“Unless Congress puts the country on a different fiscal course, Walker believes there is a 70 percent chance of a serious debt crisis before the end of the decade. That crisis would have “serious adverse economic security, national security, diplomatic, and domestic tranquility consequences,” he warned, adding that the middle class would “be affected the most on a relative basis” if standards of living are suddenly hit with a debt-induced shockwave.
This week’s hearing was intended to highlight bipartisan agreement on the seriousness of the federal government’s fiscal problems, said Rep. Jodey Arrington (R–Texas), the committee’s chairman.
“We’ve got major fiscal problems and a completely unsustainable fiscal trajectory. I haven’t heard anyone, Democrat or Republican, witness or member, that [sic] doesn’t accept that fact,” he said. “We won’t know when the dominoes fall on us in a sovereign debt crisis, it’s going to be difficult to put the pieces back together and maintain our global leadership.”
Those remarks echo warnings issued in recent years by governmental entities like the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office, as well as outside groups like the Penn Wharton Budget Model. Since 2015 the gross national debt has doubled, from $18 trillion to over $36 trillion. Debt held by the public, which most economists consider the more significant measure, sits at more than $28 trillion, or 99 percent of GDP. Deficits of nearly $2 trillion are expected for the foreseeable future.”
“According to a new investigation from The Marshall Project, hospitals are giving women drugs during labor and then reporting them to child welfare services when they later test positive for those same drugs. These cases are one of the more maddening side effects of an out-of-control drug war combined with strict mandatory reporting laws.”
“Since June 27, 2022 (three days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade), Mississippi has prohibited nearly all abortions. According to the 2007 bill that resulted in that ban, “every human being, including those in utero, possesses a natural intrinsic right to live.” It is therefore hard to understand why Brandy Moore, a mother of four who lives in Leake County, Mississippi, was recently arrested for a felony because she decided not to have an abortion back in 2019, when the procedure was still legal in her state.
The explanation for that puzzling situation lies at the confluence between the war on drugs and a child protection system that often breaks up families without solid evidence of neglect or abuse. In this case, that dangerous combination was compounded by a local prosecutor, District Attorney Steven Kilgore, who for years deployed patently frivolous criminal charges in an attempt to get drug-using mothers the help he thought they needed, whether they wanted it or not.
Moore’s legal ordeal, which stemmed from surreptitious drug tests at the hospital where she gave birth to her daughter Remi in 2019, is detailed in a Mississippi Today story, produced in collaboration with The Marshall Project, that shows her situation is far from unique. Across Mississippi and across the country, postnatal drug tests can trigger grueling investigations by state-appointed social workers, separation of mothers from their newborn children, and even criminal charges. These interventions are all based on the faulty presumption that women who use illegal drugs during pregnancy—or are mistakenly suspected of doing so based on erroneous test results—are manifestly unfit parents.
Moore’s experience is nevertheless striking in several ways. She stopped using methamphetamine around the middle of her pregnancy after a religious epiphany inspired her to reject abortion and turn her life around. For reasons that remain unclear, she was secretly indicted in 2020 but was not arrested until last May, at which point Remi was 4. And most remarkable of all, Kilgore, who seems to have previously overlooked the human consequences of treating mothers as criminals based on hospital drug tests, had an awakening of his own as a result of Mississippi Today’s investigation.
“I’ve reevaluated our stance on the topic and have decided not to handle these cases anymore,” Kilgore told Mississippi Today reporter Anna Wolfe after learning how his decisions had harmed Moore and other women, several of whom received stiff prison sentences because they failed to fully comply with the 8th Judicial District’s drug court program. “It was eye-opening to learn of the fate of these women. I believe we can all do better.”
As Kilgore tells it, he never thought these women belonged in prison. He just wanted to scare them straight. Toward that end, he charged them with “aggravated domestic violence,” a felony punishable by up to 20 years behind bars.
Under Mississippi law, “a person is guilty of aggravated domestic violence” when he “attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such an injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Contrary to the way Kilgore read that statute, simply using an illegal drug during pregnancy does not meet the elements of that offense.
