US politics
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Charlie Kirk was a divisive far-right podcaster. Why is he being rebranded as a national hero?
The streets of Washington DC are unmistakable. In addition to noting the city’s signature architecture and public monuments, one will know they are in the nation’s capital when they can barely go half a city block without spotting a US flag. Two weeks ago, those flags were flying at half-staff, but not in recognition of the passing of a high-ranking public official, as would be customary. Instead, the half-staff was ordered by the White House in a highly politicized effort to memorialize the 10 September killing of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old podcaster, hard-right party operative, and Maga youth influencer, as an event of national tragedy.Kirk ruled over an online fiefdom peddling his signature brand of rage-baiting racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic commentary. It wasn’t just his vitriolic style, but also his popularization of cruelty, humiliation and dehumanization of political opponents – especially college students – that attracted millions to his audience. He famously said empathy was “a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage”.As a Black woman, I felt no sorrow watching these flags hang limp and lifeless from chrome posts in the stiff, humid summer heat that, even on the eve of autumn, will not unhand a city already stifled by federal threats of military occupation. I felt the same when, just hours after the shooting, the speaker of the House of Representatives called for a moment of silence on the floor for a private citizen who had never held office nor served in the military. (The brief silence erupted seconds later into a shouting match melee when congresswoman Lauren Boebert requested that members hold an open prayer for Kirk from the floor). Just nine days later, the House passed a Republican resolution eulogizing Kirk’s life with a sweeping 310-58 majority.I felt no mourning when seven teams in the National Football League – the very organization that has long been criticized for its inconsistent and often hypocritical stance on the place of politics in sports – held in-game memorials for Kirk, who never played any professional sport nor held a role within the league. In the Dallas Cowboys stadium in Texas, Jumbotrons featured a statesman-like image of Kirk, what one might expect for the passing of a former president or a longtime team affiliate. The grand gesture was drenched in hard-to-miss hypocrisy: forced silence from Black players who were punished for advocating for social justice in 2020, while, in the endzone, a painted astroturf read “End Racism” – a relic of just how fleeting the league’s lip service to the Black Lives Matter movement just a few years ago proved to be.I feel no grief because these memorials to Kirk are not created for me to grieve. Instead, they seek not only to enshrine Kirk into the national consciousness, but also to foster national memories about what he represents ideologically and culturally. The lionizing is an official effort to coalesce the state into his movement – a brazen proclamation that his consistently hostile white nationalist, homophobic and misogynistic convictions represent the federal government’s interests, and thus, what the presidency believes should be the national priority.It’s reminiscent of the long aftermath of the civil war, when Confederate memorials were fashioned well into the 20th century not by those seeking to grieve any one individual, but rather by those who wanted to send a message about racial politics in the present. Some people have settled comfortably into a belief that the recent years of anti-racism protests and organizing have successfully toppled enough of these Confederate monuments, that their white-washed histories collapsed with them. But memorials to Kirk conducted by the country’s most powerful institutions are evidence of the revival of a new iteration of neo-Confederate memorialization.Like the Confederate tributes and monuments of the past, current memorials to Kirk function to throttle any interrogation of their subject. Those who are elevated to the esteem of official national memorializing are commonly – although with notable exceptions –figures that the public agrees are beyond reproach. In honoring Rosa Parks with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1996, for example, Bill Clinton sought to canonize the entire Civil Rights Movement for which she fought. It cemented the era as worthy of national honor because it telegraphed the meaning of democracy and freedom for all Americans.In contrast, with the insta-extolling of Kirk, Donald Trump, who has announced that his late close personal friend will be awarded a posthumous Medal of Freedom, echoes the intentions behind Confederate memorials of yore. Instead of public recognitions that reflect the long march towards a national reckoning with our past, memorials like those for Kirk elevate his consistent record of hard-right extremism above the reach of public questioning.Kirk’s style of seizing upon those who challenged his ideologies and punishing his detractors is an agenda that has expanded well beyond Trump’s track record of punishing his personal and political enemies. Though I, like the majority of Kirk’s critics, do not condone his shooting, Kirk himself said gun deaths were “worth it” to maintain gun rights. While rhetoric this extreme, including his claim that Black women in government and