MSN UK

'Unnecessary care': Leaked video shows UnitedHealth chief defending company’s denials

After Brian Thompson — the CEO of health insurance titan UnitedHealthcare — was shot to death on a New York City sidewalk by a gunman who is still on the lam, the head of the company's parent organization was seen defending the company's business practices.

Journalist Ken Klippenstein posted to Bluesky on Friday that he had obtained a leaked video from an unnamed UnitedHealth employee of Andrew Witty, who is the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. He lauded Thompson as a great leader for the company, saying: "There are very few people in the history of the U. S. healthcare industry who had a bigger positive effect on American healthcare than Brian [Thompson]." He also appeared to stand up for the company's 32% claim denial rate, which LendingTree's ValuePenguin found is twice the industry average of 16%.

"And we are going to make sure that we not only acknowledge and honor that legacy of Brian, but we'll continue it," he added. "Our role is a critical role. And we make sure that care is safe, appropriate and it's delivered when people need it. We guard against the pressures that exist for unsafe care, or for unnecessary care."

The company has been under fire recently, after being accused in a lawsuit of using an AI called "nH Predict" to automatically deny claims filed by elderly patients, even though it had a 90% error rate. Tech publication Arstechnica noted that the company is alleged to have viewed the 90% error rate as a "feature, not a bug."

"I would have been happy to send my condolences after the UnitedHealthcare CEO was killed this afternoon, however unfortunately sympathy requires a prior authorization and I have to deny that request," one TikTok user said in a viral response to Thompson's death.

UnitedHealthcare's denials have become a key source of anger toward the heath insurance industry at large in the wake of Thompson's assassination early Wednesday morning. CNN reported that there's been a "bubbling up of pent up anger" at the industry's pattern of denying critical healthcare procedures while posting record profits. And so far, the NYPD's efforts to enlist the general public in tracking down the shooter have proved mostly fruitless.

"[Americans] don’t really empathize with who the victim is in this scenario," Sukrit Venkatagiri, an assistant professor of computer science at Swarthmore College, told NBC News.

Watch the video of Witty below, or by clicking this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'People don’t care': Popular internet sleuths deny NYPD’s request to track down CEO shooter

The New York Police Department (NYPD) is crowd-sourcing their investigation into the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson to the general public after two days with no positive ID on the shooter. But they may not get much help from the internet, according to multiple popular TikTok sleuths.

NBC News reported that law enforcement is banking on the American public helping them identify the man seen in new photos released this week, which show the alleged assassin lowering his mask while flirting with a hostel concierge. Those are currently the only photos of the alleged killer in which his mask isn't concealing his face, and law enforcement veterans have called them a "turning point" in the investigation.

But Savannah Sparks — who has 1.3 million TikTok followers and is known for helping track down perpetrators of racist and hateful attacks — was unequivocal in her refusal to help find Thompson's murderer. Thompson told NBC she was "pretty apathetic" about the ongoing manhunt, and that her impression of the online sleuthing community's current mood was: "[C]oncepts of thoughts and prayers."

"It’s, you know, claim denied on my prayers there," Sparks said, with a tongue-in-cheek reference to health insurance industry lingo.

According to NBC, Sparks (who holds a doctorate of pharmacy and works in the healthcare industry as a lactation consultant) has been called on by law enforcement in the past to assist with training officers on how to track down suspects online. But she said that in this particular case, she has zero interest in helping the NYPD.

"Absolutely the f— not," she said.

Michael McWhorter, who is "TizzyEnt" on TikTok and has more than 6.7 million followers, observed that he hadn't seen the same drumbeat from the public to find Thompson's killer that he's seen in past cases involving "blatant violence." He opined that investigators may be underestimating "how much people don’t care." And Swarthmore College assistant professor of computer science Sukrit Venkatagiri said it's possible that some internet sleuths "don’t really empathize with who the victim is in this scenario."

"People are less motivated, from an altruistic perspective, to help this victim in this specific case," he said, noting that the victim in question was the multimillion-dollar CEO of a Fortune 500 health insurance company.

One person who helped police was software engineer Riley Walz, who obtained data from the Citibike station used by the alleged shooter after the murder. Some social media users called him a "snitch," according to NBC. McWhorter said those who help police being ganged up on could discourage others from helping to identify the shooter. But he said it's possible that apathy could play a larger role.

"There’s this weird thing, this vibe of like, I don’t see a bunch of people just feeling an urgency," he said.

Click here to read NBC's report in its entirety.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'The volume’s getting turned up': J6 defendants expecting Trump pardons get unruly in court

Participants in the deadly siege of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 have reportedly become emboldened since the 2024 election given their expectations of being pardoned by President-elect Donald Trump.

According to a Friday article in Politico, several defendants being prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have been acting out in court proceedings during the lame-duck period between outgoing President Joe Biden's administration and Trump's inauguration. One of those defendants is Guy Reffitt, a Texas man who brought a gun to the insurrection. Politico's Kyle Cheney reported that Reffitt criticized Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, claiming his treatment was "bulls—."

Reffitt said he had been "in [his] feelings" since 2021, when he was first imprisoned in the Washington, D.C. jail. He added that now that Trump is about to enter the White House, he's "out of my feelings." Friedrich, who re-sentenced Reffitt to seven years, responded: “No one has a problem with your feelings. It’s the actions you took with your feelings.”

Other judges are also contending with the rowdiness of January 6 rioters. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said during a sentencing hearing for a member of the Proud Boys gang that breaking past Capitol Police barricades “at the direction of a disappointed candidate” was “the definition of tyranny and authoritarianism.”

"The volume’s getting turned up," Jackson said on Friday.

Trump has previously referred to January 6 defendants as "hostages," which is a label Judge Jackson has pushed back against, though simultaneously doing so carefully and not mentioning the incoming president by name. Many of the defendants Trump has called for pardoning are in jail for assaulting police officers — including both defendants who were convicted by a jury, and defendants who pleaded guilty of their own volition.

Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn called Trump's proposed pardons a "slap in the face" last month, given that hundreds of officers were injured defending the Capitol with others, like Officer Brian Sicknick, dying in the days following the attack. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said during a Friday sentencing hearing that he fears Americans have "largely shunted aside" the actions that law enforcement took to protect the Capitol.

