Letters to the Editor: I spent decades in government. ‘Career politicians’ are often the best politicians

Los Angeles Times – Opinion

Letters to the Editor: I spent decades in government. ‘Career politicians’ are often the best politicians

Los Angeles Times Opinion – March 6, 2024

LOS ANGELES, CA - DECEMBER 05: Supporters of rodeo on their horses rally outside city hall as L.A. City Council debates banning rodeo in city limits on Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023 in Los Angeles, CA. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
Rodeo supporters ride past L.A. City Hall on Dec. 5. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: Your editorial defending “career politicians” was spot on. Some are good, some are bad.

I worked for three elected county assessors in my 36-year career in Riverside County. All three were very good — knowledgeable with high integrity and interest in service over recognition.

In that time I also worked very closely with most of the other 57 elected county assessors throughout California. They too were quite good — dedicated to their constituents and not looking for a higher office.

Ironically, when term limits are imposed or people vote in the least-experienced or least-qualified candidates, it’s lobbyists and special interests who often steer the ship, because those who lack background are easily swayed — the very outcome voters hope to avoid by opposing “career politicians.”

Cathy Colt, Beaumont

..

To the editor: “Career politician” is a label that opposing campaigns hang upon persons who have worked in elected offices — usually a decade or more — when they want to suggest that a candidate is not deserving of support when running for their next office.

When an inexperienced aspirant to an office is campaigning against a longtime elected legislator or executive, the “career politician” label is a convenient way to cast some doubt on an old hand’s motivation to run for public office.

Campaigning goons will use whatever they must to tar opponents. There are plenty of very honorable labels for longtime public servants. Those are what ought to be used by honest brokers during election periods, including “experienced legislator,” “experienced public servant” and so forth.

Mark Driskill, Long Beach

Kinzinger blasts Trump for calling US third-world country: ‘Eat dirt scumbag’

The Hill

Kinzinger blasts Trump for calling US third-world country: ‘Eat dirt scumbag’

Lauren Irwin – March 6, 2024

Kinzinger blasts Trump for calling US third-world country: ‘Eat dirt scumbag’

Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) took to social media to tell former President Trump to “eat dirt” after Trump called the United States a third-world country in his Super Tuesday victory speech.

“Trump just called America a ‘third world’ country.’ With all due respect (which is none), eat dirt scumbag,” Kinzinger posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “This is the best country on earth. You, are our biggest embarrassment and stain. But you’ll be over in a year.”

In a roughly 20-minute speech from his Mar-a-Lago estate after winning more than 10 primary contests, Trump highlighted a key talking point — border security and immigration — and likened the U.S. to a third-world country.

He argued that the United States is “in some ways … a third-world country,” referencing border security. He later added that “our country is dying,” Forbes reported.

Kinzinger, an outspoken critic of Trump, served on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack before leaving office. He has warned of the danger Trump will pose if reelected and asserted that the former president does not care about the U.S. Constitution.

In a Wednesday appearance on CNN, Kinzinger acknowledged that Trump’s victory Tuesday is an “impressive political victory.” Still, he said he hates “to normalize” Trump’s wins, especially now that he is the only candidate lined up to take the GOP’s nomination.

“After an insurrection, it’s tough for me to just talk about this horse race as normal, but regardless, it was an impressive victory,” he said, pointing to Trump’s landslide wins in states including Texas.

The former congressman said Trump’s speech “was okay,” though he noted there is a “low bar for him” and took issue with the former president calling America a third-world country. He questioned “in what world” Trump provides the “inspirational leadership” needed in the country.

Kinzinger said he is glad that the GOP primary is now largely over, since former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley announced she would be suspending her campaign, and “now we can kind of go forward” and prepare for the general election.

In the past, Kinzinger said there is “no question” that he would support President Biden in the 2024 election over Trump.

Joe Biden’s Superfans Think the Rest of America Has Lost Its Mind

The New York Times

Joe Biden’s Superfans Think the Rest of America Has Lost Its Mind

Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Katie Glueck – March 4, 2024

Dakota Galban, the chair of the Davidson Democratic Party, before the start of a party meeting in Nashville, Tenn., on Feb. 27, 2024. (William DeShazer/The New York Times)
Dakota Galban, the chair of the Davidson Democratic Party, before the start of a party meeting in Nashville, Tenn., on Feb. 27, 2024. (William DeShazer/The New York Times)

PHILADELPHIA — Andrea Russell is a fixture on Earp Street, the quiet strip of row houses in South Philadelphia where she has lived for 45 years. In the afternoons, neighbors come and go from her living room as her 16-year-old cat, George, sits perched above a television that is usually tuned to cable news.

Russell, a 77-year-old retired legal secretary, thinks President Joe Biden would fit right in. “He’d come on by Earp Street,” she said. “I could picture going up to him and saying, ‘Hi, Joe.’ I can see him here.” She identifies with him, she said, and admires his integrity and his record. She also loves his eyes.

Her friend, Kathy Staller, also 77, said she was as eager to vote for Biden as she was for Barack Obama in 2008. “I am excited,” she said. “I hope more people feel the way I do.”

Russell and Staller are ardent, unreserved supporters of Biden — part of a small but dedicated group of Democratic voters who think that he is not merely the party’s only option against Donald Trump but, in fact, a great, transformative president who clearly deserves another four years in office.

They occupy a lonely position in American politics.

Biden, 81, has never inspired the kind of excitement that Obama did, and he is not a movement candidate, in contrast to his likely 2024 rival, Trump, who is 77. Historically, he has been far more skilled at connecting one to one on the campaign trail than energizing crowds with soaring oratory.

But his poll numbers have been especially rough lately. A New York Times/Siena College poll released this weekend found that just 43% of respondents would vote for him if the election were today, compared with 48% for Trump.

Forty-five percent of Democratic primary voters surveyed said they thought he should not be the party’s nominee — and just 23% of primary voters said they were enthusiastic about Biden being the Democratic nominee. That stands in contrast to the nearly half of Republican primary voters who said they were enthusiastic about Trump’s candidacy.

The Biden campaign dismissed the latest numbers over the weekend, pointing to strong Democratic performances in recent special elections and highlighting Republican divisions and cash problems.

Biden also has a slice of voters who adore him. They wave off concerns about his age and bristle at the suggestion that anyone else could meet the moment.

In interviews with nearly two dozen of these Democrats — many of them older, and most of them women — they sounded by turns beleaguered, bewildered and protective.

“I’m sorry Joe doesn’t know how much I love him, but I do love Joe,” said Constance Wynn, 73, of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. “I don’t even know why people want to pester the man, because the man has things to do.”

A president who could ‘use a little bit of bucking up’

Biden’s superfans say he deserves more credit for a substantive first-term record. Passing an infrastructure bill. Canceling some student loan debt. Protecting the environment with a sweeping climate measure. Capping the cost of insulin and other drugs. Supporting unions and abortion rights. Putting the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. Backing Ukraine and navigating international crises with his deep foreign policy experience.

They praise his personal qualities, describing his devotion to his family, his regular church attendance, his down-to-earth, workingman vibes. They say that they feel as if they know him, and that the swing voters in their lives might relate to him, too.

