'Who’s in charge?' Foreign diplomats baffled by Trump's flood of 'special envoys'

Tom Boggioni
January 17, 2025 

RAW STORY

Donald Trump (Photo via Reuters)

A decision by Donald Trump to continue to hand out political rewards in the form of appointments to be a "special envoy" to U.S. allies has foreign diplomats wary of who they should listen to and who they should ignore.

According to reporting from NBC News, the president-elect is creating a "diplomatic mess" that could hamstring incoming Secretary of State Marco Rubio after he is confirmed by the Senate.

Noting that the president-elect "larger goal of stocking important government jobs with people he deems loyal to his agenda" is causing no shortage of criticism overseas with NBC reporting it has "the potential for duplication that may confuse foreign capitals about who’s really running thing."

Case in point, the report notes that Britain is faced with the prospect of "no fewer than three incoming officials" representing the president-elect which could lead to competing narratives of what Trump wants or believes.

One former Trump official expressed bafflement at what is going on.

Lewis Lukens, who served as acting U.S. ambassador to Britain under Trump, admitted, "I'm mystified by the notion that you would have an ambassador to the United Kingdom and a special envoy to the United Kingdom. I just don’t see how that has anything but a disastrous result."

He is not the only critic.

One foreign diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous lamented, “We’ve been in touch with several officers and envoys, and it’s a bit confusing. We’re not sure the envoy and the secretary himself know exactly their responsibilities. Who’s in charge on what issue?”


Foreign Relations Committee Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy (CT) is also raising a red flag by warning, "They’re building a diplomatic mess.”


“Historically, presidents have always used envoys,” he admitted before cautioning, “I don’t broadly have a problem with a president appointing envoys. I just think you should do it in a way that doesn’t create a real mess of overlapping responsibilities."

A former Trump White House official admitted the current state of affairs is nothing new.


"More than once, a country in confusion would say, 'I was just talking to Jared [Kushner], and he said something different,' or 'I was just talking to your U.N. ambassador [Nikki Haley], who is saying something different,'" they recalled.

You can read more here.

 CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Trump mega-donor’s company pays $1 million settlement for illegal workers

A fake $2020 bill featuring former President Donald Trump. Photo illustration: Christopher Sciacca/Shutterstock

Greg Larose, 

Louisianna Illuminator

January 17, 2025

The family-owned company of President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign co-chair in Louisiana has agreed to pay $1.025 million to resolve allegations that it hired workers ineligible to work in the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice announced this week.

Bollinger Shipyard LLC of Lockport was accused of violating the False Claims Act for knowingly billing the U.S. Coast Guard for the labor the illegal workers performed. The company’s settlement with the federal government is not an admission of guilt but effectively brings the matter to a close.

Bollinger is a longtime military contractor that manufactures the Coast Guard’s fast response cutter (FRC) vessel. The Justice Department alleged the shipbuilder’s violations took place from 2015-20 under its FRC contracts.

Bollinger Shipyard’s Lockport office directed a reporter’s call with questions to executive vice president Geoffrey Green, who has not yet responded.

The federal government requires contractors to confirm their employees are eligible to work in the United States, and officials alleged Bollinger failed to comply with this requirement. As a result, “several ineligible employees worked on the contract,” according to the Justice Department, and the company was paid for the work they performed.

“Companies that conduct business with the United States are required to do so in a legitimate manner,” U.S Attorney Duane Evans said in a news release.

President Joe Biden appointed Evans to lead federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

As of November, Bollinger delivered 58 of the 67 fast response cutters the Coast Guard has ordered from the company at a cost of about $2 billion.

The former chairman and CEO of Bollinger Shipyard, Donald “Boysie” Bollinger Jr., has served as co-chair of the Trump campaign in Louisiana for the past three elections. Bollinger’s nephew, Ben Bordelon, took over as company leader in 2014, marking the third generation of family leadership at the 79-year-old business.

Bollinger has served as treasurer of the Republican Party of Louisiana and chaired the Louisiana presidential campaigns for George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Since 2016, Bollinger has donated more than $1.13 million to Republican candidates through Bollinger Enterprises, his separate investment company, based on numbers from OpenSecrets.org.

Over the same period, Bollinger’s donations to Democrats totaled $5,600, though he notably backed Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu in her re-election loss to Bill Cassidy in 2014.

Bollinger’s largest political contributions in 2024 were $113,000 to the Republican National Committee and $100,000 to Make America Great Again Inc.

Last June, Bollinger hosted a $3,300-a-person fundraiser at his New Orleans home for Trump. The event raised $5 million, The Times-Picayune reported.

Efforts to reach Bollinger for comment were unsuccessful.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

Bollinger Shipyard Pays $1M Settling Allegations of “Ineligible” Workers

DOJ alleged the USCG was billed for work performed by "ineligible" workers (Bollinger file photo)

Published Jan 16, 2025 3:25 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

The U.S. Department of Justice has reached a settlement agreement with Bollinger Shipyard of Louisiana related to allegations that the company billed the U.S. Coast Guard for labor provided by workers who were “not eligible to work in the United States.” The allegations related to work done between 2015 and 2020 for the U.S. Coast Guard as part of the contract for the Fast Response Cutter program.

According to the announcement, Bollinger Shipyard has agreed to pay $1,025,000 to resolve the allegations. There was no determination of liability. 

Bollinger manufactures ships for the United States, including the Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter (FRC). The program began in 2008 with the award for the prototype vessel which became the Bernard C. Webber which was delivered in 2011 and commissioned the following year. The U.S. Coast Guard considers it a highly successful program with current plans to expand to at least 67 vessels. In May 2024, it excised a construction option with Bollinger for numbers 66 and 67 and in November took delivery on number 58. Two more are currently under construction for delivery in 2025.

“It is essential to the safety and operational readiness of our fleet that contractors comply with all contractual requirements,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division announcing the settlement agreement.

The United States alleged that, from 2015 to 2020, Bollinger knowingly billed the Coast Guard for labor prohibited under the FRC contracts. The company was “contractually required to confirm that its employees were eligible to work in the United States,” said DOJ. The allegations were that the Coast Guard was billed for “the labor provided by the ineligible employees” and that Bollinger “received payment for those bills.”

“Today’s settlement sends a clear message that contractors providing services to DHS programs will be held accountable for breaking the law,” said Inspector General Joseph V. Cuffari Ph.D. of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). “DHS’ Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) and our law enforcement partners will continue to prioritize protecting our national security from these kinds of schemes.”

Bollinger has not commented on the agreement. It highlights a long relationship with the U.S. Coast Guard. During the November 2024 handover ceremony for number 58, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) John Witherspoon, Bollinger said it was the 184th vessel built by the company for the U.S. Coast Guard over a 40-year partnership.

Bollinger is also under contract to build the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) heavy polar icebreaker for the United States Coast Guard. Other projects include a new class of berthing barges for the U.S. Navy. It has delivered three of the berthing and messing barges to the Navy and in October 2024 received a contract for the seventh unit of the class.

Donald G. Bollinger founded the company in 1946. Currently, Bollinger operates 11 yards located in Louisiana and Mississippi with direct access to the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River, and the Intracoastal Waterway. It is also the largest vessel repair company in the Gulf of Mexico region.

'Maybe it won't work': Trump-backing billionaire says it's possible DOGE will flop

Brad Reed
January 17, 2025 

RAW STORY


Billionaire venture capitalist Marc Andreesen, a one-time Democrat who is now a supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, acknowledged that the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) he's advising won't succeed in saving significant sums of money.

In an interview with the New York Times' Ross Douthat, Andreesen was challenged by the conservative columnist about DOGE's potential to cut the federal budget by as much as $2 trillion a year.

In particular, Douthat points out that even if you fire what he describes as "dead wood" employees at federal agencies, you're "going to need to hire better people to replace those people" who will have to be paid appropriate salaries.

Added to this, so much federal money is spent on Social Security, Medicare, and other popular federal programs that it's hard to get real savings without touching those programs.

This caused Andreesen to say that Douthat's arguments exhibit "total contempt for the taxpayer," which caused Douthat to push back.

"I wrote many, many columns in support of various versions of Paul Ryan's plan to cut Medicare or reform Medicare and reform Social Security," he said. "And the reason those plans went down to defeat was not that federal bureaucrats had contempt for the American taxpayer. It was that the American taxpayer, in election after election, likes and supports and votes in favor of Medicare and Social Security."

"They're not exposed to it," Andreesen insisted. "This is a big part of the bet. And look, maybe it'll work, and maybe it won't. But this is a big part of the bet, which is that the American taxpayer doesn't experience it that way because they don't actually have insight into it. Take what you would think would be a bulletproof program, like child disability in schools. It's far from clear to me that the median taxpayer would support that if they really knew what it was."

Andreesen went on to say that the program in question now consisted of allowing students in schools to "fake diagnoses of mental illness in order to get drugs and in order to get extra time on tests."

Hey Elon and Vivek! Here's What a Real 'Department of Government Efficiency' Would Do

A new report identifies what a DOGE "based on evidence, not ideology, would include—from slashing drug prices to ending privatized Medicare to reducing the wasteful Pentagon budget."


Jessica Corbett
Jan 15, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


While the U.S. Senate on Wednesday held confirmation hearings for several of President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees, the watchdog Public Citizen sounded the alarm about a new commission and its billionaire leaders, who don't require congressional oversight but could significantly impact federal agencies, regulations, and spending.

Despite being called the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE is not a government department. It is a presidential advisory commission that Trump announced after his November win. He has asked billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead it.

Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman on Monday wrote to Trump's transition team, asking to join DOGE. While their group has concerns about the commission's "structure and mission," including potential conflicts of interest regarding Musk and Ramaswamy's financials, the watchdog leaders made the case that they could serve "as voices for the interests of consumers and the public who are the beneficiaries of federal regulatory and spending programs."

"There is nothing 'efficient' about hitting a pre-determined target for spending cuts, least of all one that is infeasible."


The pair highlighted that their appointment "would be an important step towards compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act," and outlined some ideas they have "to slash drug prices, end privatized Medicare, reduce the wasteful Pentagon budget."

Weissman expanded on the group's recommendations in a Wednesday report titled DOGE Delusions: A Real-World Plan to Reject Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Misguided Agenda, Crack Down on Corporate Handouts, Tax the Rich, and Invest for the Future.

"Every sign from DOGE suggests that it aims to use 'efficiency' as a cover to shrink government, benefit corporations by cutting regulations, and advance a predetermined ideological agenda," Weissman said in a Wednesday statement. "This report identifies what an efficiency agenda based on evidence, not ideology, would include—from slashing drug prices to ending privatized Medicare to reducing the wasteful Pentagon budget."

The report's introduction notes that Trump and Musk's suggestions that DOGE would cut $2 trillion in yearly spending, even though "many commentators have pointed out the effective impossibility of cutting $2 trillion annually from the federal budget, given that all federal discretionary spending—including the Pentagon budget and veterans' benefits—totals less than $2 trillion."

Musk even admitted last week that $2 trillion is unlikely, after which experts said his lower target of $1 trillion is still "too large."


"Few would argue with the purported goal of 'government efficiency,' but there is nothing 'efficient' about hitting a pre-determined target for spending cuts, least of all one that is infeasible," Weissman wrote. "Nor is there anything 'efficient' about ideologically driven notions of shrinking government or corporate profit-driven plans to roll back regulatory protections."

"Additionally, 'efficiency' is not a primary value," he continued. "Whatever the government does, it should strive to do efficiently (mindful of other considerations), but the real question is what the government should be doing in the first place."




The 35-page report features sections on ending Big Pharma's price gouging, shutting down privatized Medicare, cutting Pentagon waste and curbing contractor greed, taxing the rich and corporations, taxing high earners and the wealthy, eliminating oil and gas subsidies, regulating efficiency, the costs of not regulating, investing in the care economy, and investing to avert a climate catastrophe.

Many of the proposals overtly conflict with the priorities of the incoming Trump administration and the new Republican-controlled Congress, which are expected to swiftly and aggressively pursue tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations, expansion of Medicare Advantage, and the Big Oil-backed president-elect's campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill" for climate-heating fossil fuels.

The GOP has promoted additional fossil fuel extraction despite the costly and devastating impacts of the climate emergency, as seen with 27 U.S. disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion in 2024—the hottest year on record—and in Los Angeles, California, which is currently enduring what could be "the costliest wildfire disaster in American history."

The Public Citizen report points out that the monetary costs of climate inaction "will severely reduce the size of the global economy. Depending on how quickly we move and how severe we let climate chaos become, the insurance giant Swiss Re suggests the annual dollar costs could be 11% to 14% of total global economic output by 2050—amounting to around $23 trillion annually—and around 7% of North American economic output. These costs will compound and grow even worse over time."

The watchdog estimates that one of its related proposals—ending handouts to fossil fuel companies—would save about $20 billion annually. Ending privatized Medicare would save $100 billion each year, and modest cuts to the Pentagon budget would save $100 billion yearly. More serious defense cuts could save $200 billion, the same figure for measures to reduce prescription drug prices. The biggest savings from the group's recommendations would come from fair tax reforms, at $500 billion annually.

"If DOGE is interested in saving taxpayers and consumers money and making sound investments that will generate a positive return to the government and society," the report concludes, "there is a clear set of evidence-based measures for it to pursue."

How techbros could topple our freedom

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk, who supports Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, gestures as he speaks about voting during an America PAC Town Hall in Folsom, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 17, 2024. REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski/File Photo
REUTERS/Rachel Wisniewski/File Photo

John Stoehr

January 17, 2025

ALTERNET


Biden warns of ‘the tech-industrial complex’

There’s no guarantee democracy won’t turn despotic – again.

Last night, President Joe Biden gave his farewell address from the Oval Office. For many reasons, it was hard to watch, but for me, the most painful moment came when he said, “I still believe in the idea for which this nation stands — a nation where the strength of our institutions and the character of our people matter and must endure.”

After the electorate handed the keys to the shop over to a gang of criminals and thugs who will loot and vandalize it, I just don’t know. The institutions couldn’t stop Donald Trump. Can they matter if they’re so weak? As for the character of “our people,” well, it’s hard to imagine “our people” enduring after choosing to neuter ourselves.



















The Statue of Liberty was central to his speech. It is the enduring symbol, the president said, “of the soul of our nation, a soul shaped by forces that bring us together and by forces that pull us apart. And yet, through good times and tough times, we have withstood it all.”

He went on:

“A nation of pioneers and explorers, of dreamers and doers, of ancestors native to this land, of ancestors who came by force. A nation of immigrants who came to build a better life. A nation holding the torch of the most powerful idea ever in the history of the world: that all of us are created equal. That all of us deserve to be treated with dignity, justice and fairness. That democracy must defend, and be defined, and … moved in every way possible: Our rights, our freedoms, our dreams. But we know the idea of America, our institution, our people, our values that uphold it, are constantly being tested.”


He outlined three tests.

One is oligarchy, Biden said – “the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before.”

The “avalanche of misinformation and disinformation” is the second test, the president said. “The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social [media] platforms accountable to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power.”


Finally, artificial intelligence, he said. “Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy, and our security, our society. For humanity. Artificial intelligence even has the potential to help us answer my call to end cancer as we know it. But unless safeguards are in place, AI could spawn new threats to our rights, our way of life, to our privacy, how we work, and how we protect our nation. We must make sure AI is safe and trustworthy and good for all humankind.”

I’ll address this “tech-industrial complex” another time. For now, I want to go back to the Statue of Liberty. For Biden, it's a beacon of hope for America’s future. Just as easily, though, it could symbolize a future that’s a return to our past, a future in which the United States failed these tests, and as a result, democracy turned despotic – again.

The man who came up with the idea of the monument was Edouard de Laboulaye. He was one of the most prominent French liberals of his time (1811-1883), in large part because of the setting in which he was working: the tyrannical regime of dictator Napoleon Bonaparte III.

The nephew of the original Napoleon, Bonapart III rose to supreme power in the bloody aftermath of the French Revolution. His government was something new then, but familiar now around the globe. It was a collectivist police state – authoritarian but democratic.


Worse, to liberals like Laboulaye, it was also popular.

To Laboulaye and other liberals, Bonaparte’s dictatorship illustrated a fundamental flaw in democracy — its tendency toward despotism. While he suppressed dissent and jailed rivals, the emperor subsidized bread, funded festivals and provided tax credits for housing.

To Laboulaye, the question was how to liberalize democracy.

Liberal democracy called for representative government balanced with individual freedoms, specifically the right to speech, press, assembly and religion. But Laboulaye and his network of associates were not laissez-faire liberals. They were republican liberals (with a small “r”).


Rights, freedoms and responsibilities were never for their own sake. They were primarily instruments by which the people of a nation morally improved themselves and their communities. “To improve himself, even at the cost of suffering,” Laboulaye wrote, is how to fight greed and corruption, and ultimately to liberalize democracy.

From the point of view of French liberals in an authoritarian regime, Abraham Lincoln seemed to model the ideal character. This admiration was rooted in his abolitionism. They were flummoxed by a nation founded on equal parts human dignity and human bondage. With Lincoln, they saw a leader who could finally prove their argument.

“Could Americans dedicate themselves to such a noble ideal as the abolition of slavery and pursue it to end?” wrote Helena Rosenblatt in The Lost History of Liberalism, from which I am drawing all this history.

“Were they capable of sustained courage, patriotism and self-sacrifice? Through his inspired leadership, Lincoln proved that they could. Under the right leadership, a liberal democracy was possible.”


To liberals, not just French ones, the Civil War proved something they had faith in but never saw — greed, stupidity, decadence and moral decay being overcome to build “the most inspiring and most promising idea of modern Christian civilization — the true brotherhood of man,” wrote American liberal Charles Eliot Norton in 1865 at the war’s end.

That same year Laboulaye envisioned the Statue of Liberty.

It was a monument to freedom, but also to what can happen to a democracy. Democracy can evolve from being tyrannical, as ours was before and during the Civil War, to being imperfect but liberal. In his speech, Biden encouraged us to believe we can’t go back again, but with the election of a criminal president, no one should be sure.

Christian fundamentalist 'tech bros' growing more influential in MAGA World

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg in 2019 (Wikimedia Commons)

Alex Henderson

January 15, 2025

ALTERNET

White evangelical Christian fundamentalists are among Donald Trump's most ardent supporters, and the president-elect also enjoys strong support from some prominent figures in the tech world — including X.com owner Elon Musk and PayPal founder Peter Thiel. Meanwhile, Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook/Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, both of whom were critical of Trump in the past, made an effort to curry favor with him after he won the 2024 election.

Mother Jones' Kiera Butler, in an article published on January 15, describes a Trump-friendly trend that brings the evangelical and tech worlds together: Christian fundamentalist tech bros.

Butler cites 24-year-old Augustus Doricko, who runs the startup Rainmaker, as an example.

"Last year," Butler reports, "PayPal founder Peter Thiel's foundation granted Doricko a Thiel Fellowship, a grant awarded annually to a select group of entrepreneurs who have foregone a college degree in order to pursue a tech-focused business venture….. (Doricko) believes his work manifests God’s will."

Doricko, according to Butler, "is just one example within a rising tide of American Christianity that appears to be cresting in California's tech enclaves."

"Recent news stories have described a new generation of tech bros flocking to church in the famously secular San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley, discovering Christianity through PayPal founder and billionaire investor Peter Thiel, and investing in a Christ-centered real estate enclave in rural Kentucky," Butler explains. "There are the usual reasons for this surging interest in Christianity like yearning for community and searching for the greater meaning of life…. But there are other forces at play, which revolve around a very specific kind of Christianity: that of the TheoBros, a group of mostly Millennial and Gen Z, ultra-conservative men, many of whom proudly call themselves Christian nationalists."

Butler continues, "Among the tenets of this branch of Protestant Christianity — known as reformed or reconstructionist — is the idea that the United States should be subject to biblical law. While the TheoBros' beliefs are extreme — many of them think women shouldn't be able to vote, and that the Constitution has outlived its usefulness and we should instead be governed by the Ten Commandments — their movement is moving out of the fringe."

TheoBros, according to Butler, favor "hypermasculine aesthetics" — including a group of tech bros in El Segundo, California who call themselves the Gundo Bros.

Butler notes, "The Gundo Bros have a way of casually mixing the realms of tech, masculinity, and Christianity…. Many of the Gundo Bros have benefitted from the largesse of tech investor Marc Andreessen, a major Trump supporter, friends with Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, and close adviser to Trump's newly convened Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE….. The TheoBros’ mingling with MAGA elites is likely just getting started."


Kiera Jones' full article for Mother Jones is available at this link.

'Bigoted folks': AOC says CEOs love trans sports ban for the diversion it creates

Image via Daniel Lehrhaupt/Shutterstock

Julia Conley
Common Dreams

January 15, 2025

While Republicans claimed a bill restricting transgender girls' participation in school sports was aimed at protecting "our culture and civilization" on Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the legislation benefits the corporate class as it distracts from true life-threatening emergencies faced by communities across the country.

"Thank you for your concern about women for the first time that I've seen," said the New York Democrat on the House floor, noting that Republicans have consistently voted against the Violence Against Women Act and backed abortion bans that have stripped women of the ability to control their own bodies proven deadly.

But contrary to the GOP's claims that barring transgender girls and women from playing on sports teams that align with their gender will protect girls from assault, Ocasio-Cortez suggested, the biggest beneficiaries of the legislation include corporate executives whose companies do far more harm to American families than transgender athletes.

"I know who loves this bill," said the congresswoman. "Yes, bigoted folks love this bill. Assaulters love this bill. But also, CEOs love this bill. Because Los Angeles is on fire right now, and this is the number one priority this majority has."

The bill passed 218-206, with the entire Republican caucus supporting it and all but two Democrats voting no. If the legislation is signed into law, schools that receive federal funding would be barred from allowing transgender girls from playing on girls' sports teams.

Republicans have poured $111 million on political ads regarding the issue in the past year, as communities in the Southeast have suffered catastrophic hurricane damage and homelessness has soared by 18%.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) agreed with Ocasio-Cortez's comments about the distraction caused by the transgender sports bill.

"Republicans fearmonger about the trans community to divert attention from the fact they have no real solutions to help everyday Americans," said Bonamici. "Transgender students, like all students, they deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, to find belonging and to grow into well-rounded adults through sports."

Ocasio-Cortez added that the bill, which lacks an enforcement mechanism, would open the door to "genital examinations" of student athletes as it would force schools to confirm the sex assigned at birth of each member of a school sports team.

"What this also opens the door for is for women to try to perform a very specific kind of femininity for the very kind of men who are drafting this bill, and to open up questioning of who is a woman because of how we look, how we present ourselves, and yes, what we choose to do with our bodies," said Ocasio-Cortez.

The so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act was the subject of a letter signed by more than 400 civil society groups on Monday, who urged members of Congress to reject the "discriminatory proposal."

"Although the authors of the legislation represent themselves as serving the interests of cisgender girls and women, this legislation does not address the longstanding barriers all girls and women have faced in their pursuit of athletics," said the groups, led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. "We firmly believe that an attack on transgender youth is an attack on civil rights."

'Better luck next time, America': Voters mocked for telling WSJ they only want 'MAGA-lite'

Matthew Chapman
January 17, 2025 
RAW STORY

A woman places a MAGA hat on a man?s head while listening to Donald Trump Jr. speak during the AmericaFest 2024 conference sponsored by conservative group Turning Point in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S. December 19, 2024. REUTERS/Cheney Orr

The Wall Street Journal is out with a new poll showing that voters somewhat approve of President-elect Donald Trump's agenda — but not all of it and not exactly.

And some analysts have nothing but contempt for these findings.

The result of the poll, according to their writeup, is that voters want "MAGA lite, rather than extra-strength MAGA."

"Some 53% want Trump to make significant changes in how government is run once he is inaugurated Monday. But more than 60% oppose one of his central ideas for doing so — replacing thousands of career civil-service workers with people chosen by the president," said the report. "More than 60% also oppose eliminating the Education Department, a marquee Trump proposal for paring the federal government. Only 18% would supersede congressional powers and give Trump more authority over federal spending, as he has proposed."

Even on immigration, which was supposedly a major factor in Trump's election victory, "nearly three-quarters say that only those with criminal records should be removed from the country, and 70% would protect longtime residents from removal if they don’t have criminal records" — a policy that Trump and his surrogates appear poised to reverse.

Commenters on social media reacted with disgust at voters who backed Trump but opposed much of his plans.

"Sorry, you’re getting highly concentrated MAGA," wrote Gizmodo tech reporter Matt Novak. "Unpasteurized MAGA. Black tar MAGA. Better luck next time, America."

"This MAGA is processed by being eaten and pooped out by the trained rats on one single Caribbean island. It costs 600 dollars a pound," joked magazine editor Spencer Wildes in response.

Thought UnitedHealthcare couldn’t get more awful? They’ve gone villain mode

Killing people with paperwork instead of a gun doesn’t make you any less of a murderer

Arwa Mahdawi
Tue 14 Jan 2025

THE GUARDIAN

At this very moment Luigi Mangione, who is accused of shooting UnitedHealthcare’s CEO last month, is sitting in a federal jail cell in Brooklyn. He’s got a barrage of court appearances scheduled and, once he has wound his way through the criminal justice system, he could be behind bars for the rest of his life.

Which, of course, is as it should be. While there are a lot of reasons that many people find the 26-year-old alleged assassin sympathetic, you can’t just gun a CEO down outside a hotel in Manhattan and face no consequences for it. And Mangione, who is, by all accounts, an extremely smart guy with an Ivy League education, should really have known better. He should have known that if he wanted to murder someone – and get away with it – there were far more socially acceptable ways of doing so.

Mangione could, for example, have got a well-paid job as a management consultant and helped supercharge the country’s opioid epidemic; chances are he would have faced little more than a slap on the wrist. He could have gone to Gaza and shot some Palestinian children in the head – in which case, not only would he probably face no consequences whatsoever, US lawmakers would probably go out of their way to shield him from accountability. And, of course, Mangione could have gone into the health insurance industry himself, and routinely denied life-saving care to desperate people in order to boost profits. That type of violence is perfectly fine.

Mangione is now a household name around the globe: there’s pro-Luigi graffiti everywhere from Chicago to London to Rome. According to one recent poll, 48% of college students in the US say they view the killing of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, as totally or somewhat justified. In a more functional world, the outpouring of support for Mangione would have given the folk at UnitedHealthcare (part of UnitedHealth Group and the US’s largest private health insurer based on revenue) pause for thought. On another timeline the endless horror stories shared on social media about how health insurance companies had denied coverage and ruined people’s lives might have pushed the industry to change their business practices. But we live in hell, so none of that happened, did it

Instead, lawmakers (who get extremely good health insurance thanks to US taxpayers) have made it clear to their corporate overlords that their No 1 priority is ensuring the safety of their donor base. Mangione hasn’t just been charged with murder; he’s been charged with terrorism. Last month New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul made headlines for reportedly considering a special hotline for CEOs to report safety threats. Are you an obscenely rich CEO worried the proletariat may rise against you? Just call 1-800-SAVEOURCEOS and we’ll dispatch 24-hour-security! We’ve de-funded the libraries to pay for it.

Meanwhile, insurers seem to have gone into full-on villain mode; just when you think you can’t hear anything worse about the insurance industry, a new horror story comes out. There’s been an uptick in stories about insurers limiting coverage of prosthetic limbs and questioning their medical necessity, for example. Mr Beast, an influencer with 343 million subscribers on YouTube, recently railed against the healthcare industry in a new video where he helped 2,000 amputees walk again. “Many lived in America and it feels so disgusting that in a country with this much wealth, a fucken YouTuber is their only option to get a prosthetic leg,” he tweeted. “We need to fix this.”

And last week a plastic surgeon called Dr Elisabeth Potter – a specialist in reconstructive surgery for breast cancer patients who have had mastectomies – went viral on TikTok for claiming she had to step out of an operation (where another surgeon was also present) because a health insurance representative demanded proof it was necessary. According to Potter, her patient was under anesthesia when she got an urgent phone call from UnitedHealthcare while in the operating room.

“So I scrubbed out of my case and I called UnitedHealthcare, and the gentleman said he needed some information about her,” said Potter. “Wanted to know her diagnosis and whether her inpatient stay should be justified.”

Potter reportedly explained to the insurance representative that her patient had breast cancer – something he apparently didn’t know because someone else in a “different department” had that information. This is why health insurance executives get paid so much money, you see. They structure their companies in complicated ways that mean you have to go through at least 50 different people in different departments to try and sort out a claim; in the end, a certain percentage of people just give up because the process is so laborious. That said, actually going through real life customer service representatives is becoming less common. UnitedHealth Group has been under the spotlight for how it uses AI to aggressively deny claims. A lawsuit filed last November claims UnitedHealth illegally denied “elderly patients care owed to them under Medicare advantage plans” by deploying an AI model known by the company to have a 90% error rate.

To be clear: it is difficult to completely validate Potter’s story because of laws that protect patients’ health information. UnitedHealthcare, for their part, seem to reject the doctor’s account of events and have insinuated that Potter was being unprofessional. A spokesperson from the company told me: “There are no insurance-related circumstances that would require a physician to step out of surgery … We did not ask, nor would ever expect, a physician to interrupt patient care to answer a call and we will be following up with the provider and hospital to understand why these unorthodox actions were taken.”

Nevertheless, the virality of the story is yet another reminder of just how frustrated everyone – from doctors to patients – is with the profit-driven health insurance industry in the US. Yet, despite this palpable anger there seems to be no appetite by those at the top to change the system. Indeed, it looks likely that Donald Trump’s administration will shrink Medicaid (a government system which helps low-income people access healthcare at a reduced cost or for free) and insurance companies will up their use of AI to deny coverage. Mangione should absolutely be facing consequences for what he is alleged to have done – but there should also be more legal consequences for those pushing predatory health insurance practices. Killing people with paperwork instead of a gun doesn’t make you any less of a murderer.


Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian US columnist

FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE U$A

Shocking revelation: Hospital chain owes more than $1B — without enough cash to make payroll

Royalty-free stock photo ID: 528854752 Silhouette of a doctor walking in a hurry in the hospital corridor.

Nancy Lavin, 

Rhode Island Current

January 16, 2025

Prospect Medical Holdings’ dire financial straits were well-documented, even before the owner of Roger Williams Medical Center and Our Lady of Fatima Hospital declared bankruptcy on Jan. 11.

But its cash flow woes are even worse than previously aired in public. The national hospital chain operator owes more than $1 billion to more than 100,000 creditors, but has just $3.4 million cash on hand, Paul Rundell, Prospect’s chief restructuring officer, wrote in testimony ahead of a federal bankruptcy court hearing in Dallas on Tuesday.

“It is my understanding that, without post-petition financing, the Debtors will be unable to meet their next payroll cycle,” Rundell wrote in the Jan. 13 filing.
Prospect declares bankruptcy, says sale of Roger Williams and Fatima hospitals will continue

Even Chris Callaci, who represents the 1,200 United Nurses & Allied Professionals members who work for Prospect’s Rhode Island facilities, was taken aback.

“That was more grave than we thought in terms of a brush with disaster of not making payroll,” Callaci said in an interview on Wednesday. “We thought they had access to a little more capital.”

The 12,500 Prospect hospital employees, including the 2,500 in Rhode Island, will get their next paycheck, after a federal bankruptcy judge in Dallas authorized a $100 million line of credit on Tuesday.

Not that it offered much assurance to Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, whose office has been keeping close tabs on Prospect’s management of Roger Williams and Fatima for the last decade. Anticipating the potential for bankruptcy, Neronha’s office also brought on New York bankruptcy attorney Andrew Troop last year; Troop attended the hearing in Dallas Tuesday on the AG’s behalf.

“We wanted to be ready,” Neronha said in an interview on Wednesday.
In search of investors

But the proactive approach may not be enough to save Rhode Island’s safety net hospitals, whose fates hinge on their cash-strapped owners’ ability to drum up the money to sell the facilities. The $80 million sale to The Centurion Foundation was expected to close this month, following a yearslong application and review process, which included a set of 85 conditions set by state regulators.

Both Prospect and Centurion insist they still intend to go through with the deal, using a clause in federal bankruptcy code that allows debtors to sell certain assets through private sale, according to court documents.

But first, they have to finish securing the $160 million in financing — $80 million for the sticker price of the sale plus another $80 million injected directly into hospital operations — required by state regulators. Neronha said Wednesday the companies had not finished raising the funds required.

Callaci doubted Prospect would be able to entice investors, given its bankruptcy declaration, and feared the company would ask state regulators to ease up on the financial strings attached to the sale.


Neronha maintained that his office did not intend to change its conditions. Joseph Wendelken, a spokesperson for the Rhode Island Department of Health, said in an email Wednesday that the agency was “committed to ensuring the hospitals have new ownership.”

That was more grave than we thought in terms of a brush with disaster of not making payroll. We thought they had access to a little more capital.

– Chris Callaci, general counsel for United Nurses & Allied Professionals

Dr. Jerry Larkin, state health director, stressed the importance of keeping Roger Williams and Fatima open in pre-filed testimony to the federal bankruptcy court. The two hospitals, with 500 beds between them, account for more than 50,000 emergency room visits per year. Together they have 104 beds for behavioral health patients, representing more than 20% of behavioral health beds available statewide.

“It is certain that an abrupt closure of RWMC and/or OLF will disproportionately impact vulnerable and underserved populations, creating deeper inequities in access to care,” Larkin wrote. “The closure of these RI safety net hospitals would overwhelm RI’s healthcare system and create significant barriers to care for individuals already facing profound health disparities.”

Surgeries rescheduled

Not that operations have been running smoothly now. Rundell testified in bankruptcy court Tuesday that the company also owes millions of dollars to vendors at its 16 hospitals, forcing delays in surgeries, according to news reports.

Otis Brown, a spokesperson for CharterCARE Health Partners, Prospect’s Rhode Island subsidiary, confirmed in an email Wednesday that two spine surgeries scheduled for that day in Rhode Island had been moved to Monday, Jan. 20 because a vendor “unexpectedly requested pre-payment.”

“We are actively working with them to resolve it,” Brown said of the payment problem, adding that the rescheduling of surgeries was “without incident.”


It’s not the first time the hospital operator let bills at its Rhode Island hospitals pile up. In November 2023, Neronha’s office sued Prospect for missing $24 million in payments to vendors at Roger Williams and Fatima, forcing elective surgeries to be canceled due to lack of staff, supplies and equipment. Paying its bills on time and keeping day-to-day operations running was one of a host of conditions set by Neronha’s office in 2021, when Prospect’s ownership composition changed.

A Providence Superior Court judge sided with Neronha, demanding Prospect fork over the longest overdue vendor payments — $17 million — and blasting the company for using its Rhode Island hospitals as a “line of credit” to pay off debts elsewhere. A Prospect executive confirmed it had paid the $17 million balance as of July, but in November, filed a new affidavit that the company again let bills pile up beyond the 90-day payment deadline.

Prospect intended to rectify the late payments by the time its pending sale of Roger Williams and Fatima to The Centurion Foundation closed at the end of January 2025, George Pillari, Prospect’s senior vice president and chief performance officer, wrote in the Nov. 15 Rhode Island Superior Court filing.

“For years, they’ve been playing this game of slow walking on paying their bills, gimmicks like that to save a buck,” Callaci said. “Our guys consistently, for years, have been telling us it’s a struggle to do their jobs in a timely fashion.”

Union members who work at Roger Williams and Fatima had not indicated that daily operations had worsened in recent weeks, Callaci said.

While the union railed against the pending sale to Centurion, citing the debt financing used to fund the deal and Centurion’s lack of experience, Callaci now considers hospital closure a worse outcome.
McKee ‘missing in action’

Potential buyers were few when Prospect first sought interest in 2023. And Neronha isn’t hopeful that the pool will be larger now, given Rhode Island’s uncompetitive reimbursement rates relative to neighboring states, and his criticism of Gov. Dan McKee.
McKee attempts to rally his team in 2025 State of the State

McKee in his 2025 State of the State Tuesday night acknowledged Prospect’s financial crisis with a single line, saying he was “in conversations” with Prospect and Centurion executives.

Neronha, who sat in the front row for the packed State House event, called McKee’s statement “meaningless.”

“I don’t know what he’s talking about,” Neronha said Wednesday. “He’s not involved in any talks with Prospect.”

Callaci blasted McKee for being “missing in action.”

“He ought to be making unequivocal affirmative commitments to the 2,500 to 3,000 people who work in that system and the tens of thousands of people who use those facilities,” Callaci said. “He’s chief executive officer of this state. It is his job to do the job.”

Olivia DaRocha, a spokesperson for McKee’s office, offered further explanation on McKee’s State of the State remarks in an email Wednesday.

“Discussions have centered on a potential carve-out for Prospect’s Rhode Island facilities and ensuring that the sale of Roger Williams and Fatima moves forward,” DaRocha said.

She did not respond to requests for comment on criticisms of the governor made by Callaci and Neronha.

A second hearing on Prospect’s request for short-term financing is set for Feb. 12 in federal bankruptcy court in Dallas.

Updated to include comment from Gov. Dan McKee’s office and from the Rhode Island Department of Health.


Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com.

'Severe economic downturn': Why MAGA’s pro-tariff arguments 'will backfire'

Alex Henderson

January 17, 2025

ALTERNET



Workers remove snow outside the White House in Washington - Copyright AFP Mandel NGAN


President-elect Donald Trump and others in the MAGA movement are arguing that tariffs will encourage U.S. manufacturing, benefit the economy, and promote job creation. Trump is proposing 25 percent across-the-board tariffs on all goods imported into the United States from Mexico and Canada, and he favors aggressive tariffs with products manufactured in Mainland China as well.

In an op-ed published by Politico on January 15, Matthew C. Klein — co-author of the 2020 book "Trade Wars Are Class Wars: How Rising Inequality Distorts the Global Economy and Threatens International Peace" — lays out some reasons why the tariffs Trump is proposing will not create the U.S. manufacturing renaissance he says they will.

Klein makes it clear that he is "sympathetic" to Trump's complaints about the decline of U.S.-based manufacturing, which, the author says, threatens the U.S. from both a "prosperity" standpoint and a "national security" standpoint. And he acknowledges that "the global trading system has failed many workers in the U.S. and elsewhere."

READ MORE: The real reason Trump is pushing for acquiring Greenland: analysis

But Klein is highly critical of the tariffs Trump is proposing, arguing that the president-elect "needs to think harder about the tools he wants to use" and avoid creating a "severe economic downturn."

"Several of the policies Trump and his advisers have floated — primarily universal tariffs — risk making things worse, or, at best, will do nothing to revive American manufacturing or improve the lives of its workers," Klein warns. "Prosperity is not zero-sum, and just because we inflict pain on trading partners doesn't mean we'll benefit. More likely, punitive measures will backfire."

According to Klein, the "net effect" of tariffs "depends on how easily American workers and factories can ramp up production of goods that are currently imported."

"For goods where U.S. demand is relatively low but domestic capacity is rising rapidly thanks to government subsidies, such as battery electric vehicles, the benefits of tariffs could outweigh the costs," Klein explains. "At the other extreme would be tariffs on imports of goods where demand is strong and domestic capacity is extremely constrained, such as coffee beans. There, tariffs would be closer to a sales tax that takes money from American consumers to reduce the federal budget deficit."

READ MORE: Canada's fight with Trump isn't just economic — it’s existential

Klein adds, "In the middle are goods that Americans could make more of, but only by moving workers and machines away from other activities: more U.S.-made t-shirts, but fewer childcare workers. Unfortunately, the incoming administration does not seem to appreciate these nuances."

READ MORE: 'He's mad': GOP reps say ousted intel chair now 'never going to vote' for Johnson’s bills


Matthew C. Klein's full Politico op-ed is available at this link.