Archives for category: Science
« Older Entries

The Trump Administration Is Destroying America’s Leadership in Scientific Research

By dianeravitch
November 6, 2026 //
5

The Trump administration’s war on science is no secret. The actions taken to fire scientists, to cut back research funding to universities, the blatant efforts to censor and politicize research have been out in the open since the second disastrous Trump term began.

Why Trump and the top echelon of his team have done this is a secret. One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. has been its leadership in science and medicine. The Trump regime has squandered that leadership. Why? Is it malice? Stupidity? I can’t figure it out.

Of one thing, there is no doubt: Trump and his cronies are seeking to destroy America’s leadership in science and medicine.

A team of six reporters from The New York Times documented the damage done. What they cannot explain is why.

This is a gift article, meaning you don’t need a subscription to read it. Open the link to see photographs and graphs.

The story begins:

The warning, buried in an obscure government report this summer, was unflinching.

The Defense Department’s vaunted network of research laboratories — whose scientists helped develop satellite communication, radar technology, and even the computer mouse — was in trouble.

The labs lost a significant share of their staff last year, largely in response to the Trump administration’s efforts to thin the federal work force, the report found. Refilling critical positions was proving difficult due in part to President Trump’s demand that new hires be screened for their loyalty to his goals. The report, issued by the Pentagon, pointed to “potentially grave consequences for the future of national defense.”

The turmoil inside scientific research has extended beyond the Pentagon. The Energy Department, a key hub of nuclear and quantum research, has lost more than 1,000 scientists and technical staff. The National Science Foundation, for decades a primary backer of long-term, foundational research, has withheld more than $1 billion in funding. And at the National Institutes of Health, the biggest funder of medical research, officials delayed or canceled more than 2,000 grants to biomedical researchers focused on topics such as Alzheimer’s, cancer and other diseases.

Under Mr. Trump, the federal government is still spending roughly as much on research — about $200 billion this year — as the administrations that came before. Scientists across the country are still receiving grants; universities are still being funded. But beneath the surface, the system of federally funded science that helped make the United States a global superpower is under intense strain from Trump policies, jeopardizing the nation’s advantages in defense, medicine and technology, a New York Times examination has found.

The White House regularly proclaims that it is advancing American interests. Yet its actions are eroding the country’s scientific edge as global rivals challenge U.S. dominance in fields that will help define the 21st century, according to interviews with scientists, university leaders, government officials and analysts and a review of documents and budgets.

The damage is the byproduct of three pillars of Mr. Trump’s broader agenda.

One is the sweeping job cuts and grant cancellations engineered last year by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk-led effort that viewed much of federal spending as wasteful and whose effects are still reverberating across the bureaucracy.

A second is the administration’s continued pressure on research universities, in which the White House used funding cuts to push schools into adhering to its demands for ideologically driven policy shifts.

The third is a campaign by Mr. Trump’s budget director, Russell T. Vought, to impose more political control over how the government spends money appropriated by Congress, further infusing politics into decisions around scientific research.

If not for the courts curbing the administration’s campaign against universities and lawmakers in both parties rejecting cuts to research funding, the impact on science would have been far deeper. Still, the effects of the broader agenda have rippled through nearly every facet of the nation’s research machine.

Aspiring scientists have seen their career paths thwarted, with fewer available spots for Ph.D. students. The number of Ph.D. applications from foreign students, typically a significant share of U.S. science programs, shrank by 21 percent this year at leading universities, according to data gathered for the Association of American Universities. Total Ph.D. admissions at those schools have dropped as universities try to make do with less resources.

Even the agencies working on topics that Mr. Trump and his aides have called priorities — including national defense, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and nuclear energy — have been depleted.

Taken together, the changes underscore how Mr. Trump’s policies have disrupted scientific research beyond the areas the administration has targeted more directly, such as vaccines and climate science, endangering U.S. power and pre-eminence.

By many measures, China is closing the gap with the United States as the world’s research leader. Some organizations that rank global universities show China’s best schools increasingly displacing American universities at the top. And the impact of Chinese research papers, as measured by citations from other scientists, has caught up with the United States, according to Clarivate, a data and analytics company.

By the time the full consequences of the administration’s actions become apparent, experts warn, it could be too late to fix. That’s because basic research funded by federal grants often takes decades to mature into the technology, medical treatments and consumer products that change American life.

Federally funded work on atomic clocks starting in the late 1940s, for example, paved the way for GPS technology. In 1976, federally funded research yielded a major discovery about the origins of cancer-causing genes, which led to a Nobel Prize and, two decades later, lifesaving cancer drugs. Some of the early precursors to artificial intelligence date to U.S.-backed research in the 1980s, which used an algorithm to teach neural networks to learn from mistakes.

“Science is the long game,” said Marcia McNutt, who was president of the National Academy of Sciences, the country’s top scientific advisory body, until this summer. “By the time we no longer win any Nobel Prizes, we will have lost the capacity to ever recover.”

In response to The Times’ reporting, officials from the White House, Pentagon and other science agencies disputed that administration policies were hampering science. Rather, said White House spokeswoman Liz Huston, the administration is reinvigorating American science by transforming organizations in need of change.

“President Trump is ushering in a new golden age of American science by modernizing our research institutions, refocusing on ambitious national missions, and fully leveraging super intelligence for scientific discovery,” Ms. Huston said in a statement, using Mr. Trump’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. “Revitalizing our national scientific enterprise requires supporting the best American scientists and funding the best research based on merit.”

The White House said the administration has expanded a number of programs that support young researchers, and noted that the decision to reduce Ph.D. admissions this year was made by the universities themselves. The Association of American Universities said schools’ decisions to reduce admissions were largely the result of “federal research funding uncertainties.”

The White House also said that most of the scientists who have stopped working for the federal government since Mr. Trump came back to office were not fired, but instead left voluntarily. And it noted that the methodologies for ranking universities, such as comparisons between the United States and China, are limited.

The rest of the world now sees an opportunity.

Australia, for example, announced its “global talent attraction program,” calling it “an urgent and unparalleled opportunity to attract the smartest minds leaving the United States.” Canada dedicated more than $1 billion to bring in 1,000 international researchers, drawing American leaders in fields such as biochemistry and neuroscience.

Even China, a country not known for academic freedoms, has been luring researchers away. A winner of last year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry left the University of California, Berkeley, to lead an institute in Beijing using artificial intelligence to accelerate the discovery of new materials — two fields the Trump administration has said it wants to dominate.

The roots of the United States’ science empire can be traced to a landmark 1945 report issued during the Truman administration, “Science: The Endless Frontier.” It described a vision, inspired in part by the Manhattan Project that led to the atomic bomb, for how science would power U.S. dominance in the world.

The federal government went on to establish a network of science agencies with distinct missions. The National Science Foundation supports theoretical or experimental work, which often lays the groundwork for future technologies years or even decades later. The Department of Energy was established to pursue advances related to power generation, as well as managing the nation’s nuclear arsenal. NASA, created in response to Soviet advances in space, put a man on the moon. The National Institutes of Health, which traces its roots to 1887, funds biomedical advances.

The federal government also provides tens of billions of dollars each year to the nation’s research universities while funding national labs, private industry and other institutions — a system built up over 80 years by presidents and lawmakers from both parties.

In less than two years, Mr. Trump has shaken that system to the core.

The upheaval began early in the administration.