And sometimes they worry about him.

Susan D. Wagner, a founder of Markers For Democracy, which pushes get-out-the-vote efforts through the writing of postcards, has begun a project to send thank-you notes to Biden for his work — and to show him he has support at a challenging moment.

“It did seem like he was taking his lumps and could use a little bit of bucking up,” said Wagner, 66, who lives in New York City and is heavily involved in grassroots activism. “I wrote that in this day and age, every once in a while somebody needs a smiling face. And I put a little smiling face on it.”

‘He came out of retirement to save the country’

The president does have a following among some younger Democrats — both on social media and among those involved with local politics.

Dakota Galban, 28, has a day job in human resources at a construction company, but he also serves as the chair of the Davidson Democrats, a county party organization based in Nashville, Tennessee.

He loves Biden. “And I feel like I’m the only one,” he said, arguing that the news media had overwhelmingly focused on Biden’s tepid support. “Does anybody care that I exist?”

Galban, like many of Biden’s fans, acknowledges that the president is not a candidate who generates a lot of enthusiasm. But they argue that’s a positive thing — Biden’s strength isn’t in his energy, they say, but his management skills and his understated ability to get things done.

“He came out of retirement to save the country, save our democracy, a fight for the soul of our nation — he didn’t have to run for president,” Galban said. “He made it his mission to take our country back from Donald Trump.”

But when Galban praises the president in committee meetings, his fellow Democrats chuckle. At home, his partner has gently suggested that he keep the life-size cutouts he has of Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris in storage.

It is a familiar dynamic to fans of the TV show “Parks and Recreation,” whose lead character, Leslie Knope — played by Amy Poehler — is obsessed with Biden, much to the confusion of her colleagues and loved ones. (Asked to describe her ideal man, Knope says, “He has the brains of George Clooney, and the body of Joe Biden.”)

Julie Platt, 34, works for a lobbying firm in Philadelphia and serves as a committee member in the city’s 2nd Ward. She describes herself as a progressive “ambassador” for Biden, saying her enthusiasm for him has only grown even as her friends who supported Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primaries see the president as insufficiently progressive, not exciting enough and too old.

“I don’t see it as a choice between two bad candidates,” she said, referring to a Biden-Trump rematch. “I couldn’t be more honored to vote for him.”

Two years ago, Platt started keeping a list of Biden’s accomplishments in the Notes app on her phone. “He’s done so much,” she said. “It’s driving me crazy that people don’t see it.”

‘Everybody I talk to loves Joe Biden’

Some of Biden’s biggest supporters, unsurprisingly, are in Philadelphia politics. He was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Jill Biden is a Philadelphia sports fan. The president has visited the city frequently since taking office.

Jim Donnelly, the leader of the 58th Ward, in the city’s conservative-leaning northeast, said he had at least seven Joe Biden signs on his front lawn. He has gotten into fights with his neighbors who have vandalized or stolen them.

Aside from cops, firefighters and his barber, he said, “Everybody I talk to loves Joe Biden.” Among his reasons for supporting Biden, he listed the president’s well-known friendliness to train conductors, his foreign policy experience and his record of job creation.

Some of Biden’s biggest supporters have loudly countered his detractors. After protesters calling for a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip interrupted Biden’s speech in January at a South Carolina church, one woman cried out: “You’re an understanding person. They don’t realize that. You’re a good man.”

That was Tomi Greene, 74, of Charleston, South Carolina. She said that she first met Biden at a town-hall meeting sometime around 2018, and that she had since become friends with Jill Biden.

“He is the right person to take us where we need to be,” Greene said. “He is very compassionate, and he’s smart. He relates to people.”

Of his detractors, she said, “I just wish they could see and feel what I feel.”

Russell, the Joe Biden backer on Earp Street in Philadelphia, said there was only one thing she would change about him — the flip of white hair on the back of his neck, which sometimes sticks out over his suit collar.

“It drives me nuts,” she said. “Just trim it!”

‘Morning Joe’: Trump’s Constant Speech Gaffes Paint Him as ‘Deranged, Demented and Pathetic – Not to Mention Dangerous’ | Video

The Wrap

‘Morning Joe’: Trump’s Constant Speech Gaffes Paint Him as ‘Deranged, Demented and Pathetic – Not to Mention Dangerous’ | Video

Sharon Knolle – March 4, 2024

Morning Joe” hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough and commentator and “How the Right Lost Its Mind” author Charlie Sykes watched incredulously while playing clips from Donald Trump campaign rallies over the weekend that showed the former president appearing lost for words, mixing up Joe Biden and Barack Obama and referring to the country Argentina as “a great guy.”

After wrapping the montage of consistent speech gaffes, Sykes determined Trump to be “deranged, demented and pathetic” and that he “looks lost.”

Scarborough began the Monday segment by playing back a series of clips of Trump from rallies in North Carolina and Virginia where the GOP candidate said Argentina is “a big Trump guy. He loves Trump,” and added, “I took his call. Anybody that loves me, I like them.”

Trump had earlier mentioned Argentina’s president, Nicolás Maduro, by name, but in connection with Venezuela. He struggled to pronounce the name of the South American country. In another speech, Trump said he had spoken with the leader of the Taliban, who, he said, called him, “your highness.”

“He’s reading teleprompters and his mind still blanks out,” Scarborough said, pointing to occasions where Trump mixed up Obama and Biden. “It’s just so pathetic and sad. It’s a sad scene, to me, to see someone up on stage and blanking out.”

Scarborough continued, calling the 77-year-old politician as “an old man who is losing his ability to communicate.”

“Unfortunately, I’m not a psychiatrist,” Sykes chimed in. “What’s on display is, OK, Joe Biden is old, but the other guy is deranged, demented and pathetic, as you point out — not to mention, dangerous. And this is on display.”

The pundit then reflected on Trump being named the likely Republican presidential nominee over Nikki Haley as results for Super Tuesday come in later this week.

“As we’re sitting here talking about this, we’re less than 48 hours away from that guy clinching the Republican presidential nomination. The Republicans have one last out and they’re not going to take it,” he lamented. “They look at this guy — this is the extraordinary thing, is that Republicans look at him — and I don’t have to repeat all of the things, you know, he’s been found viable for rape, he’s facing 91 felony charges — you have this gaseous malice that you get from these gaffe-filled speeches, and they’re looking at him like, ‘Yeah, we’d like four more years of that.’”

“If there’s any upside here, it will be that Joe Biden can say, ‘Yeah, I’m old, I’m very stiff when I walk. But this guy is also old and he’s crazy and he’s dangerous and he is incoherent,’” Sykes added.

March 5 is Super Tuesday, in which 15 states — Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia — hold primaries in the presidential election.

Watch the full “Morning Joe” segment in the video above.

Trump confuses Obama for Biden again at Virginia rally speech

The Guardian

Trump confuses Obama for Biden again at Virginia rally speech

Nina Lakhani – March 3, 2024

Donald Trump confused Barack Obama for Joe Biden at a rally in Virginia on Saturday, triggering further questions about the age of the likely Republican presidential nominee who has made a string of such gaffes.

