he doesn’t grasp that it would destroy him as well as his country.

    Fortunately, Europe won’t capitulate, nor will our allies in Asia. Nor would most Americans, I believe, if they only knew what the Trump national security policy is all about.

  • Ale Ayiti: Philly’s Haitian Americans celebrate a rare World Cup bid

    Ale Ayiti: Philly’s Haitian Americans celebrate a rare World Cup bid

    The first World Cup I remember was in 1970. I was a kid in Guatemala, and my brothers and I were so excited. It was the year the Brazilian seleção included Pelé, Jairzinho, Rivellino, Tostão, Gérson, and Zé Maria — there may be no more beautiful example of the sport of soccer than what they showed us.

    The Guatemalan team was not in the World Cup that year (or ever 😢), but El Salvador was, and although they were unlikely to advance very far, we felt a lot of Central American solidarity and rooted for them — the underdoggiest of the underdogs.

    I expect to root for the underdog again next year, when Brazil and Haiti take the field in World Cup play in Philadelphia. Brazil is a five-time world champion; Haiti last competed at this level 52 years ago.

    Philly’s Haitian community doesn’t care if it’s a little lopsided.

    “Most Haitians adore Brazil,” the Rev. Dr. Josephys Dafils told me via email, “and now Haiti will face the mighty Brazil on American soil. This is the thrill and magic of soccer. Haitians and Haitian Americans will travel to be part of this historic moment. Many of us will gather for a tailgate celebration outside the stadium, even without tickets, which are extremely expensive. We will bring food, music, vendors, and a traditional Haitian band called rara.”

    Numa St. Louis agreed: “For Haitian Americans, this event is more than just a game; it’s a moment of immense pride and emotion. As a Haitian American and die-hard soccer fan, the feelings that arise from witnessing Haiti step onto the world stage are overwhelming. It represents a long-cherished dream; a chance for a nation often faced with adversity to showcase its talent, passion, and spirit on an international platform.”

    “The joy of supporting Haiti, coupled with the opportunity to share the occasion with Brazilian fans,” he told me via email, “underscores the camaraderie found in the beautiful game.”

    Dafils, who at one time served as a youth soccer coach in Haiti, said that for the national team to make it to the World Cup at all, they had to overcome almost insurmountable obstacles.

    “Armed groups have taken control of nearly 85% of [Haiti’s] capital, as well as major cities across the country. More than one million Haitians have been forced to flee their homes,” he said. “Many people no longer have access to electricity, clean running water, or food. Families are constantly moving from one neighborhood to another in search of safety. [And] amid this dire situation, the Haitian national soccer team has accomplished the extraordinary.”

    An example of that? They had to play all the qualifying matches outside of Haiti.

    Haiti’s Leverton Pierre controls the ball during a CONCACAF Gold Cup soccer match in June against the United States in Arlington, Texas.

    “I have cried tears of joy since Nov. 18, 2025 — the day Haiti qualified for the 2026 World Cup,” Dafils told me. “Nov. 18 also marks the anniversary of the Battle of Vertières in 1803, when Haiti secured its independence from France. The symbolism is profound.”

    St. Louis makes another historic connection: Next year’s tournament will also coincide with America’s 250th anniversary, adding another layer of significance.

    The Haitian community has a long history in Philadelphia. Hundreds of white slaveholders and those they enslaved fled the Haitian Revolution, first arriving in Philadelphia in 1793; many of those enslaved people gained their freedom here in the years between 1793 and 1796. The community grew and saw waves of immigration throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, prompted by political turmoil and natural disasters.

    It’s estimated that some 12,000 members of the community are currently legally residing under temporary protected status.

    Those Haitian immigrants, like their peers across the U.S., have felt the impact of the singularly ugly lies JD Vance and Donald Trump fabricated about Haitians during the campaign, and after Trump became president, the decision to not renew protected status when it expires in February.

    The shadow of Trump’s immigration policies “loom large” — even over an event like the World Cup match, according to St. Louis.

    “The cancellation of the Temporary Protected Status program threatens to strip many Haitians of their legal ability to remain in the United States, leaving them vulnerable to deportation,” he said. “Furthermore, Haiti is among the 19 countries whose citizens are banned from entering the U.S., which will hinder potential visitors from attending the matches.”

    But he and Dafils always return to the thrill and magic of the World Cup match.

    “It has taken 52 years for Haiti to return to the World Cup. None of us know when we will see this again. I was not yet born in 1974, and I never thought I would witness such a moment,” Dafils said.

    “This match symbolizes hope,” St. Louis said, “a celebration of cultural connections that transcend borders. Even amid political challenges and the looming impact of immigration policies, this gathering promises to foster unity among diverse communities, showcasing the power of sports to uplift and inspire.”

    “As the day approaches, the anticipation grows for what promises to be an exhilarating clash, filled with heartwarming moments, passionate displays, and the acknowledgment of Haiti’s journey,” he added.

    What a beautiful game. Ale Ayiti!