DOGE engineered staff firings, and encouraged others to resign across the federal bureaucracy. Within a year, N.I.H. staffing had shrunk by one-fifth. The N.S.F.’s ranks were reduced by a third. Even NASA, which shrank less than other science agencies, lost 20 percent of its employees with Ph.D.s. Those who left included its chief scientist, a climate science expert whose job the administration eliminated.

NASA said it will keep recruiting staff as needed. In a statement, Nicky Fox, the associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, said the agency is working to get “more science into space for lower cost.”

DOGE and the White House directed agencies to search for terms in grant descriptions that might reveal science the administration viewed as liberal, including anything that appeared to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

The cuts cascaded through the country.

Ann D. Cohen, a neuroscientist who co-directs an Alzheimer’s research center at the University of Pittsburgh, had been working on a five-year study looking at how people’s exposure to stress and health problems earlier in life can affect their odds of developing the disease.

The research was critical to developing better treatments and health interventions, Dr. Cohen said. “If the triggering event is poor cardiovascular health in midlife, we can actually deploy public health strategies to improve those things, and potentially have an effect on Alzheimer’s,” she said.

Recruiting people from different backgrounds was difficult, because people who volunteer for scientific studies tend to have higher than average incomes and education levels. So Dr. Cohen and her colleagues recruited from rural Western Pennsylvania, whose residents were more likely to be white and low-income, as well as from Black communities in Pittsburgh.

This past August, the N.I.H. terminated the grant, effective immediately, on the grounds that the project was focused on structural racism — an argument that fundamentally misunderstood the work, Dr. Cohen said.

Emily Hilliard, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the N.I.H., did not comment on specific grants. In a statement, she said N.I.H.’s commitment to Alzheimer’s research has not decreased.

“N.I.H. is focused on funding innovative projects led by a new generation of health researchers, and on allocating funds for research that will lead to better health for the American people,” Ms. Hilliard said.

Some researchers who lost funding acknowledged having framed their projects in the language of D.E.I. But, they argued, that was what the Biden administration had emphasized.

Jessica L. Rosenberg, director of education for the Quantum Science and Engineering Center at George Mason University, had received N.S.F. funding to research ways to encourage more American students to seek careers in quantum technology, an emerging field that has led to innovation by vastly expanding computing power.

The N.S.F. canceled the grant last year, about four months after the project started. Dr. Rosenberg said she suspects the grant was targeted because her application mentioned students from diverse backgrounds.

“That was what we were supposed to be doing at the time,” she said in an interview.

Trump administration officials argue that the push to incorporate D.E.I. degraded science, and that scientists who embraced the approach had themselves to blame for losing support.

“We cannot afford for America’s scientists to be in the business of scoring points for an ideological agenda,” Michael Kratsios, Mr. Trump’s science adviser, told a meeting of scientists last year.

Mr. Trump and his aides returned to the White House wanting to punish elite schools like Columbia and Harvard, ostensibly for transgressions like tolerating antisemitism.

But when cuts to research funding became the White House’s weapon of choice, professors and administrators had to decide whether to fight or acquiesce.

Harvard sued. Other schools negotiated. And even at universities that were not explicitly targeted, researchers made changes in hopes of keeping federal money that was foundational to their work — softening the language in their proposals, narrowing their projects and debating the line between fair-game government oversight and improper political interference.

The cuts fell across disciplines. Projects on epilepsy, Lou Gehrig’s disease, tuberculosis and even astronomy outreach and education sputtered. Work on cancer and heart rhythms was imperiled.

The administration ultimately restored billions of dollars in funding, either because of court orders or settlements with universities. But researchers said the interruptions and changing priorities delayed or derailed experiments.

“You can’t run a research operation when you have to constantly pivot,” said Dorota Grejner-Brzezinska, vice chancellor for research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which was swept up in the administration’s funding cuts and participated in more than a dozen legal challenges.

“The current state of affairs is that it’s really very hard to plan long term,” she added, “and research is a long-term kind of enterprise.”

May Mailman, a former White House aide who helped lead the pressure campaign against universities, said the administration wasn’t overly concerned about the effects on research. Funds taken away from one university could eventually make their way to other schools whose behavior and ideology the White House approved of, she said. In the meantime, Ms. Mailman said, the administration tried to minimize the disruption to fields of research it supported, including artificial intelligence and some types of energy.

But much of the work coming out of universities, she said, may not have merited the taxpayer money going into it.

“There’s a feeling that there is more spent on research than comes out of it — that the system is a little bit broken,” Ms. Mailman said.

The administration also sought deep funding cuts to federal science agencies. Last year, when Mr. Vought presented the administration’s annual budget request to Congress, he called for reducing research funds at the National Institutes of Health by 41 percent; cutting the National Science Foundation by 55 percent; and reducing NASA’s budget for science by almost half. No previous administration, from either party, had sought such deep cuts.

Congress rejected those cuts. But Mr. Vought began finding novel ways to slow grants and redirect funds.

One of the offices that Mr. Vought targeted in his budget request was the N.S.F.’s “woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences” — an apparent reference to an N.S.F. division that funded social science. Not long after, the division began reducing its grants. 

An N.S.F. spokesman, Michael England, said in a statement that the agency’s funding decisions “reflect a strategic alignment of resources in a constrained fiscal environment.”

The loss of those funds affected researchers like Priti Shah, chair of the University of Michigan’s psychology department. Dr. Shah had applied for a grant to study how people evaluate and make decisions based on scientific information. In the summer of 2025, the N.S.F. told her that her application had been put on hold because of funding issues. It was later rejected entirely.

“It is so important to understand what people assume and what errors they make when they’re thinking about science,” Dr. Shah said. “People are very poor at reasoning about scientific evidence.”

The administration’s actions also hurt agencies central to its political agenda.

The Defense Department’s assessment of science and research capabilities published this summer said changes during the first year of the Trump administration had degraded the department’s highly regarded network of research laboratories, due largely to DOGE cuts and obstacles to hiring.

“Without a swift and sustained reversal of these policies,” the report warned, the Defense Department’s “innovation engine is at risk of stalling.”

The labs lost about 14 percent of their staff, the report found. Among those mentioned were the Naval Sea Systems Command, charged with developing ships and weapons; the Air Force Research Laboratory, which helped develop stealth aircraft and laser systems; and the Army’s Aviation & Missile Center.

External research laboratories, which are funded by the Pentagon but staffed by civilian researchers and develop technology for use by the military, were also suffering from the administration’s policies, the report said.

To finish reading this important article, open the link.

Categories Disruption, Elections, Evil, Extremism, Funding, Health, Medicine, Research, Scandal, Science, Trump

Florida Wants to Be First State to Repeal All Vaccine Mandates

By dianeravitch
October 9, 2026 //
2

Florida is one crazy state. Its state leaders interfere in every aspect of people’s lives. Under the leadership of Governor Ron DeSantis, it passed a rigid abortion ban, denying every woman in the state the right to control her body and her life choices.

DeSantis has led a campaign to destroy the state’s public schools, so the state now spends billions yearly to subsidize charter schools, unaccountable voucher schools, and home schooling. Most of the voucher schools are religious schools with uncertified teachers.

As his Surgeon General, DeSantis chose a doctor with extremist views against vaccines. Parents can still get their children vaccinated, but they will be in school with unvaccinated children.

Dr. Joseph Ladapo’s goal is to eliminate all vaccine requirements.

CBS News reported:

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Department of Health is moving forward with its push to remove the requirement for four vaccines for children entering schools, but has dropped its attempt to expand exemptions for the immunization requirements.

