Tag: donald trump

Sweeping Trump crackdown on misleading pharmaceutical ads is first in nearly 3 decades

In a landmark move, the Trump administration has launched a sweeping crackdown on misleading pharmaceutical advertisements, the first major enforcement effort since direct-to-consumer drug ads were legalized in 1997. 

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary recently spoke with Full Measure about the unprecedented effort, stating that the agency is sending “thousands” of enforcement letters targeting deceptive promotions across TV, social media, and online platforms. 

The U.S. is one of only two countries allowing such ads (the other is New Zealand). Makary says the commercials often downplay serious risks, present false information, or mislead viewers by showcasing happy, dancing patients. He says FDA enforcement has been notoriously lax for decades, with FDA violation letters to drug companies dropping from 130 annually in the late 1990s to zero in 2024. 

The new plan targets not just TV but also social media influencers and online pharmacies. 

A key focus is closing the “adequate provision loophole,” which allowed vaccine ads to skip disclosing any risks at all by listing them elsewhere, like on websites. 

Makary argues this violates regulations against misleading impressions, and the FDA is moving to eliminate it.

No comparable crackdowns on misleading drug ads have ever been launched. Many observers say that’s in part due to the pharmaceutical industry’s influence with members of Congress who get big money from drug companies. They also blame inaction on the media that benefits from all the money drug ads bring in and make them more likely to defend the industry and downplay or censor prescription drug risks and concerns.

Keep reading

“Looking Into Soros. Looks Like RICO”: Trump Puts Crosshairs On Radical Leftist NGOs

After President Trump told Fox & Friends hosts that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is “in custody,” he went on to comment about radical leftist organizations, stating, “We are going to look into Soros. It looks like a RICO case.”

Recall that on Wednesday night, just hours after Kirk’s assassination, President Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office, calling it a “dark moment for America.” He vowed to crack down on radical left movements across the country that have fueled chaos and even death this year.

Then on Thursday night, Texan News reporter Cameron Abrams wrote on X that Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and two dozen others in Congress called for a select committee on “the money, influence, and power behind the radical left’s assault on America and the rule of law.”

“Enough is enough. We must follow the money to identify the perpetrators of the coordinated anti-American assaults being carried out against us and take all steps under the law necessary to stop them,” the lawmakers stated. 

Keep reading

The Standard for ‘Vicious’ Speech Trump Laid Out After Kirk’s Murder Would Implicate Trump Himself

In a video released on Wednesday night, President Donald Trump said “radical left” rhetoric “is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today,” including this week’s assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah, and “it must stop right now.” Trump vowed that “my administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.”

Trump also expressed devotion to “the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died,” including “free speech.” Yet that value seems inconsistent with Trump’s claim that hateful rhetoric “directly” causes violence and his promise to “find” anyone who “contribute[s]” to that problem, apparently including “radical left” people who make inflammatory statements about their political opponents. As Trump put it on Fox News this morning, “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.”

The solution that Trump is contemplating seems to go beyond urging self-restraint. The Trump administration is developing a “comprehensive plan on violence in America,” including “ways that you can address” what “can only be called hate groups,” which “may breed this kind of behavior,” White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said on Thursday. “It will not be easy. There’s layer upon layer upon layer, and some of this hate-filled rhetoric is multigenerational, but you’ve got to start somewhere.”

Like Trump, Wiles noted “the importance of free speech.” But it is impossible to reconcile that principle with any government plan that entails targeting “hate groups” because they are “vicious” and “horrible” or because they engage in “hate-filled rhetoric.”

What sort of rhetoric does Trump have in mind? “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” he said in the video. “Day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible for years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals.”

Such rhetoric is indeed “hateful” and “despicable,” but it is also constitutionally protected. It is hard to imagine how the government, consistent with the First Amendment, could try to suppress the speech that Wiles says “may breed” political violence.