It also comes at a time of similar concerns about Biden. At 77 and 81 respectively, Trump and Biden are the oldest people to run for the presidency in US history.

Related: Nikki Haley declines to say she would endorse Trump if he wins nomination

“Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word. You heard that. Nuclear. He’s starting to talk nuclear weapons today,” said Trump, on Saturday night in Richmond.

The crowd reportedly went silent as Trump referenced Obama, who left office more than seven years ago. It’s the third time Trump has made the blunder in the past six months.

The former US president’s other gaffes include confusing his Republican rival Nikki Haley with the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Haley, 52, who has defied Trump and several primary defeats to continue in the race for the Republican nomination, has tried to frame herself as the younger, healthier option – referring to Trump and Biden as Grumpy Old Men in her campaign ads.

Trump’s mistake came the day after Biden, twice confused Ukraine and Gaza as he announced that the US would airdrop humanitarian supplies to Palestinians in Gaza who are dying of starvation due to the Israeli bombardment and blockades.

“In the coming days, we’re going to join with our friends in Jordan and others who are providing airdrops of additional food and supplies into Ukraine,” Biden said on Friday. The US will “seek to open up other avenues into Ukraine, including possibly a marine corridor”, he added.

A White House official later clarified that Biden meant Gaza – not Ukraine. The gaffe had been changed in the transcript of his remarks.

Questions about Biden’s age have intensified in recent months.

The latest lapse came days after was declared “fit for duty” at his annual health check. The White House physician, Dr Kevin O’Connor, said Biden “fully executes all of his responsibilities without any exemptions or accommodations”.

A new New York Times/Siena College poll found that 73% of registered voters polled believe Biden is too old to be an effective president, including 61% of those who voted for him in 2020. Voters seem less bothered about Trump, who is just four years younger, with 42% of those polled saying he “just too old” to be an effective president.

While criticisms of the age issue on both sides are laced with political spin, age-related cognitive decline is real.

As a person gets older, changes occur in all parts of the body including the brain. According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA) certain parts of the brain shrink, including those important to learning and other complex mental activities; communication between neurons may be less effective; and blood flow in the brain may decrease.

Healthy older adults can however learn new skills, form new memories, improve vocabulary and language skills. The NIA is conducting research on so-called cognitive super-agers, the minority of octogenarians and nonagenarians whose memories are comparable to people 20 to 30 years younger.

Trump Is ‘Surrounded Entirely by Enablers’ Eager to Diminish Apparent Cognitive Decline, Jonathan Lemire Says

The Wrap

Trump Is ‘Surrounded Entirely by Enablers’ Eager to Diminish Apparent Cognitive Decline, Jonathan Lemire Says

Benjamin Lindsay – March 4, 2024

MSNBC

Analyzing a series of public Donald Trump gaffes while he campaigned in North Carolina and Virginia over the weekend, Politico’s White House bureau chief Jonathan Lemire said Monday that the former president is “surrounded entirely by enablers” who are just “forging forward” through apparent cognitive decline.

“He’s surrounded entirely by enablers during this campaign and would be again if he were to be in the White House for a second time,” Lemire said on Monday’s “Morning Joe.” “There would be no guardrails, there would be no adults in the room, there would just be people doing what he wants.”

The conversation began with cohosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough relentlessly replaying clips of Trump mixing up Barack Obama and Joe Biden, of him stumbling through the pronunciation of “Venezuela,” of him referring to the South American country Argentina as if it were a person and more.

“There is nobody around Donald Trump that can protect him from himself,” Scarborough said, indicating that even if the gaffes were signs of ailing health, the former president would likely hear nothing of it.

“He’s just not the same guy he was five, 10, even 15 years ago. Nobody’s saying he was a saint then, but we knew him, he’s radically different. You look at him talking radically different,” Scarborough continued. “You look at Jan. 6 — he had every single person in the White House begging him to stop the riot … Didn’t listen to anybody. He’s alone. So as we go through this sad scene, there is nobody that can take him off the stage and say, ‘You’re not well. You need to get checked and taken care of.’”

“To your point, he’s not the same guy,” Lemire added. “You can watch video footage of the 2016 campaign, some of his time in the White House. We played last week a clip from the debate between Trump and Biden back in 2020, and it was striking even then how much Trump has changed, how he’s aged. I mean, he is in his late 70s.”

Lemire then became confounded by the differences in public perception between President Biden’s aged state and Trump’s.

“He’s only a couple years younger than President Biden, and we’re seeing with more and more frequency, even as the media [is] full of polls and obsessions about President Biden’s age, it’s this — it’s Trump who day after day is showing the signs of age, but also pressure,” Lemire said. “Indeed, pressure because he is not getting as much of the share of the Republican vote as he would like — Nikki Haley even posting a win over the weekend. Pressure because of the money he now owes, nearly half a billion dollars in a couple cases in New York City. And pressure that his first criminal case, a case that could theoretically put him in prison, starts in just three weeks.

“We’re seeing it night after night on the rally stage where he seems to even just lose control of the English language … This is something that his team knows, but they’re just forging forward.”

Today’s Supreme Court is a threat to democracy — but activists plan to fight back

Salon – Opinion

Today’s Supreme Court is a threat to democracy — but activists plan to fight back

Paul Rosenberg – March 3, 2024

Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images
Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images

The Supreme Court is a supreme threat to American democracy. That was Abraham Lincoln’s view in light of the Dred Scott decision, expressed in his First Inaugural Address. And it was vividly illustrated after Lincoln’s assassination, when the Civil War amendments and civil rights legislation passed by Congress were effectively nullified by the Supreme Court, enabling former Confederates and other white supremacists to destroy the possibility of multiracial democracy for almost a century. “Our democracy suffers when an unelected group of lawyers take away our ability to govern ourselves,” as Harvard Law professor Nikolas Bowie wrote in 2021, based on his testimony before the do-nothing Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Since then, the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned the precedent of Roe v. Wade, has brought Bowie’s point home with a vengeance. But it’s not just about abortion. On gunsenvironmental protectiondiscriminationlabor rightsaffirmative actionstudent debt relief and numerous other issues, Mitch McConnell’s court-packing scheme and Donald Trump’s appointments have succeeded in dramatically undercutting Americans’ people’s capacity for self-government and the promotion of “the general welfare” promised in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.

While the electoral backlash against Dobbs has been heartening, that’s essentially a reaction to the most alarming and personally invasive Supreme Court decision, not a proactive effort to dismantle the source of the threat. That’s why the new online lecture and discussion course, “What to Do About the Courts,” feels so important: It’s an effort to begin laying the groundwork for fundamental court reform. It’s a collaboration between the Law and Political Economy Project and the People’s Parity Project which featured Bowie as its leadoff lecturer on Jan. 30. A second session, looking at the history of reform efforts, was held Feb. 20.

“This is really core to what our organizations are doing and how we’re thinking about the work that we need to be engaged in for many years to come,” PPP executive director Molly Coleman told Salon. The online venue, she said, made it possible to “open this up quite a bit more than if we had done this as an in-person meeting group on a law school campus.”

The discussion component is critical, according to LPEP executive director Corinne Blalock: “It really does reflect our theory of change and how we understand how ideas move in the world.”