In August, the DOH struck the words “sincerely held moral or ethical belief” from a proposed rule change that would have allowed parents to opt not to get their children vaccinated for various diseases, which are normally required to attend K-12 public schools. The exemptions currently in place must be based on religious tenets and practices.

Meanwhile, the DOH also announced a public meeting next Thursday in Lake Mary to discuss repealing the requirement of four vaccines from entry requirements for PreK-12 public and private schools.

Immunizations for Hepatitis B, varicella (chicken pox), Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate would no longer be required to attend Florida schools under the proposal. The move has been in play for over a year after Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced his intent to get rid of all vaccine mandates in the state.

The immunization requirements considered for repeal by DOH are an agency rule, not in state law, and can be repealed by the agency itself.
The Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement they “remain concerned,” about the state’s move to weaken the state’s vaccination mandates.

“Florida’s pediatricians will continue to make their voices heard in opposition to this proposed rule that would undermine the health of Florida’s children and communities,” the statement reads. “When school vaccine protections are eliminated, immunization rates decrease, leaving more people, including those too young or medically unable to be vaccinated themselves, vulnerable to contracting these dangerous illnesses.”

In a comment submitted by FCAAP in opposition to the proposed rule, the advocacy group estimated the repeal of vaccination requirements in Florida would result in a reduction of the state’s GDP by $74 million in the first year and nearly $9 billion over a decade.

Attempts to repeal all vaccine mandates in the state began over a year ago when Gov. Ron DeSantis and Ladapo called on the Legislature to change state law. Legislative action is needed to remove the requirements for the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, polio, diphtheria, rubeola and tetanus vaccines.

But even though the move to repeal all vaccine mandates was supported by DeSantis, First Lady Casey DeSantis and then-Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas, no legislator filed a bill in any of the multiple legislative sessions in 2026.

Multiple attempts at a “Medical Freedom” bill that would have expanded vaccine exemptions and mandated doctors to provide an alternate vaccine schedule passed the state Senate but failed to pass the state House.

Categories DeSantis, Ethics, Extremism, Florida, Health, Medicine, Science

Florida Parents and Teachers Aghast at Downplaying of Climate Change and Evolution in K-12 Science Standards

By dianeravitch
October 5, 2026 //
13

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis doesn’t want the state’s children to learn modern science. The Orlamdo Sentinel reported that parents and teachers were “gobsmacked” by the state’s new science standards. In one of the states most threatened by environmental degradation, the state has deleted the study of evolution and diminished the study of climate change.

Stephen Walker reported:

Florida’s new plan for teaching science in public schools lacks depth, skirts around the important topics of climate change and evolution and would be a “disservice” to the state’s students, dozens of parents and teachers told the Florida Department of Education late Wednesday.

Nearly 300 people attended a virtual education department forum, with nearly all 29 speakers criticizing the state’s proposed new science standards, which are benchmarks for what should be taught in science lessons in kindergarten through 12th grade. Experts who’ve reviewed them have shared similar views, calling them a step backwards

The state released its proposed standards on Sept. 25 and is now taking public comment on them, both on its website and in several meetings.

Robin Williams, a retired biology and environmental science teacher, called them a “disservice” to Florida students because they don’t fully tackle evolution.

The state’s current standards, adopted in 2008, call evolution one of science’s “big ideas” and insist it must be taught.

That makes sense and should not change, Williams said.

“Evolution is a fundamental underlying process unifying all of biology. To leave it out is ideology posing as biology,” she said.

The proposed standards barely mention evolution — a scientific theory explaining change in living species over time from natural selection that has been a cornerstone of biology for more than a century. The term “evolution,” in fact, is never defined in the new high school life sciences standards, though the concepts are sprinkled across several units.

The new standards would replace the current set, adopted after a months-long, statewide fight over the inclusion of evolution as a required subject of study. Those who opposed the 2008 standards argued creationism, or the biblical story that God created all living things, should be taught alongside evolution.

Education Commissioner Henry Mack seemed to some to re-ignite that fight with a statement released with the new standards that included a reference to “the book of creation.”

But Thursday morning he took to social media to insist he was not “smuggling a Sunday-school lesson into Biology,” adding in his post on X that, “I am not advocating religious influence in the standards. I am opposing the opposite error: treating nature as a prop for adult ideology, or treating wonder as something to be talked out of children by leftist zealots.”

His original statement said, “The classical tradition taught that nature is intelligible because it is ordered—that the book of creation can be read by reason. Florida’s new science standards will form students who observe carefully, reason rigorously, and treat the natural world as something given to be known, not invented.”

During Wednesday’s forum, one parent asked for clarification on what Mack meant by that. But state education department employees facilitating the meeting did not respond to that or other questions from speakers, instead thanking attendees and encouraging them to submit their concerns in writing.

Chris Vercelli, a parent in Sarasota County who regularly attends government meetings to preach Christianity, suggested at Wednesday’s meeting that he read the commissioner’s statement as an endorsement of his views and said he was in “full support” of the new standards.

It was “refreshing” to hear the state was “entertaining the idea of teaching creation and intelligent design in schools,” he said, referring to the argument that an “intelligent cause” better explains living things than evolution by natural selection.

“The way that evolution is taught really is like a bait and switch … that means that everything originated from primordial soup, and there is no God. That’s just ridiculous. That is like total non-science,” Vercelli said.

The proposed standards also give little attention to human-made climate change and do not use that term, instead referring to “anthropogenic activities” that affect “Earth’s systems.”

Brad Dupke, an Earth science teacher and geologist in Hillsborough County, asked how the state expects him to teach a required unit on fossils without teaching evolution and climate change.

“We need to call a spade a spade instead of trying to dance around what it is. I can’t teach geologic history of the Earth without being able to say how the climate changed,” he said.

In addition to complaints about the state’s proposed handling of evolution and climate change, several speakers said the standards were too numerous and lacked rigor and others criticized the way the state posted its proposal for public review. Instead of a single document, the department initially posted each standard on a separate page, requiring clicking through hundreds of pages to view all the standards.

I have s hunch that students in Florida don’t learn about the Scopes trials read the fictionalized version Inherit the Wind.

Tags
Categories Accountability, Censorship, Curriculum, DeSantis, Environment, Ethics, Florida, Science

New Study: RFK Jr. Is Wrong. No Connection Between Circumcision and Autism

By dianeravitch
August 31, 2026 //
9

RFK Jr. has said that there is a link between circumcision and autism but a new study says he is wrong.

Medpage reported:

A study of U.S. children found no evidence linking neonatal male circumcision with autism spectrum disorder, prospective data from the ECHO cohort showed.

Among nearly 2,800 boys in 14 ECHO sites, 6% of those who were circumcised had autism compared with 9% of uncircumcised males, according to Monica McGrath, ScD, MHS, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, and co-authors.

After adjusting for confounders, circumcision was not associated with an autism diagnosis (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.17), McGrath and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatricsopens in a new tab or window.

Stratifying data by region, preterm birth, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission yielded either an inverse or no association. Circumcision also was not associated with autism-related traits or behaviors.

Only 4% of circumcised boys received acetaminophen (Tylenol) during the procedure and 7% had acetaminophen in the 30 days after birth, the researchers said. Most infants received nerve blocks (72%), oral glucose/sucrose (59%), or anesthetic cream (12%).

“These findings may provide reassurance for families who are considering or have elected circumcision for their son,” McGrath told MedPage Today.