Click here to read Politico's report in full.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Quickly get into problems': These 3 obstacles could slow down Trump’s mass deportations

Stephen Miller, who is the top immigration advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, has pledged that the incoming administration will begin its promised mass deportation campaign at "light speed" shortly after Trump's inauguration. But there are several significant legal impediments that could frustrate those deportations.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will have some difficulty deporting at least of the roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants currently in the deportation queue next year. This includes those immigrants' home countries refusing to take them, immigrants serving prison terms and other immigrants getting reprieves from judges due to medical conditions or other factors.

Those obstacles could be just the beginning of the second Trump administration's headaches in enacting its deportation agenda, as other unforeseen logistical barriers could tie up ICE agents in myriad other ways. One example is the military planes that ICE would rely on to fly migrants out of the country being unavailable due to aircraft already being committed elsewhere.

“If you start using those planes for deportations, you quickly get into problems with military force readiness," an unnamed retired ICE official told the Post. “It’s the same contractors who are flying our service members to the Middle East or to Germany.”

Tom Homan, who the president-elect has tapped as his incoming border czar, is tasked with heading up his deportation agenda. He's promised that any undocumented immigrant that an immigration judge has cleared for deportation should be deported, regardless of whether they've committed a crime.

“If those orders aren’t executed or carried out, then what the hell are we doing?” Homan said in November. “Nothing in immigration law says you need to commit a very serious criminal offense to be removed from the country.”

Should Trump succeed in his stated goal of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, it could inadvertently create a new financial headache for taxpayers. Journalist David Cay Johnston pointed out last month that any undocumented immigrant who has had a child since arriving in the United States would be separated from their children if deported, as their children are U.S. citizens. He then observed that foster care systems in multiple states could be overwhelmed, leading to significant property tax increases down the road.

Click here to read the Post's full report (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Butker’s 'traditional values' PAC took retiree cash, spent most on fundraising: report

A political action committee founded by Harrison Butker—the pro-Trump NFL placekicker for the Kansas City Chiefs, whose highly controversial comments have led to allegations of bigotry, including antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, and sexism, along with anti-vax beliefs—has come under fire.

Butker’s Upright PAC was supposed to “promote and encourage Christian voters to vote, so that their voices are heard this November.” But according to reports, it appears to have taken in donations, and spent most of it on fundraising.

Butker, 29, a friend of Missouri far-right U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, was described as “the latest angry rich guy with a Pac,” in an opinion piece at The Guardian.

His controversial views made major headlines this year when he delivered the commencement address at Benedictine college, a small Catholic school in Atchison, Kansas, back in May.

“Butker managed, in just a few minutes, to be homophobic, anti-abortion (saying that Joe Biden was responsible for ‘the murder of innocent babies’), and racist, railing against the ‘tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion,'” wrote Dave Zirin at The Nation. “He cried out against ‘things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values and media,’ which supposedly ‘all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.'”

“Butker was also antisemitic,” Zirin charged. “He threw down with a ‘Jews killed Jesus’ line, saying, ‘Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.’ Subtle as a blowtorch. But you won’t hear the right say a word about it while they’ll go full-House Un-American Activities Committee on college presidents over fabricated charges of the same.”

He attacked LGBTQ Pride Month as a “deadly sin.”

Butker also went after women, or more precisely, women who want to have careers outside the home—like his mother, a medical physicist, has. His mother also has not one but two university degrees.

“I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you,” Butker told the women graduates (full transcript here). “How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world…I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation…and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she started living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.”

And he went after President Joe Biden, calling him “delusional.”

“Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith, but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally,” Butker charged. “He has been so vocal in his support for the murder of innocent babies that I’m sure to many people it appears that you can be both Catholic and pro-choice.”

“He is not alone, Butker said. “From the man behind the COVID lockdowns to the people pushing dangerous gender ideologies onto the youth of America, they all have a glaring thing in common. They are Catholic. This is an important reminder that being Catholic alone doesn’t cut it.”

(GLAAD published this fact-check.)

On Friday, investigative journalist Roger Sollenberger reported: “Remember when Josh Hawley’s placekicker pal Harrison Butker started a PAC to promote candidates that support Christian values? Turns out it raised $36,000, gave $0 to candidates, and spent about $30K on fundraising fees.”

Sollenberger posted a link to this page at the Federal Election Commission.

He adds, “Most of the donors to Butker’s PAC say they’re retirees. One donor was unemployed three years ago and gave the pro-Christian group $475, listing her current job as an associate at Walmart.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also investigated, saying, “we took a look. Butker’s PAC raised $36k from small donors. Guess how much it spent on its stated goal? Absolutely nothing.”

“But records show it spent more than $30k of that $36k, so where did the money go?” CREW asked. “$100 on office supplies. And all the rest spent on fundraising.”

And CREW notes, “A further search shows no records of Butker, the highest paid kicker in the NFL, making any political contributions himself.”

See the social media posts above or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Is Biden helping Trump 'destroy American democracy?'

On Tuesday, I told you about how I’d like to know which of the congressional Democrats really meant it when they said Donald Trump is a menace to democracy, the rule of law and the constitutional order, and which of them said those words because they sounded real nice.

I had the president in mind, too.

“Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans [are] determined to destroy American democracy,” Joe Biden said late last year. He added: “Every generation of Americans has faced a moment when they've had to defend democracy. Stand up for our personal freedoms. Stand up for the right to vote and our civil rights. And this is our moment.”

But since the election, and until last weekend, Biden had been treating the president-elect as if he were any other winner of a presidential contest, including by honoring him with an invitation to the White House and joking with him in front of TV cameras once he got there.

Something changed, however, after Trump nominated a statutory rapist and sex trafficker for US attorney general (Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz has since withdrawn) and after he nominated last weekend a bootlicking toady by the name of Kash Patel as director of the FBI.

Biden seems to have changed his mind about those norms.

Not only did the president pardon on Monday his son, Hunter Biden, who had been subject to a years-long prosecution, he is now reportedly considering an expanded list of pardons to include many, or even most, of the people who are literally on the MAGA enemies list.

I agree in part with the Monthly’s Bill Scher, who said: “In pardoning his son, Biden said, ‘In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here.’ Nor should we assume it would stop to spare anyone on the Trump and Patel enemies lists. They deserve the same protection from Biden that his son got.”

But I also agree with Marcy Wheeler. She said pardons might feel like the right thing to do in the face of Trump’s assault on the rule of law. They won’t stop the assault, though. They might even contribute to it.

