US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t believe the doubters: protest still has power | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      Opinions about the protests this month keep oscillating between two extremes. Optimists point to the larger-than-expected numbers (larger than expected by many police departments for sure); they enthusiastically recall a famous social scientific finding according to which a non-violent mobilization of 3.5% of a population can bring down a regime. Pessimists, by contrast, see protests as largely performative. Both views are simplistic: it is true that protests almost never lead to immediate policy changes – yet they are crucial for building morale and long-term movement power.Earlier this year, observers had rushed to declare resistance “cringe” and a form of pointless “hyperpolitics”, a “vibe shift” (most felt by rightwing pundits, coincidentally) supposedly gave Donald Trump a clear mandate, even if he had won the election only narrowly. Meanwhile, Democrats were flailing in the face of a rapid succession of outrageous executive orders – many of which were effectively memos to underlings, rather than laws. But taken at face value, they reinforced an impression of irresistible Trumpist power.As we now know from the Crowd Counting Consortium – a joint project by Harvard University and the University of Connecticut – this sense of defeatism was always more felt at elite level rather than on the ground: already in the first weeks of Trump 2.0, there were far more protests than during the same period in the first administration. What seemed to be missing was a massive event serving as a focal point: now the more than 1,000 gatherings, with 100,000 showing up in DC alone, have provided one.The enthusiasm about large and astonishingly diverse crowds has also revived a tendency, though, to focus on what has become an almost totemic number, a kind of social science Hallmark card for protesters: according to Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, civil, non-violent resistance that mobilizes 3.5% of a population has overwhelming chances of success (whereas violent action is actually more likely to fail or be outright counterproductive).Three and a half per cent would mean 11 million people on the streets – even the Women’s March, generally seen as highly successful, mobilized “only” four or so million people. The first Earth Day event in 1970 – generally seen as the largest single-day demonstration in US history – brought out “only” 20 million.As Chenoweth has cautioned, the 3.5% number was not some hard social scientific law, let alone a prescription. Many movements have been successful with fewer participants. Plus, what might best be described as a “historical tendency” was measured at a time when no one was conscious of it. Things might be different if one specifically tries to mobilize in light of a 3.5% goal; conversely, power-holders might now be determined to prevent resisters reaching a particular threshold at all costs.In any case, protests and resistance are not the same: the former, by definition, accepts existing authorities and asks for change; the latter does not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the powers that be – and it was the latter that Chenoweth and Stephan were looking at. Protest rarely leads to immediate policy change; in fact, according to the writer and activist LA Kauffman, perhaps the only clear example of a direct result is a protest that in fact did not happen. In 1941, the civil rights leader A Philip Randolph threatened Franklin D Roosevelt with a protest against racial discrimination in the defense industry and the military; before a march on Washington took place, Roosevelt conceded and issued an executive order banning discrimination in the defense industry.Yet immediate policy change is not the only metric of success. Especially in light of the defeatist elite stance earlier this year, people coming out and seeing each other can be a major morale booster. What is so often dismissed as performative – music, drums, people parading with handmade signs to have their photos taken by others – is not a matter of collective narcissism; rather, it has been recognized by many modern thinkers, starting with Rousseau, as an important part of building community. Politically inspired and inspiring festivals are not some frivolous sideshow; they allow citizens to experience each others’ presence, their emotional dispositions (many are seething with anger!), and their commitment.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrue, it matters what happens next. Many of the protests that took place during the past decade were ultimately unsuccessful because rapid mobilization via social media had not been preceded by patient organizing and the creation of effective structures for continuous engagement. By contrast, what remains the most famous protest in US history – the 1963 March on Washington – was a capstone march after years of difficult, often outright dangerous organizing. The march was flawlessly executed and produced celebrated images; it is less well-known that it was coordinated with the Kennedy administration and very tightly controlled by civil rights leaders (only approved signs were allowed; there was an official recommendation for what lunch to bring: peanut butter and jelly sandwiches).At the end of the march, participants repeated a text read out by none other than A Philip Randolph: they promised they would not “relax until victory is won”. It matters whether those who expressed anger earlier this month can stay engaged, building on the easy connections during spontaneous encounters at a protest. Even by itself, though, what civil rights leaders called the “the meaning of our numbers” will be not go unnoticed by politicians and, less obviously, courts hardly insensitive to public opinion.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro baseball player Tarik El-Abour is everything RFK Jr says he can’t be

