Archives for category: Ethics

Peter Greene writes about the contradiction at the heart of Trump’s education goals. On the one hand, Trump says he will eliminate the Department of Education and turn federal funding over to the states, to use as they wish. At the same time, he says that he will punish schools if they persist in teaching liberal ideas that Trump dislikes, like diversity, equity and inclusion, or if they are insufficiently patriotic.

How will he punish schools if the federal funding has been relinquished to the states?

Greene writes:

It has been on the conservative To Do list for decades, and the incoming administration keeps insisting that this time it’s really going to happen. But will it? Over the weekend, Trump’s Ten Principles for Education video from Agenda 47 was circulating on line as a new “announcement” or “confirmation” of his education policy, despite the fact that the video was posted in September of 2023.

The list of goals may or may not be current, but it underlines a basic contradiction at the heart of Trump’s education plans. The various goals can be boiled down to two overall objectives:

1) To end all federal involvement and oversight of local schools.

2) To exert tight federal control over local schools

Trump has promised that schools will not teach “political indoctrination,” that they will teach students to “love their country,” that there will be school prayer, that students will “have access to” project-based learning, and that schools will expel students who harm teachers or other students. 

He has also proposed stripping money from colleges and universities that indoctrinate students and using the money to set up a free of charge “world class education” system.

Above all, he has promised that he “will be closing up” the Department of Education. Of course, he said that in 2016 with control of both houses of Congress and it did not happen.

Are there obstacles? The Department of Education distributes over $18 billion to help support schools that educate high-poverty populations, providing benefits like extra staff to supplement reading instruction. The Project 2025 plan is to turn this into a block grant to be given to the states to use as they wish, then zeroed out. Every state in the country would feel that pinch; states that decide to use the money for some other purpose entirely, such as funding school vouchers, will feel the pinch much sooner. The department also handles over $15 billion in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding, which helps cover the costs of special education; Project 2025 also calls for turning it into an unregulated block grant to states with no strings attached, meaning that parents would have to lobby their state government for special ed funding.

Cuts and repurposing of these funds will be felt immediately in classrooms across the country, particularly those that serve poor students and students with special needs. That kind of readily felt, easily understood impact is likely to fuel pushback in Congress, and it’s Congress that has the actual power to eliminate the department.

Beyond the resistance to changing major funding for states and the challenge of trying to move the trillion-plus-dollar funding system for higher education, the Trump administration would also face the question of how to exert control over school districts without a federal lever to push.

Previous administrations have used Title I funding as leverage to coax compliance from school districts. In 2013, Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan threatened to withhold Title I funds if a California failed to adopt an “acceptable” standardized testing program. In 2020, Trump himself threatened to cut off funding to schools that did not re-open their buildings. And on the campaign trail this year, Trump vowed that he would defund schools that require vaccines. That will be hard to do if the federal government has given all control of funds to the states.

The Department of Education has limited power, but the temptation to use it seems hard to resist. Nobody wanted the department gone more than Trump’s education secretary Betsy DeVos, who was notably reluctant to use any power of her office. But by 2018, frustrated with Congressional inaction on the Higher Education Act, DeVos announced a plan to impose regulations on her own. In 2020, she imitated Duncan by requiring states to compete for relief money by implementing some of her preferred policies.

Too many folks on the Trump team have ideas about policies they want to enforce on American schools, and without a Department of Education that has control of a major funding stream, they’d have little hope of achieving their goals. Perhaps those who dream of dismantling the department will prevail, but they will still have to get past Congress. No matter how things fall out, some of Team Trump’s goals for education will not be realized.

Truth is stranger than fiction, once again. Trump announced that his daughter Tiffany’s father-in-law would be his advisor on Middle Eastern affairs. Trump described him as a successful businessman, a billionaire, a man of great importance.

But the New York Times revealed today that Massad Boulos is not a billionaire. He may not even be a millionaire. He seems like a nice guy, but he didn’t bother to correct Trump when the big guy promoted the myth that Tiffany’s father-in-law was a major mogul, a tycoon. He is not.

The Times reported:

President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Middle East adviser, Massad Boulos, has enjoyed a reputation as a billionaire mogul at the helm of a business that bears his family name.