"Nothing Biden can do will eliminate the risk that Trump will keep doing what he has been doing for eight years. Someone or someones will be that target, and imagining we can make that risk go away, it’ll only lead people to look away again instead of giving the attention the focus that it has lacked. If we don’t find the solution to that problem, if we seek instead a quick fix, then it’ll get continually harder to defend rule of law as Trump stacks the courts and guts the guardrails at DOJ. You can’t pardon your way out of Trump’s attack on the rule of law. It’s going to take much harder work than that."

Indeed, Biden’s son’s pardon won’t stop his son’s persecution. House Oversight Chairman James Comer said he plans to continue investigating. Kash Patel, as head of the FBI, will find some other way. Trump’s new pick for AG, Pam Bondi, will also find some other way. The incentive to find all the ways will inevitably increase as the consequences of Trump’s insane economic policies become apparent. He will need a boogeyman to distract the press corps and public.

As long as there’s a Donald Trump, there will always be a Hunter Biden.

So Joe Biden should probably reconsider. Instead of protecting the likes of Barack Obama and Liz Cheney – political elites who have the means and power to defend themselves in a court of law – he should focus on people who can’t or whom the justice system has failed.

Massachusetts Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley asked him to pardon federal prisoners with “unjustified sentencing disparities,” the old and sick, death row inmates, and women punished for the crimes of their abusers. “Joe Biden should not stop at Hunter Biden,” she said.

He should also come clean.

He changed his mind about pardoning his son, because he changed his mind about the virtue of maintaining political norms. He was wrong to invite a fascist menace to the White House. He was wrong to joke around with a fascist menace in front of television cameras. He was wrong to give the impression that everything’s going to be fine.

Everything is not going to be fine.

It’s here that some suggest that Biden should save democracy by throwing it away – by “annulling” the results of the election or otherwise doing to Trump what Trump tried doing to him.

But Biden needn’t be lawless to set the tone for resistance to tyranny.

First, he could say he really meant what he said – that Trump is going to try to destroy democracy and that he’s not going to help by being nice to him. Otherwise, he might exploit junctures along the transition process. He could order the CIA not to give intelligence briefings. He could tell the FBI to block his people from accessing anything until they complete congressionally mandated criminal background checks.

The most powerful message might be rooted in norms, which is to say, Biden could say the most by breaking more of them. There’s no reason, for instance, why he should attend Trump’s inauguration next month. (Trump didn’t attend his and the Republicans never suffered for it.) He could also say that Trump shouldn’t bother with the oath of office. He didn’t mean it when he took it last time. He won’t mean it this time. It will be a lie that will be the basis for the fascist purge that’s coming.

“When Biden and other Democrats stand on ceremony, they present the message that everything they said during the campaign was just talk. It was all hysterical political blather designed to raise money from people who believe gas prices are too high,” Stephen Robinson said.

Stephen is right.

Either Biden meant it or he didn’t.

He should come clean.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Pent up anger' at health insurance industry explodes on social media after CEO shooting

After UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered outside of his Midtown Manhattan hotel earlier this week by a gunman who is still at large, a larger conversation has erupted on social media about the health insurance industry's business practices.

CNN reported Friday that there is a "flood of frustration" online in which people are using Thompson's death as a jump-off point to rip large health insurance companies over frivolous claim denials of necessary healthcare procedures. One TikTok user said she would have been "happy to send my condolences after the UnitedHealthcare CEO was killed this afternoon, however unfortunately sympathy requires a prior authorization and I have to deny that request."

"They also denied my son his AFOs — ankle foot orthotics — because he did have a stroke. So half of his body doesn't work the same as the other half, and he needs those to walk," another TikTok user said. "They denied him, because he grew too fast. They said: 'He just had some five months ago!' I was like: "Yeah. And then he grew, because he was two years old. And two year olds tend to do that."

The still-unknown assassin reportedly wrote the words "delay," "deny" and "depose" on shell casings found at the scene of the shooting, which is a play on the slogan popular among health insurance industry professionals — "delay, deny and defend." This suggests the gunman may have been motivated by a claim denial that directly impacted him personally or a close friend or family member.

CNN reporter Clare Duffy noted that while "there is no justification for this kind of violence," she acknowledged that Thompson's death has still exposed a "bubbling up of pent-up anger and frustration and distrust that Americans feel toward the health insurance industry." She mentioned that a Facebook post by UnitedHealth's official page about Thompson's death garnered tens of thousands of reactions, "and the majority of those were laughing-face emojis."

Duffy further reported that in one study, 58% of Americans reported that they had experienced problems with their own health insurance, including claim denials. And 15% of those who experienced denials say they experienced a decline in their health as a result of those denials. And she mentioned that a lawsuit filed last year against UnitedHealth accused the company of using artificial intelligence to deny claims filed by elderly patients, even though it had a 90% error rate.

Watch the CNN segment below, or by clicking this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Flagrantly unlawful': Experts demolish Trump’s plan of bypassing Senate to confirm Cabinet

President-elect Donald Trump has floated the idea of a scheme to allow for "recess appointments" of his Cabinet. But several legal experts are pointing out that this would run afoul of the Constitution in a major way.

As the Associated Press reported in November, Trump is considering asking Republican leaders of both the House and the Senate to adjourn after he is inaugurated in order him to appoint the bulk of his Cabinet in one fell swoop, essentially bypassing the confirmation process. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has notably not taken recess appointments off the table.

But in a Friday article for the Atlantic, Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar, Georgetown University law professor Josh Chafetz and Columbia Law School Thomas Schmidt revealed how Trump's controversial plan is contradictory to the most foundational elements of the American system. They pointed out that "there is simply no way to do this consistent with the text, history and structure of the Constitution.

In 2020, Trump previously threatened recess appointments when Democrats gummed up the works of the Senate. And he has even weighed the option of a provision in the Constitution that allows a president to force Congress into recess by declaring them to both be in disagreement on adjournment – something that Amar, Chafetz and Schmidt say has "never been used in all of American history."

"The House Republicans’ idea seems to be to manufacture a 'disagreement' to trigger this adjournment power. First, the House of Representatives would pass a resolution calling for a recess. The Senate would then (in all likelihood) refuse to pass the resolution. Trump would then declare the houses to be in 'disagreement' and adjourn both houses for as long as he likes," the authors explained. "From there, he would start his recess-appointments spree. There is just one glaring problem: The 'disagreement' in this scenario is illusory."