media lacked “brain processing power”, is being euphemized in tributes as his “advocacy for free speech”, media figures and government employees who openly question if he should be publicly lauded are being fired from their jobs.Additionally, hundreds of college professors were doxed, harassed and threatened by Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, and its notorious “Professor Watchlist”, which published the names and information of any academics with views Kirk construed as incompatible with his own. It’s curious how a virtue like “doing politics the right way” can be afforded to someone who sought to devastate the lives of scholars and intellectuals.The aggrandizing of Kirk shares yet another, more lasting legacy with Confederate memorialization. The historian David Blight notes that in the aftermath of the civil war, the call for reconciliation between white northerners and southerners was achieved at the expense of erasing the legacy of slavery from the postbellum narrative. Thus, the reunification of the white citizenry was done wholly on southern terms and exacerbated the racial atrocities that were never addressed in the postwar era, leaving Black Americans to be wholesale lynched and terrorized throughout the south.Further still, reunification campaigns exonerated and elevated rebel insurgents who were, by definition, traitors and enemies of the state, to a status otherwise reserved for senior statesmen and decorated US veterans. It was a damning declaration that even those who sought to overthrow this country would be celebrated as its heroes before Black Americans would be treated as its citizens. The same tone is struck in the tributes to Kirk that exalt a highly controversial private citizen as though he were a national hero.Elected officials, journalists and public figures on the left who stress calls for unity do so on the right’s terms, and are reminiscent of the kid-gloved white northerners who sought to rebrand a war fought expressly over human trafficking and bondage into a national moment for celebration of duty, honor and valorous military service on both sides. Those who call for us to honor the life of a man who said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake”, and who described Martin Luther King Jr, as “awful”, have betrayed those of us who heard Kirk espouse eugenics and replacement theory loud and clear, with such vast online influence that it prompted a 2024 investigation by the Southern Poverty Law Center.The valorization of Kirk by his far-right defenders is an insult to millions of the most marginalized Americans who lived every day in the crosshairs of his rhetoric. Kirk’s memorialization by his supporters and apologists is but a new opportunity to announce an old message about whose country this is and whose it isn’t.
Saida Grundy is an associate professor of sociology and African American studies at Boston University, and the author of Respectable: Politics and Paradox in Making the Morehouse Man More
- in US Politics
Jimmy Kimmel is coming back. It’s proof that you still have power | Robert Reich
ABC says Jimmy Kimmel Live! will return to the airwaves next Tuesday – less than a week after Trump’s henchman Brendan Carr, chair of the Federal Communications Commission, said on a podcast that Kimmel’s remarks were part of a “concerted effort to lie to the American people”.Carr threatened that the FCC could “do this the easy way or the hard way” – suggesting that either ABC and its parent company, Walt Disney, must remove Kimmel or the regulator would have “additional work” to do.Why Walt Disney Company’s turnaround? As it limply explained: “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.”But now, apparently, all is well.“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”How lovely. How reasonable. How, well, kumbaya. All it took were some “thoughtful conversations with Jimmy” and everything returned to normal.Don’t believe it. In the days since ABC’s decision, the blowback against Disney has been hurricane level.At least five entertainment industry unions, with at least 400,000 workers, spoke out, with the screenwriters’ union charging Disney with “corporate cowardice”.Celebrities Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep called out “government threats to our freedom of speech”.Kimmel was supported by his late-night peers including Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers, and John Oliver, all of whom blasted Disney and ABC with rapier-like humor.Jon Stewart devoted his show to a takedown of Disney’s cowardice.Disney talent was up in arms. Damon Lindelof, a creator of ABC’s Lost, threatened that if Kimmel’s show did not resume, he could not “in good conscience work for the company that imposed it”.Michael Eisner, a former Disney CEO, added a rare public rebuke.Even the rightwing Republican senator Ted Cruz expressed concern, suggested Carr was speaking like a mafioso and calling his threats to retaliate against media companies “dangerous as hell”.“We should not be in this business,” Cruz said. “We should denounce it.”By Monday, Carr himself was busy minimizing his role in the whole affair – denying he had threatened to revoke the licenses of ABC stations (it “did not happen in any way, shape or form”) – and putting the onus on Disney for having made a “business decision” in response to negative feedback from viewers.