This is not to say there is no connection between the sort of demonization that Trump describes and appalling crimes such as Kirk’s murder. Spencer Cox, Utah’s Republican governor, says Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old man police have identified as Kirk’s killer, inscribed his rifle cartridges with messages such as “Hey fascists! Catch!” But while demonization may be a necessary condition for such violence, it is obviously not sufficient. If it were, we would see a lot more political murders.

First Amendment law recognizes that distinction between words and actions. Hyperbolic analogies like the ones that Trump cited clearly fall into the former category. And under the test established by the Supreme Court’s 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, even advocacy of illegal conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless it is both “directed” at inciting “imminent lawless action” and “likely” to have that effect. Comparing your political opponents to Nazis, however “hateful” and “despicable” that may be, plainly does not meet that test.

Trump himself has relied on the Brandenburg test in arguing that he should not be held civilly liable for his role in provoking the 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol. He insisted that he did not intend to cause a riot, noting that he never explicitly advocated anything more extreme than peaceful protest. Yet his pre-riot speech, which was full of invective against the “radical-left Democrats” who supposedly had rigged an election and dark warnings about what would happen if an alleged usurper were allowed to take office, easily meets the standard that Trump applies when he says anti-conservative rhetoric is “directly responsible” for “terrorism.”

So does the demonizing rhetoric that Trump routinely deploys against people who irk him. As he tells it, his political opponents are not merely wrong. They are “sick, sinister, and evil people” who are “trying to destroy our country” because they “hate our country.” They are “communists,” “Marxists,” “fascists,” “radical left lunatics,” “sick people,” and “vermin.” They are “the enemy from within.”

Keep reading

Trump FDA to Present Data Linking COVID Jabs to Child Deaths at Upcoming CDC Meeting

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will present data linking COVID-19 vaccines to the deaths of dozens of children.

According to several media reports, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet Thursday and Friday to review and recommend several vaccines, including this fall’s updated Covid shots.

The FDA is basing its claim on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a public database run jointly by the FDA and CDC.

The reports come after FDA Commissioner Marty Makary told CNN last week that the agency is investigating reports of healthy children dying after receiving Covid vaccines.

“We’ve been looking into the VAERS database of self-reports that there have been children that have died from the Covid vaccine,” Makary said.

“We’re going to release a report in the coming few weeks and we’re going to let people know. We’re doing an intense investigation.”

Keep reading

The Roots Of Trump’s Continued Wars On Terror Trace Back To 9/11

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an “invasion” at the border.

Unfortunately, more than two decades of widely-accepted, bipartisan laws and norms first laid the groundwork for this to occur.

After 9/11, the Bush administration created the Specially Designated Global Terrorists list, and Congress expanded the pre-existing Foreign Terrorist Organization list. These lists allow the executive branch, at its sole discretion, to add and remove individuals and groups to standing lists of “terrorists,” a term that is defined broadly.

The Trump administration has exercised this authority to formally designate transnational cartels as “terrorists” due in part to their role in the flow of people and drugs across the southern border into the United States. They have leveraged this designation to justify a range of actions, including deploying troops to Los Angeles and deporting immigrants to a brutal Salvadorean prison without due process.

Another post-9/11 legal invention that paved the way to what the Trump administration is doing today was the USA PATRIOT Act’s updates to immigration law that allowed deportation of not just those involved in actual violent acts of terrorism, but also those loosely associated with designated “terrorist groups,” even if those associations were peaceful and law-abiding or involuntary and a result of duress. People who have previously been excluded from the United States by these provisions include Iraqi interpreters for U.S. troops, victims of forced labor by violent armed groups in El Salvador, and even Nelson Mandela. These provisions mean that not just alleged members of cartels, but also cartel victims could be denied entry into the United States or deported if already here.

These same post-9/11 immigration law amendments also allow for revoking or denying immigration benefits to foreign nationals who “endorse or espouse” “terrorist activity,” defined broadly. The Trump administration has already revoked the visas of several immigrant students and scholars solely for their nonviolent activities criticizing the U.S.-Israel genocide in Gaza, as part of what they call a “zero-tolerance” policy for terrorism. The administration has primarily leaned on an older and more obscure provision of immigration law to carry out these attacks on immigrants’ free speech rights. But if current efforts are blocked by courts, or they wish to go further, post-9/11 immigration law may give them the tools to justify doing so.