The House GOP has also toyed with the idea of Trump sending the Senate home against its will and confirm all of his Cabinet nominees during the artificial "recess," which the authors called "flagrantly unlawful." Trump reportedly considered doing this in his first term.

Several of Trump's Cabinet nominees — like Defense Secretary-designate Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence-designate Tulsi Gabbard and Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — have proved controversial even for the incoming Republican Senate majority. Republicans will have 53 seats, meaning Trump's Cabinet picks can only afford three defections in order to be confirmed. A petition calling on senators to stop Trump's most controversial Cabinet picks has accumulated nearly 55,000 signatures as of Friday.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

How Hegseth and allies are waging war against the US military to secure his confirmation

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News weekend co-host, angrily vowed that his battle to become Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense would not be “tried in the media,” but that is exactly what Hegseth and his allies are doing — and they’re attacking the reputation and credibility of America’s Armed Forces to make their case.

“I don’t answer to anyone in this group,” Hegseth told reporters on Thursday.

“None of you, not to that camera at all,” he said, as he began pointing. “I answer to President Trump, who received 76 million votes on behalf — and a mandate for change. I answer to the 50 — the 100 — senators who are part of this process and those in the committee, and I answer to my lord and savior. And my wife and my family.”

Earlier on Thursday, Hegseth in a social media post (below) attacked the U.S. Military and the current Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, a decorated combat veteran who fought in two wars.

“Maybe it’s time for a @SecDef who has… Led in combat. Been on patrol for days. Pulled a trigger. Heard bullets whiz by. Called in close air support. Led medevacs. Dodged IEDs. And understands—to his core—the power of this photo…because he’s been on that knee before.”

Hegseth was excoriated.

“Odd post,” remarked award-winning journalist Kevin Baron, the former Executive Editor at Defense One. “Lots of confrontational bravado but …the current SecDef Lloyd Austi[n] has literally done this and way, way more, leading larger and larger military commands all the way from West Point to the entire Iraq War and as COCOM… while Hegseth was a TV pundit.”

The Washington Post’s Dan Lamothe, who covers the U.S. Military, added, “This basic description also applies to Lloyd Austin, Jim Mattis, and Chuck Hagel,” all current or former Secretaries of Defense.

Moe Davis, the retired U.S. Air Force colonel, attorney, educator, politician, and former administrative law judge, quipped: “Maybe it’s time for a SECDEF who doesn’t have to pledge he won’t get knee-walking drunk if he’s confirmed and doesn’t have to get his mommy to go on TV to say ‘he’s no longer the reprehensible pervert he was a couple of years ago’ now that he’s the SECDEF nominee.”

Among the common attacks from Hegseth and his supporters is the claim the U.S. Armed Forces is no longer the world’s most lethal fighting force.

U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan made that suggestion to support Hegseth late last month.

“We need to get back to the core mission of the Dept. of Defense. That’s lethality. That’s winning wars. That’s peace through strength,” he declared. “I saw first-hand some of the woke stuff that was happening with regard to the Biden administration. You now, you had a Secretary of the Navy who was more focused on climate change than ship building. One of President Biden’s first executive orders wasn’t focused on lethality, winning wars, it was focused on transgender surgery for active duty troops!”

Sullivan insisted that America needs to “create the most lethal force in the world to deter wars and I think Pete Hegseth is very focused on that and I think that is a refreshing change, a critical change.”

“Lethality” appears to be Hegseth’s marching order, under the implication that America’s military is not lethal—a direct assault on the credibility of the Armed Forces.

“That’s what Donald Trump asked me to do: ‘Your job is to bring a war fighting ethos back to the Pentagon. Your job is to make sure that it’s lethality, lethality, lethality,’” Hegseth said Wednesday, CNN reported. “Everything else is gone. Everything else that distracts from that shouldn’t be happening.”

“Rather than leaning into controversial policies he has supported, such as banning women from combat roles, Hegseth told senators that his aim is to ‘make this military lethal again,’ the [transition team] official said.”

U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) also promoted the harmful suggestion that America’s fighting forces are no longer lethal.

“I enjoyed meeting with @PeteHegseth and hearing about his plans to achieve President Trump’s peace through strength agenda,” she wrote Thursday. “He is committed to putting our warfighters in the best position and returning the Pentagon’s focus to our force’s lethality.”

On Friday, Vice President-elect JD Vance continued the attack on America’s Armed Forces.

“For too long, the Pentagon has been led by people who lose wars. Pete Hegseth is a man who fought in those wars,” he declared, ignoring the history of highly-decorated warriors in charge of the Pentagon, including Secretary Austin.

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) has been all-in on Hegseth and even suggested it’s time America overlook detrimental allegations—including Hegseth’s—for Senate-confirmable nominees.

On Thursday, on Fox Business he suggested that Hegseth’s accusers might be fictional. And he described Hegseth as “a warrior’s warrior. He’s somebody that the rank and file military men and women can look to and go ‘finally there’s somebody at the helm that represents us, not just the guys with stars on their shoulders.'”

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s bio from 2017, when he was given the Distinguished Graduate Award by the West Point Association of Graduates, includes this accolade: “Called a warrior and a ‘Soldier’s Soldier’ by many.”

See the social media post and video above or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Ozempic coverage prompts stark internal schism among Republicans

Editor's note: This headline has been updated.

Anyone who watches MSNBC or CNN frequently has likely seen some commercials for Ozempic, a weight loss drug. Pharma companies do a lot of advertising on cable news, and Ozempic commercials have been plentiful.

According to Semafor's Kadia Goba, a major debate among Republicans involves Ozempic and other weight loss drugs.

Republicans, Goba reports in an article published on December 6, are "divided" on whether or not the federal government should "expand coverage of" Ozempic and other drugs aimed at weight loss.

Goba notes that Dr. Mehmet Oz, who Trump has nominated to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has "openly promoted Ozempic" — while anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been on an "anti-Ozempic crusade." Kennedy is Trump's nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

"(President-elect Donald) Trump will have the power to scrap the Biden Administration's plans for anti-obesity medication after he takes office without formal input from the Hill," Goba explains, "but congressional Republicans will likely want their say on the issue. That requires them to reconcile their own internal argument over whether to reject new federal cash for the drugs or agree to short-term spending in the hopes of reducing the long-term cost of obesity-related illnesses."

Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), a co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, is among the Republicans who favors coverage of weight-loss drugs.

Wenstrup told Semafor, " If you want to fight obesity and you have a tool that seems to be working, do it — but closely monitored."