In September 2025, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimedopens in a new tab or window that circumcised boys were twice as likely to develop autism as those not circumcised because they were given acetaminophen. The remarks came weeks after the White House warned pregnant women not to take acetaminophen over an unproven link with autism.

“We started hearing from friends, family, and colleagues in the fall of 2025 after media coverage of administration comments about a possible male circumcision-autism connection that referenced studies that were published over a decade ago,” McGrath said. “We knew the ECHO cohort had relevant data to help investigate this question.”

About half of newborn males in the U.S.are circumcised in the hospital within 28 days, but analyses of autism risk in circumcised boys are scarce. “There have been two poorly conducted studies that suggest a connection between circumcision and autism,” observed David Mandell, ScD, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved with the research.

Categories Health, Medicine, Science

Dr. Paul Offit On the Absurdity of Trump’s Vaccine Recommendations

By dianeravitch
August 27, 2026 //
1

Dr. Paul Offit is a pediatrician and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. In this interview, published by Medpages, he explains why Trump’s vaccine recommendations are crazy.

Offit: What Donald Trump said made about as much sense as when he said we all should drink bleach and expose ourselves to UV light to treat COVID. Maybe he’s not the guy to go to, to get the best medical information.

Trump: Effective immediately, my administration’s recognizing gold-standard childhood vaccine recommendations for only 11 core vaccinations against the most serious and dangerous diseases, along with the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella], which hopefully will be split up. You have the MMR, we want it in three separate vaccinations given at separate times. Together there could be a possibility they’re quite lethal and separately it looks like they are not at all lethal, but just very effective. So the MMR, we want to have separate — separate visits, separate times. The vaccine being broken into three separate single doses and vaccines being administered in separate visits.

Offit: So, here’s where this all comes from. In 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a British researcher, published a paper in the journal The Lancet of eight children who had received the combination measles, mumps, rubella vaccine, and then within a month supposedly developed signs and symptoms of autism. Now, that paper was ultimately retracted.

Nonetheless, the day after he published that paper, Andrew Wakefield held a press conference and he said, “I think this vaccine should be separated into its three component parts to lessen the risk of autism.” And so when I was on the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices between 1998 and 2003, we were asked to vote on whether or not this vaccine should be separated into its three component parts, which made no sense. I mean, if the vaccine doesn’t cause autism, then separating it into its three component parts won’t make it less likely to cause autism. We were forced to basically have that vote and we all unanimously voted no.

So, the first measles vaccine came into existence in the United States in 1963, the last best measles vaccine in ’68. The mumps vaccine came into existence in 1967, the first rubella vaccine in 1969. Those three vaccines were combined in 1971 and have been used safely for the last 50 years. We have an enormous amount of information showing that those single vaccines when given singly are no safer and no less effective than when you give the vaccine as a combination.

So the combination vaccine is safe, it’s effective, and it means children get two shots instead of six. This is an administration that constantly talks about giving fewer shots and then makes a recommendation to give more shots.

Trump: And I saw this early on and I’ve seen proof of it where they have a vaccination that looks like the size of a bottle of soda poured into a little child’s body.

Offit: Would love to see the proof that President Trump has of a bottle of soda being poured into a little child’s body. The standard dose of vaccine for children is 0.5 mL. That’s roughly a 10th of a teaspoon. If you look at a multi-dose vial, which would contain say 10 doses, that would be one teaspoon of fluid. A soda bottle contains about 2,000 mL, or said another way, it contains 4,000 doses of vaccine. What is he talking about?

I think the most amazing aspect of that particular press conference is that the media who was standing there listening to him didn’t all burst out laughing. It’s just a ridiculous thing to say. And if he says he has proof of it, great. Let’s see that proof.

Trump: Very importantly, vaccinations to hepatitis B, COVID-19, and influenza, among others, are no longer recommended for all children.

Offit: So, in January, beginning of January of 2026, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. put out a schedule, which was a made-up schedule that was ultimately defeated by a federal court action in March of 2026. But in that schedule, RFK Jr. said that there were three vaccines that basically are optional, shared clinical decision-making. You could choose to get them or not choose to get them reasonably. And those were the influenza vaccine, the SARS-CoV-2 or COVID vaccine, and the rotavirus vaccine.

Now there was another category, the so-called high-risk vaccine category, which President Trump alluded to there, which included the hepatitis A vaccine, the hepatitis B vaccine, RSV, the respiratory syncytial virus, as a monoclonal antibody, and the meningococcal vaccines. Well, everyone is susceptible. I mean, there are arguably some high-risk groups, but everyone is susceptible to those diseases. That’s why everyone is routinely recommended to receive them.

A choice not to get those diseases is a choice to put your child at risk. That’s why they’re routinely recommended. I mean, who’s at high risk for hepatitis A? Anybody who ever eats at a restaurant. The notion that there’s a high-risk group is just absurd. In 1991, we, the United States, recommended a universal hepatitis B vaccine for every child born in this country. At the time in 1991, there were roughly 16,000 cases of hepatitis B in children less than 10 years of age.

This is an AIDS virus. This is a virus that can be transmitted relatively casually because it’s a virus that lives on surfaces for up to 7 days. So sharing towels, sharing washcloths, sharing toothbrushes, sharing razor blades, can put a child at risk of hepatitis B. Those other 8,000 children less than 10 who got hepatitis B from places other than their mother weren’t getting it because they were intravenous drug users. They weren’t getting it because they were sex workers. They were getting it because chronic hepatitis B infections are common in this country and it’s easy to come in contact with someone who could infect you.

Now, if you’re infected in the first year of life, if you’re infected while traveling through the birth canal of a mother who is infected, then you have a 90% chance of going on to develop cirrhosis or liver cancer.

So we dramatically decreased the incidence of hepatitis B in children less than 10, virtually eliminating it because of that recommendation more than 30 years ago. Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. want to loosen the reins there to once again let hepatitis B back into a situation where it can cause cirrhosis, meaning chronic liver disease or liver cancers. It’s an incredibly unconscionable thing to do.

Trump: Decades ago, children received only a small fraction of the vaccines required today in those times. People were much healthy and of course the high rates of autism now observed did not exist.

Offit: So, those were not the glory times. I’m not sure what he’s talking about when he’s saying that the incidence of autism has increased because of an increase in vaccines when that’s not true. The reason that the diagnosis of autism has increased is, most importantly, we’ve changed the definition. It’s now autism spectrum disorder, which includes a much wider spectrum of children. Two, we have better diagnostic tests.

It’s at least 80% genetic. Not all of it is heritable genetics. There are de novo or spontaneous mutations. There are factors associated with maternal health, with maternal infections during pregnancy, with maternal drugs taken during pregnancy that increase the risk of autism. But you don’t hear about any of that because people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump have taken the autism story hostage to support their own false beliefs — false, immutable, science-resistant beliefs — that vaccines are the cause.

That is the single best studied environmental influence on autism and it’s not it. So why are we still spending money on this fruitless dead-end hypothesis? We could be spending money on far more promising leads. By doing what RFK Jr. and President Trump are doing, by taking autism hostage for their own anti-vaccine efforts, all they’re doing is hurting children with autism.

After the executive order came out, the sun came up the next day. Parents took their children to the pediatrician’s office. Pediatricians gave them their vaccines according to a schedule, the recommended childhood schedule that is science-based. And the sun came up the next day and the next day after that. I think that this will largely be ignored. I think that state health departments and governors in states are largely going to ignore this. And we can then move past this in much the same way we move past President Trump’s recommendation to drink bleach to try and treat your COVID.