The original decision to treat the 9/11 attacks not as crime but as warfare, and to launch a literal “war on terror” in response, remains the primary post-9/11 legal innovation on which so many abuses are made possible. Under this global war paradigm, the Obama administration carried out ruthless drone killings, including one that targeted a U.S. citizen, and justified the strikes with a mish-mash of legal standards that applied rules of war outside of actual war zones, and expansively interpreted what constitutes an “imminent threat” and resulting “self-defense” powers.

Every post-9/11 president has claimed wide authority to use military force so long as it serves a vague “national interest.” We can see echoes of this in the Trump administration’s insistence that the small Venezuelan boat blown up by the U.S. military posed an “immediate threat to the United States,” that the strike complied with the laws of war, and was “in defense of vital U.S. national interests.”

Commentators are entirely correct to denounce these assertions of legal authority. But policymakers have spent more than two decades accepting a war paradigm against whomever presidents determine to be “terrorist,” making it politically and legally all the more difficult to push back against what the Trump administration is doing now.

Keep reading

Taking the Constitution Seriously

Last week, the President of the United States did not take the Constitution seriously. He ordered the murders of 11 people who were riding in a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea around 1,300 miles from the U.S.

Afterward he said he did so because he believed that they were members of a “narco-terrorist gang” and were delivering illegal drugs to America. He also did so, he said, as a “message” to other drug dealers who should fear a similar fate.

The boat had no ability to reach the U.S. According to the former head of drug interdiction for the Department of Justice, this so-called boat gang is not known for trafficking in illegal drugs. The crimes that the president said these folks committed did not occur in the U.S., and if they had, do not permit the imposition of the death penalty.

He offered no evidence to support his claims and didn’t even suggest that the riders in the boat posed a threat to the American military personnel who killed them. He couldn’t say if anyone in the boat was an American.

When he was asked for the legal authority for these killings, President Donald Trump replied that these folks were waging war on the U.S., and, because he is the president of the United States, he can do as he wishes to them.

These are constitutionally ignorant, morally repugnant, profoundly erroneous responses from a person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Here is the backstory.

When British monarchs wanted to dispose of inconvenient adversaries, they often accused them of vague crimes because they were able to define the crime however they saw fit. St. Thomas More, Henry VIII’s former Lord Chancellor, was executed for his silence. The monarch’s target was given a quick trial and then often a slow and excruciating public death – to send a message.

Mindful of the tyrannical impulses of monarchs and familiar with British history, even personally aware of folks in the colonies charged with crimes in London — where they had never been — and transported there for prosecution, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Founding Fathers most responsible for crystallizing the American ethos of natural rights and due process, crafted founding documents that articulated condemnations and prohibitions of tyranny and tyrannical behavior here.

Thus, Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence characterize human rights as the gift of the Creator, which cannot be taken away by executive decree or legislative enactment – ut only by a jury verdict.

And Madison’s words in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declare that “no person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The use of the word “person” makes it obvious that due process applies to all human beings.

Due process requires a fair jury trial, with counsel and the opportunity for confrontation of witnesses and evidence produced by the government. It also requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty to a neutral jury, not to the accuser. And it requires conviction prior to the imposition of a legislatively prescribed penalty.

This was novel and radical in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, but it is neither novel nor radical today. Today, due process is the foundation of American law. It is what lawyers call black-letter law: Those in government are expected to know it and understand it and abide by it.

Until now.

Keep reading

Ryan Routh, DOJ Offer Opening Arguments in Trump Assassination Attempt Trial

The trial of Ryan Wesley Routh, who is charged with the Sept. 15, 2024, attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, has begun in Florida amid growing concerns about politically motivated violence in the United States.

Routh, who is representing himself, and Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley offered opening arguments on Sept. 11 before hearing from a Secret Service agent, who testified that he confronted Routh at Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida, in September 2024, just weeks before the presidential election.