Mr. Boulos has been profiled as a tycoon by the world’s media, telling a reporter in October that his company is worth billions. Mr. Trump called him a “highly respected leader in the business world, with extensive experience on the international scene.”

The president-elect even lavished what may be his highest praise: a “dealmaker.

In fact, records show that Mr. Boulos has spent the past two decades selling trucks and heavy machinery in Nigeria for a company his father-in-law controls. The company, SCOA Nigeria PLC, made a profit of less than $66,000 last year, corporate filings show.

There is no indication in corporate documents that Mr. Boulos, a Lebanese-American whose son is married to Mr. Trump’s daughter Tiffany, is a man of significant wealth as a result of his businesses. The truck dealership is valued at about $865,000 at its current share price. Mr. Boulos’s stake, according to securities filings, is worth $1.53.

In fact, as the Times put it, Mr. Boulos is “a small-time truck salesman.” Doubtless he is a “dealmaker,” as he agrees with customers on the price of the truck he is selling.

As for Boulos Enterprises, the company that has been called his family business in The Financial Times and elsewhere, a company officer there said it is owned by an unrelated Boulos family.

Mr. Boulos will advise on one of the world’s most complicated and conflict-wracked regions — a region that Mr. Boulos said this week that he has not visited in years. The advisory position does not require Senate approval….

Mr. Boulos, a Christian from northern Lebanon who emigrated to Texas as a teenager, has risen in prominence since 2018, when his son Michael began dating Tiffany Trump.

This year, Massad Boulos helped Mr. Trump woo Arab-American voters, and in the fall served as a go-between for Mr. Trump and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

In October, The Times asked him about his wealth and business dealings.

“Your company is described as a multibillion-dollar enterprise,” a reporter said. “Are you yourself a billionaire?”

Mr. Boulos said he did not like to describe himself that way, but that journalists had picked up on the label.

“It’s accurate to describe the company as a multibillion-dollar—?” the reporter followed up.

“Yeah,” Mr. Boulos replied. “It’s a big company. Long history.”

Versions of this history have been recounted in The New York TimesThe EconomistCNNand The Wall Street Journal.

But in a subsequent interview on Tuesday, Mr. Boulos said that he had only meant to confirm that other news outlets had written — incorrectly — that he runs such a company.

Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa is a combat veteran. She retired from the army as a Lieutenant Colonel. She is also a sexual assault survivor. She is also hyper-conservative.

You would expect that she would have some problems with Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Defense. Hegseth has been accused of assaulting women, of public drunkenness, of mismanaging two very small conservative veterans’ group. And he opposes women in combat.

Hegseth is not the kind of guy you would expect Ernst to support.

At first, on hearing of his nomination, she expressed her doubts. But then MAGA began to apply pressure. She comes up for re-election in 2026; it’s hard to imagine anyone running to her right, but who knows?

And she folded.

Todd Gorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette wrote:

It’s remarkable how fast you can go from guest to entree at the big MAGA buffet.

Iowa U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst certainly knows.

Last week, she committed the grave offense of being a voice of reason. She told Real Clear Politics she had not made up her mind on Pete Hegseth’s nomination to become secretary of defense.

Ernst said she didn’t plan to campaign against Hegseth and wanted to see the confirmation process unfold. How unreasonable, a senator wanting to follow the Senate process before making a final decision. She’s a pivotal vote on the Armed Services Committee, which will be handling Hegseth’s confirmation.

But then, the MAGA warning light flashed, and all hell broke loose.

Fox News showed a series of X posts aimed at Ernst.

Donald Trump Jr pointed out Ernst had voted to confirm Joe Biden’s pick for defense secretary, Lloyd Austin. He suggested Ernst may be “in the wrong political party.”

Somebody called Wall Street Mav called Ernst a “neocon.” Gasp. And suggested she face a conservative primary opponent in 2026. Right-wing radio host Steve Deace bragged he could be the one to topple Ernst in that primary. Or maybe double Arizona failure Kari Lake could return to her Iowa roots. Sure.

Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA (his turn signal blinking toward the abyss) accused Ernst of “leading the charge” against Hegseth.

Ernst is the first woman combat veteran elected to the U.S. Senate. Pete Hegseth is a Fox News personality who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s also been overserved many times. He’s vowed to quit drinking if confirmed.