“Jimmy Kimmel is in the situation that he’s in because of his ratings, not because of anything that’s happened at the federal government level,” Carr claimed.But the most intense pressure came from us – from Disney viewers and customers – who immediately began to cancel subscriptions to Disney+ and Hulu and threaten a broader consumer boycott.Some stars, such as Tatiana Maslany, star of Marvel’s Disney+ series She-Hulk: Attorney at Law, and Rosie O’Donnell urged people to cancel their subscriptions.But the consumer boycott seems to have begun almost immediately.Shortly after Kimmel’s suspension was announced, Disney stock dipped about 3.5%. It continued to trade lower in subsequent days. The loss in market value has amounted to about $4bn.Investors got the message. Consumers were upset, which meant they’d buy fewer Disney products and services – which meant lower profits.There’s never one single reason for the ups and downs in the value of a particular firm’s shares of stock, but the timing here has been almost exact.Bottom line: We consumers have extraordinary power. We’re the vast majority. Like every other big corporation – especially one selling directly to consumers – Disney relies on us.Even if we can’t count on our elected politicians to protect our first amendment rights, we can rely on ourselves. When our outrage translates into withholding our consumer dollars, a big corporation like Disney is forced to listen – and respond.Next time you’re feeling powerless, remember this.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist and his newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com. His new book, Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, is out now More
- in US Politics
Pennsylvania official faces threats over post misconstrued as Charlie Kirk killing celebration
A member of a Pennsylvania school board says she is stepping back from her duties – and has been grappling with threats to her safety – after a “one down, hundreds to go” social media post about windblown milkweed seeds was misconstrued as celebrating the killing of far-right pundit Charlie Kirk.Homer-Center school district board member Misty Hunt uploaded the post in question on 10 September, the same day Kirk was shot to death by a sniper while speaking at Utah Valley University (UVU).Numerous people across the US have been fired from or otherwise disciplined at their jobs over commentary about Kirk’s murder, which authorities allege was carried out by a young man who viewed the Turning Point USA director’s political statements as “hatred”.And once it became apparent that people were accusing Hunt of extolling Kirk’s murder, the school board announced an investigation to “completely understand her intentions”.Subsequent social media posts from Hunt maintained that her “one down, hundreds to go” post was meant to accompany a video of wind blowing one of the milkweed seed pods that she customarily releases to nourish monarch butterflies.Poor cell phone reception near a former local power plant undermined her attempt to upload the video that was meant to be paired with the text, she said. She also said she did not learn of Kirk’s killing – or that video failed to upload – until later that night, having been too absorbed with the outdoors that day.“A tragedy occurred. And I was too busy enjoying nature to know what went down,” Hunt wrote. Calling gardening “my life” and offering condolences to Kirk’s family, she said her post was “only about butterflies and creating a space for them. The end.”Hunt later followed up with a separate social media post condemning all political violence, saying: “No cause, no ideology, no disagreement is worth a human life.”She also wrote: “In a world already torn by division, the killing of anyone – regardless of their political beliefs – is an unacceptable tragedy.”Nonetheless, the Homer-Center school board’s 18 September meeting drew about 60 people, much larger than the usual sparse crowds who typically attend the Indiana county-based panel’s gatherings. Authorities moved the meeting from a central district office board room to a school gymnasium to accommodate the bigger crowd. And law enforcement provided security for the meeting due to the interest Hunt’s posts had gotten online – as well as because of the “death threats” resulting from them, the news outlet PennLive.com reported.Three of seven community members who spoke at that meeting expressed support for Hunt, according to reporting from the Indiana Gazette. Three others assumed Hunt’s “one down hundreds, to go” was indeed about Kirk’s death despite her denial. And the Gazette noted that a fourth speaker simply said: “Every action has consequences, especially with being a public figure.”Hunt, for her part, reportedly apologized for causing “pain”, “misunderstanding”, and “division”.“Even though I did not celebrate anyone’s death, and I do not condone violence, the safety of myself and my children are now in jeopardy,” she said.The Gazette wrote that Hunt described people “threatening her place of work and pressuring her boss to terminate her employment”.“My children – we’re all afraid of going places right now, so it’s been really hard for the family,” she reportedly added. “That’s just where we’re at.”Hunt abstained from voting at the 18 September meeting, was removed from the school board’s negotiations committee and would step back from her role on the seven-member panel for the time being. The Gazette reported that she is running for re-election in November and would wait to see the outcome of the race before plotting her political future.“If the community chooses me again,” she said, “then I feel confident I will continue my good work.” More
- in US Politics