Shipley’s opening argument laid out his findings regarding Routh’s preparations for the alleged assassination attempt, including allegedly traveling to Florida, using various aliases, using encrypted communications, and purchasing a firearm. The case, he said, is not about whether the jury likes Trump or not but whether an attempt was made on Trump’s life.

“[Routh] wanted to make sure the people of this country could not reelect [Trump],” he said.

Opening arguments began nearly a year after the incident on Sept. 15, 2024, and just a day after the assassination of conservative commentator and Trump ally Charlie Kirk. It followed a lengthy pretrial period in which Routh decided to represent himself and submitted bizarre court documents, such as one requesting to subpoena Trump and suggesting a golf match with the president that would end with either Routh dying or becoming president himself. Jury selection took place earlier in the week.

On Sept. 11, Routh, wearing a gray blazer, white shirt, and tie, could be seen smiling often in the relatively small courtroom. According to his indictment, among other things, he has been charged with an attempted assassination of a presidential candidate and faces years in prison. In 2024, he pleaded not guilty.

Keep reading

Trump administration threatens crackdown on foreigners who ‘make light’ of Charlie Kirk assassination

On X, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau stated that the U.S. will respond to foreign nationals within its borders who express support for or downplay the assassination of Charlie Kirk on social media. 

Specifically, ‘praising, rationalizing, or making light of’ Kirk’s assassination on social media.’

‘In light of yesterday’s horrific assassination of a leading political figure, I want to underscore that foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,’ Landau wrote on X. 

Landau added, ‘I have been disgusted to see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action. Please feel free to bring such comments by foreigners to my attention so that the @StateDept can protect the American people.’ 

Landau responded to a comment asking how people could flag these individuals. He responded saying he will direct consular officials to monitor the comments to his post. 

Landau didn’t specify which groups fall under the term ‘foreigners,’ nor did he detail what form the response might take—such as visa denials or deportation.

Other activists and outspoken conservative commentators commented on the X post, showing receipts of people calling for their own assassinations, expressing fear.

In light of Kirk’s traumatic death, Vice President JD Vance will visit Salt Lake City, Utah, to offer condolences to the family of Charlie Kirk. The Second Lady will reportedly also join him on this trip. 

This marks a change from his original plan to travel to New York City to commemorate the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to an administration official familiar with his schedule. 

Some public officials and leaders are also cancelling their events, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who was supposed to have an event in North Carolina this weekend. 

The president also honoring Kirk this morning, bestowing the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the owner of Turning-Point USA, speaking at the Pentagon. The day for the award ceremony has not been announced yet. 

At the event, the president, sounding choked-up and solemn, said he is still shocked by the horror of his assassination, all the while highlighting his influence on the conservative political landscape.

The President has ordered all American flags to be lowered to half-staff until Sunday evening at 6pm EST in honor of Kirk.

The conservative commentator, 31, was hit by a single bullet while speaking to a crowd at the public university in Orem at lunchtime on Wednesday after speaking for about 20 minutes.

The father-of-two, known for his fierce MAGA views and combative debates with college kids across the country, collapsed immediately after being hit in the neck by a single shot from about 200 yards.

Kirk was answering a question about mass shootings seconds before he was struck. He was rushed to hospital in a critical condition, but was declared dead two-and-half hours later.

The killer is still on the loose with a major manhunt by the FBI and Utah police underway.

Speaker Mike Johnson held a moment of silence for Kirk on the chamber floor as questions circulated about whether the father of two was alive. 

Daily Mail reached out to the State Department on this story. 

A State Department Spokesperson tells Daily Mail, ‘This Administration does not believe that the United States should grant visas to persons whose presences in our country does not align with U.S. national security interests.’ 

Keep reading

By bombing Doha, Israel once again undermined America’s credibility and standing

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant this evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

Trump may indeed be upset, but the Israeli Prime Minister is casting him in the same light as Biden: issuing indignant statements over Israeli actions that blatantly undermine U.S. interests, actions that almost certainly could not have occurred without Washington’s tacit consent, while offering no hint that Israel will face consequences for allegedly defying the United States.