A woman has accused Hegseth of sexual assault. This, alongside multiple reports of sexual misconduct and mismanagement of veterans’ groups he led.

But MAGA has decided he’s the sort of strong, rugged, take-no-prisoners guy we need to make America tough again. He’ll fix the “woke” military, whatever that means.

Hegseth said women don’t belong in combat. Ernst is a combat veteran. He’s accused of sexual assault. Ernst is a sexual assault survivor. So, Ernst was supposed embrace this guy’s nomination? Be impressed by his raw manliness? Suddenly I could use a drink.

But by Monday, after a weekend of MAGA bludgeoning, Ernst took a step back. She met again with Hegseth, was encouraged and said the allegations against him won’t count unless victims step forward.

“As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources,” Ernst said.

But after that process, will you vote for him? She didn’t really go there. But it’s likely she’ll vote to confirm.

It’s disappointing, but not unexpected. I wish she would have said, “Pete Hegseth? I wouldn’t put that guy in charge of latrines. I wouldn’t hand him the keys to the nation’s military if he was the last man on earth. And that last man thing sounds pretty good right now.”

What Ernst said last week was spot on. If this guy wants to become secretary of defense, he’s going to have to show he’s capable. That’s what the confirmation process is for. Ernst wanting to wait and see the show makes sense.

Only one top Iowa Republican defended her, Rep. Ashely Hinson. But Hinson also had to do her duty and say Hegseth is a “strong pick.”

Yes, I know. Ernst played her own role in creating the MAGA monster. Now she got a glimpse of what happens when it turns on you. No loyalty and genuflecting before the dear leader can save you. Toe the MAGA line, or else. This is the party of freedom.

(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com

The “party of freedom”? Yes, you are free to agree with Trump and free to praise him.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire publisher of the Los Angeles Times, recently revealed that the newspaper would employ a technology that will tell “both sides” of every story. Journalists are outraged by the implication that their stories are biased. After the publisher’s decision to prohibit an endorsement in the Presidential race, the chief editor of the editorial board resigned, followed by others.

At that time, the published defended

The New York Times reported:

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times, said on Thursday that he planned to introduce a “bias meter” next to the paper’s news and opinion coverage as part of his campaign to overhaul the publication.

Dr. Soon-Shiong, who in October quashed a planned presidential endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris from The Los Angeles Times’s editorial board, said in an interview that aired on Scott Jennings’s podcast “Flyover Country” that he had begun to see his newspaper as “an echo chamber and not a trusted source.”

He previously said he planned to remake the paper’s editorial board and add more conservative voices. He has asked Mr. Jennings, a CNN political commentator and a Republican strategist, to join it.

Dr. Soon-Shiong, who bought The Times in 2018, said on the podcast that he had been working with a team to create the so-called bias meter using technology he had been building in his health care businesses.

On news and opinion articles, “you have a bias meter so somebody could understand, as a reader, that the source of the article has some level of bias,” he explained in the interview. “And what we need to do is not have what we call confirmation bias, and then that story automatically — the reader can press a button and get both sides of that exact same story based on that story, and then give comments.”

He said he planned to introduce the tool in January.

Dr. Soon-Shiong’s latest comments set off immediate pushback from the L.A. Times Guild, which represents journalists at the paper.

“Recently, the newspaper’s owner has publicly suggested his staff harbors bias, without offering evidence or examples,” the union’s leadership said in a statement on Thursday. The union said all Times staff members abided by ethics guidelines that call for “fairness, precision, transparency, vigilance against bias and an earnest search to understand all sides of an issue.”

In the comments that followed the article, many ridiculed the idea of the “bias meter.” One imagined an article that reported on an earthquake rated 9.5, which said that people feared that the earthquake would cause massive destruction of lives and property; those seeking a different perspective would press the bias meter to read an article saying that most people were not afraid of a 9.5 earthquake and say it’s no big deal.

During the campaign, Democrats continually drew attention to the radical proposals of Project 2025 as the agenda for a second Trump term. Trump distanced himself from Project 2025 and pretended to know nothing about it or anyone who wrote it. Now that he is President-elect, Project 2025 is indeed Trump’s agenda.