      by

      When Tarik El-Abour was in middle school, his teacher asked him and his classmates a simple question. What do you want to be when you grow up? When it was time for him to answer, El-Abour gave a reply that thousands of children have said before. He wanted to be a baseball player. But his teacher shot back with something less than encouraging: “You’d better have a Plan B.” El-Abour, who was diagnosed with autism at the age of three, remained undeterred. Rather than listening to his pessimistic instructor, he distanced himself from her.He thought that if he continued to talk to her, she might convince him he was unable to achieve his goal. In the end, he was right, and the teacher was wrong. El-Abour grew up to become a baseball player after receiving a degree in business administration from Bristol University in California. He first played professionally in the Empire League, where he was named rookie of the year in 2016 and was an All-Star in 2017. Then, in 2018, he signed a deal with the Kansas City Royals, a franchise just three years removed from winning the World Series. He played outfield in the minor leagues during the 2018 season, flourishing under the mentorship of JD Nichols of World Wide Baseball Prospects and Reggie Sanders of the Royals, becoming the first recorded autistic player in MLB history.All of this will be news to the US health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who said earlier this month that: “Autism destroys families, and more importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which is our children … These are kids who will never pay taxes. They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.”El-Abour chooses to let Kennedy’s comments slide off him.“When it comes to politics,” the 32-year-old tells the Guardian, “I’m so used to crazy stuff being said by people. I’m just in a spot where it doesn’t really get to me. I get that’s just how some things are. The way I look at it, the only things I care about are the things I have control over – like baseball and those I care about most.”El-Abour, who is now playing in the Zone 22 scouting league in Los Angeles and hoping for another shot at the majors, says he doesn’t know what it’s like not to be autistic. But he explains that the way his brain works helps him focus and embrace repetition – both valuable qualities for a ballplayer. “Baseball requires a lot of repetition to be good at it,” he says. “And people with autism tend to be repetitive. I guess that’s maybe where it benefits me.”Kennedy, a fan of doing his own research, may want to note that El-Abour is not the only autistic professional athlete in the US. Tony Snell, who also has two autistic sons, was diagnosed with autism. And he had a nine-year NBA career, playing on several teams, including the Chicago Bulls and New Orleans Pelicans. “Learning I have [autism] helped me understand my whole life,” said Snell in a recent interview. “This is why I am the way I am.” Joe Barksdale, who revealed in 2022 that he was diagnosed with autism, played eight years in the NFL. And Nascar driver Armani Williams also stated publicly he is autistic. Of course, there are more autistic athletes coming up in the ranks, too.“It was a surprise when the [Kennedy] news came out last week,” El-Abour’s mother, Nadia, tells the Guardian. “I wanted to post something then Tarik said, ‘No, the [media] will take care of it.’ Tarik started laughing. He goes, ‘Oh, wow, why did he [Kennedy] choose baseball?’”She says that, unlike some politicians today, her son is very logical. Many autistic people, she explains, don’t attach emotion to the truth. Something simply either is true or it isn’t. “They can’t understand why we don’t accept the truth,” Nadia says. It’s the same reasoning El-Abour employed when flouting his middle school teacher’s “Plan B” idea. In fact, he bristled at it so much that he didn’t even want to be around the energy of the school building, often crossing the street rather than walk near it.“He doesn’t see obstacles,” Nadia says of her son. “He doesn’t think of ‘I can’t.’ He just thinks, ‘How … how can I do that?’”El-Abour, who was non-verbal until he was about six years old, started playing baseball later in life, around 10 years old. At first, he was unsure if he liked the game, which his father signed him up for. But when he got into the batter’s box, something happened. He even gave up his spot as pitcher on the team because he was told pitchers don’t bat in the pros. From then on, he arranged his whole life around things that would make him be a better player. He painted an X on the garage to practice his throwing accuracy. He took fly balls into the night with his coaches. Rather than, as Kennedy would have us believe, baseball was something unattainable for El-Abour, it helped him blossom.Indeed, El-Abour’s life is a far cry from the picture Kennedy Jr and others have tried to paint. But despite any number of ignorant comments, El-Abour says he’s grateful for who he is and proud of what he’s achieved so far in his life. He says “it’s an honor” that people ask him about his autism and he’s glad he can add to the conversation. “It’s very humbling,” El-Abour says, “to be possibly making an impact. Baseball really gave me something that I enjoy and love doing. It always gives me something to be motivated for and to be better at each day throughout my life. And that’s really good.” More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Over 100 US university presidents sign letter decrying Trump administration