Check out this related video: RFK Jr. Falsely Claims Measles Vax Causes Deaths ‘Every Year’

The interview was conducted by:

Gregory Laub is the Senior Director of Video and currently leads the video and podcast production teams.

Gillian Booth is a Senior Social Media Manager for MedPage Today. She is based in Philadelphia.

Categories Childhood, Health, Medicine, Safety, Science, Trump

Michael Hiltzik: Trump’s New Vaccine Schedule Endangers the Lives of US Children

By dianeravitch
August 14, 2026 //
10

Let’s begin by stating a simple fact: Donald Trump is not a doctor. As a matter of fact, he has no credentials as a scientist or a researcher. Neither does Robert F. Kennedy Jr,, who is Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. RFK Jr. is in charge of the nation’s enormous public health agency; states and localities look to HHS for guidance to protect people against risks to their well-being.

It’s hard to imagine a worse choice for Secretary of HHS. For years, he has been a critic of vaccines; he believes that there is a link between vaccines and autism, but mainstream scientists don’t agree with him.

During the pandemic, the number of parents who were resistant to vaccines increased, and they look to RFK Jr. as their leader.

Measles is surging. As of August 2026, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has confirmed 2,465 measles cases across the United States for the year 2026, already surpassing the 2,289 total cases reported for the entirety of 2025. 93% of those who got measles were unvaccinated.

Children will get sick. Some may die because of the bad advice these unqualified men give.

Michael Hiltzik of The Los Angeles Times writes:

The tsunami of fabricated claims in the order and voiced by Trump and others at the Oval Office announcement Monday is almost overwhelming.

If there’s a saving grace in this episode, it’s that most states and the vast majority of parents are likely to ignore Trump’s order. But the order will leave its mark by magnifying the confusion many parents already face in making decisions about their children’s immunizations. That’s a public health threat all on its own.

Here’s a look at Monday’s order, which claims to “deliver gold standard childhood vaccine recommendations.”

El secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., comparece ante la Comisión de Finanzas del Senado, en el Capitolio, en Washington, el jueves 4 de septiembre de 2025. (AP Foto/Mark Schiefelbein)

First, the order pares the list of recommended immunizations to 11 diseases from 17. Six immunizations — for hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, meningococcal disease, flu and COVID-19 — are knocked down from “recommended” to “shared clinical decision-making.” That’s code for expanding the opportunity for parents to refuse the shots for their children.

Trump calls for supplanting the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine by individual vaccines for each disease, administered at separate physician visits. 

He calls on the Department of Justice to pursue cases against states and localities whose immunization rules contradict “parental authority, religious freedom, disability accommodations, and equal protection under the law, including their obligations to provide religious and medical exemptions from childhood and adolescent immunization requirements.” 

He revived the canard about vaccines contributing to a rise in autism, despite the connection having been thoroughly refuted by years of clinical research. 

Trump also called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, under whose imprimatur federal vaccine recommendations are issued, to revise its recommendations to match those of other “peer, developed countries.”

That last item points to Trump’s disregard for the niceties of government procedure. In effect, he has presented his newly installed director of the CDC, Erica Schwartz, with a heaping, steaming platter of policy manure. Schwartz only won Senate confirmation on Wednesday, after a hearing in which she pledged to “never betray the science” on which CDC policies are based. This is her first test.

Schwartz hasn’t commented on the Trump order as of this writing. I asked the CDC for her view on the executive order, but received no reply.

Trump unveiled his executive order at an Oval Office ceremony at which no licensed physician was in attendance. Trump himself issued mouthfuls of balderdash during the event. “I’ve seen proof,” he said, “where they have a vaccination that looks like the size of a bottle of soda, poured into a little child’s body, and bad things happen.”

Let’s be crystal clear: There’s no such thing. To quote infectious disease expert Jake Scott of Stanford Medicine, “every vaccine given at a baby’s two-month visit adds up to about half a teaspoon. A 20-ounce soda bottle is more than 200 times that.”

At Monday’s announcement, Trump called the MMR vaccine “quite lethal.” Asked by a reporter what evidence he had for that, he replied, “What I’ve heard is that there are some people that say it is that way.”

Trump’s order cites no scientific research to justify splitting multivalent vaccines such as the MMR into individual parts, even though it’s obvious that doing so and requiring multiple doctor visits will raise the cost and time-wastage for many households and despite research showing that the bundled vaccines don’t present a health threat to children and work as expected. 

I asked the White House for the scientific grounds for splitting up the vaccine. “President Trump is one of countless parents who have voiced questions and concerns about the combined MMR vaccine,” said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. “The Administration’s push to develop separate vaccinations for all three diseases … ultimately will increase vaccination rates for all three diseases.” 

In fact, experts generally hold that splitting the shots will decrease vaccination rates for all three diseases by erecting an unnecessary obstacle to the shots. That was Japan’s experience when it split off mumps from the MMR vaccine and ended up with a higher incidence of mumps than before.

As it happens, almost nothing Trump called for is practical or possible today. Monovalent childhood vaccines aren’t available in the U.S., or in most other developed countries.

Physicians oppose a return to monovalent vaccines because that would “unnecessarily delay administration of the three vaccine components, leaving children susceptible for a longer period of time to serious, life-threatening diseases,” according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. “Use of monovalent vaccines also would increase the number of injections a child would need and increase the number of visits required to complete the vaccination series.” 

In other words, the bundled vaccines are better for children’s health.

Developing separate measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and bringing them to market could take a decade of R&D including clinical trials. Drugmakers aren’t likely to embark on the process now, knowing that a new administration will take office Jan. 20, 2029, and — assuming it hews to accepted science — likely as not will reverse these recommendations. 

Also, vaccine policy is firmly in the hands of the states. None are mandated to follow federal standards. To date, almost all states have maintained their previous mandates or otherwise decoupled their policies from the federal recommendations. According to the healthcare information site KFF, by Jan. 20 this year, 28 states and the District of Columbia — including all states with Democratic governors — had announced that they wouldn’t follow the federal government. 

In Florida, a red state, the anti-vax surgeon general Joseph Ladapo — whom I earlier labeled “the most dangerous quack in America” — has recommended ending all childhood vaccine mandates. But Florida lawmakers haven’t gone along, and the mandates are still in place.

Trump’s latest order is an attempted end run around a federal judge’s ruling in March that blocked Kennedy’s attempt to cut the vaccine schedule to 11 immunizations. Trump followed that ruling with the executive order citing peer countries May 29.

Vaccine specialists find Trump’s citing “peer nations” to be “nonsensical,” to quote Paul Offit, one of the nation’s leading vaccinologists, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. When if comes to child immunizations, Offit has observed, there are no “peers” to emulate: “Different developed world countries make different decisions based on demographics, health system capacity, vaccine access, and vaccine cost,” Offit notes. 

For example, Denmark, which Kennedy has held up as a model, doesn’t pay for the rotavirus vaccine, “which prevents a virus that causes vomiting, diarrhea, and severe dehydration,” Offit says. But it has been recommended in the U.S. since 2006, eliminating as many as 70,000 hospitalizations every year. 

“Denmark should mimic the U.S., not the other way around,” Offit says.

The bottom line is that childhood immunizations save lives. The advent of the measles vaccine reduced the incidence of that disease in the U.S. from an average of 530,000 cases per year to fewer than 50. Cases of whooping cough, polio, smallpox, rubella and diphtheria fell by 99-100% after vaccinations for each became standard.