“We didn’t want this to just be a lecture series,” Coleman added. “Court reform should be something that’s built by the people. Part of this project is thinking about how we end judicial supremacy, how we make sure that the people have power, and not just unelected, unaccountable judges. We would be remiss if that wasn’t modeled in our programming.”

For generations, Americans have largely been blind to the Supreme Court’s profoundly anti-democratic character, because under former Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court was instrumental in reversing the post-Reconstruction destruction of democracy, most notably with the landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which officially ended school segregationBut however significant Brown was in cultural and historic terms, in reality it only reduced segregation and certainly did not restore multiracial democracy. Congress began to do that with the 1965 Voting Rights Act — but nearly 50 years later, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court undid much of that law and once again began undermining democracy.

The halo effect around the Supreme Court, resulting from the Brown decision and the Warren court’s legacy more broadly — which continued into the 1970s with Roe v. Wade — was finally shattered for most attentive Americans by the Dobbs decision in 2022. Now, perhaps, Bowie’s unheeded warning a year before that may get the hearing it deserves, fleshed out by a range of possible court reforms that have been considered, implemented in the past (the subject of the course’s second session) or modeled elsewhere by healthier democracies (the subject of its upcoming third one).

“Really thinking about transforming the court felt politically inconceivable a few years ago,” said Blalock. “There were certainly scholars who felt the urgency, but we needed the material stakes to really connect it to people’s lives. With all the atrocious things that the Supreme Court has done recently, that piece has sort of been done for us. So our role is helping people connect that to a set of political ideas.”

There’s another and perhaps larger concern, Blalock continued. “For everyone on the left or left of center who’s thinking about transformative change, whether it’s climate change, reproductive rights or labor, it feels like the Supreme Court is looming,” she said. “We felt that our two organizations were particularly well-suited to step in and help connect the dots.”

“Despite this moment where the Supreme Court is at the center of so many conversations, despite a lot of excitement and energy around the possibility of court reform, there is a lack of information about what court reform can look like,” Coleman added. “Even folks who are living and breathing this work in advocacy spaces might be talking about expansion or might be talking about ethics reform, but so many of these other reforms that have been tried in the past haven’t entered the mainstream conversation. We felt there was an important void to fill, to take some of these ideas that are being discussed in the legal academy or by historians and bring them to the mainstream of progressive organizing spaces.”

The series began with Bowie addressing the foundation of the problem: the wildly disproportionate power of the Supreme Court, where five individuals can effectively thwart the will of 340 million citizens. Because judicial supremacy is so deeply ingrained in our system, people tend to assume it’s enshrined in the Constitution. It’s not. Lawyers are taught that it derives from the Supreme Court’s legendary 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison, but they’re generally not taught the larger story that casts the decision in a questionable partisan light. One might describe it, in fact, as a judicial coup.

As Bowie recounted, when the Federalist government under President John Adams passed the wildly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, the opposing party led by Thomas Jefferson didn’t turn to the courts. “Federal judges were just as partisan, just as committed to stamping out political opposition, as anyone else,” Bowie said. “So Jefferson’s party ended up getting rid of this law not by going to court, but by winning an election.”

In the lame-duck session that followed Jefferson’s victory in the controversial election of 1800, Adams and the Federalists created a bunch of new federal courts and packed them with supportive judges. That included Adams’ appointment of John Marshall, the outgoing secretary of state, as chief justice of the Supreme Court. After that, Bowie said, Jefferson’s party proposed a bill to destroy or undo all these new courts, which led to fierce debate:

Federalists responded [that] federal courts need to have this power to strike down federal laws. If Congress can simply get rid of the courts, then federal courts won’t have this power anymore. And for Jefferson’s party in Congress, they thought the idea that federal courts would strike down federal laws was this crazy innovation. Just a really bad idea and obviously partisan in motivation. … They thought there was nothing in the Constitution that says a federal judge can strike down a federal law. It would be a really weird distribution of power to give federal judges this control.

In the wake of that debate, Bowie said, Marshall authored the famous majority opinion in Marbury v. Madison, which “effectively just parroted the Federalist position from Congress.” In short, the position held by a minority in Congress became the law of the land — and not on some narrow legalistic point, but on the fundamental question of who is allowed to interpret the Constitution.

That remained a purely theoretical issue for more than 50 years. “Marshall didn’t end up disagreeing with Congress about the constitutionality of any legislation for the remainder of his term,” Bowie said. Then came the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which struck down the Missouri Compromise and denied Congress the right to prohibit slavery in the nation’s territories. This became a defining issue for the newly-formed Republican Party, which didn’t just shrug and accept it. As Bowie put it, “They responded, ‘What is the court doing? The court should not have this power,’” and ran on a platform “that repudiated the court’s power to decide this constitutional question.” After Lincoln was elected in 1860, “he and Congress passed legislation that did precisely what the Supreme Court said Congress could not do.”

There was certainly much more to Bowie’s presentation — and much more Supreme Court mischief that undermined the rights of Black Americans for generations — but that should be sufficient to show that our meek modern-day acceptance of judicial supremacy rests upon a profound ignorance of our own history. Both Jefferson and Lincoln, revered today as the founders of our two major parties, vehemently rejected judicial supremacy. It’s time for 21st-century Americans to seriously consider doing the same — or at the very least, to place significant limitations on it. The question, of course, is exactly how to limit or replace judicial supremacy, and what specific reforms can get us there.

The February session of “What to Do About the Courts” began to answer those questions, looking into the history of court-disempowering reforms and proposals, with professors Samuel Moyn of Yale and William Forbath of the University of Texas. Moyn cited a number of reform ideas:

  • Popular overrides of court decisions by referendum, as proposed by Theodore Roosevelt in his 1912 third-party presidential campaign.
  • “Jurisdiction stripping,” meaning laws that limit the court’s jurisdiction over certain kinds of statutes.
  • A supermajority requirement, meaning a bare majority of five justices could not invalidate laws passed by Congress, as proposed by progressive Sen. William Borah in 1923.
  • Congressional authority to override any Supreme Court decision by a two-thirds vote, as proposed by Sen. Robert La Follette Sr. in his 1924 third-party presidential campaign.
  • Prohibiting federal court injunctions in labor disputes, as mandated by the 1932 Norris–La Guardia Act.

Forbath looked more closely at the history of labor law: how the growth of a national economy increased the use of secondary strikes and boycotts, how common law and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act were used to declare them illegal and how that, along with court-sanctioned state violence, “inspired a decades-long, high-profile campaign of official union defiance of anti-strike and anti-boycott decrees,” undergirded by “a richly elaborated moral and constitutional order, a rival order built on the First and 13th amendments.” That movement declared, Forbath said, that “courts were quite literally creating property rights in man and elevating property rights over human rights.”

During the 1920s, Forbath continued, there were “constant calls and dozens of bills and proposals for laws and amendments to the Constitution that would enact what we call court reform. They brought movement constitutionalism to the halls of Congress,” resulting in the aforementioned Norris-La Guardia Act, even before FDR’s New Deal. That came about in part, Forbath said, because the judiciary had “squander[ed] its own legitimacy. Too many working-class Americans had come to see the courts for what they were: They were the place where the ruling class went to rule, dispensing class-bound decisions in the name of the Constitution.”