Read Semafor's full article at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

MAGA Republicans ramp up plan to 'indoctrinate' public schools with Christian nationalism

Back in the early 1980s, a prominent liberal and a prominent conservative — television producer/People for the American Way founder Norman Lear and right-wing Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona) — aggressively criticized the Religious Right and warned that the Moral Majority's Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr., the Christian Broadcasting Network's Pat Robertson, and others in that movement wanted to turn the United States into a theocracy.

Goldwater viewed the Religious Right as terrible for conservatism. Yet the Religious Right only tightened its grip on the Republican Party.

More than 40 years later, the Religious Right is celebrating Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential race. And far-right evangelical Christian fundamentalists, according to HuffPost's Nathalie Baptiste, are ramping up their push to turn public schools into evangelical schools.

"From displaying the Ten Commandments to demanding that teachers use the Bible in their classrooms," Baptiste reports in an article published on December 6, "conservatives seem determined to blur the lines between church and state by infusing Christianity into public schools. And with Donald Trump headed back to the White House and a conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, reshaping the country's education system is looking increasingly feasible."

Baptiste notes that in late October, the Texas State Board of Education "approved a Bible-based curriculum for public school students in kindergarten through 5th Grade."

"Texas schools will not be forced to use the curriculum, but those that do will be rewarded with extra funding — up to $60 per student," Baptiste explains. "The material uses the Bible in a variety of lessons, including directly quoting from it, as well as teaching about creationism — the Christian belief that God created the Earth in one week — and the crucifixion of Jesus."

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, Baptiste observes, far-right State Education Superintendent Ryan Walters has "mandated that all public schools must begin teaching the Bible." And in Louisiana, the reporter adds, the GOP-controlled state legislature "passed a law, in June, requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments."

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, warns that the Religious Right has "globbed onto schools as a place to indoctrinate students."

Laser told HuffPost, "They want to raise the next generation to learn false history, illegitimate science, and to favor Christianity over other faiths and nonreligion."

Heather Weaver, an ACLU attorney in Louisiana, is applauding the federal judge who struck down the Louisiana law as unconstitutional.

Weaver told HuffPost, "This ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity. Public schools are not Sunday schools, and today's decision ensures that our clients’ classrooms will remain spaces where all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed."

Read HuffPost's full article at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump wants to 'impound' money Congress appropriated — but this 50-year-old law could get in the way

Donald Trump is not the first Republican president-elect to complain that Congress spends too much money. But he has made a proposal that is unusual even for a Republican: withholding money or "impounding" money that Congress has already appropriated.

Bloomberg News reporter Steven T. Dennis examines Trump's ability — or inability — to do that in an article published on December 4.

"Trump wants to hold back some money — 'impound' it, in the jargon of Washington — to slash the budget," Dennis explains. "The only problem: There's a 50-year-old law that forbids that exact gambit."

The 50-year-old law that Dennis is referring to is the Impoundment Control Act in 1974, which Congress, Dennis notes, passed to "reassert its power over spending."

"While it set up a fast-track process for the president to quickly seek the approval of Congress if he wanted to override its spending decisions," Dennis explains, "it also established a mechanism for the U.S. comptroller general, who advises Congress, to sue the president for unauthorized impoundments."

The U.S. Constitution, according to Dennis, "explicitly grants Congress control over how much the government can spend."

Back in 1788, Dennis adds, James Madison referenced Congress' "power over the purse."

Read Bloomberg News' full article at this link (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Melania grift': Incoming first lady hawks her Christmas 'collectibles' in Fox interview

America’s incoming First Lady, Melania Trump, in a rare public appearance, sat down with the “Fox & Friends” crew Friday morning to discuss how she is getting ready to return to the White House, how her husband, President-elect Donald Trump, is handling his second transition, and to promote her apparently for-profit business ventures, including her book, Christmas ornaments, NFTs, and other “collectibles.”

Other First Ladies have had careers after serving the American public in the White House, notably Hillary Clinton and Jacqueline Kennedy, but should she continue with this venture or others, Melania Trump may become the first First Lady who has a for-profit business during her time in the White House.

On Fox News, Trump was asked about the public programs she will focus on as First Lady.

She spoke briefly about her signature “Be Best” program, which she launched in May, 2018. It was widely mocked when she introduced it, and reports found some of it was a repackaging of existing federal initiatives around cyberbullying, including those from the Obama administration.

Trump then quickly moved to talking about what she said were her “Web 2” and “Web 3” businesses.

“Well, when I was in the White House for four years, I established my Be Best initiative and I also successfully brought it overseas and around the world. It was very successful and after I left the White House, I established my Web 3 and Web 2 platforms where I design, where I have collectibles like ornaments every season, this is the third season. And many other collectibles that are available now.”

She then appeared to suggest some of the proceeds from those businesses go to support students, but she did not offer any specifics, nor do her websites. The website where she sells her Christmas ornaments does not appear to say anything about donations to charity.

“So with those, I have students from a foster community that I sponsor and I’m very proud of and we have many of them now, so their life changes because they will have an education,” Trump said.

Juliet Jeske, who runs Decoding Fox News, writes: “The money from the overpriced ornaments doesn’t go to charity. I went through her entire website. The profits go back to her.”

On her website, the Christmas ornaments sell for $75 each. The “USA Star” ornament is listed at $90.

“So this are the ornaments that they are available this season, this is the third season that I design and they are very special,” Trump told the “Fox & Friends” co-hosts. “For example, Lady Liberty, it was inspiration from my necklace that I bought when I was modeling in Paris. And now we have an ornament and we have also a necklace that it’s available on MelaniaTrump.com. So I, also, this one it’s the necklace and inspiration, the flower and they’re very patriotic this year. As you could see, it’s all red white and blue and I was inspired by that.”

“They discontinue, they retire, and this is available right now. And it’s a great gift and great collectible, actually.”

Attorney Michael Kasdan, an adjunct professor at NYU School of Law, remarked, “The Fox-Trump Home Shopping Network.”

Attorney Jeffrey Evan Gold, a CNN legal analyst, called it “Free advertising for Melania Grift.”

Last year, The New York Times reported, “In February 2022, Mrs. Trump started ‘Fostering the Future,’ a scholarship program for foster children aging out of the system. A person familiar with the program, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, would not offer details or disclose how many scholarships have been awarded, saying only that it was ‘more than two.’ No charity with the name Fostering the Future or Be Best is registered in Florida or New York.”

Hillary Clinton, who served as First Lady from 1993 to 2001, has authored nine books, including three during her eight years inside the White House. First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt and Barbara Bush also authored books while serving in the White House.

For her first book, the 1996 New York Times bestseller “It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” Hillary Clinton donated all royalties to charity and took no money except to cover expenses, according to The New York Times. Similarly, for the other two books she wrote during her time as First Lady, Clinton donated the proceeds to charities, including the National Park Foundation and the White House Historical Association.

Barely weeks after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, in 2017, Melania Trump’s “representatives issued statements saying that the first lady ‘has no intention’ of using her public position for personal gain,” The Washington Post reported. The paper noted those statements came one day “after Melania Trump filed a lawsuit accusing a British news company of hurting her ability to build a profitable brand.”

Before Election Day this year, CNN reported Melania Trump’s publisher had requested the news network pay $250,000 for an interview.

PEOPLE magazine reported on Friday that “Melania Trump is gearing up for another four years as first lady and all the duties that come with the title, including decorating the White House for Christmas.”

“The ex-model wife of President-elect Donald Trump, 54, previously made headlines surrounding the holidays for her bold choice of Christmas decor — and because of leaked audio recordings where she griped about the responsibility of decorating 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,” PEOPLE’s report notes.

“’I’m working … my a– off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a f— about the Christmas stuff and decorations?’ she was heard saying in a recording from 2018 that has recently resurfaced on social media. ‘But I need to do it, right?'”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Absolute disaster': Watchdog groups slam Trump nominee as 'domestic extremist'

Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth — President-elect Donald Trump's embattled pick to lead the U.S. Defense Department — has been inundated with negative publicity for allegations of everything from sexual assault (which Hegseth has vehemently denied) to public drunkenness and extreme alcohol abuse. Trump has reportedly considered withdrawing the Hegseth nomination and nominating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the position instead, but Hegseth has vowed to keep making his case for confirmation.

In an article published by The Guardian on December 6, journalist Ben Makuch reports that various watchdog groups are sounding the alarm about Hegseth's "extremist" far-right views —and arguing that someone who holds such opinions is unfit for the defense secretary position.

One of those groups is Taskforce Builder, whose CEO, Kristofer Goldsmith, told The Guardian, "I think it's going to be an absolute disaster. Pete Hegseth is a domestic extremist."

Hegseth's tattoos — some of which, critics say, underscore his far-right Christian nationalist views — have been drawing plenty of scrutiny. But according to Goldsmith, Hegseth's books (which include "The War on Warriors" and "American Crusader") are even more damning.

Goldsmith told The Guardian, "I know that there's been a lot of attention on his crusader tattoos. There hasn't been enough attention on his actual books…. The guy has tattoos … However, the bigotry and the hatred that he put in black and white, that is more important."

The Guardian also interviewed Heidi Beirich, the co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (GPAHE).

Beirich told the publication, "Just as the insurrection was downplayed by Republicans, so too has extremism in the military…. Also, a new screening database for tattoos was created, some tightening up of clearances, and some more investigative clarity. But a more fulsome effort should have been on the table. Of course, Republicans are far more to blame, as they politicized the whole process, made light of the problem and claimed efforts to root out extremists were giving the military a bad name."

Read The Guardian's full article at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

From Crowley to Duffy: Inside Trump’s Fox News administration

In a Wednesday, December 4 post on X, formerly Twitter, former Fox News pundit Monica Crowley announced that President-elect Donald Trump had nominated her for assistant secretary of state. Crowley, in her tweet, said she looks forward to working with Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) — Trump's pick for secretary of state — in 2025.

Because Rubio isn't one of Trump's more controversial nominees, he is likely to receive a bipartisan confirmation from the U.S. Senate next year.

Vanity Fair's Bess Levin, in a biting December 5 column, notes that Crowley is the 12th nominee for Trump's incoming administration who has a Fox News and/or Fox Business background — and she expects that number to keep growing.

"When it comes to the people Donald Trump wants advising him in a second term," Levin argues, "the president-elect has a type. Accused of sexual misconduct? You're a shoo-in for a Cabinet gig. Did time in prison? Step right up. Related to him by marriage? When can you start? Another obvious plus, and one that apparently far outweighs actual experience, is having worked for Fox News or another Fox Corp. subsidiary."

Levin continues, "While Pete Hegseth is the most prominent network personality to have received a nod — in his case, for defense secretary — he's far from the only one Trump has poached from the conservative broadcaster. Others include Sean Duffy for transportation secretary and Janette Nesheiwat for surgeon general, plus multiple additional Fox News contributors."

The Vanity Fair columnist notes that Crowley has been nominated for "a job that deals in foreign diplomacy" but has, according to Media Matters' Matt Gertz, "pushed several bigoted conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama's heritage, including promoting a documentary about his purported 'real father.'"

"After serving as Treasury Department assistant secretary for public affairs during the first Trump Administration," Levin points out, "Crowley (according to Gertz) 'returned to punditry, claiming that the deep state has been trying to destroy Trump through COVID-19…. and assassination attempts.' She was also a contributor to Project 2025."

Bess Levin's full Vanity Fair column is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump’s 'blitz approach' with controversial nominees is 'overkill meant to overwhelm': analysis

"War Room" host Steve Bannon famously said that a major tactic of the MAGA movement is to "flood the zone with s---." Bannon stressed that the more MAGA Republicans make their opponents feels overwhelmed and disoriented, the more progress they will make.

In a biting column published on December 6, the New York Times' Frank Bruni argues that President-elect Donald Trump's willingness to make so many controversial nominations for his administration is a "tactic," a "blitz approach" and "overkill meant to overwhelm."

The opinion columnist stresses that the terrible nominees are drawing so much attention that Trump will have an easier time getting the nominees who are merely bad confirmed in the U.S. Senate. The goal, according to Bruni, is "desensitizing" Trump's opponents.

"It's galling that he chose a son-in-law's father, Charles Kushner, who spent two years in prison for witness retaliation, tax evasion and making false statements to the Federal Election Commission, to live in 60,000-square-foot splendor in Paris and swan around the Champs-Élysées as the next American ambassador to France," Bruni laments. "But is that any worse than Kash Patel storming around America's capital in the role of FBI director?.... But there’s little sign of serious resistance to Patel's confirmation from Republicans in the Senate. They have slimier fish to fry — for example, Pete Hegseth, Trump's designee for defense secretary."