Trump and Kennedy want to return us to those bad old days by refashioning them fictitiously as the good old days. They would expose millions of children to severe disease and death, which that could be averted by the science at hand. It’s a terrifying turn in American medical policy. In heaven’s name, why would they want to do it?

Categories Accountability, Health, Medicine, Science

Jan Resseger: The Trump Administration’s War on Children

By dianeravitch
August 13, 2026 //
1

Jan Resseger keeps a steady focus o what matters most in a decent society: the well-being of children. Trump and his minions don’t care. Not about children. Not about the rule of law. Not about democracy. Trump cares about greed and self-enrichment. He seems to care about his children. He cuts them in on the grift. His youngest son Barron is said to be worth $150 million. But he doesn’t care about yours.

The fact that he just issued guidance on childhood vaccinations, which reduces mandated vaccines and puts America’s most vulnerable at risk of serious illness and death, tells you all you need to know about this scientifically ignorant man.

Jan writes:

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan’s important new book, Regime Change, explores how the second Trump administration functions—the cast of characters, their relationships, and their operational style. A reader is also exposed, however, to the President’s and the administration’s big policy concerns—imposing tariffs, ridding the country of immigrants, ending nuclear weapons in Iran, proclaiming that everything is more affordable, and ending the public’s fixation on Jeffrey Epstein. These issues have also been widely covered broadly in the news.

Here are topics that do not appear at all in Regime Change‘s index: children, public education, CHIP, SNAP, Head Start, or Child Care.  There is not even a mention of Trump’s tuition tax credit private school vouchers launched in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” The issue of birthright citizenship is mentioned in the index only as a subhead under immigration, and in the book itself birthright citizenship is covered only in one sentence describing its proposed elimination by an early Trump executive order. In the index, there is only one page citation to the U.S. Department of Education itself, but the reference is to brief coverage of the administration’s attempt to eradicate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” at Harvard University.

The lack of regular news coverage—particularly in the local newspapers—about Trump’s damaging public education policy and the administration’s failure to protect children’s well-being and children’s rights does not, however, mean that these issues have been untouched by Trump administration policy. For those of us who do not need CHIP or SNAP, who can afford quality child care and preschool, whose children attend well-funded public schools, whose families have been citizens for generations, however, there is minimal exposure to the Trump administration’s threats to the institutions on which vulnerable families and children depend.

Just this past week the Trump administration took two steps that, if they do come to pass, will seriously impact some of our society’s most vulnerable children—poor children benefiting today from Head Start, and the children of immigrants from whom the President is once again trying to steal the protection of birthright citizenship. First Focus on Children’s President Bruce Lesley has identified what he calls the Trump administration’s “organized abandonment” of the needs and rights of our society’s most vulnerable children.

The Trump administration attempted to destroy Head Start.     At the end of last week, the Trump administration formally proposed new federal administrative guidance to deregulate the quality of Head Start programs that currently serve 700,000 children across the United States.  The destruction of Head Start had been predicted early last week but on Thursday in a notice in the Federal Register, the administration formally proposed radically diminishing 133 pages of rules that have shaped Head Start since it was established in 1965 as a centerpiece of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.  The Center on Law and Social Policy explains that the proposed new rules are being disguised by the administration with language describing “an effort to ‘streamline,’ ‘enhance,’ and ‘modernize’” the program.  Politico‘s Mackenzie Wilkes reports: “The Heritage Foundation has long called for the elimination of Head Start, but the conservative group published a report last month saying the program should be deregulated in many of the ways the proposed rule suggests while ‘officials work to end the program.’ ”

The Associated Press‘s Moria Balingit outlines the changes the new rules would prescribe: “Head Start… is currently governed by more than 100 pages of regulations… (which) require centers to have low staff-to-student ratios and a research-backed curriculum, among other things, and they ensure centers are providing wraparound services that are critical to children in poverty, including medical and dental screenings and parent coaching. The proposal would toss out nearly all of that rule book. Education Week”s Elizabeth Heubeck adds: “The new proposal would require (that) all classroom instruction be conducted in English, except for immersion programs operated on Native American tribal lands. An estimated 30-35% of children enrolled in the Head Start program are dual language learners.”  The program would also exclude many non-citizen children and children in some immigrant families.

While Congress establishes federal departments and the specific offices within the departments, the legislative branch has no power over the executive branch’s right to establish formal administrative rules and guidance.  It is possible that the rules announced in last week’s Federal Register can be challenged in court, and it is also possible, of course, that public outrage might cause the Trump administration to modify the new rules during the 60 day period when the public is invited to submit public comments before the rule becomes final. A future President, of course, could replace the Trump administration’s new rules.

President Trump signed two new executive orders to undermine birthright citizenship.     Last Thursday, The Washington Post‘s Isaac Arnsdorf, Justin Jouvenal, and David Nakamura reported: “President Donald Trump took another stab at restricting automatic citizenship for people born in the United States after the Supreme Court rejected his earlier attempt. In two executive orders signed Thursday, Trump reached for different legal maneuvers to test the limits of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. The first order said children would be ineligible if born to ‘alien enemies,’ members of foreign terrorist organizations, or foreign lobbyists. The second order said children of people who fraudulently request tourist visas for the purpose of giving birth in the U.S. would not become citizens… The new orders marked a fresh effort to… deliver on a campaign promise by expanding the categories of people who the administration argues fall outside the constitutional guarantee.”

The reporters quote legal experts who doubt that the first executive order could survive a legal challenge: “An estimated 15 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S., while only a few thousand people are foreign lobbyists registered with the Justice Department. No significant populations of U.S. residents are designated as alien enemies or foreign terrorists, making that provision largely symbolic.”

The reporters attribute the second executive order to White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, who has made stopping “birth tourism” a priority. They provide data to demonstrate that what is called “birth tourism” is relatively infrequent. “In 2024, fewer than 10,000 babies were born in the U.S. to people with foreign addresses, out of 3.6 million total live births.”

None of the legal experts the reporters quote believes that either of these executive orders would be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court or would challenge in any way what Chief Justice John Roberts declared in his June 30, 2026 decision in Trump v. Barbara: “Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

First Focus on Children’s Bruce Lesley believes that both of  last week’s executive orders are seriously misguided: “The legal question isn’t simply what the government thinks about immigration. It’s whether an innocent child can lose fundamental rights grounded in the Constitution because of something government officials allege about a parent’s conduct and intent… The latest effort to gut a fundamental constitutional operating principle since our nation’s founding has been written clearly in the Constitution since 1868, is being sold to the public with pathetic history and legal arguments the Supreme Court itself rejected 128 years ago and early this year. Every administration has the authority to enforce immigration laws. However, none has the authority to rewrite the Constitution… by redefining which babies they deem are precious and which are pushed into the shadows of our society.”

Although there has obviously been some news coverage of the week’s public policy initiatives impacting our society’s children, the well-being of our children is neither the top policy concern for officials in the Trump administration nor the top story for the reporters who track the administration’s agenda. Because the needs of children are definitely not the primary lens through which the Trump administration views and conceptualizes our society’s important needs, it is especially important to watch for news about children’s welfare, their rights, and the enormous institution of public schools that serves the mass of our children

Categories Accountability, Childhood, Pre-K, K, Education Industry, Environment, Ethics, Evil, For-Profit, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Funding, Health, Science, Trump

Florida Threatens to Defund Catholic Schools Unless They Allow Students to Opt Out of Vaccines

By dianeravitch
August 4, 2026 //
11

Florida has become a very weird state. There’s hardly a conspiracy theory that Governor Ron DeSantis is not championing, especially when the subject is public health. DeSantis hired Dr. Joseph Ladapo as the state’s surgeon general, putting the lives of Floridians at risk.