      by

      More than 100 presidents of US colleges and universities have signed a statement denouncing the Trump administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with higher education – the strongest sign yet that US educational institutions are forming a unified front against the government’s extraordinary attack on their independence.The statement, published early on Tuesday by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, comes weeks into the administration’s mounting campaign against higher education, and hours after Harvard University became the first school to sue the government over threats to its funding. Harvard is one of several institutions hit in recent weeks with huge funding cuts and demands they relinquish significant institutional autonomy.The signatories come from large state schools, small liberal arts colleges and Ivy League institutions, including the presidents of Harvard, Princeton and Brown.In the statement, the university presidents, as well as the leaders of several scholarly societies say they speak with “one voice” and call for “constructive engagement” with the administration.“We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight,” they write. “However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.”Harvard’s lawsuit comes after the administration announced it would freeze $2.3bn in federal funds, and Donald Trump threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, over claims the university failed to protect Jewish students from pro-Palestinian protests. The suit and the statement, taken together, mark an increasingly muscular response from universities following what initially appeared to be a tepid approach.While some university leaders have in recent weeks criticised the administration and indicated they will not abide by its demands, the statement marks the first time presidents have spoken out collectively on the matter. The joint condemnation followed a convening of more than 100 university leaders called by the AAC&U and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences last week to “come together to speak out at this moment of enormity”, said Lynn Pasquarella, the president of the AAC&U.Pasquarella said that there was “widespread agreement” across a variety of academic institutions about the need to take a collective stand.“Much has been written about this flood-the-zone strategy that’s being used in the current attacks on higher education, and it’s a strategy designed to overwhelm campus leaders with a constant barrage of directives, executive orders, and policy announcements that make it impossible to respond to everything all at once,” she said, explaining why it has taken until now for a joint response. “Campus leaders have had a lot to deal with over the past few months, and I think that’s part of the reason, but it’s also the case that they are constrained by boards, by multiple constituencies who are often asking them to do things that are at odds with one another.”The Trump administration has issued a barrage of measures aimed at universities the right has described as “the enemy” – some under the guise of fighting alleged antisemitism on campuses and others in an explicit effort to eradicate diversity and inclusion initiatives. Billions in federal funds are under threat unless universities comply with extreme demands, such as removing academic departments from faculty control, “auditing” the viewpoints of students and faculty, and collaborating with federal authorities as they target international students for detention and deportation. Along with its actions against Harvard, it has threatened and in some cases withheld millions more from Cornell, Northwestern, Brown, Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.Columbia has largely accepted the administration’s requirements to restore funding, including placing an academic department under outside oversight. Its president did not sign the collective statement.The measures against the schools, which are already upending academic research, undermine longstanding partnerships between the federal government and universities, and are contributing to an atmosphere of repression, the statement’s signatories note.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation,” they write.Last week, Harvard University issued the strongest rebuke yet of the administration’s demands, with president Alan Garber setting off a showdown with the White House by saying that the university would not “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights”.While Harvard’s lawsuit was the first by a university, higher education associations and organisations representing faculty have filed other legal challenges over the cuts.Faculty at some universities are also organising to protect one another, with several members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium of some of the country’s largest state universities, signing on to a resolution to establish a “mutual defence compact”.At a second convening by the AAC&U on Monday some 120 university leaders also discussed what steps they may take next, including efforts to engage their broader communities and the business world to defend academic freedom.The joint statement, Pasquarella added, was just the beginning, and intended “to signal to the public and to affirm to ourselves what’s at stake here, what’s at risk if this continual infringement on the academy is allowed to continue”. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Harvard sues Trump administration over efforts to ‘gain control of academic decision-making’