Global investment in renewable energy up 10% on 2024 despite Trump rollback
Investment in renewable energy has continued to increase around the world despite moves by Donald Trump’s White House to cancel and derail low-carbon projects.In the first half of 2025, investment globally in renewable technologies and projects reached a record $386bn, up by about 10% on the same period last year.Investment in energy around the world is likely to hit about $3.3 trillion (£2.4tn) this year. While more than $1tn of the total is still likely to flow into fossil fuels, double that amount – about $2.2tn – is expected for low-carbon forms of energy.A report from the Zero Carbon Analytics thinktank, published on Tuesday, shows that the rate of increase in renewable energy investment has not slowed significantly. Between the first half of 2023 and of 2024, the total increased by 12% and from 2022 to 2023 the increase was 17%.Joanne Bentley-McKune, research analyst at the group, said: “This shows the sector still has momentum and underlying strength. There has been a decline [in the rate of growth] but it aligns with the average [of the last three years], and suggests that renewable energy investment is more resilient than might have been expected.”Finance for onshore and offshore wind increased by about a quarter in this first half of this year, reaching £126bn. China and Europe were the biggest markets for offshore wind.Since January this year, at least $470bn in future clean energy finance has been announced, according to the report, of which roughly three-quarters is slated for energy grids and electricity transmission. This is good news for governments hoping to reach their commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as ageing and inadequate grids have been a major bottleneck for the achievement of renewable energy goals.A separate report, also published on Tuesday, found that big companies are also continuing to press ahead with their climate promises, despite hostility from Donald Trump’s administration in the US, and some high-profile moves to row back on commitments.According to data compiled by the Net Zero Tracker, a research consortium made up of thinktanks and academics, companies representing about 70% of the revenue of the top 2,000 listed companies globally were actively pursuing net zero plans.While Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris climate agreement, and dismantled federal efforts to tackle the climate crisis, not all of the US has followed the federal government’s lead: 19 states remain committed to net zero, and 304 large companies headquartered in the US have net zero targets, up from 279 last year. Together, those companies account for nearly two-thirds of US corporate revenue, or about $12tn in revenue globally.John Lang, lead author of the report, said the impact of the White House on climate decisions made by large companies appeared limited. “Talk of a net zero recession is overblown. Backtracking is confined to fossil fuels and their financiers, while more companies are moving from box-ticking to real emission cuts – a long-overdue reset,” he said.But countries and companies still need to move faster, the report found. Although more are now putting measures in place to match their commitments, there is still a large gap between aspiration and action.Thomas Hale, professor of global public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University, said: “US companies know they need to keep pace with the EU, China and other regions where climate policy is increasingly shaping competitiveness. Net zero is less a political battleground and more a race to secure future markets, investment and jobs.” More
- in US Politics
Europe has lost one superpower ally – can it afford to be in the crosshairs of two? | Nathalie Tocci
Europe’s relationship with the US is unmoored, but it has also lost its bearings with regard to China, caught by competing forces that pull and push in opposite directions.Europe’s China policy used to be a function of Washington’s. When Barack Obama tried and then failed to pivot to Asia in 2011, sucked into turmoil in the Middle East instead, Europeans lulled themselves into the belief that their relationship with Asia could continue to be driven by trade, with security an afterthought.Despite rising tensions in the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan strait, European governments viewed Asia, including China, through a predominantly economic lens. China’s belt and road initiative was initially seen as a purely economic endeavour, lacking strategic edge. It was only as US-China relations soured, under the first Trump administration and then especially under Joe Biden, that Brussels switched gears.China was no longer seen only as a partner, but more warily, as a competitor and systemic rival. Investment screening, tariffs and export controls entered the European lexicon when talking about China. The link to the US was clear. While the EU rejected any decoupling from China, considering it undesirable and impossible, it began advocating “de-risking” instead. Once unpacked, this is no different from other trademark European concepts such as strategic autonomy and economic security. But the timing and the framing of Brussels’s more hawkish line made it clear that its north star on China was Washington.This worked so long as the transatlantic relationship was strong and Washington’s approach to China was clear and predictable. None of that is true today. Toughening up to match China’s assertiveness, for instance, by accepting