That kind of keen historical awareness, vigilance and activism may well be needed today. Arguably that shouldn’t be difficult to ignite, given the current radical Supreme Court and its recent actions. It may be much more difficult to create a unified movement with a clear vision for change. Divisions. to be sure, existed in earlier eras as well. “Back in the early 20th century, there was a rift between Black freedom organizations like the NAACP and labor and progressives who were most invested in labor reforms,” Forbath said. While the latter groups wanted to disempower the courts, the Black freedom movement largely did not, because the courts — however inadequate they were — appeared to be its most reliable allies.

That particular division no longer applies, but there are undeniably different priorities for different constituencies that could fragment reform efforts. More broadly, Forbath asked: “Do we want movement justices and judges, as brash in their way as the right-wing movement justices today? Or do you want more technocratic judges, committed above all to judicial restraint and a fair reading of progressive statutes?” The answer is not immediately obvious.

The seminar’s next session, Blalock said, will be “on the international and comparative perspective, which helps make this all feel so much more doable, particularly when for so long these have been treated like radically fringe ideas. After that, we’re going to dig a little more into the weeds about what the options are [and] really walk through the specific nature of how the reform would work. The final session is going to be on how we build a movement around this. We’re bringing in Astra Taylor from the Debt Collective, in conversation with Sabeel Rahman, who comes from more the government policy side, to talk about how we take these ideas forward beyond the reading group.”

So far, the feedback has been “alarmingly positive,” Coleman said. “The biggest thing we’re hearing is that even current law students aren’t hearing these ideas on their campus. They really feel that they’re getting something unique in this space [and] they’re really excited to bring it back to broader communities.” Beyond law school campuses, there are leaders in progressive organizations who “want every single person they work with to be at the next iteration of the reading group,” she said. “People want more folks to know what conversations are happening. That’s been pretty exciting.”

While attorneys, law students and activists are important audiences for these ideas, there’s also a need for broader conceptual, narrative and communications work aimed at a general audience. The right has successfully unified under the rhetoric of constitutional “originalism,” regardless of how vacuous that idea is in practice (Salon stories here and here). Conservative power is grounded in conceptual simplicity, even though the right’s ideas have proven inherently inadequate to the complexity of the modern world. To counter it, liberals and progressives must address that complexity — real history and real science, not myths — while heeding Einstein’s advice: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” In short, the progressive movement needs a counternarrative of its own, although identifying just one narrative might prove impossible.

One possible narrative, alluded to above, is to focus on the constitutional concept of “general welfare,” articulated in terms of public goods, an underlying logic laid out in Donald Cohen and Allen Mikalean’s 2022 book “The Privatization of Everything.” Another possibility is to focus on public health, which, as I argued in 2021, can “serve as a long-term, overarching framework to reframe our politics, to provide us with new common sense in addressing a wide range of diverse issues by highlighting common themes and connecting what works.”

Other narratives are surely possible. But it’s crucial that they encompass those four elements: common sense, a wide range of diverse issues, common themes and a pragmatic focus on what works. It’s no accident that the common law tradition encompasses those central themes. The promise of “What to Do About the Courts” is that history teaches us that change is possible and we can make it happen: Once legal scholars and activists on the left have fashioned the right framework, they believe they’ll have the wind at their backs.

The ‘uniparty’? Conservatives bash bipartisanship by attacking fellow Republicans

NBC News

The ‘uniparty’? Conservatives bash bipartisanship by attacking fellow Republicans

Sahil Kapur and Allan Smith – March 3, 2024

WASHINGTON — An empowered faction of Donald Trump – aligned Republicans is seeking to redefine dealmaking as an insult by deploying the term “uniparty” to attack colleagues who work with Democrats and strike deals that fall short of what their base wants.

The growing use of the word among the GOP’s ascendant culture warriors represents an effort by conservative lawmakers, activists and commentators to disparage bipartisan agreements on matters that have broad support in Congress like government funding, infrastructure spending and aid for U.S. allies like Ukraine.

Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., chair of the far-right Freedom Caucus, called the recent House passage of a bill to avert a partial government shutdown an example of a “uniparty vote,” with Republicans who “talk about spending cuts and talk about fiscal responsibility” but ultimately support compromise spending measures.

“The uniparty is when the rubber meets the road and Republicans and Democrats join hands to stick it to the American people,” Good told NBC News.

He added that “unfortunately, too many Republicans are all too eager” to compromise with Democrats.

While Republicans control the House, Democrats hold the Senate majority and the White House, where President Joe Biden on Friday signed into law the short-term funding bill that was negotiated with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to keep the government open.

House and Senate Republicans who have assailed the so-called uniparty — including Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Matt Gaetz of Florida, as well as Sens. Rick Scott of Florida and J.D. Vance of Ohio — all voted against the latest government funding bill.

The House voted 320-99 to pass the measure, followed by a 77-13 vote in the Senate — evidence that there is “absolutely” a “uniparty” in Washington, according to Boebert.

“It means Republicans who vote Democrat Light, who side with the other party because they are weak and refuse to take a stand,” she said in an interview. “Unfortunately, too many Republicans campaign as conservatives and govern like Nancy Pelosi.”

Vance, a leading critic of additional funding for Ukraine’s military effort, said he doesn’t know where the term “uniparty” came from but cited the recent debate over assisting Ukraine in fending off Russia as an example.

“Whether you call it a uniparty or something else, I do think it suggests something’s broken about our democratic process,” he said.

Where did the term come from?

The modern use of “uniparty” traces back a few years, though its roots run deeper. The term’s framing has long been a favorite of Steve Bannon, the former Trump White House official and right-wing media personality who has been deploying it for years. Trump himself has reposted items from supporters who use the descriptor on his Truth Social platform.

The right has previously embraced similar wording, like “regime,” which Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis used repeatedly during his 2024 presidential campaign to describe the federal government, and “drain the swamp,” a rallying cry during Trump’s 2016 campaign. There’s also “the cathedral,” a term used by some on the right to describe institutions they see as controlling acceptable political discourse.

Meanwhile, the left and third-party candidates have at times embraced similar terminology. An aide to former President Barack Obama described the foreign policy establishment as “the Blob,” while former Green Party presidential nominees Ralph Nader and Jill Stein have used “uniparty” in railing against the U.S. political system.

In the 2024 campaign, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has invoked the term, including when he wrote in The Baltimore Sun last month that special interest groups “control our government to such an extent that — no matter which party is in charge — many Americans now refer to the two parties as the ‘uniparty.’”

Stefanie Spear, a Kennedy spokesperson, said in a statement that “more Americans of all political persuasions are recognizing that both establishment parties largely represent the same corporate interests.”

“The term uniparty is therefore quite natural, and Mr. Kennedy is pleased that it is gaining traction,” she said.

Sen. Rand Paul, the son of libertarian former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, noted the third-party roots of the uniparty framework, saying, “There’s been a uniparty since I was a kid and would come up here in the 1970s.”

“Libertarians always used it when they were running as another independent party,” Paul, R-Ky., said in an interview. “Hadn’t been used as much within the Republican Party, but I think it’s catching on.”