      by

      Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging it is trying to “gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard”.The university is fighting back against the administration’s threat to review about $9bn in federal funding after Harvard officials refused to comply with a list of demands that included appointing an outside overseer to ensure that the viewpoints being taught at the university were “diverse”. Harvard is specifically looking to halt a freeze on $2.2bn in grants.The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has sought to force changes at multiple Ivy League institutions after months of student activism centered around the war in Gaza. The administration has painted the campus protests as anti-American, and the institutions as liberal and antisemitic, which Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, refuted.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that the “gravy train of federal assistance” to institutions like Harvard was coming to an end.“Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege,” Fields said.In a letter announcing the university’s decision to reject Trump’s demands, Garber wrote: “No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”Garber, in a statement published on Monday, reiterated that the Trump administration had doubled down on its response to the university’s refusal to comply with the administration’s demands, despite claims that the letter indicating Harvard’s federal research funding was at risk was sent by mistake.“The government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2bn in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1bn in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status,” Garber wrote.“These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.”Harvard is the first university to file a lawsuit in response to Trump’s crackdown on top US universities that is says mishandled last year’s pro-Palestinian protests and allowed antisemitism to fester on campuses. But protesters, including some Jewish groups, say their criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza is wrongly conflated with antisemitism.Earlier this month, the Trump administration had sent a letter to Harvard with the list of demands, which included changes to its admissions policies, removing recognition of some student clubs, and hiring some new faculty.Last Tuesday, Trump had called for Harvard, the US’s oldest and wealthiest university and one of the most prestigious in the world, to lose its tax-exempt status, CNN first reported.“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” the US president said in a post on his Truth Social platform. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: Harvard sues White House; president backs Hegseth in Signal scandal

      by

      Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a bid to halt a freeze of $2.2m in funding, as a battle between Trump and the Ivy League institution escalates.In a damning legal complaint filed with the Massachusetts district court, Harvard’s president, Alan M Garber, accused the Trump administration of trying to “gain control of academic decision making at Harvard”, adding that no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”.The Trump administration has sought to force changes at multiple Ivy League institutions after months of student activism centered around the war in Gaza. The administration has painted the campus protests as anti-American, and the institutions as liberal and antisemitic, a claim that Garber refutes.Here are the key stories at a glance:Harvard says Trump ‘slamming on the brakes’ to vital research In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Harvard’s Garber said the funding freeze was putting health research into jeopardy, including improving the prospects for children who survive cancer, understanding how cancer spreads through the body, predicting the spread of infectious disease outbreaks and easing the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield.“As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes,” he wrote.Read the full story‘Full-blown meltdown’ at Pentagon over HegsethA former top Pentagon spokesperson has slammed Pete Hegseth’s leadership of the department of defense, as pressure mounts on the defense secretary after reports of a second Signal chatroom used to discuss sensitive military operations.Read the full storyTrump says Hegseth is ‘doing a great job’ Donald Trump offered public support for defense secretary Pete Hegseth a day after it emerged the defense secretary had shared information about US strikes in Yemen last month in a second Signal group chat that included family members, his personal lawyer and several top Pentagon aides.Read the full storyDemocrats land in El Salvador to push for Ábrego García’s releaseA delegation of four House Democrats has arrived in El Salvador to push for the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, part of a mission to challenge the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with a supreme court order to facilitate his returnto the United States.Read the full storyStock markets fall as Trump calls Fed chair ‘a major loser’US stock markets started falling again on Monday morning as Trump continued attacks against the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, whom the president called “a major loser” for not lowering interest rates.Read the full storyTrump axes key STI lab amid dramatic rise in syphilisThe Trump administration’s cuts to a sexually transmitted infection lab at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention comes as some states announce enormous increases in syphilis. The Trump administration has made deep cuts to health programs, affecting expert leadership and programs that surveil, test and research STIs.Read the full storyFederal employees ‘improperly’ shared sensitive documentsUS government employees “improperly” shared sensitive documents, including White House blueprints, with thousands of federal workers, the Washington Post reported. Staff at an independent agency that oversees the construction and preservation of government buildings, shared a Google Drive folder contacting confidential files to all GSA staff members, totaling more than 11,200 people.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      The US supreme court heard arguments in a case that could threaten Americans’ access to free preventive healthcare services under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

      British lawmakers and peers have called for Trump to be blocked from addressing parliament during his UK visit.