Someone on social media asked, “If Trump disavowed Project 2025 when campaigning, isn’t I clear that he has no “mandate” to act on it?

The LA Times reports:

Russell Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint for the next presidency — is no fan of the federal government that President-elect Donald Trump will soon lead.

He believes “woke” civil servants and “so-called expert authorities” wield illegitimate power to block conservative White House directives from deep within federal agencies, and wants Trump to “bend or break” that bureaucracy to his will, he wrote in the second chapter of the Project 2025 playbook.

Vought is a vocal proponent of a plan known as Schedule F, under which Trump would fire thousands of career civil servants with extensive experience in their fields and replace them with his own political loyalists, and of Christian nationalism, which would see American governance aligned with Christian teachings. Both are core tenets of Project 2025.

Throughout his campaign, Trump adamantly disavowed Project 2025, even though its policies overlapped with his and some of its authors worked in his first administration. He castigated anyone who suggested the blueprint, which polls showed was deeply unpopular among voters, represented his aims for the presidency.

But last week, the president-elect nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the White House budget and its policy agenda across the federal government.

Trump called Vought, who held the same role during his first term, an “aggressive cost cutter and deregulator” who “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government.”

The nomination was one of several Trump has made since his election that have called into question his claims on the campaign trail that Project 2025 was not his playbook and held no sway over him or his plans for a second term. 

He selected Tom Homan, a Project 2025 contributor and former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization behind the blueprint, as his “border czar.” Trump named Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner also linked to Project 2025, as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Both also served in the first Trump administration.

He also named Brendan Carr to serve on the Federal Communications Commission. Carr wrote a chapter of Project 2025 on the FCC, which regulates U.S. internet access and TV and radio networks, and has echoed Trump’s claimsthat news broadcasters have engaged in political bias against Trump.

Trump named John Ratcliffe as his pick for CIA director and Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. Both are Project 2025 contributors. It has also been reported that the Trump transition team is filling lower-level government spots using a Project 2025 database of conservative candidates.

During the campaign Trump said that he knew “nothing about” Project 2025 and that he found some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” In response to news in July that Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, was leaving his post, Trump campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles — whom the president-elect has since named his chief of staff — issued a statement saying that “reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed.”

Asked about Trump’s selection of several people with Project 2025 connections to serve in his administration, Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt responded with a statement, saying Trump “never had anything to do with Project 2025.”

“This has always been a lie pushed by the Democrats and the legacy media, but clearly the American people did not buy it because they overwhelmingly voted for President Trump to implement the promises that he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “All of President Trump’s cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump’s agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.”

Leavitt too has ties to Project 2025, having appeared in a training video for it.

In addition to calling for much greater power in the hands of the president, Project 2025 calls for less federal intervention in certain areas — including through the elimination of the Department of Education. It calls for much stricter immigration enforcement and mass deportations — a policy priority of Trump’s as well — and rails against environmental protections, calling for the demolition of key environmental agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service.

It calls for tougher restrictions on abortion and for the federal government to collect data on women who seek an abortion, and backs a slew of measures that would strip rights from LGBTQ+ people.

For Trump’s critics, his selections make it clear that his disavowal of the conservative playbook was nothing more than a campaign ploy to pacify voters who viewed the plan as too far to the right. It’s an argument many were making before the election as well.

Open the link to continue reading.

The Republican supermajority in the state’s General Assembly is shameless. They used their numbers to pass a bill that strips the newly elected Democratic Governor, State Attorney General, and State Superintendent of Schools of many of their powers.

Outgoing Democratic Governor Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, but Republicans overturned his veto.

The Republican power grab was embedded in a bill that shortchanged the victims of Hurricane Helene.

When will voters in North Carolina wise up and start voting for Democratic legislators? The ones they have now are not working on behalf of their constituents.

They are using their power to protect their power and perks. The public be damned! Vote them out!

After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in 2017, he choose respected FBI veteran Christopher Wray to replace Comey. The FBI Director is appointed for a ten-year term, to insulate the Director from partisan influence.

Senator Chuck Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on the Budget.

In this letter, directed to Director Wray, Grassley says he is finished and it’s time to pack his bag. He explains why. The heart of the matter is that he failed to investigate Republican claims that Biden was corrupt, but approved a search of Trump’s home for classified documents.