Some Republicans dislike the framing

The term is most often used when discussing two distinct issues — funding for Ukraine and government spending. And the leader who finds himself most under attack on that front is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who recently announced he will step down from leadership after the November elections.

McConnell has vociferously pushed for additional funding for Ukraine and, in a time of divided government, has been able to cut a series of deals with the Biden administration.

“Believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time,” McConnell said during a portion of his Senate floor speech on Wednesday announcing his pending retirement that focused on the need for America to lead on the global stage. “I have many faults; misunderstanding politics is not one of them.”

Yet some Republicans, including those aligned with the lawmakers who voted against the short-term spending agreement and have pushed back on new funding for Ukraine, find the term odd.

“What, you can’t differentiate between a Democrat and Republican up here?” said Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas.

Asked why his colleagues are using the term, he replied: “I don’t know. I guess everybody’s gotta come up with something clever.”

And one Senate Republican aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they “don’t like the term, frankly.”

“I think it went from ‘the swamp,’ which I do like, to ‘the regime,’ which I like less, then ‘uniparty,’ which I like even less,” this person said. “And they all kind of mean the same thing. But I think it sounds increasingly nerdy and weird and people don’t really know what they mean.”

This person said they feel some lawmakers are using this language because it sounds “like a vaguely intellectual term, even though it’s not, actually.”

As for what separates “uniparty” initiatives from the kind of bipartisanship some of these right-wing lawmakers might take part in, this person said the distinction was simple: If leadership on both sides is for it, it’s “uniparty,” but if the leaders of both parties oppose it, it’s not.

Democrats continue to celebrate bipartisanship

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic leadership, said the use of the term by certain Republicans highlights their interest in catering only to a narrow slice of the electorate.

“If they want to make it crystal clear that their coalition comprises 28% of the public, then I welcome that,” he said. “They are a minority and they are trying to turn the fact that their views are minority opinions into some sort of virtue. But the truth is that they’re way out of the mainstream, and any competent political party would not emphasize that point.”

Democrats have not hesitated to celebrate acts of bipartisanship, even when it leads to legislation or policies they consider imperfect.

“As I said directly to the speaker over and over and over again, the only way to get things done here is with bipartisanship, and this agreement is another proof point,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor Thursday of the short-term government funding bill. “When bipartisanship is prioritized, when getting things done for the American people takes a high priority, good things can happen even in divided government.”

In a statement Wednesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre used “bipartisan” three times in one sentence to describe the legislation.

“The bipartisan agreement announced today would help prevent a needless shutdown while providing more time to work on bipartisan appropriations bills and for the House to pass the bipartisan national security supplemental as quickly as possible,” she said.

Could it apply to Trump?

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., framed his use of “uniparty” entirely around spending, using the term to describe “the group that always votes for more spending and more debt.”

“The letter beside their name does not matter: [They’re] Republicans that vote like Democrats and the Democrats that vote like Republicans,” Burchett said.

By that measure, the term could extend to Trump, whose policies in office led to increased spending and deficits, even when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who worked in the Trump administration as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has repeatedly brought up Trump-era spending on the campaign trail as she seeks to defeat her onetime boss for the GOP nomination.

“I would love to tell you that Joe Biden did that to us,” she said in South Carolina last month while expressing dismay over the national debt. “But I always have spoken to you in hard truths. And I’m going to do that with you tonight. Our Republicans did that to us too. You look at the fact that President Trump put us $8 trillion in debt in just four years. More than any other president.”

One word she did not use in describing that predicament: uniparty.

Trump’s White House Was ‘Awash in Speed’ — and Xanax

Rolling Stone

Trump’s White House Was ‘Awash in Speed’ — and Xanax

Noah Shachtman and Asawin Suebsaeng – March 3, 2024

If you ever looked at the actions of the Trump White House and wondered, ‘Are they on drugs?’ — the answer was, in some cases, yes. Absolutely, yes.

In January, the Defense Department’s inspector general released a report detailing how the White House Medical Unit during the Trump administration distributed controlled substances with scant oversight and even sloppier record keeping. Investigators repeatedly noted that the unit had ordered thousands and thousands of doses of the stimulant modafinil, which has been used by military pilots for decades to stay alert during long missions.

The report didn’t say why so many of those pills had been given out. But for many who served in the Trump White House, the investigation highlighted an open secret. According to interviews with four former senior administration officials and others with knowledge of the matter, the stimulant was routinely given to staffers who needed an energy boost after a late night, or just a pick-me-up to handle another day at a uniquely stressful job. As one of the former officials tells Rolling Stone, the White House at that time was “awash in speed.”

Knowledgeable sources say that samples of the stimulant were passed around for those contributing lines to major Trump speeches, working late hours on foreign policy initiatives, responding to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, coping with the deluge of media inquiries about that investigation, and so much more. (Trump’s campaign did not respond to an email seeking comment for this story.)

Modafinil — also known by its brand name, Provigil — wasn’t the only controlled substance that Trump officials young and old routinely acquired. “It was kind of like the Wild West. Things were pretty loose. Whatever someone needs, we were going to fill this,” one source with direct knowledge of the matter recalls.

The anti-anxiety medication Xanax was also a popular, easy-to-get drug during the Trump years, three sources tell us. Neither Xanax nor its generic, alprazolam, is mentioned in the Pentagon report, which notes that it is not a comprehensive list of the controlled substances ordered during the Trump years. Two people with direct knowledge of the situation recall senior officials getting Xanax from the White House Medical Unit — and sharing it with colleagues.

The Trump administration was well known for its chaotic, often-erratic approach to policymaking — and for its atmosphere of paranoia, where staffers regularly spilled their colleagues’ secrets and bureaucratic factions often spent as much energy attacking one another as addressing matters of state. It’s impossible to know how much of that was fueled by the widespread availability of drugs like Xanax and Provigil. But what’s clear is that there was a breakdown of medical standards and safeguards at the highest levels of the American government; some staffers even believed that confidential information about their mental health was at risk. With Trump pushing to return to power on an agenda even more vicious than his first, a full accounting of the misuse of powerful stimulants and sedatives by his staff isn’t just a matter of historical interest. It’s a preview of a very possible future.

During Trump’s presidency, two sources say, senior staffers would repeatedly down Xanax with alcohol. Such a combination increases the risk of “serious, life-threatening side effects,” according to the National Library of Medicine. Nevertheless, senior officials would use Xanax and alcohol together to soothe themselves while enduring the sky-high levels of stress that come with working at the highest pressure environment job in America — with the added pleasure of serving the whims of the infamously volatile, intemperate Trump.

As one former senior administration official puts it: “You try working for him and not chasing pills with alcohol.”

THE WHITE HOUSE MEDICAL UNIT has been handing out prescription medications to staffers for decades — especially when they’re traveling abroad, and need to combat jet lag. “I think any White House staff knows that overseas trips are very grueling,” Stephanie Grisham, Trump’s former White House press secretary, recalls. “For us, you’d be on a flight with a president who never sleeps, and then you hit the ground running in a foreign country, and you have to be alert and ready for the president and other foreign leaders.”