and even advocating for Nato’s role in east Asia, continues to anger Beijing.But it no longer necessarily rallies favour in Washington. The Trump administration may bully Europeans to inflict costs on China, for example by applying secondary sanctions on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas. But this does not guarantee that Trump will stand by Europe on Ukraine, or that Washington has any intention of exerting meaningful economic pressure on Beijing. So far, it’s China that has retained the upper hand in the trade war with the US. Trump treats Europe as subservient: he’s happy to see it inflict economic pain on Beijing at its own cost, but wants to avoid incurring such costs himself. As with most things Trump-related, it’s a toss of the coin whether he escalates or strikes deals with Beijing, naturally over the heads of European and Asian partners.With Washington’s north star gone, Europeans are left figuring out what they actually think, and how they’ll act towards China. Should they double down on trade protectionism to counter the negative impact on Europe of Chinese industrial overcapacity? Should they encourage Chinese technology transfers to the continent, avoid a trade war and jointly develop a strategy with Asia to save the global trade order? Should they embrace Chinese green tech, aware that proceeding with the energy transition and meeting climate ambitions is impossible without it, or try to dilute green dependency on China? And in the global south, as the US exits from the development aid field, can the EU realistically counter China’s vast belt and road initiative, or should it reconcile itself to its own “global gateway” infrastructure initiative being complementary to it?View image in fullscreenNone of these questions have simple answers. Making them harder still are two underlying dilemmas that lie at the heart of Europe’s own future.First is the future of liberal democracy in Europe. Democracy is under threat in the west. Far-right, nationalist and populist forces are on the rise, as is polarisation, radicalisation, disinformation and extremism, threatening fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and the separation of powers. China, unlike Russia and the Maga movement in the US, does not explicitly back these far-right forces, nor does it appear to have any desire to export its model of government. However, given that China is the ultimate case of an economically successful authoritarian system, it inspires those in Europe who want to see their countries move in an illiberal direction. No wonder that China’s closest European partners are Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia, as was blatantly on display when their leaders (or, in Hungary’s case, foreign minister) attended China’s military parade in Beijing in September. When it comes to the magnetic draw that China exerts on authoritarian and illiberal forces in Europe, there’s not much European governments and institutions can expect from Beijing. The onus is on them to demonstrate that liberal democracy delivers.The second dilemma regards security, and in particular the war in Ukraine. While China claims to be neutral maintaining ties with Kyiv and Moscow – and, at least theoretically, supports sovereignty and territorial integrity – in practice it sides with Moscow. President Xi Jinping’s no-limits friendship with Vladimir Putin is increasingly on display, and Beijing’s peace efforts on Ukraine have proved empty. In fact, China has visibly benefited from the war, not only through cheap Russian oil and gas, but especially strategically: Russia has become the junior partner in the relationship.Europe cannot push China to turn its back on Russia, nor expect it to stop trading with Russia. But if China were truly neutral, it wouldn’t support Russia through the export of dual-use technology. If it genuinely wanted the war to end, it would exert pressure on Moscow, just like it did to mitigate Putin’s worst instincts when he irresponsibly threatened the use of nuclear weapons. Especially now that Trump’s failed diplomacy on Ukraine has revealed to all that it’s Putin, and Putin alone, that does not want the war to end.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhen I was in Beijing this month, I argued that Ukraine now represents a core interest for Europe, and that China’s stance on the war is the biggest thorn in Europe-China relations. I said that it was not only a question of values – on which, tragically, any remaining European credibility has collapsed since the Gaza war – but of security interests. The replies I got were telling. Just as Europeans now view their relationship with China through the lens of Russia, China sees Europe through the paradigm of its competition with the US. Beijing believes that if worst comes to worst in US-China relations, Europe would stand with Washington, notwithstanding Trump and the US’s abandonment and betrayal of Europe. For China, I was told, keeping Russia on side is a strategic must. In the current circumstances Russia trumps Europe from Beijing’s perspective. It’s hard not to see the logic.Russia represents a vital threat to European security and Europeans will bend over backwards to keep the US engaged in their defence. This is likely to fail – regardless of how much flattery and self-abasement they offer to Trump. And while Europe could potentially confront Russia without the US, it cannot do so while China is in its crosshairs too.This leaves Europe with no easy way out, but wishing the problem away is no answer.