      Hundreds of marches, pickets and cleanup events took place across the US in the run-up to Earth Day as environmental and climate groups step up resistance to the Trump administration’s “war on the planet”.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 20 April 2025. More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Mahmoud Khalil’s wife Noor Abdalla gives birth as Ice denies his request to attend

      by

      Noor Abdalla, the wife of detained Columbia university graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, has announced the birth of their son.In a statement released on Monday evening, Abdalla wrote: “I welcomed our son into the world earlier today without Mahmoud by my side. Despite our request for ICE to allow Mahmoud to attend the birth, they denied his temporary release to meet our son. This was a purposeful decision by ICE to make me, Mahmoud, and our son suffer.”The Department of Homeland Security denied Khalil the opportunity to attend the birth of his first child, which he was only able to experience via a telephone call. Khalil is being held in a Louisiana detention facility more than 1,000 miles away from the New York hospital where his son was delivered.Abdalla, a 28-year-old dentist who lives in New York, and her son, who was born early Monday morning, are both in good health.Abdalla is a US citizen who was born and raised in Michigan. Her parents immigrated to the US from Syria about 40 years ago.According to emails reviewed by the New York Times, Khalil’s lawyers suggested several ways in which he could have attended the birth, including allowing him a two-week furlough while wearing an ankle monitor and requiring scheduled check-ins.“A two-week furlough in this civil detention matter would be both reasonable and humane so that both parents can be present for the birth of their first child,” the lawyers wrote.The request was denied by the New Orleans field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.Khalil was arrested on 8 March on grounds that he is considered to be a threat to US foreign policy. Earlier this month, an immigration judge ruled that Khalil is eligible to be deported from the United States.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAbdalla has fought for her husband’s release since the day of his arrest, maintaining that the Trump administration is “trying to silence” anyone who speaks up for Palestinian rights.“We will not be silenced. We will persist, with even greater resolve, and we will pass that strength on to our children and our children’s children – until Palestine is free,” she wrote on 8 April.In her statement shortly after her son’s birth, Abdalla vowed to continue to fight for Khalil’s release. “I will continue to fight every day for Mahmoud to come home to us. I know when Mahmoud is freed, he will show our son how to be brave, thoughtful, and compassionate, just like his dad.” More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says Hegseth is ‘doing a great job’ despite reports of second Signal chat

      by

      Donald Trump offered public support for defense secretary Pete Hegseth a day after it emerged that Hegseth had shared information about US strikes in Yemen last month in a second Signal group chat that included family, his personal lawyer and several top Pentagon aides.“He’s doing a great job. Ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” Trump said dismissively, referring to the rebel group in Yemen targeted by those missile strikes, on the sidelines of the White House Easter egg roll event on Monday.Hegseth was revealed to have shared, in a series of messages, plans about US strikes against the Houthis on 15 March before they happened in the Signal group chat that included his wife, his brother and a number of his top military aides.The details that Hegseth sent in were essentially the same information that he shared in a separate Signal group chat earlier this year that mistakenly included the editor of the Atlantic in addition to JD Vance and other top Trump officials, a person directly familiar with the messages said.But pressure on Hegseth has so far come from people outside of the White House. Trump called the defense secretary on Sunday after the story broke and aides concluded that it had been leaked to the news media by a former Hegseth aide who was in the group chat but abruptly fired last week.Trump has resisted firing top officials in his second term, not wanting to be seen as caving to a media swarm even if he has been unhappy with the negative coverage. Trump also stuck by his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, who had added the editor of the Atlantic to the first chat.According to a person familiar with the call, Trump told Hegseth that he had his support and that disgruntled leakers were to blame for the story, which was first reported by the New York Times.Trump also told his team to back Hegseth in public, and senior Trump aides repeated their defense line that none of the information shared in either of the group chats were classified, although the accusations have centered on why it was shared with Hegseth’s wife, for instance, since she is not a Pentagon official.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe defense secretary himself appeared furious when asked about the second Signal chat during the White House Easter egg roll event on the South Lawn, telling reporters that the story was a “hit piece” that repeated his defense that it had been pushed by “disgruntled former employees”.But Hegseth faced growing pressure to resign after John Ullyot, his former spokesperson, wrote in an extraordinary opinion essay in Politico on Sunday that the Pentagon was “in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership”.Republican congressman Don Bacon, who sits on the House armed services committee, did not explicitly call for Hegseth’s resignation but suggested he would not keep Hegseth in place were he was the president.“I had concerns from the get-go because Pete Hegseth didn’t have a lot of experience,” said Bacon, a former air force general. “I’m not in the White House and I’m not going to tell the White House how to manage this … but I find it unacceptable and I wouldn’t tolerate it if I was in charge.” More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court hears challenge to Obamacare free preventive healthcare

      by

      The US supreme court on Monday heard arguments in a case that could threaten Americans’ access to free preventive healthcare services under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.At issue is the constitutionality of the US preventive services taskforce, which plays a critical role in determining which preventive services health insurers must cover without cost to patients. The 16-member panel of medical experts, appointed by the health secretary without Senate confirmation, has designated dozens of life-saving screenings and treatments as essential preventive care.If the justices uphold the lower court’s ruling, health associations said in a filing, life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free would become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them.The case represents the latest in a long series of legal challenges to Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation to reach the nation’s highest court since its passage in 2010. A big critic of the program during his first term, Trump and his administration have now taken over the case after the Biden administration initially filed the appeal.In oral arguments, the justices posed sharp questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the taskforce, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if the group operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law.Jonathan Mitchell, the conservative lawyer representing the plaintiffs who previously represented Trump in ballot access litigation, insisted that taskforce members are “principal officers” because “their preventive care coverage mandates are neither directed nor supervised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services”.Mitchell’s argument hinges on interpreting statutory language requiring the task force to be “independent” and “protected from political pressure”, which he argues is incompatible with secretary oversight: “We don’t see any way that statutory language can be squared with the regime envisioned by the government,” he told the justices.Several justices appeared skeptical of Mitchell’s reading of the statute, with Justice Elena Kagan questioning whether Congress would create a board without specifying who appoints its members: “I mean, it would be an odd statute. I doubt you could find another where Congress has set up a board and … just not said who should appoint.”The taskforce is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient’s condition worsens.The taskforce has identified dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use.The New Orleans-based fifth US circuit court of appeals ruled in 2024 that the taskforce’s structure violates the constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The government’s appeal of the fifth circuit’s decision initially was filed by Biden’s administration before being taken up by Trump.Trump’s administration argued in a supreme court brief that the taskforce’s preventive care recommendations cannot become legally binding on insurers without the HHS secretary’s permission.“The secretary can remove them at will, and the threat of removal is the ultimate tool for control over final decisions on recommendations,” justice department lawyers wrote.For this and other reasons, justice department lawyers argued, the taskforce’s members should be seen as so-called “inferior officers”, meaning they can be lawfully appointed by an executive branch department head – like the HHS secretary – and do not require Senate confirmation under the constitution.In a supreme court filing, the plaintiffs argued that the Affordable Care Act has transformed the longstanding taskforce from an advisory body into one that now issues “decrees” to insurers, adding that the HHS secretary has no authority to stop taskforce recommendations from becoming binding law.The taskforce’s lack of supervision, they argued, makes its members “principal officers” who must be presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed under the constitution.Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the lawsuit included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs “facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use”.The fifth circuit’s ruling also rejected the government’s request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue – a process called severing – in order to make that part of the law conform to the constitution. That issue was also part of the appeal before the supreme court.The supreme court’s decision was expected by the end of June. More