Next up is the odious Kash Patel, nominated by Trump to be FBI Director. Patel is a MAGA ideologue who has said that if appointed, on day one, he would close the FBI Headquarters and re-open it as a “museum of the deep state.”

Let’s see what Senator Grassley says about the unqualified Patel.

In Houston, Lisa Gray of the Houston Chronicle interviewed Dr. Peter Hotez, a respected practitioner, about the Trump agenda for public health. This is part two of a two-part post.

Gray writes:

Recently, after outlining five terrifying infectious diseases and potential pandemics looming on the world horizon, vaccine researcher Peter Hotez said that he doesn’t believe that the incoming Trump administration is taking those threats seriously enough.

That alarmed me. I’ve been interviewing Hotez since early 2020, right after COVID infections showed up in the United States. As he’s the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, he follows emerging disease threats closely. And with his team at Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, he develops low-cost vaccines for low-income nations. During the pandemic, he became one of the most recognized medical experts on COVID — and a local hero here in Houston. 

Videographer Sharon Steinmann and I spoke with Hotez in his office at Baylor. This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Why are you worried that the incoming Trump administration may not be ready for public-health threats on Day 1? Is that based on the people Donald Trump has named to health positions?

A: 
I’m concerned that the Trump administration is picking individuals based on their ideologies rather than either their subject-matter expertise or their ability to get things done in government.

Q: You’ve been acquainted for years with RFK Jr. — Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who Trump has nominated to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How did you meet him?

A: 
I used to call him “Bobby.” I got to know him because in 2017 he indicated that he was going to head a vaccine commission for the new incoming Trump administration.

I was in my office, here where we’re speaking now, and my assistant said, “Hey, Dr. Hotez, I have Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins on the phone. Can you talk to them?”

Q: Whoa! Those are two big names in your field.

A: 
[Grins.] I said, “Yeah, I guess I’ll take the call.”

They said, “Peter, we’ve got a job for you. If anyone can explain to Kennedy why vaccines don’t cause autism, it’s you.”

They asked because I was a scientist and a pediatrician, and most importantly, I’d written a book, “Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism,” explaining how I can be sure that my daughter’s autism is not linked to vaccines. 

Tim Shriver, a terrific guy who heads the Special Olympics, brokered a meeting for us with RFK Jr. And for months after that, I had a number of long, long phone conversations with Bobby. Sometimes that would be while my wife Ann and I were out for a long walk through Montrose, and she’d listen in.

Q: How did that go? 

A: 
Our conversations weren’t very productive. It was an exercise in frustration, probably for both of us. He was pretty dug in. Either he didn’t understand the science or he didn’t have a lot of interest in it.

For instance, I would point out to Bobby that autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that starts early in pregnancy. We know this from multiple neurodevelopmental studies. So autism is well in motion before kids ever even see their first vaccine.

In addition to that, the Broad Institute, at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had also identified at least a hundred autism genes. Many of them are a type of gene called the neuronal cytoskeleton gene, which is involved in neuronal connections. (My wife Ann and I actually did a whole-genome sequencing on Rachel. We found that Rachel’s autism gene is different from the ones published by the Broad Institute, but it’s similar — it’s a neuronal cytoskeleton gene.)

Sergiu Pasca and his associates at Stanford University Medical School have also looked at what they call brain organoids. They can put neurons together in a petri dish and basically assemble them as mini-brains. This has been done now with neurons that have autism genes, and so the aberrant neuronal patterns really tell the complete story now.

It was frustrating to me that Bobby didn’t pay attention to the science and instead spouted dogma.

A: I got to know her during the COVID pandemic. She was a Fox News talking head, and I was going on Fox News pretty regularly in the evenings until I wouldn’t go along with the hydroxychloroquinine nonsense.

At the time, we talking heads on the various news channels would talk to each other. That was helpful because we were learning from each other. We all brought different expertise to the table.

Dr. Nesheiwat had a lot of humility. She wanted to know my opinion on COVID vaccines, how they worked and what were the different technologies. She was inquisitive and delightful to talk with. So I’m excited about her role as surgeon general. That’s at least one silver lining.

Q: Are there other silver linings?