Dr. Ladapo doesn’t believe in vaccinations. Disregarding science, he has sought to make all vaccines a matter of choice, not the protection of public health. Thus, no matter what other medical professionals may say, Dr. Ladapo wants to ban all vaccines mandates.

It’s an odd time to take a stand against vaccinations. Florida is experiencing an uptick in measles cases: As July 2026, Florida has reported 154 confirmed measles cases. Florida ranks among the states with the highest measles case counts in the country this year. 

Nationally, the CDC reports 2,371 confirmed measles cases in the U.S. so far in 2026—the highest annual total in more than 30 years.

Now Florida’s state attorney general has threatened to withhold public funding from Catholic schools unless they allow their students to opt out of vaccines.

The Independent reported:

Florida’s attorney general has threatened to pull funding from Catholic schools unless they allow their students to opt out of vaccine requirements. 

James Uthmeier, the attorney general, revealed on X that he had sent a letter to the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops (FCCB) expressing concern that schools within the faith may refuse to grant religious exemptions for vaccinations for the upcoming school year.

The letter, which was sent on July 31, is the latest in a series of pushes by lawmakers to change Florida’s vaccine mandates.

According to Uthmeier, at least one diocese appears to have “embraced” a position raised by the National Catholic Bioethics Center that the schools cannot offer exemptions on religious grounds because the Catholic Church does not teach that use of vaccinations produced in cell lines derived from the tissue of an aborted fetus is “intrinsically evil.”

Uthmeier, a Catholic himself, says that such a position is “concerning” as state law requires public and private schools to offer exemptions if parents have religious objections.

“I therefore urge Catholic schools to comply with Florida law and grant religious exemptions to school vaccine policies,” Uthmeier wrote. “Failure to comply could jeopardize eligibility for state educational scholarship programs.”

The Archdiocese of Miami says that over 95 percent of students attending the city’s Catholic schools are on some kind of state scholarship, according to The Miami Herald. Many receive around $6,500 with which to pay for their tuition.

Uthmeier has demanded an answer to his letter by August 7.

Michele Taylor, a spokesperson for the FCCB, told CBS News that the conference is reviewing the letter and will respond to the attorney general. 

“Be assured, Florida’s Catholic schools are operating in accord with the law and Church teaching,” Taylor said.

Under state law, students attending both public and private schools must be vaccinated against diseases including polio, chickenpox and measles. Schools, including Catholic institutions, do permit medical exemptions from vaccines with a valid doctor’s note. 

Vaccination mandates have increasingly come under attack in Florida, with Joseph Ladapo, the state’s surgeon general, likening the mandates to “slavery” late last year.

“Who am I to tell you what your child should put in your body?” he said. “I don’t have that right. Your body is a gift from God.”

Ladapo also pledged to end “every last one” of the mandates. 

However, experts slammed his claims, with Democratic state Representative Anna Eskamani branding the plans a “public health disaster in the making.”

The Florida Education Association also said that reducing vaccinations puts “children’s health and education at risk.”

Categories Ethics, Extremism, Florida, Health, Medicine, Safety, Science

Katie Miller Betrays Her Friend, Dr. Anthony Fauci

By dianeravitch
August 3, 2026 //
3

Andrew Eggers of The Bulwark writes here about the close connection between Katie Miller, wife of Trump confidant Steven Miller, and Dr. Anthony Fauci. They worked together closely during the pandemic. They were friends. But it is longer wise for Katie to befriend Dr. Fauci. In MAGAland, he is the Devil incarnate.

Eggers writes,

By now you’ve probably read plenty about congressional Republicans’ latest struggle session against Anthony Fauci—the mean-spirited publication of his COVID-era diary, the barrage of ridiculous and misleading questions at his Senate hearing, the crude spectacle of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tweeting a photoshopped image of himself clapping the doctor in handcuffs.

Yesterday, though, my attention was captured by a far smaller, sadder side plot in the Fauci affair spotlighted by NOTUS—one involving Katie Miller.

During Trump’s first term, Miller was a senior aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and therefore a close colleague of Fauci’s on the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force, which Pence chaired.

From his journal entries, it’s clear that Fauci quickly took a liking to Miller, whom he viewed as a bright young colleague and for whom he developed an almost grandfatherly affection. “Katie Miller is great (tough, smart, but great),” he wrote in March 2020. “Katie Miller and I laugh at each other in the Sit Room,” he wrote two months later.

The work of grappling with a brand new, barely understood pandemic was stressful, both professionally and personally—after all, the task force could get the virus too. At several points, Miller leaned on Fauci for medical advice. “I am calling Katie frequently to check on her couple times per day,” Fauci wrote after Miller tested positive for COVID in May 2020. “She is very anxious about getting very ill since she is 10 weeks pregnant. Tonight she had an anxiety reaction. I calmed her over the phone.”

This was still awfully early days in the pandemic, when little was yet known about the relative risks COVID presented to various groups. Think of how genuinely terror-stricken Miller must have been. Think of how reassuring it must have been to have America’s top infectious-disease expert on hand not just to advise her, but to show personal concern for her physical and mental health. Miller, NOTUS reports, went back to Fauci repeatedly for medical advice throughout the pandemic: later that year when her husband tested positive for COVID, and again when their newborn experienced an unrelated medical episode. In the latter instance, Fauci records, he called the baby’s doctors directly to ensure she was getting good care.

Miller purports to feel differently now. “Dr. Fauci was neither my friend nor my doctor, but a work colleague who weaponized my pregnancy and child for his gain to aggrandize himself,” she wrote on X yesterday. “As they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I can say with certainty after witnessing his con close up this man should be in prison. Justice for the American People.”

Miller’s claim here—that she was only relying on Fauci’s pro bono medical advice to “keep her enemies closer”—beggars belief. Nor does her explanation of his behavior make a bit of sense: Apparently, he “weaponized [her] pregnancy and child” to “aggrandize himself” by . . . showing concern for her well-being and going out of his way to help her out from time to time. And he kept it all private even as the Millers and the rest of the Trump movement turned him into a bogeyman. Sinister!

Share this story with someone who opposes MAGA, or just likes a good character drama.

Still, it’s easy to see why Miller is twisting herself in these sorts of knots. Fauci has become one of the MAGAsphere’s chief villains, while she’s become one of its influencers, with hundreds of thousands of followers and an odd soft-focus podcast aimed at MAGA moms. The ecosystem she’s chosen to live in is one dominated by political paranoia and intramural accusations of secret disloyalty. Fauci’s diary drop must have been a nasty shock. What if some clout-chasing rabble-rouser used it to try to expose her as some sort of Deep State plant? Better to get ahead of the accusations by cooking up some ridiculous “cover story” for associating with Fauci—and to call for his jailing too, just to be on the safe side.

Now, of course, Miller does a lot of things that I personally find a little difficult to wrap my head around. This, after all, is a woman who has tried to get the FBI to criminally investigate her neighbors. This is a woman who once lost her cool in a TV debate and started threatening her interlocutor with deportation. This is a woman who married Stephen Miller.

Still, it’s interesting to see a human side of Miller emerge in Fauci’s diary entries—and incredibly depressing to see her treat that human side as a four-alarm PR fire. What a bummer way to make a living, swimming in this revolting internet ecosystem. Hard to imagine she’s having a lot of fun.