Trump has reportedly considered withdrawing his Hegseth nomination and offering the position to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis instead. And at least two Democratic senators, Pennsylvania's John Fetterman and Arizona's John Kelly, told CNN they would consider voting for DeSantis for secretary of defense.

DeSantis has drawn more than his share of criticism from Democrats, but Fetterman and Kelly's comments indicate that even Democrats would view the Florida governor as an improvement over Hegseth.

Bruni argues that "Hegseth's troubles better the odds that the conspiracy theorist and carcass fetishist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. winds up the secretary of health and human services and that the al-Assad apologist and Putin fangirl Tulsi Gabbard gets to run national intelligence."

"There's only so much resistance that Republican senators can muster — only so many times that lap dogs this thoroughly muzzled can bark," Bruni writes. "Trump's picks for lofty posts speak to his veneration of scoundrels — to his belief that rules are for sissies and the strong take what they want however it must be taken."

Frank Bruni's full New York Times column is available at this link (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Fruit of the loaded: What that $6.2 million banana says about wealth

Last month, a crypto entrepreneur bought a banana taped to a wall — a conceptual art piece by Maurizio Cattlean — at a Sotheby’s art auction for $6.2 million including auction-house fees and subsequently ate it.

At a press conference in a Hong Kong hotel where Justin Sun consumed the banana he purchased, he offered attendees each a roll of tape and a banana of their own. Did Sun know he was holding a modern, but degraded version of a potlatch?

On the Northwest coast of North America, for as long as oral tradition records, Indigenous tribes have held potlatch ceremonies where the community comes together to watch the host destroy some of his accumulated wealth and also give it away.

Precious oil was burned, valued ornaments were broken, and gifts of food and household items were distributed. Anthropologists saw potlatches as a way to redistribute wealth and also as a form of conspicuous consumption. After all, how rich must I be to be able to set a boatload of heating oil on fire?

These events also reflect an understanding that a community is at risk for disruptive actions when some people are accumulating wealth and others have little. Recognizing the high achievers, at the same time that everyone is able to eat, fosters social cohesion and strength.

We might want to give this practice some thought.

In the dominant American culture, where we are suspicious about redistribution, we certainly like to display the bounty of our wealth, even when it is modest. We did it with our elaborate Thanksgiving feasts with family and will do it again as we overspend on Christmas presents. You can say “consumer culture,” but I will also point out that there is an almost universal human desire to demonstrate our achievements and worth by obviously and publicly spending money. And in these popular traditions, we are also sharing, which makes them lovely.

Comedian,’ a conceptual art piece by Maurizio Cattlean was estimated to fetch between $1 million and $1.5 million back in October when Sotheby’s announced the Nov. 20 date of ‘The Now and Contemporary Evening Auction’ in New York. (Courtesy of Sotheby’s)

The most status, however, seems to accrue to those who can literally afford to be wasteful. The competition to build the largest yacht that will be fully staffed but barely used, the need to own homes that will be staffed but not visited in every vacation spot on Earth. Assorted $50,000 pocketbooks and a half-million-dollar car to tool around the neighborhood. These are not actions taken out of need, or even from a desire to have the best made or best performing items. They signal to the community that someone is so rich they can, basically, set their money on fire.

The artist of the taped banana titled his work “Comedian,” and has said that it is a commentary on the absurdity of the art world. Ridiculous it may very well be, but the art world has become an additional way to practice an ancient tradition of displaying wealth. Buying art might seem like an investment that will yield a return, but let’s be real. A banana is not going to appreciate. It is going to rot. Might as well enjoy the snack. If Cattalan meant to reveal the nature of many of these purchases, he did a very good job.

However, Sun’s public consumption of his multimillion-dollar fruit is not at all the same as a community leader both wasting and sharing his wealth. It is trivializing the full meaning of potlatch to display your ability to waste but skip the part about sharing. In some ways it is pretty emblematic of our culture. That we care less for community cohesion, and we worry less about the potential danger of hoarding wealth when others are suffering.

True, Sun did offer attendees their own bananas. It would have been more in the spirit of the potlatch if he had distributed something useful, like cash.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

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

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Pre-election research shows disturbing trend among Republicans

Public opinion research conducted in October shows a shift in one political party that might make Donald Trump’s election on Nov. 5 less of a surprise. A majority of the party now agrees with a sentiment about immigration that has previously been associated with organized hate — that they are “poisoning the blood of the country.”

While October marked the first time respondents were asked that question, responses to others indicated a hard shift against immigrants by Republicans and white evangelical protestants — especially after Trump became president.

The Public Religion Research Institute is a nonpartisan group that studies political issues alongside religious values. Since its founding in 2013, it’s conducted its American Values Survey and done more than 200,000 interviews in the process.

Among its most recent findings was a 50-point gap between Republicans and Democrats over how pressing an issue immigration is for the country. And there now is a huge difference between the parties about whether undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria should be offered a path to citizenship.

In 2013, 71% of Democrats and 64% of independents believed a path to citizenship should be offered. The percentage for Democrats rose to 77% by October, while it fell to 55% for independents.

But for Republicans, the change was far more dramatic.

In 2013, most Republicans — 53% — believed that qualifying people should be offered a path to citizenship. As of October, just 36% did.

At a recent conference in Washington, D.C., Public Religion Research Institute Founder and CEO Robert P. Jones said that support for a path mostly held steady for Republicans between 2013 and 2019, “then it begins to drop, then it just fell off a cliff beginning last year.”

Jones said the partisan disparity indicates that we’ve entered a new era when it comes to the politics of immigration.

“This is a very, very different world than we were living in even 10 years ago,” he said.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a religious element to the disparity.

White evangelical protestants make up the only major religious group that does not have a majority supporting a path to citizenship. That support has fallen from 53% in 2013 to 40% now.

The Public Religion Research Institute survey seemed to find an element of hatred in some of the opposition to allowing more undocumented immigrants to become citizens.

“There were a number of questions that, as a social scientist, I found myself having to ask that I never thought I’d have to ask,” Jones said of the most recent survey.

One was prompted by Trump’s statement a year ago that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” The statement has ominous implications because Adolph Hitler, who murdered 6 million Jews along with millions of other targeted groups, made several versions of the statement, including that a male Jew “poisons the blood of others…”

In the survey, Jones asked, “Do you agree or disagree that immigrants who are entering the country today are poisoning the blood of our country?”

A full 34% of Americans agree.

“There is a gigantic partisan gap on this question,” Jones said.

Almost two-thirds of Republicans — 61% — 33% of independents, and just 13% of Democrats agreed that immigrants are poisoning the blood of a nation of immigrants.

Jones, who holds a Ph.D. in religion, said that so many Americans agree with such a statement should concern everyone.

“A racist and hate-filled conception of immigrants has really taken hold with a significant minority of the population,” he said.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

From Your Site Articles

Would voters support Trump’s mass deportation plans? A new poll offers some surprises

President-elect Donald Trump made it clear on the campaign trail that the mass-deportation of immigrants illegally in the United States would be among his first priorities.

But just how Trump would remove the estimated 11 million people in the U.S. without legal authorization remains unclear. How would the process be carried out? Would families be separated? And which agencies would carry out the arrests and detentions?

The latest Meredith Poll underscores how concerned North Carolinians are about the ability to control illegal immigration.

Asked how concerned they were by the number of people entering the U.S. illegally, a plurality of Democrats indicated they are extremely concerned (27%) or very concerned (21.3%), with more than 71% of Republicans indicating that they are extremely concerned or very concerned (16.1%).

As far as how to best address illegal immigration, 82% said they supported using technology and increasing the number of border agents.

When it comes to completing the wall along the southern border, over 90 percent of Republican respondents agree with this solution, compared to less than 48 percent of Democrats. Less than 63 percent of unaffiliated voters said they would support the support wall’s completion.

The poll found strong support for arresting and deporting undocumented immigrants with a criminal record.

But if the only crime was entering the United States without proper documentation, that’s where North Carolinians have their differences.

While over 73 percent of Republican respondents favor arresting and deporting undocumented persons who have not committed a violent or property crime, only a little over 38 percent of Democratic respondents would support these arrests and deportations. Just over 45 percent of unaffiliated voters would support this as a solution.

Use of the military to enforce Trump’s immigration policies

Notably, 60 percent of the respondents in the Meredith poll support using military personnel to enforce immigration policy initiatives. Support for using sheriffs and local law enforcement personnel is even stronger with 65 percent of those polled supporting this option. A little more than one-third (34%) said they opposed the military being used for this purpose.

In terms of age groups, the poll finds less than half of Gen Z voters support the use of military personnel to enforce immigration policy (49.2%) whereas the oldest generation of respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of the use of the military (80.1%) and local law enforcement personnel (85.1%) for immigration enforcement.

The construction industry has voiced concerns about how mass deportation would harm the industry. (File Photo)

“The support for using military and local law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement speaks to the gravity of the issue in citizens’ minds,” said David McLennan, director of the Meredith Poll. “In North Carolina, Democrats have stood up against House Bill 10, which forces sheriffs and local law enforcement to assist ICE in detaining immigrants. Democratic voters we polled, however, see the utility in using military and law enforcement in this effort.”

According to the Brookings Institution, 60% of the undocumented have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade.

So, should those who are undocumented and leading otherwise lawful, productive lives be swept up in these deportations?

According to the Meredith poll, a majority of respondents indicated their support for allowing those brought into the country as children, the so-called DACA recipients to remain, as well as those immigrants who are now married to an American citizen.

But in this divided, purple state there are partisan differences on this issue too.

A majority of Republicans said they do not believe that being married to a U.S. citizen should protect an undocumented immigrant from deportation. Only a slight plurality of Republican respondents want DACA recipients to remain in the United States.

“The Trump administration’s plans to aggressively remove undocumented immigrants will face some headwinds, especially as if people are arrested and deported without having caused problems in the United States,” said McLennan in a press release. “If the Trump administration attempts to revoke DACA protections or start separating married couples, the immigration ‘mandate’ that Trump claims may diminish.”

This week NBC News reported that the incoming Trump administration was making plans to deport some migrants to countries other than their own when their home countries refuse to accept them back.

NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. NC Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Rob Schofield for questions: info@ncnewsline.com. Follow NC Newsline on Facebook and X.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

MAGA media ramp up 'full-throated defense' of Trump’s embattled defense nominee

With the embattled Pete Hegseth facing allegations of everything from sexual assault (the former Fox News host was never charged with anything and flatly denied the accuser's claims) to public drunkenness and severe alcohol abuse, President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly considering withdrawing his nomination of Hegseth for defense secretary — and nominating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis instead for that position. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, on December 4, told CNN's Manu Raju he would consider "voting yes" if DeSantis becomes the nominee.

But Hegseth is still Trump's pick for defense secretary, and he has vowed to keep fighting for votes from GOP senators.

During an appearance on The New Republic's "Daily Blast" podcast, Media Matters' Matt Gertz discussed the divide between GOP senators who would like to see someone other than Hegseth as the nominee and far-right MAGA media pundits who are aggressively defending him.

When Sargent asked Gertz if there is "any way Hegseth survives this," the Media Matters reporter responded, "I think there is."

Gertz told Sargent, "What we're seeing right now is a test of the power that the right-wing media has within the MAGA movement. Some sort of flair clearly went up over the last 24 hours because after largely remaining passive and backing off from the nomination as all of these damning reports came out, people at Fox (News) and throughout the right-wing media have started rallying to Hegseth's defense."

Gertz noted that a "full-throated defense of Hegseth" has been "coming from the MAGA movement," including "people like Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec."

The Media Matters reporter predicted that MAGA Republicans will ramp up their demonization of the mainstream media in the weeks and months ahead.

"When the media actually reports facts about Trump and his administration and his administration figures and policies," Gertz told Sargent, "MAGA will turn everything into a test of whether Republicans are on the side of the liberal media or on the side of Trump. And since Trump has spent years threatening, in another administration, to use the power of the state against the media, he has raised expectations among the MAGA masses that this will happen. So when these big tests start arising, the pressure will intensify on figures in the government to actually do this stuff — not just talk about it, to do it."

Greg Sargent's full interview with Media Matters' Matt Gertz is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Meet the banks and investors funding the LNG 'carbon bomb'

Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
Mizuho (Japan)
Gazprombank (Russia)
SMBC Group (Japan)
Bank of America (U.S.)
Citigroup (U.S.)
Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

BlackRock
Vanguard
State Street
Fidelity Investments
Capital Group
GPFG
JP Morgan Chase
Brookfield Asset Management
Blackstone
MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

Contact Advertise with AlterNet Privacy Policy Writer Guidelines Press Information About AlterNet Meet the AlterNet Staff Debug Logs