A: Yeah. The other person that I got to know during the pandemic was Mehmet Oz, Dr. Oz, because he had a show with wide reach. I would go on his show and talk about COVID vaccines.

I liked being on his show. He was respectful and thoughtful. He asked good questions and gave me an opportunity to talk to daytime audiences — people I wouldn’t ordinarily reach. I was grateful for that opportunity.

I think that both Dr. Nesheiwat and Dr. Oz are effective communicators. I think President-elect Trump wants to bring on good communicators.

Dr. Oz is heading a very bureaucratic organization, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I don’t think that’s a perfect fit for him — he’d have been better off as something like surgeon general — but we’ll see.

Lisa Gray is the op-ed editor and a member of the Houston Chronicle editorial board. During the pandemic, she was the Chronicle’s lead COVID reporter.

Lisa Gray, an editor at the Houston Chronicle, interviewed Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist and specialist in infectious diseases, about the major public health challenges facing the incoming Trump administration. Dr. Hotez shares the story of his effort to persuade Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of the importance of vaccines. This post is the first of two.

Gray wrote:

During the COVID pandemic, Americans came to rely on bow-tied vaccine scientist Peter Hotez for calm, scientific assessments of the virus and the vaccines being developed to fight it. With his team at Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Hotez develops low-cost vaccines for low-income nations. He’s also the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine — and is arguably Houston’s most beloved doctor.

He still monitors the public-health landscape closely. To find out what public-health threats await the Donald Trump administration, Houston Chronicle videographer Sharon Steinmann and I interviewed him at his office at Baylor.

Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What are the public health challenges that the Trump administration will face on Day 1? Are you monitoring any major health threats?

A: We’ve got some big-ticket concerns regarding infectious disease and pandemic threats. The new administration is not going to have the luxury of time to organize and think about it. They’re going to be confronted with this from the very beginning.

One of the big threats I’m following is H5N1, an avian influenza. The virus is widespread now in migratory birds that fly from the north to the south.

It’s spilling over into domestic birds and poultry. We’re now seeing a big increase in infections of domestic birds and poultry in California and elsewhere in the western part of the United States, as well as across the northern part of the country. 

An H5N1 strain has also crossed over from birds into cattle. It’s gotten into our herds, including in Texas, as well as in the Great Plains and other parts of the United States.

I’m concerned that, eventually, this virus could spill over to people as well. We’re starting to see human cases. In the last few weeks, we’ve had six human cases. I think eventually H5N1 could become a major human public-health threat.

It’s not there yet. We’re not seeing human-to-human transmission yet. But monitoring it and being prepared for it has got to be a big priority for the new incoming administration. 

Q: Oof. Is that all that’s on the horizon?

A: Guess what? That’s just the beginning.

The other thing that’s happening is, we still have COVID with us. Our COVID-19 numbers are low again, but I expect them to rise. You can protect yourself from that, of course, by keeping your immunizations up to date. If you got a dose of the vaccine in September, like I did, you’ll be due again around January.

But here’s the thing: COVID-19 isn’t the only COVID threat. There are other coronaviruses.

Remember that the name for the virus that causes COVID is the SARS-2 coronavirus. There was a SARS-1, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome that came out of southern China in 2002. We had Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, also caused by a coronavirus, in 2012. And of course, we had SARS-2 cause COVID, the largest pandemic of them all, starting in 2019.

We should expect SARS-3 to come in the next few years.

Q: Why are we seeing these new coronaviruses in people?

A: Because these viruses are widespread in bats. Across China and East Asia, they’re jumping regularly to people. In some cases that’s through intermediate animal hosts. In some cases it’s directly from bats to people.

By some estimates, these new SARS coronaviruses are jumping from bats to people on the order of 66,000 times a year. Every now and then, one catches fire and ignites a pandemic.

So that needs to occupy the attention of the Trump administration. What kind of surveillance are we doing for SARS-3, which is brewing as we speak among bats in Asia?

Q: That’s a lot to take care of.

A: That’s not all we have to worry about. A third big-ticket item is the fact that we’ve seen a significant uptick in the number of virus infections transmitted by mosquitoes or other biting arthropods. We all know about the West Nile virus. Last year was a pretty bad year for infections in the United States, including Texas. But that’s just the beginning.