Categories Character, Cruelty, Ethics, Health, Medicine, Science

Michael Hiltzik: Why Dr. Fauci Took the Fifth Amendment in Congressiknal Hearing

By dianeravitch
July 30, 2026 //
12

Michael Hiltzik, Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the Los Angeles Times, explains why Dr. Anthony Fauci took the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify when questioned by Senator Rand Paul’s committee. It wasn’t because he’s guilty of Senator Paul’s charges against him.

Hiltzik writes:

There’s a comic trope beloved by playwrights, novelists and screenwriters about the fighters all suited up for battle, only to discover that their adversary refuses to play.

A real-life example of this stratagem unfolded Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) convened a committee hearing aimed at trapping Dr. Anthony Fauci into saying something under oath that Paul could use to prosecute him for perjury.

Fauci, who was appearing before Paul’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee under subpoena, took the weapon out of Paul’s hands by simply refusing to answer a single question other than to state — 116 times by my count — “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.”

During the nearly three-hour hearing, Fauci’s response left Paul and his seven GOP colleagues on the panel confronting a brick wall. They resorted to the common, if infantile tactic of asking repeated simple but irrelevant questions in an attempt to embarrass their target.

“What day of the week is it today?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked. “What color tie are you wearing?” He elicited the same boilerplate response.

Presumably most of the senators were aware that protocol requires a witness pleading the Fifth to plead it to all questions. Certainly Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who participated in this performative charade, knew that. During a 2000 civil deposition in a lawsuit related to the healthcare firm Columbia/HCA, of which he was chief executive until 1997, he pleaded the Fifth at least 55 times, using phraseology almost identical to Fauci’s.

(Scott left his post after it was learned that his company was under investigation for filing false claims with Medicare and other government healthcare programs. By 2000, it had paid $1.7 billion in fines, penalties and restitution, which the Justice Department called “by far the largest recovery ever reached by the government in a healthcare fraud investigation.” Scott wasn’t charged personally with wrongdoing.)


Fauci, 85, and his lawyers presumably knew they had no choice but to turn away all questions. Experience told him that engaging with Paul would merely feed what Fauci, in a brief opening statement, labeled Paul’s “unhinged obsession” with blaming him for the COVID-19 pandemic.


Trump knows too. At a civil deposition in 2022, he invoked the Fifth more than 440 times.
They all know too that the Supreme Court has upheld the idea that the Fifth protects not only the guilty but also the innocent. So their shtick about how Fauci wouldn’t be pleading the Fifth unless he had something to hide is sheer duplicity.

It was left to the Republicans to fulminate into the wind about how Fauci is a “megalomaniac” (Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio) or “a villain” (Scott), or worse. Early in the proceedings, Paul ordered Fauci’s lawyer, David Schertler, from the hearing room for trying to make a statement on his client’s behalf.


Let’s examine the backdrop to Wednesday’s farce.
As I have documented many times over the last five years, Republicans and right-wingers are fixated on the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID, escaped from a Chinese lab to infect the rest of the world.

There is not a speck of evidence to validate that theory. Rather, it’s the overwhelming consensus of epidemiologists and virologists that COVID originated in wildlife, probably bats, and migrated to humankind via the illicit trade in wildlife in China and other south Asian territories, a process known as zoonosis.


The case against Fauci, who retired in 2022, rests on several false claims. One is that as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, he manipulated scientists into downplaying the lab-leak theory in favor of zoonosis.
His accusers base this idea on questions raised by the first scientists who examined the virus in early 2021, literally days and weeks after it appeared and it was a pathogen new to everybody. Some hadn’t seen some features of the virus in the wild, so they pondered whether it was man-made.


But they were wrong — the features were familiar to virologists, just not to the ones examining SARS-CoV-2. Following the science, they came to discard the lab-leak theory as nothing more than an exceptionally remote possibility; that conclusion has held up over time.

Fauci didn’t downplay the possibility of a lab leak in his discussions with scientists, as his enemies claim, but instead urged them repeatedly to follow their research wherever it took them.

Paul’s particular hobby horse in this debate is the claim that Fauci downplayed the lab-leak theory because NIAID had provided funding for “gain-of-function” research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in the same teeming city where COVID was first seen, which made it complicit in the pandemic. For Paul’s purposes, “gain-of-function” is a shibboleth, akin to conservative attacks on “DEI” and “critical race theory”—useful because laypersons don’t know what it is but it sure sounds sinister.

Generically, the term refers to laboratory work that augments natural qualities of a microbe to facilitate experimental scrutiny or achieve a necessary goal, such as allowing microbes to produce a flu vaccine or bacteria to produce artificial insulin.

From 2014 to 2017, the U.S. suspended gain-of-function experiments to develop a standard identifying research that might produce “potential pandemic pathogens.”

The lab-leak camp asserts that NIAID-funded experiments created a virus in the Chinese lab with features making it infectious for humans.

Professional virologists say that nothing like that is possible given the state of science. A declassified report issued in 2023 by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the U.S. had no evidence that any genetic engineering at the Wuhan lab “involved SARS-CoV-2, a close progenitor, or a backbone virus that is closely-related enough to have been the source of the pandemic.”

NIAID examined the work it funded in China against the post-2017 standard and determined it did not breach that standard. Paul raised that very issue with Fauci at a contentious July 2021 hearing, but Fauci rejected it forthrightly.

“Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly,” Fauci told him.

The other brief against Fauci aired by the GOP majority on Paul’s committee is that Fauci is somehow responsible for the anti-pandemic steps undertaken by states and localities across the U.S. in the heat of the pandemic. The absurdity of this contention is manifest, since Fauci never had any authority to impose any regulations on anybody.

No, the damage was done by the virus, not Fauci, and it unquestionably was mitigated by the measures he recommended. Even so, some 1.2 million Americans have died from the disease — many of them succumbing because anti-vaccine agitators have discouraged them from getting COVID shots.

For the right wing, “Fauci” is just a slogan. Here’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, boasting in a 2021 fundraising appeal, “I refused to blindly follow Dr. Fauci … and allow him to strip Floridians of their God-given freedoms” by resisting lockdowns and school closures. Never mind that Florida emerged from the pandemic with one of the worst COVID mortality rates in the country.

The truth is that while school closures wreaked damage on children’s learning opportunities, they almost certainly saved the lives of thousands of children and their family members.
“What would have happened had schools remained open without any mitigation measures?” New York neurologist and psychiatrist Jonathan Howard has asked.

The number of deaths among children younger than 18, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has pegged at about 2,000, “would have been higher had 60-70 million unvaccinated children contracted the virus over several months’ time in 2020,” Howard reckoned. “It’s reasonable to assume that several thousand children would have died.”

Fauci plainly understood that anything he said at the hearing would only be weaponized against him through selective disclosure — as happened when Paul this week released about 1,000 pages from Fauci’s personal diary dating from the pandemic era.

None of it validated Paul’s accusations. And nothing at Wednesday’s hearing told us anything new about COVID’s origins or the course of the pandemic. That’s a dangerous shame, because the GOP’s obsession with falsely blaming Fauci for a tragic global natural event for purely partisan purposes will only make it harder to fight the next pandemic, which inevitably will arrive, someday.

While they’re distracted with their witch hunt, important work will have to be done to stave it off. But doing it while the GOP goes off on its malevolent persecution of Fauci and other scientists will be like trying to swim upstream against a torrent of slime.

Categories Health, Medicine, Science
« Older Entries