She describes a procedure broadly familiar to staffers across administrations: On overseas trips, physician to the president Dr. Ronny Jackson “would come around Air Force One asking Donald Trump’s senior staff if they needed anything. This included Provigil and [the sleep aid] Ambien, and he would hand them out, typically in the form of packets with two or three pills in them. When this happened on Air Force One, a nurse would be trailing him, writing down who got what.”

It’s back home where things got sloppier, the Defense Department investigation and our sources note. Pills were often handed out without a specific need or diagnosis. Black-and-white procedures that doctors and pharmacists routinely follow when prescribing controlled substances were ignored. Orders for pills were often written down incorrectly, or not at all. One former White House Medical Unit staffer told Pentagon investigators that the unit “work[ed] in the gray… helping anybody who needs help to get this mission done.” Another said, “Is it being done appropriately or legally all the time? No. But are they going to get to that end result that the bosses want? Yeah.”

So while prescription drugs have long been in the White House — John F. Kennedy reportedly took a cocktail of uppers and downers to fight back pain, and Richard Nixon allegedly took an anti-epileptic drug “when his mood wasn’t too good” — they have rarely been dispensed as widely as they were in the Trump years.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 21: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the daily coronavirus task force briefing at the White House on April 21, 2020 in Washington, DC. Earlier in the day, the president met with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the Oval Office to discuss COVID-19 testing.  (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Then-President Donald Trump participates in a briefing at the White House on April 21, 2020.

The anything-anytime-anywhere approach inspired a sense of entitlement among Trump staffers. Some senior administration officials would casually mention their Xanax intake, one source with direct knowledge of the matter recalls. The source describes a time when an aide to Melania Trump walked into the White House Medical Unit and said, “‘Could you prescribe me Xanax.’ She just came in and demanded it.” The source wasn’t a doctor or pharmacist, however, and wasn’t allowed to prescribe the anti-anxiety drug. The source politely turned the aide down. “She stormed out,” the source says.

This is not, to put it mildly, how these drugs are ordinarily handled. “We tightly track controlled substances like this because they’re addictive or can cause overdoses,” says Dr. Beata Lewis, a psychiatrist based in Brooklyn. “It sounds like with all of these substances, people could get whatever they wanted. That puts people at risk for addiction.”

She adds: “The significant thing is these rules apply to everyone … except for the White House. It’s a culture of entitlement and being above the rules to the point of putting people in danger.”

There wasn’t much the medical unit staffers could do, even if they wanted to hold the line. Several told Pentagon investigators “they feared they would receive negative work assignments or be “fired” if they spoke out.

ADDING TO THE CLIMATE OF FEAR was the sense that even private therapy sessions would not be kept private in the Trump White House. The medical unit provided psychological counseling on request. But White House staffers were instructed to be on their guard. One former senior administration official tells Rolling Stone that within the first two years of the Trump presidency, they were warned by a colleague against divulging anything during a private White House medical session that they “would not want to be used against” them. At the time, this source notes, this puzzled the official, who was then told that under Trump, the office had a reputation for being more porous with private information “than you might expect.”

The former administration official didn’t think much of it at the time. The source shrugged the warning off as mere gossip and moved on. However, according to other individuals with intimate knowledge of the matter, it was hardly an idle rumor. Immediately after counseling sessions, therapists were pressed for information about what they were told.

“They’d say, ‘We need you to see this person.’ They’d walk me over there. I’d see this person. Then as soon as I got out, they would ask, ‘Hey what happened?’” one of these sources tells us. To this source, this was a blatant violation of patient confidentiality. The source would try to be as vague as possible in their responses to the questions, but in the Trump White House, “it was all kind of open kimono,” they say.

Keith Bass, who led the White House Medical Unit from 2017 to 2019, confirms that these sorts of debriefs did, in fact, happen after counseling sessions. But he says they never went into details; they were merely to determine whether a “medical/behavioral health event” would prevent a “military/DoD staff” member “from performing their duties or impac[t] their ability to maintain a [top secret] clearance while assigned to the White House,” Bass says in an email. “Detailed clinical notes were not required from the psychologist; only a broad overview to determine fitness for duty status.”

Our source says that’s not entirely accurate. For starters, these debriefs happened after therapy sessions with civilian staffers as well. And while the questions may have been “seemingly innocent,” the source says they could be seen as the start of a “slippery slope,” which would then “drif[t] down into asking for information that was not appropriate.”

The White House Medical Unit’s often casual approach to giving out controlled substances didn’t exactly inspire confidence. “The sloppiness around handing out medications had me highly concerned about the protection of behavioral health information — medical information at large. There was no protection of sensitive patient information, period,” the source says.

Any attempts to add more rigor were entirely unwelcome, the source adds. “The more I held to professional standards” — the more the source objected to the pressure to divulge details about therapy sessions, and to keep patient information private — the worse it got. White House staffers “ostracized me,” the source says. “Nobody would talk to me. The culture was toxic as fuck.”

MODAFINIL WAS DISCOVERED in the 1970s by French scientists and was first handed out to pilots to help keep them awake and on task in the 1991 Gulf War. The U.S. military started to use modafinil in earnest around the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, it was heralded as a massive improvement over previous stimulants: stronger and more effective than caffeine, less physically addictive than amphetamines. “These medications aren’t stimulants like the old military ‘go pills,’ there are few if any side effects when taken as prescribed. They simply stave off drowsiness until the medication wears off, then you naturally fall asleep,” one knowledgeable source writes.

But that “taken as prescribed” caveat is crucial. When handed out willy-nilly, outside a doctor’s supervision, modafinil can pose serious risks, notes Dr. Rachel Teodorini, a researcher at London South Bank University’s division of psychology who has examined the drug and its effects. “If people have cardiovascular problems, heart problems, or blood pressure issues, it could cause things like strokes or heart attacks,” she tells us. And while modafinil doesn’t appear to physically hook patients, “there’s an element of at least psychological dependence. Tolerance builds up, and you need more and more.”

E3K407 Modafinil or Modalet tablets.
Modafinil tablets.

As a recent study in the journal Military Medicine notes, “although modafinil was initially said to comprise no risk for abuse, there are now indications that modafinil works on the same neurobiological mechanisms as other addictive stimulants.”

And just like with other stimulants, the overuse of modafinil can lead to the perceived need for anti-anxiety medications like Xanax. “Effectively, you’re using one drug to get you up and another to get you down,” Teodorini said.

Some former Trump staffers tell Rolling Stone they didn’t get these drugs directly from the White House Medical Unit. One former Trump White House aide concedes they “borrowed” some modafinil from “a friend,” who said they’d gotten it from the unit. “I had a lot going on in my life and I wanted some,” they say.

In other administrations, modafinil was used “99 percent of the time” for jet lag, one source notes. The Trump White House was a free-for-all. Two other sources each independently compared the White House during those years to college campuses where students cramming for finals or pulling all-nighters would pass around Adderall and other drugs, prescriptions be damned. But it wasn’t just the administration’s junior staffers — the recent college grads — who partook. The sources add that midlevel and certain senior officials — including those who reported to then-President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump — came to rely on modafinil, as well. The sources and former senior Trump officials, who all requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, recall instances of staff casually slipping the medical unit-provided stimulant to one another, in efforts to stay focused and help navigate the exhausting chaos of the Trump presidency.