To make matters worse, Qatar’s foreign minister revealed that Washington’s so-called warning came not before the Israeli strike, but only after Doha was already under fire.

“The attack happened at 3:46,” Sheikh Mohammed bin Jassim Al Thani said. “The first call we had from an American official was at 3:56 — which is 10 minutes after the attack.”

Whether Washington knew of Israel’s war plans, colluded in them, or whether Trump is truthful in claiming ignorance, the outcome is the same: Israel has dealt a severe blow to American credibility.

What value does an American security umbrella—or even the hosting of a U.S. base—hold if the United States either conspires in an attack against you, or proves unwilling or unable to prevent one?

That is the question now confronting every U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf, all of whom have staked their survival on American protection. Given how Washington has stripped away every meaningful constraint on Israel since October 7, 2023, their leaders should have known this day was inevitable.

Personally, I do not believe the United States should extend security guarantees—implicit or explicit—to any state in the Middle East. The region is no longer vital to U.S. interests, and America is already dangerously overextended. Existing commitments should be reassessed and, where necessary, rolled back. But this must be done deliberately and on Washington’s terms—not sabotaged by Israel—because the point of the exercise goal is to strengthen the credibility of America’s essential commitments, not to erode U.S. credibility across the board.

Adding insult to injury, Israel has undercut not only the credibility of America’s security guarantees but also its diplomatic standing. This marks the second time this year that Israel has exploited the cover of U.S.-led diplomacy to launch unlawful military action—the first being its strike on Iran in the midst of nuclear talks in June.

Keep reading

Trump Calls His Drone Strike on an Alleged Drug Boat ‘Self-Defense.’ It Looks More Like Murder.

Last week, President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that sank a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea, killing all 11 people on board. Trump described the targets as members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua who were “at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.” Although the men could have been intercepted and arrested, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, the president decided their summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

On Wednesday, The New York Times, citing unnamed “American officials familiar with the matter,” reported that the boat “appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it.” That detail further complicates the already dubious legal and moral rationales for this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects.

The attack “crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law,” Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman notes in a Just Security essay. Lederman adds that the September 2 drone strike “appears to have violated” the executive order prohibiting assassination and arguably qualifies as murder under federal law and the Uniform Code of Criminal Justice.

New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department lawyer, agrees. “It’s difficult to imagine how any lawyers inside the Pentagon could have arrived at a conclusion that this was legal,” he told the Times last week, “rather than the very definition of murder under international law rules that the Defense Department has long accepted.”

As Trump told it, the attack was justified because Tren de Aragua is “a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of [Venezuelan President] Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.” He said the strike was meant to “serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

Drug cartels have “wrought devastating consequences on American communities for decades, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of United States citizens each year and threatening our national security and foreign policy interests both at home and abroad,” Trump said in a September 4 letter to Congress. “We have now reached a critical point where we must meet this threat to our citizens and our most vital national interests with United States military force in self-defense.”

U.S. forces therefore “struck a vessel” that “was assessed to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and to be engaged in illicit drug trafficking activities,” Trump explained. “I directed these actions consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.”

Trump says the men whose deaths he ordered were “assessed” to be affiliated with Tren de Aragua. They also were “assessed” to be engaged in drug trafficking. Without knowing the basis for those assessments, we cannot say how accurate they were. Last week, Trump joked about the potential for deadly errors: “I think anybody that saw that is going to say, ‘I’ll take a pass.’ I don’t even know about fishermen. They may say, ‘I’m not getting on the boat. I’m not going to take a chance.'” Conveniently for Trump, summary execution avoids any need to present evidence, let alone meet the requirements of due process.

“Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,” Vice President J.D. Vance declared in an X post on Saturday. When a commenter observed that “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” Vance replied, “I don’t give a shit what you call it.”

That was too much for Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.). “Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” Paul wondered. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Keep reading