With these mosquito-transmitted viruses, which we call arboviruses, we know what to expect in the U.S. because we usually see it first in Brazil. In the Western Hemisphere, Brazil is the arbovirus epicenter.  And right now, dengueOropouche, Zika and even yellow fever are all expanding in Brazil. They’re even extending beyond the Amazon rainforest, where we typically see them, because of climate change and possibly because of deforestation. 

And unfortunately, what starts in Brazil doesn’t stay in Brazil. It will eventually make its way to the Gulf Coast of the United States, including Texas.  So for next summer, I’m worried about dengue. I’m worried about Chikungunya, and even the possibility of yellow fever. I wrote about the possibility of a yellow fever outbreak in the New England Journal of Medicine; it would be catastrophic. The virus affects pregnant women and could be transmitted to the fetus, causing horrible birth defects. And besides yellow fever, Oropouche virus [pronounced “o-ro-push”] is going to be yet another big-ticket item. It’s spreading fast in Brazil. 

Q: So we’ve got four big-ticket concerns.

A: Wait, wait: We’re not done yet. Anti-vaccine activism accelerated during COVID; we’ve spoken about it many times. Now it’s spilling over to childhood immunizations. We’re seeing unprecedented levels of vaccine hesitancy and of parents refusing to have their kids vaccinated. So guess what?

From 2023 to 2024, we had a nearly sixfold increase in pertussis, or whooping cough, cases. We went from four measles outbreaks in 2023 to 16 in 2024. We’ve even seen polio in the wastewater of New York state.

I’m expecting a big rise in illnesses that are preventable with childhood vaccines.

Q: And the Trump administration has to be ready for all five of these major threats?

A: All of that is going to come crashing down on them. It’s going to be important that they take all those threats seriously.

It’s not just public health that could be affected. We’ve learned that pandemics have all sorts of other aspects. There’s an economic impact. There’s the impact on our security. And if we have a serious epidemic here in the U.S., it could block our travel from the U.S. to other countries.

I don’t have the sense that these big-ticket infectious disease threats are being taken with the seriousness that they need to be.

Q: Is that based on the people Donald Trump has named to health positions?

A: I’m concerned that the Trump administration is picking individuals based on their ideologies rather than either their subject-matter expertise or their ability to get things done in government.

Lisa Gray is the op-ed editor and a member of the Houston Chronicle editorial board. During the pandemic, she was the Chronicle’s lead COVID reporter.

Heather Cox Richardson demonstrates in this post that Trump is the grand master of lies. In his first interview on network television since the election, Trump gave a master class in assertive lying. And Richardson also demonstrated why she is the indispensable historian-blogger of our time.

She wrote:

The sudden collapse of the Assad regime in Syria yesterday took oxygen away from the airing of President-elect Trump’s interview with Kristen Welker of NBC’S Meet the Press. The interview told us little that we didn’t already know, but it did reinforce what we can expect in the new administration.

As Tom Nichols pointed out after the interview, when Donald Trump ran for the presidency this year, he “wasn’t running to do anything. He was running to stay out of jail. The rest he doesn’t care about.”

Nichols was reacting to the exchange that began when Welker asked the president-elect: “Do you have an actual plan at this point for health care?” Trump answered: “Yes. We have concepts of a plan that would be better.” “Still just concepts? Do you have a fully developed plan?” Welker asked.

The answer, nine years after Trump first said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something cheaper and better, is still no. He went on to add, “I am the one that saved Obamacare,” although he spent his first term trying to weaken it.

Trump also reiterated his plans for revenge against those he perceives to be his enemies. He told Welker that when he is president, the Department of Justice should pursue and jail the members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, more commonly known as the January 6th Committee. He singled out committee leaders Representative Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY).

But it was in his insistence on one specific lie that Trump was most revealing. He told Welker that there were “13,099 murderers released into our country over the last three years. They’re walking down the streets. They’re walking next to you and your family, and they’re very dangerous.”

This statement sets Trump up to be a strongman who will save America from great danger, but it is a lie that has been repeatedly debunked. It originated in a September 2024 letter from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to Representative Tony Gonzales (R-TX) listing 13,099 people convicted of homicide as being “non-detained.”

As Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato blog explains, “non-detained” does not mean free to roam the streets; it simply means that those in prison for homicide are not currently detained by ICE. Once they have served their sentences, they go back onto ICE’s docket to be deported unless their countries of origin don’t have repatriation agreements with the U.S., a condition that affects a very small number of people. Releases of criminal migrants into the U.S. dropped during the Biden administration from the numbers released during Trump’s term. In addition, as Nowrasteh points out, the 13,099 figure covers at least 40 years.

Welker tried to correct Trump: “The thirteen thousand figure I think goes back around 40 years,” she said. “No, it doesn’t,” Trump insisted. “It’s within the three-year period. It’s during the Biden term.”

Trump was intent on making Welker and the television audience accept an egregious lie, despite the fact it has been thoroughly debunked. His insistence echoed his determination in January 2017 to make the American people accept his lie that his inauguration crowd was bigger than that of his predecessor, Barack Obama, although we could see with our own eyes that he was lying. He was demanding we reject our own experience and instead let him define how we see the country.

Trump built on a history of narrative shaping that ran through the Republican Party. In 2004 a senior advisor to President George W. Bush famously told journalist Ron Suskind that people like Suskind lived in “the reality-based community,” believing that people could find solutions to problems based on their real-world observations. But such a worldview was obsolete, the aide said. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore.… We are an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality…. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

America’s right wing has been able to shape reality in large part because of the 1996 advent of the Fox News Channel (FNC), the brainchild of Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Shows on the FNC used clear, simple messaging with colorful graphics that told a story of an America overwhelmingly made up of white, rural folks who hated taxes and an intrusive government, and would do fine if they could just get the socialist Democrats to leave them alone. To spread the new channel, Murdoch initially offered ten dollars per subscriber to each cable company that carried it.

That right-wing echo chamber has expanded until it is now so strong that nearly 70% of Republicans falsely believe Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 presidential election, despite the fact that the FNC had to pay more than $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems for defamation after it lied to viewers about that election.

Trump has built on that Republican narrative to create a fantasy world that is badly out of step with reality. It is not easy to see how he will reconcile his vision with real-world events.

He and his supporters might try simply to tell voters that they have done what they promised, and hope that story sells.

When Trump threatened to put a 25% tariff on goods from Mexico until Mexico stopped undocumented migrants from crossing the border, Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum told Trump that “encounters at the Mexico–United States border have decreased by 75 percent between December 2023 and November 2024.” Trump then simply told reporters that Sheinbaum had “agreed to stop Migration through Mexico, and into the United States, effectively closing our Southern Border,” and his supporters trumpeted on social media that Trump had closed the border with one phone call.

But convincing people of an alternative reality might be harder with issues closer to home.

Trump has vowed to place a tariff wall around the U.S., for example, at the same time he has promised to bring down the price of consumer goods. “Economists of all stripes say that ultimately, consumers pay the price of tariffs,” Welker told him on Sunday. “I don’t believe that,” Trump answered. He might not believe it, but producers do: car manufacturers as well as major shopping chains have warned that tariffs will force them to raise prices.

On other issues, Trump will have a vocal and established opposition. After his threat to go after the members of the January 6th committee, former representative Liz Cheney said in a statement: “There is no conceivably appropriate factual or constitutional basis for what Donald Trump is suggesting.“

“Here is the truth: Donald Trump attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election and seize power. He mobilized an angry mob and sent them to the United States Capitol, where they attacked police officers, invaded the building, and halted the official counting of electoral votes. Trump watched on television as police officers were brutally beaten and the Capitol was assaulted, refusing for hours to tell the mob to leave. This was the worst breach of our Constitution by any president in our nation’s history.”

Cheney called for the release of the evidence and grand jury material special counsel Jack Smith assembled “so all Americans can see Donald Trump for who he genuinely is and fully understand his role in this terrible period in our nation’s history.”

Nobel laureates generally try to stay out of politics, but today more than 75 of them in medicine, chemistry, economics, and physics wrote a letter to senators urging them not to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick for secretary of Health and Human Services. They object to Kennedy’s stand against the scientists and agencies he would oversee. They noted that he has no credentials or relevant experience and that he has opposed life-saving vaccines, promoted conspiracy theories, and attacked the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Putting him in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, they write, “would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in the health sciences, in both the public and commercial sectors.”