Nathalie Tocci is a Guardian Europe columnist More
- in US Politics
White House aide sworn in as interim US attorney after Trump fired predecessor
Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide, was sworn in on Monday as the interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia after Donald Trump removed her predecessor who declined to bring charges against James Comey, the former FBI director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general.The appointment of Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience and was the most junior lawyer on Trump’s personal legal team, alarmed current and former prosecutors about political pressure to indict the president’s political enemies regardless of the strength of the evidence.For months, federal prosecutors investigated whether there was sufficient evidence to act on referrals by Trump officials at other agencies against Comey, for lying to Congress about matters related to the 2016 election, and against James, for mortgage fraud over a house she bought her niece.The prosecutors ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against either Comey or James, leading Trump to issue a series of extraordinary social media posts over the weekend demanding that the justice department seek criminal charges regardless.Halligan was sworn in shortly after noon by Pam Bondi, the attorney general, at justice department headquarters, replacing Erik Siebert, who had declined to bring the prosecutions. Interim US attorneys can only serve for 120 days but Trump is expected to submit her nomination to the Senate for a full term.Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience was notable given the US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia occupies one of the most sensitive posts at the justice department and oversees around 300 lawyers and staff. With the Pentagon and the CIA nearby, the office also handles sensitive national security cases.The officials who have historically been appointed as US attorney in the eastern district of Virginia have extensive experience in that office. The US attorney during Trump’s first term, G Zachary Terwilliger, had been a prosecutor there for years before being elevated to the top job.Before joining the White House, Halligan was an insurance lawyer in Florida and worked for the Save America Pac before joining the Trump legal team as the most junior lawyer, helping to draft briefs in the federal criminal case over Trump’s mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club.A White House spokesperson defended Halligan’s appointment, saying in a statement: “Lindsey Halligan is exceptionally qualified to serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She has a proven track record of success and will serve the country with honor and distinction.”Two of Halligan’s former colleagues on the Trump legal team on the classified documents case credited her as a fast learner who provided meaningful contributions in filings. Generally, they said, they were happy to have her on the team.Halligan was at Mar-a-Lago when the FBI executed a search warrant to retrieve classified documents and, as the Florida-barred lawyer on Trump’s team, she was responsible for filing a request to have a so-called special master conduct a review of the materials that had been seized.According to a person familiar with the episode, Halligan found her account on the Pacer was not set up to file the special master request electronically and had to deliver the brief in person.During the drive from Ft Lauderdale, where she was based, to the US district court in West Palm Beach, she got stuck in traffic on the highway and realized she would not make it to the courthouse before it closed for the weekend. Halligan did a U-turn and drove back to Ft Lauderdale, where the case got assigned to the Trump-appointed US district judge Aileen Cannon.Halligan attended the subsequent court hearing on the special master request as the third-chair lawyer, one of the only times she was at counsel’s table in a federal courtroom.Within months, Halligan was in Trump’s political orbit.When Trump hosted a watch party for the 2022 midterms at Mar-a-Lago, Halligan sat at Trump’s table with Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s longtime confidant and personal lawyer; Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy; and Sergio Gor, director of the White House presidential personnel office. More
- in US Politics
Trump claims with little evidence that use of Tylenol, or acetaminophen, in pregnancy is linked to autism – US politics live
“Effective immediately the FDA will be notifying doctors that the use of acetaminophen,” Trump struggled to pronounce the drug name, “or Tylenol, can be associated with a very increased risk of autism,” Trump said.“So taking Tylenol is not good.”“For this reason, they are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol use during pregnancy unless medically necessary,” he added.Donald Trump has responded to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists statement on Tylenol announcement, following a reporter’s question.“That’s the establishment. They’re funded by lots of different groups. And you know what, maybe they’re right,” he said. “But here’s the thing, there’s no downside to doing this.”Trump has returned to the podium, sharing a range of stories and his opinions on vaccines and medications.“Don’t take Tylenol,” he said emphatically. “There’s no downside.”According to the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine untreated fever during pregnancy does carry significant risks to moms and babies, such as miscarriage and birth defects.The manufacturer of Tylenol, Kenvue Inc, has released a statement in response to the president’s announcement, saying it “strongly disagrees” with the suggestion that the medication may cause autism.“Sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism,” the statement says.The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation’s leading organization for obstetricians and gynecologists, says Donald Trump’s announcement regarding Tylenol use in pregnancy is “irresponsible when considering the harmful and confusing message they send to pregnant patients.”“Today’s announcement by HHS is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children,” the organization’s president, Dr. Steven Fleischman, said in a statement.“It is highly unsettling that our federal health agencies are willing to make an announcement that will affect the health and well-being of millions of people without the backing of reliable data.”Ahead of the president’s announcement, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine said Tylenol is “an appropriate medication to treat pain and fever during pregnancy.” It added that untreated fever during pregnancy carries significant risks to moms and babies, such as miscarriage and birth defects.The two mothers speaking at Donald Trump’s press conference have shared the experiences of their two children, both of whom have autism, and expressed gratitude to the Trump administration for prioritizing research into autism.Dorothy Fink, who served as acting health secretary pending Robert F Kennedy Jr’s confirmation and is now currently the acting assistant secretary for health, has introduced two mothers, introduced only as Jackie and Amanda.Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, says more than half of children in the United States, who are insured under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip), will be able to access leucovorin due to the FDA’s label change. He said he hopes private insurers will follow suit.He said the agency will also collect data on the effectiveness of leucovorin.Makary has also announced the FDA’s decision to make leucovorin available as a treatment for autism.“Hundreds of thousands of kids will benefit,” he said.“Today the FDA is taking action to update the label on acetaminophen,” says FDA commissioner Marty Makary. He added his agency is sending a letter to all physicians explaining the update.Makary has also cited medical research on the link between Tylenol and autism.Here’s a helpful guide to that research from my colleagues:The National Institutes of Health has launched an Autism Data Science Initiative, says agency director Jay Bhattacharya.The initiative directs $50m to the study of autism, and will fund 13 research projects.“The NIH has invested a lot of money to study autism over the years, but the research has not produced the answers that families and parents of autistic children, and autistic children themselves deserve,” he said. “For too long it’s been taboo to ask some questions for fear the scientific work might reveal a politically incorrect answer.”Kennedy says that the FDA has announced a new treatment for autism: leucovorin, a form of folic acid.The FDA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the treatment, it cited “patient-level data on over 40 patients, including both adults and pediatric patients” to support the finding that the drug can improve symptoms from cerebral folate deficiency, which it says has been reported in some patients.Health and Human Services will announce a nationwide public service campaign to spread knowledge about the agency’s Tylenol announcement, Kennedy said.Robert F Kennedy Jr is speaking now at the president’s White House press conference. He’s begun by describing changes at US health agencies.”We are now replacing the institutional culture of politicized science and corruption with evidence-based medicine,” Kennedy said. “NIH research teams are now testing multiple hypotheses with no area off limits.”Trump has also announced that the National Institutes of Health will be announcing 13 major grant awards from the autism data science initiatives.“Nothing bad can happen, only good can happen,” he said. More