It was “ironic” that Trump’s White House was “one place the war on drugs wasn’t being fought,” one of the former officials sardonically notes, given Trump and many of his lieutenants’ zeal for waging the international war on drugs.

NEARLY EVERY SOURCE INTERVIEWED for this story traced the problems with the White House Medical Unit back to Jackson, who joined the team during the George W. Bush administration and became physician to President Barack Obama in 2013. Before then, he was known as an eccentric. Afterward, he became a menace, as several Defense Department investigations detail.

On a trip to Argentina in March 2016, one of those reports notes, Jackson’s “intoxicated behavior in the middle of the night, pounding on [a female subordinate’s] hotel room door, screaming, yelling, and overall loud behavior in his hotel room exhibited less than exemplary workplace conduct while on official travel to provide medical care for the President.” The Pentagon interviewed 60 of Jackson’s former subordinates; 56 “experienced, saw, or heard about [him] yelling, screaming, cursing, or belittling subordinates.” During a six-week stretch in 2018, a Defense Department hotline received 12 complaints” about Jackson. (Jackson’s office did not respond to a request to comment on this article.)

His nomination to become Secretary of Veterans Affairs that same year was derailed over accusations he handed out pills to White House staffers like a “candyman.” (In one case, a Senate report noted, medical staffers fell “into a panic” because he had given such “a large supply” of Percocet pain pills to a member of the White House Military Office.)

WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 3: President Donald Trump looks to White House physician Ronny Jackson during a Veterans Affairs Department "telehealth" event in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC on Thursday, Aug 03, 2017. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Then-President Donald Trump looks to White House physician Ronny Jackson during an event at the White House on Aug. 3, 2017.

Jackson briefly returned to the White House as Trump’s “chief medical adviser” in 2019 before running for Congress. But no matter what position he held, several sources tell us, his influence dominated medical care at the Trump White House, and Jackson’s “minions” and “loyalists” ran the White House Medical Unit in his stead. “Any practices existing at that time were all set up by Jackson, who’d been there for a dozen years. Though the med unit was led by an administrator, little happened without his say-so,” one of those sources say.

The source adds, “Unit leadership did slowly start making appropriate changes, but due to [the] complicated nature of missions, individual expectations within the organization, a self-imposed cone of silence and fear of being held liable for sins of the father, it took a long time to find the right way forward.”

OUR INTEREST IN THIS STORY was sparked, in part, by a handwritten ledger reprinted on page 14 of the January inspector general’s report: a tracking form for the controlled substances ordered by the White House Medical Unit. In addition to the thousands of pills of Ambien and Provigil listed are even more potent sedatives and pain pills: morphine, hydrocodone, diazepam and lorazepam (better known by their brand names, Valium and Ativan), fentanyl, and even ketamine.

Jackson, now a Republican congressman from Texas, told the Washington Post that his team prescribed narcotics “less than five times” across his tenure. And according to the paper’s sources, drugs like fentanyl were “kept on hand for extreme emergencies — such as a White House fence jumper impaling themselves on a spike.”

That’s a ridiculous example, a well-placed source tells us. “Someone just made up something. If there was a jumper, someone would call 911,” the source says. The jumper would then be transferred to a nearby civilian hospital.

But there was a grain of truth to the idea that the medical unit retained fentanyl and the like for extreme events. In the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was a desire to bring the advances in battlefield medicine to the White House. If the president or vice president were to get shot in a remote location, far from any hospital, the unit’s physicians wanted to be able to insert a breathing tube into the VIP almost instantaneously, a process known as “rapid sequence induction and intubation.” Doing that requires sedating the patient in a hurry with powerful drugs.

“The unit employed the world’s standards in pre-hospital trauma care, as directed by the DoD’s Joint Trauma System & Committee on tactical-combat casualty-care guidelines. That includes the use of ketamine, fentanyl, etc. for pain management,” a second knowledgeable source writes. “The whole mission is contingency planning for providing most/best possible care for the worst/craziest scenarios.”

Needless to say, they never encountered a scenario that nuts. And we didn’t uncover any evidence that ketamine or fentanyl were handed out to White House staff the way Xanax and Provigil were.

But as the handwritten ledger shows — and our sources confirm — the medical unit’s procedures had grown so sloppy, so lax, that it’s impossible to prove the negative, that these sedatives and dissociatives weren’t given to White House staff. “In our analysis of the White House Medical Unit’s controlled substance records, we found that medications, such as opioids and sleep medications, were not properly accounted for,” the inspector general’s report reads. “These records frequently contained errors in the medication counts, illegible text, or crossed-out text that was not appropriately annotated.”

That might sound like minor errors in paperwork. They’re not. They’re the kind of transgressions that turn patients into addicts, and doctors into ex-doctors. “If you’re sloppy even a little bit with controlled substances, you’ll lose your [medical] license,” one source notes. Without proper record keeping, there’s no way to say just how much of the Trump White House was on drugs. There’s no way to tell how they might use — and abuse — prescription medications if they come back to power. “Nothing is written down,” another source says of the unit’s drug distribution during the Trump years, “because we will always get to yes.”

Trump warns of ‘languages coming into our country’ that ‘nobody’ has heard of

NBC News

Trump warns of ‘languages coming into our country’ that ‘nobody’ has heard of

Alec Hernández, Jake Traylor and Katherine Koretski – March 3, 2024

Warning about the dangers of illegal immigration at the southern border has long been one of Donald Trump’s campaign mainstays, going back to the day he launched his first presidential bid. At the time, he said Mexico was sending “rapists” and people who were bringing “drugs” and “crime.”

But lately, the former president has seized on a new thing he says migrants are bringing: languages.

“We have languages coming into our country. We don’t have one instructor in our entire nation that can speak that language,” Trump said before a crowd of thousands of supporters at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside Washington, D.C., last month.

“These are languages — it’s the craziest thing — they have languages that nobody in this country has ever heard of. It’s a very horrible thing,” he added.

Trump repeated the comment the following week during an appearance at the southern border alongside Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, saying that migrants are entering the country speaking “truly foreign languages.”

“Nobody speaks them,” he said after a tour of the border in Eagle Pass.

And addressing a rally in Virginia Saturday night, Trump described New York classrooms as overwhelmed with “pupils from foreign countries, from countries where they don’t even know what the language is.”

“We have nobody that even teaches it. These are languages that nobody ever heard of,” he claimed.

It’s not entirely clear what languages Trump is referencing.

When asked to clarify Trump’s remarks, campaign spokesman Steven Cheung responded, “There are migrants invading from countries that we know nothing about, which is the point.” He did not respond to a follow-up question about what those countries are.

The United States has no official language.

At campaign rallies, Trump routinely says he would carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in history if re-elected. Trump also vows to reinstate his infamous Muslim travel ban, expand it to include Gazan refugees, and incorporate “ideological screenings” for all immigrants. Trump has also claimed multiple times that immigrants are poisoning the blood of America, a comment President Joe Biden’s campaign likened to the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler.