Tuesday, August 11, 2026

WHO defends immunisation schedules after Trump orders fewer childhood shots

By Olivia Le Poidevin
Tue, August 11, 2026 
REUTERS


A sign reading "Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations" is displayed next to a bust of Benjamin Franklin, during an event with U.S. President Donald Trump to sign an executive order regarding vaccine flexibility, in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kylie Cooper

GENEVA, Aug 11 (Reuters) - The World Health Organization on Tuesday defended the science-based process used to determine childhood immunisation schedules after U.S. President Donald Trump signed an ‌executive order aimed at reducing the number of recommended childhood vaccinations in the United States.

On ‌Monday, Trump signed an executive order calling for a reduced childhood vaccination schedule of 11 immunisations. Trump said the move would provide ​U.S. children with "gold-standard" protection and align the United States more closely with other developed countries that recommend fewer shots.

Vaccine experts say that other developed countries that may recommend fewer shots face different disease risks and have different healthcare systems.

The order advances a long-standing objective of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has questioned ‌vaccine safety and promoted claims linking ⁠vaccines to autism even though scientific studies and public health authorities have found no evidence of a link.

WHO spokesperson Tarik Jašarević told a press briefing in Geneva that ⁠vaccination recommendations were based on more than 60 years of research by WHO, national authorities and independent expert groups.

The timing of individual vaccines was determined through extensive scientific review of when people were most vulnerable to particular diseases ​and ​the development of the immune system, Jašarević told reporters ​in Geneva.

Jašarević said countries typically relied on national ‌immunisation technical advisory groups made up of multidisciplinary experts who provided independent, evidence-based recommendations to governments and vaccination programme managers. Those groups, he said, draw on guidance from WHO's Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) when establishing national schedules.

"What comes out from WHO is science-based," Jašarević said.

"We hope that all countries will use this best scientific evidence that we have."

SEPARATE SHOTS FOR MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA

Trump's executive order has ‌drawn criticism from medical associations, public health experts and vaccine ​manufacturers, who say there is no new scientific evidence to justify ​the changes and that the existing U.S. ​schedule reflects decades of evidence and the specific health needs of Americans, rejecting the ‌comparison to other countries.

Physicians have warned that reducing ​the number of recommended ​vaccinations could leave more children vulnerable to preventable diseases and create confusion among parents about when children should be immunised.

The Trump order also recommends separating the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine ​into three individual injections. Vaccine maker ‌Merck has said there is no published scientific evidence showing a benefit from splitting the ​shot and warned that requiring separate visits could increase the risk of delayed or missed ​vaccinations.

(Reporting by Olivia Le Poidevin; Editing by Kate Mayberry)

Trump's 'rapid-fire' lies accompany major announcement debunked by fact-checker


Travis Gettys
August 11, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump attends an event to sign an executive order regarding vaccine flexibility, with Heidi Overton, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health, and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kylie Coope


CNN's Daniel Dale debunked what he called "rapid-fire vaccine misinformation" provided by President Donald Trump to justify his executive order changing U.S. vaccine policy.

The 80-year-old made a series of false and misleading claims about vaccines and autism on Monday while signing an executive order recommending that children receive fewer vaccinations spread out over a longer period than called for by current guidelines, Dale reported for CNN.

Trump again suggested a link between vaccines and autism, saying rising autism rates coincided with "progressively more and more vaccines," but that connection has been debunked by more than 40 studies across seven countries involving over 5.6 million people.

"There's no new science," said Dr. Aaron Milstone of Johns Hopkins, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' infectious diseases committee. "Study after study have continued to show no associations between vaccines and autism." The vaccine-autism theory originated from a fraudulent, later-retracted 1990s study; experts attribute the real rise in diagnosed autism cases largely to improved detection and awareness, not vaccines.

Trump also renewed his call to split the combination measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine into three separate shots, claiming that together the vaccines "could be quite lethal." When a reporter pressed him for evidence, Trump admitted he had none, saying only that "some people" say so.

The CDC's own website states there is "no published scientific evidence" that separating the shots offers any benefit, and the combination vaccine has a decades-long safety record. Dr. Paul Offit of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia noted that splitting the doses would likely reduce the odds that children complete the full vaccination series and would mean more injections overall. Separate MMR shots aren't even manufactured in the U.S. currently, according to American Academy of Pediatrics president Dr. Andrew Racine.

Trump repeated his frequent claim that vaccine doses are "the size of a bottle of soda" injected into children. In reality, a typical dose like the MMR vaccine is about 0.5 milliliters — roughly a tenth of a teaspoon — compared with 500-600 milliliters in a standard soda bottle.

He also claimed autism prevalence was "1 in 10,000" 20 years ago, dramatically understating the actual rate. CDC data show the prevalence in 2006 was one in 110, and even in 2000 it was one in 150 — figures far higher than Trump's claim, which appears to reference estimates from studies conducted decades earlier, in the 1960s and 1970s.

Finally, Trump claimed children are required to get "72 jabs," a figure experts say is inflated. Racine said he didn't know where the number originated. It appears to count every individual vaccine dose through age 18 — including optional annual flu and COVID-19 shots that no state actually mandates for school attendance — as a separate "jab," even though some doses are combined into single shots or given orally.

Fact check: Trump makes numerous false and misleading claims about vaccines and autism

Daniel Dale, CNN
Tue, August 11, 2026

President Donald Trump made numerous false or misleading claims about vaccines and autism on Monday.

Trump has long pushed vaccine misinformation. He delivered his latest inaccurate remarks at a White House event during which he signed an executive order that recommends that US children receive fewer vaccinations over a longer period of time than they do today.

Trump again floated the idea that vaccines cause autism, though that notion has been thoroughly debunked by extensive research in multiple countries. He again baselessly impugned the safety of the combination vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, which has for decades proven highly safe and highly effective.

He again wildly overstated the size of the vaccine doses children receive, which are nowhere near "the size of a bottle of soda." He again wildly understated the prevalence of autism 20 years ago. And he again exaggerated the number of injections children have been required to receive.

Here is a fuller fact check of some of Trump's comments.
Studies have debunked the idea of a link between vaccines and autism

Trump did not explicitly assert that there is a connection between vaccines and autism. But he did once more hint at the idea that there might be a link, saying, "I came in and I said, 'I want to find what's going on with autism.' It's many, many times what it used to be years ago, and it gets progressively worse, and we had progressively more and more vaccines. "

Studies have shown there is no connection between vaccines and autism – as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention flatly stated on its website until the Trump administration baselessly changed the site's language to include unscientific talking points last fall.

"There's no new science," Dr. Aaron Milstone, professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a briefing Monday. "All the data say that there's no association between vaccines and autism. Study after study have continued to show no associations between vaccines and autism. So I think that's clear, and there are no new data."

Independent researchers across seven countries have conducted more than 40 studies involving over 5.6 million people to conclude that there is no link between vaccines and autism, Dr. Sean O'Leary, a professor of pediatrics and infectious diseases at the University of Colorado Denver Anschutz Medical Campus and Children's Hospital Colorado, said last fall. The idea of a link between vaccines and autism has "been debunked many times," said O'Leary, adding, "It is considered settled science."

Dr. Alycia Halladay, the chief science officer for the Autism Science Foundation, noted last fall that experiments in countries including Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Israel and Japan collected data from large groups of people and tracked their vaccination patterns and whether they had an autism diagnosis.

"All of those studies have shown no link between vaccines and autism," Halladay said. "It remains the No. 1 studied environmental factor in autism, and there is no link whatsoever."

The notion of a connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism was popularized by a fraudulent, debunked study in the 1990s. There's no doubt that the known prevalence of autism has spiked in the 21st century, but experts have attributed the increase in large part to improvements in diagnostic practices and greater awareness of the symptoms.
The MMR vaccine is highly safe and highly effective

As Trump called Monday to split up the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine into separate shots, he baselessly suggested, as he has before, that the combination vaccine is unsafe.

"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," he said.

It's not true that the combination MMR vaccine could be "quite lethal." As the CDC website continued to say at the time Trump spoke Monday, the combination vaccine has proven "very safe" and has been highly effective since it was approved in the US in the early 1970s; it is used today in dozens of countries. Some children experience side effects, but those are usually mild and temporary.

"There have been no deaths shown to be related to the MMR vaccine in healthy people," the Infectious Diseases Society of America says on its website. "There have been rare cases of deaths from vaccine side effects among children who are immune compromised, which is why it is recommended that they don't get the vaccine."

At the time of Trump's remarks Monday, the CDC website still said: "No published scientific evidence shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots." And when a reporter asked Trump whether there is any evidence of lethality, he acknowledged he had none, instead saying, "What I've heard is that there are some people that say it is that way."

Whoever those "some people" are, they are not medical authorities.

"Numerous studies and many decades of experience have showed us that they are safe and that they work well when given together," Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious diseases physician in New York City, said last fall.

"I'm not aware of any evidence that it's dangerous to give MMR together," Dr. Ofer Levy, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children's Hospital, said last fall after Trump made similar claims.

Separating the MMR vaccine into separate shots "doesn't make the vaccine safer," Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and former member of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory group, said Monday. "In fact, what it means is that you're probably less likely to finish all those six shots, and it's more painful for the child."

Separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are not currently available in the US, and "it's impossible to separate out the MMR vaccine into its constituent components," Dr. Andrew Racine, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, noted in the Monday briefing. Since the hypothetical separate vaccines would have to be manufactured and tested before they were deployed, "it would take a long, long time for that to be the case," he said.


Vaccine doses are nowhere near 'the size of a bottle of soda'

Trump has repeatedly inflated the size of the vaccine doses American children receive as he has criticized US vaccination practices. He did it again Monday. This time, he said, "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."

In reality, no vaccine injected in a little child is even close to the size of a soda bottle; doses are far smaller than a teaspoon. The MMR vaccine, to cite a typical example, has a dosage of 0.5 milliliters, roughly a tenth of a teaspoon. Many soda bottles contain between 500 and 600 milliliters.
Autism was far more common 20 years ago than Trump claimed

Trump has repeatedly used wildly inaccurate figures when discussing the known prevalence of autism 20 years ago — shrinking that 2006 prevalence to make it sound as if there has been a far faster increase than there actually has been. On Monday, he said, as he has before, that it was "1 in 10,000 20 years ago."

That's not even close to true. The known prevalence of childhood autism was 1 in 110 in 2006, according to data published on the CDC website; even in 2000, it was 1 in 150. While some of the earliest studies on the subject, from the 1960s and 1970s, estimated autism prevalence to be in the range of 2 to 4 per 10,000 children, that was much further back than the "20 years ago" Trump used Monday and on prior occasions.
There are far fewer required shots than Trump said

While calling for children to receive fewer injections, Trump claimed, "In many cases, we were requiring 72 jabs for our beautiful, healthy, lovely, delicate little children."

That's a significant overstatement of the number of injections Americans are required to receive even by age 18, let alone during their littlest years. Racine said in the Monday briefing that he didn't know where Trump got the "72" figure.

Trump did not explain his math, but he appeared to be separately counting every single dose of every vaccine an American might receive by age 18 as a "jab" — even though some of those doses are commonly given orally or in a combination shot rather than in a separate injection. And Trump did not explain that it appears around half of the shots included in a "72" count would be optional annual flu and Covid-19 vaccinations; no state is "requiring" these shots for children to attend school.

Isa Mudannayake, Meg Tirrell, Brenda Goodman and Asuka Koda contributed to this article.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com


MS NOW host blows a fuse as Trump admin makes move that 'everybody feared would happen'


Tom Boggioni
August 11, 2026 
RAW STORY




An announcement by President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on childhood vaccine scheduling for a personal response on MS NOW Tuesday morning.

On Monday, the two announced changes that are contrary to advice from medical experts, based on Trump and Kennedy’s mistaken insistence that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

With Trump calling the advisory a “major victory for parents' rights, religious and constitutional rights, and for the gold standard science,” MS NOW host Joe Scarborough claimed the president and RFK Jr. are way out of their lane and putting families in danger.

After sharing a clip of the president saying putting vaccines together can be “explosive,” the “Morning Joe” host bluntly stated, “That is just not true.”

“Physicians and scientists have said the MMR shot is safe and effective, and breaking it up could leave children vulnerable to dangerous diseases for longer,” co-host Mike Brzezinski contributed. “President Trump yesterday also repeatedly suggested the number or timing of vaccines could play a role in rising rates of autism, despite scientific consensus and decades of studies that have firmly concluded there is no link.”


Scarborough then went off.


“By the way, I just want to say, and we're going to go through all of this, I just want to say I have a child that's on the spectrum, and this is something I have studied intensively, even talking to Bobby 25 years ago — seen study after study after study,” he recalled.

“I've been looking at study after study after study, just like I've looked at study after study after study on diabetes,” he added. “There is not a single relevant study, there's not a single legitimate study that suggests vaccines play any role in the rise of autism. If there were, I would have been telling you about it over the past 20 years.”

“There's not one legitimate study,” he continued. “You know, there was a bogus study done for trial lawyers, which Bobby Kennedy is one of the trial lawyers, that was published in The Lancet [at the end of the 90s. It was like 12 people and they all separated themselves from it because it was false. It was a scam!”


Scarborough fumed that seeing the claims repeated in the Oval Office represented what "everybody feared would happen" putting Kennedy in charge of HHS.

"This is so stupid. And it's so dangerous. And it's spread so much disinformation," he railed.





Trump signs order calling for spacing out childhood vaccines, against medical groups' guidance


ALI SWENSON and COLLIN BINKLEY
Updated Mon, August 10, 2026 
AP


President Donald Trump holds up an image taken from his Truth Social account as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. watches during a meeting to sign an executive order about vaccines, Monday, Aug. 10, 2026, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks as President Donald Trump listens during a meeting to sign an executive order about vaccines, Monday, Aug. 10, 2026, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)


National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya speaks during a meeting to sign an executive order about vaccines, Monday, Aug. 10, 2026, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order calling for revamped childhood vaccine recommendations that promote his long-held but discredited theory that childhood shots should be spaced out into separate medical visits.

The order advocates separating the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine into three different single-disease shots and administering all childhood immunizations at separate appointments whenever possible. It also directs the nation's health department to improve research on vaccines, which are already extensively studied, and present a plan to offer separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines for children, since that is not currently an option in the United States.

The renewed focus on vaccines marks a departure from the Trump administration's recent efforts to emphasize less controversial health policies related to healthy eating, drug price negotiations and medical fraud crackdowns ahead of November's midterm elections.

Public health experts have raised concerns that spacing out shots as Trump suggests can lead to an increased risk that children become infected with a vaccine-preventable disease before returning for another visit. Childhood vaccines — and how and when to give them in combination — go through rigorous studies, and safety tracking continues for years as the shots are used.

Trump called the announcement a "major victory for parents rights, religious and constitutional rights, and for the gold standard science."

Speaking about the order at the Oval Office on Monday, Trump repeatedly suggested the number or timing of vaccines could play a role in rising rates of autism spectrum disorder, even as scientific consensus and decades of studies have firmly concluded there is no link. The order also includes several changes to the childhood vaccine schedule that his health department has already attempted, but that have been blocked by a federal judge. A White House official who insisted on anonymity to brief reporters said Trump was within his right to provide his own recommendation through the executive order and said the lawsuit blocking the health department's schedule was a separate issue.

Dr. Andrew Racine, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the announcement spreads uncertainty, fear and confusion where "there doesn't need to be any of that." He disputed Trump's recommendations and said previous ones should stand.

"Science about vaccines and their efficacy has not changed," he said. "The distribution of viruses and other pathogens in our environment has not changed. Children in this country have not changed in the last 48 hours."

Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the Senate health committee, slammed the executive order in a social media post, saying vaccines are safe and do not cause autism.

"I'm a doctor. This executive order is wrong," the Louisiana senator wrote. "The President does not have the expertise to make these changes."
Who is in charge of vaccine policy?

Even as the order calls for revised vaccine recommendations, states, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. The order advises states with school vaccine mandates to consider updating their laws to reflect the administration's preferred schedule, according to a White House fact sheet.

Last December, Trump ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to review how peer nations approach vaccine recommendations and consider revising U.S. guidance accordingly. The department responded by cutting the number of vaccines it recommends for every child, a move that has since been blocked in court.

Changes to federal childhood vaccine recommendations customarily require approval from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The newly Senate-confirmed CDC director, Dr. Erica Schwartz, oversaw policies promoting vaccination of service members while in a leadership position at the U.S. Coast Guard.

However, public health law expert Lawrence Gostin at Georgetown University said the Supreme Court's interpretation of Trump's power may allow him to supersede Schwartz if she does not agree to new recommendations.

"This is clearly the first test for Dr. Erica Schwartz," Gostin said in an email. "The President is placing her in an untenable position."

Asked on a call with reporters why the president was advocating splitting MMR into three single-disease vaccines, the White House official did not provide any studies supporting the decision. They said that was Trump's long-held view and that some countries provide individual measles vaccines in certain circumstances.

Kush Desai, a Trump spokesperson, told The Associated Press that the president is "one of countless parents who have voiced questions and concerns about the combined MMR vaccine" and said the plan to develop single-disease vaccines would "give parents more options on timing and frequency for their children," ultimately increasing vaccine uptake.

Studies of babies and toddlers in the U.S. have shown that the use of combination shots for childhood vaccines, rather than single ones, increased the likelihood of completing all recommended vaccinations by the age of 2.
Announcement follows other Trump administration vaccine actions

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist before he entered politics, set out to overhaul immunization guidance at DHS in the first year of Trump's term. He fired an entire 17-member vaccine advisory committee, installing replacements who made far more restrictive recommendations that have since been halted by a federal judge. He also personally directed the CDC to abandon its position that vaccines do not cause autism, without supplying any new evidence to support the change.

Throughout his second term, Trump has been fixated on connecting autism to vaccines. He has recently ramped up pressure on Kennedy to identify the cause of autism, something Kennedy had pledged to do with new research unveiled last year. Trump publicly prodded the health secretary for an update on autism research in a Cabinet meeting last month.

"How are you doing on the autism research?" Trump asked.

"We will have an answer for you," Kennedy said.

Scientific consensus and decades of studies have firmly concluded there is no link between childhood vaccines and autism. Racine reiterated that point on Monday, noting that the potential link had been studied in "over 40 methodologically well-designed studies in over seven countries involving over 5 million children."

"I'm not sure that there is anything that has been as thoroughly looked at as this question," he said. "And the answer is unequivocally no."

In the Oval Office, Kennedy repeated his assertion that he believes an unknown environmental factor is to blame for rising autism diagnoses and said that his department will deliver research findings "as soon as they are ready."

Monday's order comes as students are returning to classrooms around the country and the nation contends with a measles outbreak that experts say could result in the U.S. losing its measles elimination status.

Doctors have raised concerns that Trump's falsehoods on vaccines could stoke vaccine hesitancy. Federal data shows U.S. kindergarten vaccination rates have been dropping, with the share of children with exemptions rising to an all-time high in the 2024-25 school year.

___

Associated Press writers Laura Ungar and Mike Stobbe contributed to this report. Swenson reported from New York.

Trump praises vaccine order but critics fear child deaths: What to know

Michael Loria, 
USA TODAY
Updated Mon, August 10, 2026 




President Donald Trump is hailing his new order on vaccines as a win for freedom of choice in children's future medical care but critics are slamming the move, saying it could lead to greater risk of diseases rarely seen for generations.

Trump signed an executive order Monday, Aug. 10, aimed at giving Americans more choice in terms of what vaccines their children take, according to the White House. The order aims to decrease the number of vaccines children take and split vaccines that have been administered in a single shot into several split across separate doctor's visits.

"Nothing bad can happen from what we're doing," Trump said. "It's possible it doesn't work. I don't think that's much of a possibility, frankly. We're going to learn a lot."

But critics, including elected Republican Party officials, say the new White House policy will make children less safe and will add healthcare costs for parents.

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican and physician, said the White House directive trade on a claim unsupported by science that vaccines are harmful and cause autism.

"Parents should listen to their child's pediatrician about vaccines rather than listening to an inaccurate executive order," Cassidy said in a statement on his official X page. "This is so wrong."

Health experts also criticized the plan.

"This upends decades of public health practice and consensus and it's been done unilaterally without reason and without evidence," Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University, told USA TODAY.

He added: "Childhood vaccines have been the greatest public health achievements in our lifetimes and they have the best track record of any medical intervention for safety and effectiveness and by reducing the number of vaccines and also requiring many additional doctor's visits, it's going to open up even wider gaps in immunization coverage among children."

Gostin predicted that major outbreaks of measles, mumps, rubella and other childhood diseases are inevitable and that some children will die.

Trump's new "Delivering Gold Standard Childhood Vaccine Recommendations for Americans" is the White House's latest effort to change the landscape in vaccines across the country. Previous administration efforts have been blocked in court.

The president told reporters in the Oval Office on Aug. 10 that the order comes in response to claims that some vaccines are "quite lethal" and "explosive" when taken together, though he said he does not have evidence to support such claims.

Trump said the order does not force parents to limit vaccinations.

"Parents can still choose to give their children all of the vaccinations if they wish," Trump said on Aug. 10 before signing the order. "They will be covered by insurance."


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies about the health care agenda for the Trump administration in front of the Senate Committee on Finance in Washington, D.C., on September 4, 2025. (Jack Gruber, USA TODAY)


Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) questions Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, as he testifies about the health care agenda for the Trump administration in front of the Senate Committee on Finance in Washington, D.C., on September 4, 2025. (Jack Gruber, USA TODAY)

The White House's new executive order urges U.S. states and territories to follow a new blueprint for administering vaccines that would upend decades of public health practice.

Trump's order generally aims to lower the number of vaccines children take by recommending shots be administered in separate visits, by narrowing the number of people to hom the White House recommends for some vaccines and by offering support to parents who don't want their children to be vaccinated.

Among the recommendations, Trump's order calls for separating the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine into separate shots that would be administered across several doctor's visits. The combination shot is widely known as the MMR vaccine.

White House officials did not have an immediate answer on how federal officials would address rising medical bills resulting from additional doctor's visits. Trump earlier promised that vaccines would remain covered by insurance.

Health experts prefer combination formulations, including the MMR vaccine, because they target more than one pathogen, require fewer shots, and research shows patients are more likely to complete recommended vaccine series when fewer shots are involved.

It's unclear how soon the MMR separation recommendation could be implemented. The combination shot has been administered since 1971 and most vaccine makers manufacture the shot as a combination, not as individual vaccines.

According to the new order, the Department of Justice will also support parents aiming to challenge in court existing public standards. White House officials said the order aims to "maximize parental choice."

What does the order do?

The White House's order has no binding effect as law and should not be taken as a change in federal vaccine policy.

According to experts, changing federal vaccine recommendations is a rigorous process based upon reviews of evidence.

The Trump administration's order better serves as a blueprint for states and territories to adopt. But given the president's sway in Republican-led states, the order is expected to have a potentially broad impact, especially as the number of unvaccinated children traveling around the country rises.

"None of it [is] based in science," Peter J. Hotez, a vaccine pediatrician and scientist at Texas Medical Center, said of the White House order in a statement. "Measles has already returned, and we should expect congenital rubella syndrome to follow, pertussis also at risk, and even polio wouldn't surprise me."
What impact could the order have on the spread of disease?

Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, noted the White House's recommendations come out amid ongoing measles and pertussis outbreaks. Pertussis is more commonly known as whooping cough.

"Did @SecKennedy not tell the president about the ongoing Trump/Kennedy measles and pertussis outbreaks, the deaths from them, and the fact that we will likely lose our measles elimination status on his watch?" said Reiss in a statement on X. "Someone should tell the President about that."

Measles was rare until 2025 when some 2,280 cases were seen across the country, according to Johns Hopkins. There have been nearly 2,500 cases so far in 2026. Almost all cases are reported among people who are unvaccinated or unknown to be vaccinated.

According to Johns Hopkins, 2025 saw the greatest number of whooping cough cases since 2012 with 29,000. The rising number of cases comes amid falling vaccination rates. Newborns and infants are particularly vulnerable to the disease.

Trump mocked over apparent zone-out during Oval Office vaccine announcement


Brendan Rascius
Mon, August 10, 2026  
THE INDEPENDENT


President Donald Trump appeared to zone out during an Oval Office announcement on vaccines, prompting mockery online.

President Donald Trump appeared to zone out during an Oval Office announcement on vaccines, prompting a fresh round of mockery online.

On Monday, Trump signed an executive order that calls for reducing the number of vaccines recommended for children and splitting the MMR shot — which protects against measles, mumps and rubella — into three individual vaccines.

The order is the latest step in the administration's campaign to remake the childhood vaccination schedule, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has long questioned vaccine safety.

During the ceremony, the 80-year-old president appeared to repeatedly close his eyes while seated behind the Resolute Desk — including as Kennedy and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya spoke beside him.

Videos of the moments quickly circulated on social media.


President Donald Trump appeared to zone out during a vaccine announcement in the Oval Office on Monday with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr (AFP via Getty Images)

"I love how he pops out of it for a few seconds then closes his eyes again and he's right back in dream land. This is getting ridiculous," wrote one X user. Another chimed in: "Why doesn't the assembled media speak out about this...they all see it."

"What a loser," a third user wrote. "After years of listening to those 'sleepy joe' comments…" The remark referred to Trump's longtime nickname for former President Joe Biden, whom he repeatedly accused of being mentally and physically unfit for office.

Some commenters, however, were more supportive of the president. "In Trump's defense, good Lord, the speaker is boring," one wrote.

The White House defended Trump, saying: "President Trump's sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the last administration when Democrats and the legacy media intentionally covered up Joe Biden's serious mental and physical decline from the American people. President Trump is the sharpest and most accessible President in American history who is working nonstop to solve problems and deliver on his promises."

Trump, the oldest person ever inaugurated as president, has faced persistent scrutiny over his health since returning to the White House, including over moments during official events in which he has appeared to close his eyes for extended periods. One such moment came during Lindsey Graham's funeral last month.

"The president has severe daytime somnolence," CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner said in May. "He falls asleep very often. He's fallen asleep in the Oval Office on multiple occasions with people talking to him, in the cabinet room," he said. "And chronic insomnia is a severe illness. It can result in an increase in risk of dementia, a decrease in cognitive effects in older people."


Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya (L) speaks before President Donald Trump signs an executive order calling for more research and flexibility on vaccines (AFP via Getty Images)More

Trump, for his part, has repeatedly insisted that he is in excellent health. After a physical at Walter Reed in May, the president wrote on Truth Social that "everything" had "checked out PERFECTLY."

In a YouGov survey conducted last year, 78 percent of respondents said they believed Trump had not been transparent about his physical health.

The Independent has contacted the White House for comment.
AMERIKA

How hospital monopolies are driving up the cost of your health care


Close-up of a doctor holding a clipboard while talking to a patient, representing healthcare and trust. · Washington Post · Wanchai Noolpong via Getty Images


Peter Whoriskey ,
 Special to The Washington Post
Sun, August 9, 2026

More than a million times a year, a U.S. surgeon slices open a knee, strips out worn cartilage, caps the leg bones with metal and drops in a plastic spacer to allow the new joint to glide.

But while these knee-replacement procedures have become standard, the prices charged have not.

At Catawba Valley Medical Center in Hickory, North Carolina, for example, the cost of the procedure under a Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan this year was about $16,000, according to data from Serif Health, a San Francisco start-up that collects recently released data from hospitals and insurers. Little more than an hour's drive west, however, at Mission Hospital in Asheville, the cost of the procedure under the same health plan was around $40,000, or more than double, the data showed.

Formed by the merger of the two largest hospitals in the region, Mission has little competition and more power to demand the higher price.

The comparison between these two hospitals illuminates how large hospital systems created by a wave of U.S. mergers in recent decades can dominate the competition and push up health care costs.

While many factors affect the price of a medical procedure, hospitals with few competitors can charge more, health economists say.


The hospital price hikes mean that patients and their insurers must pay more for an episode of health care. But there is an important side effect, too, even for people who don't require medical care. When insurers are faced with higher hospital prices, they pass the costs on and raise the prices they charge for everyone's health insurance.

Using Serif Health's pricing data, it is possible to see how mergers like the one that created Mission Hospital influence costs. For years, it was difficult to determine how much hospital monopolies boosted charges. But since 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has required hospitals to disclose prices, making it possible to gather comprehensive data such as Serif Health's.

The connection between market power and prices exists across the country. In Melbourne, Florida, Holmes Regional Medical Center is part of a health system, Health First, that dominates surrounding Brevard County. The center has charged Cigna two times what a hospital two hours north did for a knee replacement this year, the Serif Health data shows.


Banner North Colorado Medical Center, which ranks as the leading health care provider in Weld County, Colorado, charged a UnitedHealthcare patient $20,000 more for the surgery in Greeley than a health system an hour's drive south in Denver, according to Serif's figures.


The American Hospital Association, a trade group, has argued that hospital mergers can improve quality and reduce health care costs by creating "a fiscally sustainable environment." A Mission Hospital spokesperson said comparing hospitals' prices was unfair or misleading because their practices and constraints vary so much.

For years, economists suspected that the run of mergers beginning in the late 1990s was a main driver of the rising costs of U.S. health care. From 2002 to 2020 alone, more than 1,000 hospital mergers unfolded in the United States.

But until the recent federal disclosure rule, the effect of health care monopolies on pricing was often overlooked or harder to detect. Hospitals do not advertise their prices, and even when they are revealed on a bill, patients scarcely notice the bottom line because they don't pay most of it - their insurers do.


"What the data shows pretty clearly is that when hospitals have bargaining leverage, they tend to have higher prices," said Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale University who has spent more than a decade studying hospital monopolies.

Over the last quarter century, Cooper said, hospital prices have risen faster than those for any other economic sector, and "hospital consolidation is one of the primary drivers."

Federal and state officials have wavered over when to intervene when hospitals are proposing to merge. Last summer, President Donald Trump revoked President Joe Biden's 2021 directive that urged federal agencies to challenge mergers that could harm consumers, reversing course from Biden's more aggressive enforcement of antitrust law. In a March memo, however, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson called for a task force on health care mergers that are leading to "higher prices" and "decreased quality" of care.


Several states have sought to curb health care monopolies. In 2023, Minnesota passed a law banning anticompetitive health care mergers and bolstering state oversight. In 2022, California passed a law requiring health care businesses to give the state a 90-day notice of large mergers and created an agency to investigate their effects on competition. And Oregon passed a law in 2021 enabling the state health department to block acquisitions and mergers of hospitals.

Nothing has stopped the overall trend, however, as hospitals seek to grow and gain leverage over insurers and competitors. Last year alone, hospital and health systems announced 46 mergers and acquisitions, according to Kaufman Hall, a health care business consulting firm. Five ranked as "mega-mergers," meaning they were valued at more than $1 billion. One merged 28 hospitals across Connecticut and New York into a powerful interstate health system. Another linked Sanford Health and Marshfield Clinic Health System, a deal that created a 56-hospital system across the Midwest and beyond - including Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming - with combined revenue of about $10 billion.


Other mergers have been proposed in California, Hawaii and Minnesota.
Asheville's dominant hospital

Few places in the United States better exemplify how hospital mergers reshape health care than Asheville.

In 1998, the state authorized a deal that joined the city's two acute-care hospitals, St. Joseph's Hospital and Memorial Mission Medical Center, to create Mission Hospital. Ever since, its effects have been studied and its prices fiercely contested.

Marcelle Crago, a nurse and lactation consultant, is one of many patients who have accused Mission Health, which operates Mission Hospital, of gouging consumers. Last year, she tweaked her knee while cross-country skiing.

"My knee went 'pop, pop, pop,'" she recalled. She had torn her meniscus, the rubbery cartilage around the knee that acts as a shock absorber. A doctor advised her to have a portion of it removed.

Two days before the surgery, Mission Health told her the total charge would be over $9,000, according to paperwork on her case filed with the state's Consumer Protection Division.


"I was shocked at the number," she said.

Crago's insurance policy from UnitedHealth Group had a high deductible, so she would have had to pay most of the cost. She decided to postpone the surgery and shop around, eventually arranging to have it done at an outpatient center not affiliated with Mission. There, the bill came to less than a third of the price Mission Health charged, according to paperwork she kept.

"The way Mission Health handled the whole thing felt predatory," Crago recalled, noting that when she balked at the $9,000 figure, the hospital offered a 20 percent discount if she paid up-front.

"It makes you wonder how much they are playing with prices," she said.

In responding to Crago's complaint with the state, an attorney for Mission and HCA Healthcare, which owns the hospital, wrote that hospital charges "represent the cost for supporting the entire episode of care" and must cover the hospital's investments in advanced technology, training, staff and other critical needs.


"Patients are certainly entitled to 'shop around' for surgical procedures," wrote the attorney, Phillip Jackson.

It is not just patients who bear the burden of rising hospital prices.

Over time, anyone who pays for health insurance pays a price for hospital monopolies, as insurers boost premiums as medical costs rise. The full cost for an employer to pay for an average family health insurance plan rose to more than $27,000 in 2025, up from $21,000 just six years ago, according to figures from KFF.

Around Asheville, employers and employees complain that their insurance premiums are higher because Mission's prices are so high.

As the chef and co-founder of Cúrate restaurant in Asheville, a business with about 100 employees, Katie Button provides employee health coverage and believes she has been paying for Mission Hospital's excessive prices, according to a pending class-action lawsuit she filed in 2021 with five residents who say the monopoly has harmed them.


Any insurance plan in Asheville must include Mission Hospital, she said, because it is the only one around. This makes the burden of its prices unavoidable.

"We are where we are because we don't have a choice of hospitals," Button said. "There is no other option."

The steady creep of health care costs is top of mind not just in Asheville but for most U.S. voters, according to an April KFF poll. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults were worried about being able to afford health care, the poll found.

Yet while federal law allows regulators to step in and block mergers deemed to create monopolies, the FTC intervened in only about 1 percent of such cases from 2002 to 2020 to stop a hospital merger, according to a Yale University study. The FTC has since announced challenges to five other hospital mergers.
Birth of a monopoly

When Mission Health was formed by a merger in 1998, state officials recognized that Asheville's new dominant hospital system would have the power to raise prices and required Mission to sign an agreement to limit spending and profit margins.

Even with these restrictions, the hospital substantially hiked prices, according to economic research cited by the FTC. But Mission's prices were about to go up even more. In 2015, Mission Health lobbied the state legislature to drop the state restrictions, abandoning the profit limits.


"After 20 years of the hospital behaving itself, the state decided to terminate its oversight," said Mark Hall, a professor emeritus at Wake Forest University who has written an account of the hospital's merger history. Then, three years later, HCA, the largest hospital corporation in the country, bought Mission Health. (The Dogwood Health Trust, a nonprofit established as part of HCA's purchase of Mission Health, helps fund KFF Health News's coverage.)

"This put a prepackaged monopoly into the hands of the world's largest for-profit hospital corporation," Hall said.

Across a range of services, Mission Hospital charges more than other North Carolina hospitals, according to figures from Serif Health.

Consider the prices that Mission negotiated with UnitedHealthcare compared with those the insurer pays at Catawba Valley Medical Center. For a breast biopsy, UnitedHealth pays $7,500 at Mission and $1,700 at Catawba, according to Serif. For a hernia repair, it pays $17,700 at Mission and $9,600 at Catawba.


"The prices hospitals charge are one of the leading drivers of rising healthcare costs," according to a UnitedHealthcare statement sent by spokesperson Cole Manbeck.

Mission spokesperson Katie Czerwinski, in a statement, said that it can be misleading to compare one hospital with another.

Mission Hospital is almost three times as large as Catawba Valley Health and is a Level 1 trauma center serving a different population, Czerwinski said. She also said that pulling individual rates for comparison paints an incomplete picture.

But other figures indicate that prices at Mission Hospital are relatively high even when viewed collectively.

A team at the think tank Rand, led by Christopher Whaley, now a Brown University health economist, uses commercial insurance records to compare average hospital prices across the U.S. relative to those paid by Medicare. According to the Rand figures, Mission Hospital in 2024 charged prices that were 334 percent of prices set by Medicare. Catawba Valley Medical Center charged 237 percent. The state benchmark for prices is 280 percent of Medicare, Rand figures showed.

"The prices we pay for healthcare vary tremendously and are uncorrelated to the value we receive," according to the Rand website.

For many in Asheville, the primary complaints about Mission Hospital focus on the quality of patient care. This is consistent with academic studies showing that the quality of care declines when hospitals have little competition.

Amid rising complaints about hospital services, North Carolina state Sen. Julie Mayfield (D) helped launch a nonprofit organization two years ago called Reclaim Healthcare WNC to hold Mission "accountable for its harmful practices."

"Within a year of the HCA sale, I started hearing stories from physicians and other friends about all the terrible things that were happening there," Mayfield said, most of them caused by severe staff cuts and physicians leaving.

Three times since 2024, state health inspectors working on behalf of CMS have issued "immediate jeopardy" findings to Mission Hospital, indicating problems so severe that they posed an imminent risk of serious injury or death to patients.


In the most recent CMS report, an 88-year-old woman recovering from a fall and hip surgery at Mission Hospital died after going a night without receiving a blood transfusion.

Czerwinski, the Mission Hospital spokesperson, said a proposed plan of correction "allows Mission to address the findings" and "complete a comprehensive review of operations."

As more hospitals across the United States plan to merge, Mayfield said, the experience in Asheville represents a cautionary tale.

"Unregulated monopolies have never gone well for the public," she said.





EXPLOSIVE DIARRHEA 💩


It's not just Taco Bell. Taylor Farms supplies many restaurants, stores

Daniel de Visé, 
USA TODAY
Updated Mon, August 10, 2026 

Taylor Farms produces much of the lettuce and many of the jalapeño peppers sold in America's supermarkets and fast-food restaurants.

Right now, many consumers would like to know which ones.

Taylor Farms has been in the news because of a historic outbreak of cyclosporiasis, the "explosive diarrhea" disease. The largest cluster of cases, centered in Michigan, was traced by the Food and Drug Administration to recalled iceberg lettuce grown by the produce giant. But cases have been reported in 47 states in recent weeks, and experts say not all clusters have been linked to the same source

Now, in a separate case, Taylor Farms has recalled a variety of food products containing jalapeños linked to an ongoing salmonella outbreak. The two cases do not appear to be related.

The salmonella recall involves products sold at grocery stores including Walmart, Target and Trader Joe's in 26 states, according to an Aug. 9 FDA notice.

The cyclosporiasis outbreak is much larger: an unprecedented wave of infections since May, resulting in two deaths.

Taylor Farms on July 17 issued a voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce products, though the firm notes that the FDA reported "no confirmed positive sample results for product testing for Cyclospora" through Aug. 5.

The FDA has instructed Americans not to eat some of the iceberg lettuce produced by Taylor Farms.

Consumers might have a hard time following that directive: It's hard to tell the exact provenance of the lettuce in a restaurant taco, burger or sub.

Here, then, is a primer on Taylor Farms and its global reach.


Taylor Farms has recalled iceberg lettuce sourced from Mexico amid an outbreak of cyclosporiasis.

How big is Taylor Farms?

Taylor Farms is the "leading global producer of salads and healthy fresh foods," according to its website, with facilities in the United States, Mexico, Canada and Europe.

Taylor Farms has $7 billion in revenues and more than 25,000 employees and 30 processing facilities, according to a spring 2026 profile in UC Berkeley Haas Magazine.

"Operating across retail, foodservice, and prepared foods, Taylor Farms partners with every major retail group, club store, and quick-service restaurant chain in the country," the profile says.
Which supermarket chains sell Taylor Farms lettuce?

Many.

Visit the company's Find-a-Product page and type in your location, and you'll see a Who's Who of American supermarkets and big-box retailers that carry Taylor Farms salad kits and other products.

The list includes Walmart, Target, Safeway, Whole Foods, Meijer, Vons, Food4Less, H-E-B, Sprouts, Fry's, Albertsons and Kroger.



Taco Bell is among the large restaurant chains that serve Taylor Farms lettuce and other produce.


Which restaurant chains serve Taylor Farms lettuce?

That question is trickier to answer.

We know that Taco Bell served Taylor Farms lettuce because of the much-discussed recall.

Chipotle also serves Taylor Farms produce, a company official confirmed on July 20.

"We are continuing to follow the Cyclospora investigation very closely, and at this time, we don't believe the ingredients we source are associated," said Laurie Schalow, chief corporate affairs and food safety officer at Chipotle.

The Taylor Farms website doesn't offer a full list of the big-name chain restaurants that serve its lettuce in 2026. That makes it hard for consumers to guess which brands they might want to avoid.

We do know which chains have served Taylor Farms lettuce and other produce in the past, thanks to a 2014 report from Capital & Main and The Huffington Post.

That list includes McDonald's, Subway, KFC, Long John Silver's and Pizza Hut, as well as Darden Restaurants, whose brands include Olive Garden.


Has Taylor Farms had previous recalls?

Yes, although some past recalls have involved mislabeled products rather than potential pathogens.

A few examples:

In 2025, Taylor Farms voluntarily recalled salad kits sold in 25 states over the presence of "undeclared ingredients."


In 2024, Taylor Farms was involved in the removal of Quarter Pounders from McDonald's menus in many restaurants over potential E. coli contamination in raw onions.


In 2019, Taylor Farms recalled roughly 2,100 pounds of mislabeled products that contained "a known allergen."


In 2017, Taylor Farms recalled about 6,630 pounds of chicken and pork salad products possibly tainted with listeria monocytogenes.


In 2013, The New York Times reported that Taylor Farms had "an unusual number of voluntary recalls" involving potentially tainted products.



Company officials ascribed the volume of recalls to the company's scale.

"Just if you do the sheer math, our recalls relative to our size are fewer than anybody else," said Bruce Taylor, chief executive of Taylor Farms, speaking to the Times.
What is the Taylor Farms story?

Taylor Farms was founded in 1995 by Taylor, a third-generation lettuce grower in California's Salinas Valley, and some partners. The company's goal was to be "North America's favorite producer of salads and healthy fresh foods," according to its website.

Taylor Farms has grown into the leading producer of salads and other healthy fare, according to the Berkeley business-school profile.



Taylor Farms has also taken a prominent role in promoting food safety.

Around 2007, Taylor partnered with the Produce Marketing Association to create a Center for Produce Safety. Taylor Farms worked with other growers to standardize food-safety practices in the industry.

In 2009, Taylor Farms introduced "SmartWash Solutions," which the Berkeley profile termed "a revolutionary wash-water monitoring system to sanitize and prevent microbial cross contamination."

In 2012, Taylor Farms entered the supermarket industry with "with the first-ever branded prepackaged chopped salads with dressings and condiments," according to the profile.

According to a 2026 report in the trade publication Western Farm Press, Taylor Farms also revolutionized its industry "by turning it into a fixed-price business that offered growers a guaranteed profit while providing customers a consistent supply."

In years past, restaurateurs and supermarkets had struggled with unpredictable prices for produce. Taylor Farms changed that.

"McDonald's wanted shredded lettuce," Bruce Taylor said in the trade report. "They wanted consistent product at a stable price."

Contributing: Melina Khan, Mary Walrath-Holdridge

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY
Trump’s son-in-law vacations after creating ‘diplomatic catastrophe’: analysis

Alexander Willis
August 11, 2026 
RAW STORY


President Donald Trump speaks with Senior Advisor to the President Jared Kushner following the G20 Women’s Empowerment Event in Osaka, Japan. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Special Envoy for Peace and private investor Jared Kushner and his wife Ivanka Trump recently shared photos of their recent family vacation in Iceland, a getaway that the writers for Popular Information couldn’t help but note came as every foreign policy negotiation Kushner’s been involved with collapses.

“It has not been going well. Since Trump’s October 2025 speech, the hotspots in Kushner’s portfolio have all deteriorated. Kushner has guided the United States into a substantially worse strategic position. In all cases, the prospects for a lasting peace are further away,” reads an analysis published Tuesday in Popular Information.

“None of this seems to be bothering Kushner. The Strait of Hormuz is closed, the fighting in Ukraine has intensified, and Israel is rejecting American leadership in Gaza. Meanwhile, Kushner is taking a family vacation in Iceland.”

Kushner has been heavily involved in negotiations surrounding Gaza, the U.S. war against Iran and the Russo-Ukraine war, all of which have deteriorated in recent weeks. Iran war negotiations in particular have entirely collapsed, creating what Popular Information referred to as a “diplomatic catastrophe.”

And yet, as Fox News reported, Kushner’s wife took to social media last weekend to boast about “taking in Iceland’s scenery,” sharing with her followers photos at Iceland’s Blue Lagoon and other vacation destinations.

Before entering politics, Kushner ran his family's real estate business, Kushner Companies, where his $1.8 billion purchase of the Manhattan skyscraper at 666 Fifth Avenue in 2007 nearly bankrupted the company after the building's value collapsed during the financial crisis. Kushner served as a senior adviser during Trump's first term, where he helped broker the Abraham Accords, and afterward launched the private equity firm Affinity Partners, which raised billions of dollars from sovereign wealth funds in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.





New war teed up as ‘most serious' Social Security overhaul attempt in years revealed

Travis Gettys
August 11, 2026
RAW STORY


U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) speaks to reporters following a Senate Republican Steering Committee lunch with U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 24, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

A bipartisan group of eight senators is pushing legislation many in Washington view as the "most serious" attempt in more than a decade to overhaul Social Security, setting up a major legislative fight later this year over the fate of benefits for 59 million current recipients.

The bill, called the PROMISE Act and led by retiring Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), doesn't cut benefits or raise taxes directly, reported NOTUS.

Instead, it would direct the existing Social Security Advisory Board to draft a plan extending the program's solvency for 50 years — likely requiring some mix of tax increases and benefit cuts — and would create procedural rules forcing Congress to vote on that plan.

Backers are targeting the lame-duck session after the midterms, when several supporters, including Durbin and Cassidy, will already be departing the Senate and face no further political consequences. Congress has roughly six years before automatic cuts of up to 25 percent hit beneficiaries, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees, driven by retiring baby boomers and longer lifespans outpacing revenue.

The effort traces back to Durbin's private conversations with Erskine Bowles, co-author of the failed 2010 "Simpson-Bowles" deficit deal, and gained steam through meetings with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Angus King (I-ME), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Cassidy and Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-ID).

The Senate Finance Committee held its first hearing on the bill last Wednesday.

Opposition is intense and cuts across a broad political spectrum. AARP is urging lawmakers to reject the bill, citing polling showing 85 percent of Americans support maintaining or increasing benefits. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wants Democrats to instead fund the program by lifting the payroll tax cap for high earners.

Even anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist is lobbying Republican leadership against the bill, calling it a left-wing effort to manufacture GOP support for tax hikes, while Progressive group Social Security Works called the process a way "to cut Social Security in the least democratic way possible."

“They always try in the least accountable moment," said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works. "For all the times they have failed, they only have to succeed one time for seniors to lose.”

President Donald Trump has vowed not to touch Social Security, and a White House spokesperson declined to comment on the bill. One Senate Democratic aide predicted failure, saying they would "eat my shoe" if it passes this year — a skepticism Durbin himself acknowledged, saying only that "miracles do occur."

Still, supporters argue economic pressure may force action. Rising federal debt has already rattled bond markets and pushed up borrowing costs, and Brookings' Ben Harris said that volatility "could force senators to come to the table," even as he doubted the bill's chances.

Backers also say routing the plan through an independent board is designed to shield lawmakers from direct political blowback — a feature critics say is precisely the problem, warning it strips the public of a voice in decisions that could ultimately determine the size of their retirement checks.



After Nearly 20 Years, Chris Carter Is Finally Releasing the 'X-Files' Movie He Had in Mind

Mikey O'Connell
Updated Mon, August 10, 2026











An updated version of the truth is out there — and streaming on Disney+ come Aug. 14.


Almost 20 years after releasing the second film in his TV and movie franchise, The X-Files creator Chris Carter has recut The X-Files: I Want to Believe (now titled The X-Files: I Want to Believe – Vrach Frankenshteyn) to give his devoted fanbase the version he set out to make. Leaning harder into the standalone mystery, a contemporary retelling of Dr. Frankenstein, the new version amps up the horror elements that 20th Century Fox and the MPA wanted removed from the film in 2008 to give it a PG-13 rating.

"Unlike most director's cuts, I didn't throw in everything but the kitchen sink," says Carter. "It's actually shorter than the original. I hope it finds a wider audience, and I hope I give fans what they wanted."

Since the release of the original I Want to Believe, Carter has twice revisited The X-Files. Revivals in 2016 and 2018 are canonically regarded as the 10th and 11th seasons of the original series starring David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson as special agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully that ended in 2002. Speaking earlier in August, Carter says the trio still isn't finished telling their story — though when and how they return depends a lot on what Ryan Coogler does with his take on the material. (The Sinners filmmaker shot a pilot for an update of The X-Files for Hulu earlier this summer.) Carter also spoke about sparring with executives back in the day, his skepticism over those Congressional hearings about UFOs and his unique relationship with his very vocal audience.

Take me back to 2007-2008, when I'm assuming you were in post-production on this film. At what point did it become apparent that the film that you wanted to make and the film the studio wanted to release were different films?

It was the first screening for the studio in a little theater at 20th Century Fox. There was, let me call it, mild outrage that we had not delivered a PG-13 movie. It was a tense discussion, and we agreed to cut it down to the version that we'd apparently promised them. When we handed the new version over to the MPA, they said, "This isn't a PG-13 movie." We cut it back a second time. For me, trying to do a scary X-Files, this wasn't what we had set out. What's ironic is that the PG-13 standards for a movie were less permissive than the standards and practices for a television show at the time. So my feeling is that the movie became a relationship heavy movie. The scares were second to that. I wanted to go back and put in the scares.

You have worked in the entertainment industry for some time. Looking at the tense back and forths and creative concessions you've made in your career, where does the original version of this film rank?

It's a movie in itself. (Laughs.) I'll tell you a funny story. Glen Morgan and James Wong had done an episode called "Home" [in 1996]. It's probably it's one of the favorite, if not the most favorite, episodes of the show. It's a very scary episode, but this was in season four. By that time, the studio had left us alone. I don't know how we snuck it past the censors, but it aired and I got a screaming call from an executive the next day that the episode would never air again … that we had gone too far. All of a sudden, all eyes were on us. It affected the show going forward. We were held to a much stricter standard.

So tell me how this happened. It isn't often that a studio pays someone to release a directors cut these days.

I was talking to Steve Asbell at 20th Century Studios about something else. I asked if they'd ever considered doing a director's cut of I Want to Believe. He said, "No, but let's talk about it." It was as easy as that. I did not have to put my own money behind this. This was a labor of love when Frank Spotnitz and I set out to do this way back when. So I knew we had a movie that no one ever got to experience. And I think the production values are so rich. We filmed it almost entirely in a very forbidding environment, all snow and ice. I went through nine pair of boots and my feet were never warm. And there's a message in the movie, beyond "I want to believe," and it's "Don't give up." It sounds like something that could go on a Nike T-shirt. It's simple. But that's what it's all about. Mulder doesn't give up on the case. Scully doesn't give up on Mulder or the young child she's trying to heal in the picture.



I believe you remain in touch with Gillian Anderson and David Duchovny. Have you spoken with them about the new cut of the movie?

When the original was released, I went out and promoted it. The studio didn't promote it, so it I felt it was never really seen by a wider audience. X-Files fans went to it because they are the greatest. The movie made money. We made it for less than $25 million. And I haven't had an opportunity to show the director's cut to Gillian. But I showed it to David, who was very pleased. High praise.

You mention fans of the franchise. I spent a little time on X-Files Reddit before speaking with you, and you seem to be uniquely engaged with that community. Is that fair to say?





David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson The X-Files: I Want to Believe.

Definitely. And, yes, it is. We had we had a 30th anniversary reunion in Minnesota, and I had kids come up to me, kids whose parents didn't even know each other when the X-Files premiered and tell me they're fans of the show. It's amazing that the show has lasted and is as popular as it is, these 30-odd years later.

Fan feedback was so different three decades ago than when you released the new seasons on Fox in 2016 and 2018. It's certainly different from now. Do you engage in with the dialogue even when it's more critical?

Sure, serve it up. I'm open to criticism. I'm open to applause, boos. Give it to me. We've always relished the feedback. There's someone who used to be the head of the X-Files online group. She was very critical of some of my work in the last reboot. I just took it on the chin. And I got criticism from someone important to the show who said that I didn't give the audience what they wanted. I think I didn't give the audience what they expected. And that is left to come. There are four episodes and the last two reboots that were all part of a bigger plan that I hope to reveal to X-Files fans if and when we should do another reboot.

I always bristle at this idea that audiences deserve to get their way even if it's not the creators' intent.

There's a point at which you need to deliver on a promise. And I wanted to deliver more than the promise. I wanted to give them what they least expected. I know that sounds somewhat confusing, but I had a bigger plan and it all made sense. It will make sense, and so hang with me.

What can you tell me about the bigger plan?

There was a big revelation at the end of the season finale in season 11 that Scully is pregnant. Some people were horrified, outraged. They hated me. It was big. And once again, as I say, this is taken on the chin because I have a bigger idea in mind. I think that time will tell.

If you had your druthers, what would be next — another season of the series? A movie?

I don't know. The thing that was unexpected, but now highly anticipated, is the Ryan Coogler reboot. I don't want to do anything to compete with that. I don't want to do anything to get in the way of that. I don't want to play off of that. I want to continue to tell and finish the story arc that I have in mind. That said, I'm anxiously awaiting his version. My name is on it as executive producer, but I have done exactly nothing. I am, like everyone else out there, excited about what it may be.

It's not really a reboot, per se. Danielle Deadwyler and Hamish Patel are not playing Scully and Mulder. So, in success, do you see a world in which this new show and a future iteration of your original story can exist contemporaneously?

My choice was not to read the script, because I wanted to watch it like everyone else. So, it really depends on his vision.

Since the last season of the X-Files aired, we've had some declassified files. We've had some hearings. We've had some whistleblowers. There's been a lot of dialogue about the possibility that extraterrestrials have visited the earth or at least our atmosphere. You've said in the past that, like Mulder, you identify with that idea of "I want to believe." Has this info dump changed the way you think about aliens?

No. There's been a lot of talk, a lot of testimony. There isn't a whole lot of evidence. Next to none. Is this another smoke screen? Is there a category that is above top secret that even those in the highest echelons don't know about it? Are we keeping that secret to prevent a kind of anarchy and pandemonium in the world if they find out that we are not alone? I don't know. But once again, this is interesting storytelling material.



Has all of that gotten your wheels turning on your own story?

Yeah, obviously. And people like Steven Spielberg, it got his wheels turning too. I saw Disclosure Day. He's my favorite director in my lifetime. He can do no wrong.

Ok, this is a mild spoiler, but it's a 20-year-old movie so I think it's fine. There's a sequence in the closing credits of I Want to Believe that that's an aerial shot Mulder in Scully in a boat in some tropical locale. Right before it fades to black, they both look up and they wave to the camera. What was the intention there originally? And what was the intention to keep it in this time, given how much darker the film was?

Apart from Mulder's red swimsuit, which only the hard core fans picked up on, the choice was simply environmental. We had just shot through a long, cold winter. I thought the viewers, the filmmakers and, in particular, Mulder and Scully needed a trip to a tropical locale and the warmth that that provided.

At the time, sitting in the theater, I interpreted this as the last I was ever going to see of the characters and they were waving goodbye.

No, they were waving, "Thank you for watching our movie." Yes, it was breaking the fourth wall, but of course you could do that on a credit sequence.

I guess I'm a soft-core fan. What's the red swimsuit?

There's a scene in season two, where Mulder's in a red speedo. It lit the nascent internet on fire. For hardcore fans, it's one of those iconic scenes from the show.



Opinion - ‘But Biden’ excuses are just admissions Trump has failed


Joslin Joseph, opinion contributor
Mon, August 10, 2026
THE HILL




We have all had the similar experience over the last year. When talking about how bad things are going in this country, whether in-person or online, with either family, friends or strangers you will inevitably get hit with an excuse that begins, "But Biden …"

It seems that no matter how badly things are going, President Trump, his administration, his army of cable news talking heads, podcasters, influencers, and regular supporters have a default excuse. "But Biden," then fill in the blank is supposed to shut you up and accept that the current train wreck should be much, much worse.

It really doesn't work anymore, does it? I mean, back in January 2025 and the early part of the second Trump term, it was very much a safe way to explain why his "day one" promises didn't come to fruition right away. But inflation has gone up since the end of Biden's term. Prices have gone up, the war with Ukraine did not end, we started a whole new war with Iran that was also won on Day One (but not really), gas has skyrocketed, and the list goes on.

It is now August 2026. More than 560 days have passed since Trump took office again. He has attained more power, surrounded himself with yes-men, has a Republican House and Senate, a 6-3 tilt on the Supreme Court, and no excuse to fail. But here we are, with Trump polling in Biden territory and trying to convince Americans that things are going great. And yet, when pressed, Trump and company keep defaulting to how bad things were under Biden.

A leader takes accountability for his job and his mistakes. The effect of tariffs didn't have the impact that Trump promised, they hurt American businesses and our international trade relations. How badly? Well companies were refunded $100 billion and Trump still keeps pursuing this folly. It is hard to defend Trump as this point, but people still do so by blaming someone else.

We have all dealt with kids that haven't learned how to take responsibility for their actions. There is always someone else to blame because they believe that their parents, teachers or other adults will believe them.

Sometimes kids will be caught red handed and still try to blame others. It is funny when they are young but aggravating when they get older. Now we are dealing with adults who can't seem to take account of the fact that they voted for a disastrous president. We have seen countless Trump voters still blame others for Trump's sole failures.

From Biden to Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to just about anyone, it has gotten quite pathetic that people just can't come to terms with the fact that he has messed up.

The Iran war should be a breaking point for any American. No one likes the theocratic regime in Iran, but Americans were very reluctant to get involved in yet another war in the Middle East. And yet, Trump plunged the country headfirst into a war with no plan and no realistic goals or endgame.

Here, the excuses begin with "But Obama," in that the Iran nuclear deal that President Barack Obama negotiated was horrible and needed to be withdrawn from. This ultimately led to us attacking Iran. It is a bit curious that the man who brags that he has mastered the art of the deal didn't even try to fix the alleged problems of the Obama deal and resorted to bombing instead. But here we are.

We all know there is no way Trump will ever hold himself accountable. His bizarre statements where he claims that we are in a "golden age" and everyone loves him is a testament to his worsening mental acuity. But we should stop entertaining those who still make excuses.

In the run up to the midterms, expect a lot of "buts" — "but Biden," "but Obama," "but Kamala," "but Clinton," "but the Democrats," "but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," "but Zohran Mamdani," et cetera. Such excuses will be spouted by many looking to deflect, unwilling to admit that the horse they backed is lame. Democrats must pounce without pulling any punches when it comes to these excuses from MAGA land.

Whenever Trump or his acolytes start to excuse him for his failure with this sort of whataboutism, politely tell them that using past politicians to excuse Trump's current mess is already an admission that he has failed. He asked for complete power and the voters handed it to him. If he was unable to improve the situation over the predecessors he was criticizing, then he has failed.

When a president fails, it means our country is in bad shape. And you can't argue that our country isn't in bad shape. There is no need anymore to blame others for our current condition. Using Biden, Obama, or anyone as an excuse at this point is an admission that Trump has failed.

Joslin Joseph is a recipient of the Military Reporters and Editors award for Best Commentary-Opinion. A graduate of Harvard and Ohio State, he is a Marine veteran who served in Iraq. He currently lives in Anaheim, Calif.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she hasn’t ruled out a potential run for president or Senate in 2028


Alexandra Marquez
Updated Sun, August 9, 2026
NBC


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also said she has begun the process of freezing her eggs. (Sarah Rice / Getty Images file)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Sunday that she hasn't ruled out a potential run for president or the Senate in 2028, echoing remarks she has made while campaigning for congressional candidates ahead of November's midterm elections.

"I'm focused on winning the midterms. I'm running for Congress right now," Ocasio-Cortez first told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday when asked whether she plans to run for president in two years.

Pressed further by "This Week" host Jonathan Karl, Ocasio-Cortez added, "I haven't ruled out the possibility. And I'm very humbled to the tremendous amount of support out there." But she reiterated her focus on the upcoming midterms over her own political future.

Asked whether she'd consider running for the Senate in New York in 2028, when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., will be up for re-election, Ocasio-Cortez, 36, answered, "I think that anything is possible at this juncture."

The congresswoman's political future has been the subject of speculation for years as she has wielded her national political power to endorse insurgent progressive candidates who have beaten more moderate, establishment candidates with bigger campaign war chests.

Most recently, Abdul El-Sayed, a candidate who pledged to reject funding for Israel and promote "Medicare for All," beat Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., in the Great Lakes State's Democratic primary for Senate last week, overcoming the tens of millions of dollars spent by Stevens' supporters to attack him.

"I think that we are in a time of renewal for the Democratic Party. And it's tremendously exciting for all of us, for the big tent of the Democratic Party," Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday in the wake of El-Sayed's victory. "We have really an ascendance of a young, inspiring, exciting electorate, energizing wave of candidates that I think really inject a new energy to the Democratic Party and add to the toolbox of candidates that we have to win the midterm elections hopefully in November."

El-Sayed's victory was fueled in part by Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement and by the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who ran for president twice as a progressive, anti-establishment alternative to traditional Democrats.

Sanders has all but ruled out another presidential run in 2028, drawing questions about who might take up the mantle of the movement he began in 2016.

Ocasio-Cortez, to some, appears to be a natural successor, especially as she and Sanders crisscrossed the nation together since the last presidential election, urging supporters to fight oligarchy and support Medicare for All.

In July, while campaigning for El-Sayed in Michigan, the congresswoman told Politico when asked about a presidential run: "I mean, I can't say that I've ruled it out."


She was first elected to Congress in 2018, winning her party's nomination for New York's 14th Congressional District in a shocking upset to the Queens machine after she challenged longtime Rep. David Crowley in the Democratic primary


On Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez reflected on her political rise since 2018, telling Karl:

"It has been the greatest privilege of my life to be able to represent the working people of my congressional district. And I think some of the ways that it's changed me has been to be able to come in with so many aspirations for our country, and then to have the remarkable opportunity to be in the arena and try to make the country a better place, challenges and all."

"And I love that it's hard," she added. "I love that I have to and I get to engage with people from all across the country, elected officials from all across the country, to try to actually fulfill our dreams to guarantee healthcare to every American."

The congresswoman also spoke about a personal milestone she revealed on Instagram last week — freezing her eggs — and why she decided to publicly share such a personal decision.

On Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez posted videos of herself on Instagram administering the first injections in the egg-freezing process. "I want to share this because I've been weighing this for a very long time … and there isn't a lot out there, and sometimes it can feel very daunting," she said in her posts from Saturday night.

Asked by Karl about the decision, Ocasio-Cortez said: "In this political environment where this administration is denying reproductive care to women across the country, from abortion rights to the ability to carry out a healthy pregnancy, I think it's important for us as leaders to have these conversations and share these processes, especially for working women across the country, and normalize them."

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

IVF

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she's freezing her eggs

Toby Mann
BBC
Mon, August 10, 2026 


US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has revealed she has decided to freeze her eggs, and has shared her first steps in the process on social media.

The 36-year-old New York Democrat posted the clips on Sunday, hours before telling ABC News's This Week programme that she had not "ruled out the possibility" of running for president.

In the clips, Ocasio-Cortez shows herself taking an injection and talks through tips she has learnt, before answering questions about costs, clinical procedures, storage and how fertility care works under what she calls the US's "broken" medical system.

In her later interview with ABC, she explained that she wanted to "normalise" conversations about the process.


[Reuters]

She said it was important "especially in this political environment".

"This administration is denying reproductive care to women across the country, from abortion rights to the ability to carry out a healthy pregnancy," she said. "I think it's important for us as leaders to have these conversations and share these processes," she added.

In her earlier social media post, she said she wanted to share the information even though there was a "political risk" in doing so.

Ocasio-Cortez rarely appears on the Sunday political shows and in her conversation with ABC's Jonathan Karl, she appeared to go further than before at indicating she may run for higher office.

When pressed on whether she was open to a White House run and whether it was a realistic prospect, she said: "I haven't ruled out the possibility and I'm very humbled to the tremendous amount of support out there."

But the focus must remain on the midterm elections in November and not on "individual aspirations or plans", she added.

More in Politics

The congressional elections are held every two years and fall in the middle of the president's four-year term of office.

They are due to be held in early November. Votes will be cast for all 435 seats in the US House of Representatives, while a third of the 100 seats in the Senate will also be up for grabs.


Left-wing Democrats are on a winning run - but can they lure back crucial swing voters?

When she was asked about a possible Senate run in New York against Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the US Senate's top Democrat, Ocasio-Cortez replied that "anything is possible".

A divide between the party's left wing and its establishment, which is embodied by Schumer, has become more apparent in recent months.

The Democratic voter base, which is hungry for radical change, has delivered some big wins in recent primary elections for left-wing candidates who have run against centrist candidates backed by party leadership.

Last week, Abdul El-Sayed won a Senate primary in a key swing state, Michigan, after a campaign centred on Medicare for all, stopping military aid to Israel and abolishing ICE, the federal immigration enforcement agency.

El-Sayed's victory sends tremors through Democratic Party

Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, who endorsed him, El-Sayed is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) but he was supported by some of their leading figures.

In the ABC interview, Ocasio-Cortez said the rise of these new, younger candidates was exciting for the "big tent" of the party and showed this was a "time of renewal".

She also distanced herself from aspects of the DSA platform which appears in the group's guiding document, such as defunding the police and abolishing the Senate.

But she said it was important that her party appealed to a wide audience.

"Democrats have a responsibility to build a winning coalition, and young people are engaging in mediums and conversations that we have a responsibility to attend to and be responsive to," she said.




'This isn't a winner': Trump insiders recoil as far-right takes the 'bait' and attacks AOC

Tom Boggioni
August 11, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks with reporters after the House of Representatives passed its version of the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 22, 2026. REUTERS/Eric Le

Insiders in President Donald Trump's White House are cringing at the latest conservative attack on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

According to a report from Marc Caputo at Axios, there was a groundswell of sneering aimed at the popular New York lawmaker who admitted she plans to freeze some of her eggs, should she want children at a later date.

Ocasio-Cortez announced her decision on Instagram, preemptively acknowledging the reaction she expected. "Don't be weird about this, even though I know all of you will be," she wrote, with Axios suggesting her statement sparked speculation about potential political ambitions, including a possible White House bid in 2028

Conservative gadfly Matt Walsh went low on social media and ranted, "She'll turn 37 in a couple months. If she got pregnant now, it would technically be a geriatric pregnancy. This desire to start having children late in life is completely baffling to me."

The criticism prompted pushback from within conservative circles where there has been an emphasis on women having more children under the Trump administration.

Alexa Henning, a MAGA consultant who recently departed the State Department, countered the messaging with, "Conservative men dunking on AOC for freezing her eggs is not a winning message with women voters."

She then lectured, "I have many conservative friends who, because they decided to put careers first, froze their eggs and had babies and families later in life. That should be celebrated."

Trump administration officials recognize the political liability the controversy presents, Caputo is reporting. At the White House, where the president has previously championed in-vitro fertilization, officials are distancing themselves from Walsh's criticism.

"We most certainly want to encourage more women and families to have children, period," a senior White House official told Axios. "That's a diplomatic way of saying, 'Yes, the Matt Walsh messaging is not helpful.'"

A Trump adviser also acknowledged the strategic problem by stating "This isn't really a winner for Republicans," with midterm elections less than three months away.

Republican pollster Adam Geller advised the party to ignore the issue entirely.

"AOC knows how to get attention. She knows how to stand out. This should be treated as a stunt. And my advice to Republicans is, don't take the bait," Geller said.



Conservatives meet to make birthright citizenship their long-term project

Myah Ward
Updated Sat, August 8, 2026
POLITICO


WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 06: U.S. President Donald Trump (C) speaks as White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller (L) and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick look on during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 06, 2026 in Washington, DC. President Trump is expected to sign two executive orders on bringing computer chip manufacturing to the U.S. and denying birthright citizenship to children of foreign diplomats. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Just weeks after the Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump's sweeping bid to end birthright citizenship, his conservative allies were bucking one another up and insisting that the loss in court was fuel for the movement.

The court's ruling — narrower than many expected — and the ensuing media coverage brought a fringe legal interpretation of the 14th Amendment further into the mainstream. And now its proponents are certain that it is seeded in the conservative consciousness.

"There's going to be a lot of focus on this issue, both in legal academia from some, but not exclusively, conservative law professors," Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan, told POLITICO. "There's now a lot of interest in this area, and when you get the truth-seeking function of academia set on an interesting question, you're naturally going to elicit a lot of responses, and that's going to keep the issue fresh."

Wessan was one of several conservative lawyers, former Trump aides and immigration hawks who mingled over pastries and coffee in late July at the conservative gathering place Bellator Hall near Capitol Hill, where they discussed the future of the movement. Well understood is that it's a fight that may outlast some of those in the room, a decades-long battle akin to the effort to end a constitutional right to an abortion or overturn the doctrine of Chevron deference, which held that courts should defer to an agency's stance when interpreting an ambiguous statute.

"They turned birthright citizenship into the next Roe v. Wade, that we're going to have to spend the next 50 years overturning," Mike Davis, the founder of Article III Project, a Trump-aligned legal organization, said at the event. "They have destroyed our most crucial sovereign power as we the people, which is our sovereignty, controlling who comes and goes and who becomes one of us."

The discussions outside the administration have run parallel to talks inside the White House, where aides over the last several weeks have debated policy options, with a particular focus on targeting women who travel to the United States for the primary purpose of giving birth so their child can obtain U.S. citizenship.

The Trump administration missed the deadline to ask Supreme Court for a rehearing on its June ruling, but the president, flanked by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Thursday, unveiled two new executive orders narrowing birthright citizenship and cracking down on "birth tourism" schemes, the White House's latest bid to work around the ruling.

Though far from the complete change Trump wanted, the orders work to narrow who qualifies. The first order targeted children born of foreign diplomatic staff working in the U.S., those born of "alien enemies" of the United States, including foreign terrorist organizations, and children born of women who enter the United States with the sole purpose of giving birth so their child gains citizenship.

"We're taking this action to ensure that large numbers of people that wrongly would be getting birthright citizenship will no longer be eligible for those benefits," Miller told reporters on Thursday.

For more than a century, the legal consensus has been that, with a few notable exceptions, anyone born in the United States was a citizen — a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Trump tried to change that with a broad executive order on his first day back in office. In Trump v. Barbara, five justices — Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and three liberal justices — agreed the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the executive order was in violation of a federal statute but that Congress could end birthright citizenship.

Kate Shaw, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey School of Law, who has written on the Supreme Court and reproductive rights, said there's "every reason to think that the fight for the future of birthright citizenship will resemble recent fights over federal constitutional protections for abortion."

"The question isn't whether conservatives will mobilize against birthright citizenship and Barbara, but whether progressives will also mobilize to defend the settled understanding of the Constitution's citizenship clause — as they very much need to," she said.

The president's executive orders this week are evidence that Republicans will continue to push the envelope, said New York University law professor Melissa Murray.

"They're going to keep pressing on this, whether it is incrementally or in big bursts," she said. "These are attempting to rewrite the rules of birthright citizenship."

Speakers at the recent convening, hosted by the Conservative Partnership Institute and the Immigration Accountability Project, included Gene Hamilton, president of America First Legal, and previously the president's deputy White House counsel, Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation and Florida chief deputy attorney general Ryan Newman. John Eastman, who, before he helped Trump devise his bid to overturn the 2020 election, had spent decades pushing the cause, also addressed the room.

The president's allies said they plan to make ending birthright citizenship a recurring topic at conferences and law schools where the next generation of lawyers will be trained. And even as the prospects of legislation remain slim, they are pressing lawmakers to introduce bills ranging from constitutional amendments to narrower measures targeting women who come to the U.S. just to give birth. They also view it as a moment to expand broader immigration enforcement efforts, to ramp up deportations and deter migration to the U.S.

"It was a success that we got as far as we did," said Eastman, who directs the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. "And that conversation is now going on throughout the country, throughout the country by ordinary citizens and lawmakers and legislators and judges alike."

For others, the long game is in the courts. They say birthright citizenship should be a litmus test for all future judicial nominees.

"We need nine [Justice Samuel] Alitos on the Supreme Court," Davis said.





















Trump Towers Plans Biggest India Project as Luxury Homes Boom

Ranjani Raghavan and Advait Palepu
Tue, August 11, 2026 

(Bloomberg) -- US President Donald Trump's India real estate business is capitalizing on India's wealth boom to expand into the country's south, with its most ambitious project there yet.

A new Trump Tower project in the southern city of Hyderabad, a tech hub, will have 450 luxury units across two towers, potentially generating 35 billion rupees ($367 million) in sales, according to Kalpesh Mehta, founder of Tribeca Developers, the Trump Organization's local licensed partner. Spread across 2.2 million square feet, it is set to be the largest Trump project in the country and will be ready by 2031, said Mehta.

India is the biggest market for Trump's real estate business outside the US, with Trump-branded developments already built in Pune, Mumbai, Kolkata, and Gurugram. Trump Towers expanded in commercial property in India, with plans unveiled last year for an office tower in the western city of Pune.

Luxury apartments in some parts of India have been known to sell out in a matter of hours and prices of premium apartments can match some parts of New York. Oberoi Realty Ltd. sold out its high-end project in Gurugram near New Delhi in "two hours", the firm said in July. Last year, DLF Ltd. said it was able to sell out apartments worth more than $1 million each within a week of initiating bookings.

"These good times have lasted sort of longer than what most of us have expected. And they continue to go on," Mehta said on the resilience of India's luxury housing market. Tribeca Developers is partnering with real estate developer Ira Realty to develop Trump Towers Hyderabad, comprising two 65-storey blocks.

The Trump Organization - run by the US President's sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump — earns a license fee for its Trump branded towers in the country.