Moore, for example, says she used meth early in her pregnancy to help her deal with stress at a difficult time. “The father wanted no involvement and encouraged her to get an abortion,” Wolfe writes. “As Moore plotted where and when to get the procedure, which was still legal in Mississippi at the time, she was using crystal meth to cope.” Once she decided to keep the baby, “it wasn’t hard to stop getting high.””
…
“Mississippi Today and The Marshall Project “found 44 women across Mississippi who were arrested between 2015 and 2023 for felony child abuse or child endangerment after their newborns tested positive for drugs.” Such cases lead to family separation, intrusive surveillance, and criminal punishment—outcomes that reflect the arbitrary distinctions drawn by U.S. drug laws. Although alcohol consumption during pregnancy can harm a fetus, caseworkers and prosecutors do not target new mothers simply because they are drinkers. Yet any detectable use of an illegal drug is enough to trigger life-disrupting and liberty-threatening interventions.
Beyond the individual injustices, these policies may deter drug-using women from seeking medical care, which surely is not in the interest of the children whom officials claim to be protecting or the mothers they claim to be helping. The threat of criminal penalties might even tip the scale in favor of abortion, the option that Moore rejected years before she discovered that decision could send her to prison.
Gilliam thinks the demise of Roe v. Wade has encouraged prosecutors to pursue such cases. “Some local prosecutors across the nation have been charging women in these scenarios for years,” Wolfe notes. “But no year saw more of these criminal charges than the year following the U.S. Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe.”
After Kilgore saw the error of his ways, he dropped the case against Moore, who has mixed feelings about that result. “When she learned of the dismissal, Moore broke down in tears of relief,” Wolfe writes. “But she said she was also almost sad about the conclusion—that she would have no public trial to challenge how the [district attorney] is criminalizing pregnant women in her community. Maybe a trial would have helped others, possibly changed some laws, she thought. That’s what she hopes telling her story might do, especially for the mothers currently incarcerated.””
“In August 2022, Biden announced a blanket forgiveness of up to $20,000 in federal student loans for single borrowers earning less than $125,000 or couples earning less than $250,000. This plan—estimated to cost over $500 billion—was swiftly blocked in federal court, and the Supreme Court later struck it down as an unconstitutional exercise of the spending power.
While Biden couldn’t quite bring home the grand prize, he managed to cancel billions in student loans through now-blocked changes to the federal student loan program. Unsurprisingly, these changes also led to a big increase in the estimated 2024 federal deficit—a $145 billion hike.
The seminal achievement of Biden’s student loan overhaul was the introduction of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, an income-driven repayment plan that dramatically reduces most borrowers’ monthly payments. Under the previous version of the program, borrowers were directed to pay 10 percent of their discretionary income (calculated as earnings above 150 percent of the federal poverty rate) for 20 years before receiving forgiveness. Borrowers will now pay just 5 percent of their discretionary income (now estimated as earnings more than 225 percent of the federal poverty level), with some receiving forgiveness after only 10 years. While the program was estimated to cost taxpayers nearly $500 billion over the next decade, federal courts fully blocked the program by July 2024.
If somehow allowed to go forward, the SAVE plan would be likely to incentivize students to take on much larger student loan balances, because the program requires borrowers to pay so little back before forgiveness. Ultimately, it’s difficult to see how this extra spending doesn’t encourage colleges to hike tuition.”
“Son offered a similar commitment after Trump’s first presidential win in 2016, when Son pledged a $50 billion investment and the creation of 50,000 new jobs. But while SoftBank does seem to have followed through on its investment promise, it’s “unclear” that the jobs followed — a reminder that splashy announcements like Son’s latest should not necessarily be taken as iron-clad guarantees.
While CNN’s Allison Morrow and David Goldman found that SoftBank did invest roughly $75 billion in US companies after its first pledge, it “never made clear how many of those jobs it actually created — and how many were actually a result of a new investment,” they write.
Vox reached out to SoftBank for clarity on its previous investments and how many jobs they generated but did not receive a response prior to publication.
Other corporate investments that Trump touted in his first term had underwhelming returns as well. In the case of Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer, for example, the company promised a $10 billion Wisconsin plant and 13,000 jobs, and fell short on both counts. An updated version of the deal eventually saw Foxconn reduce that figure to roughly 1,500 jobs.
According to a 2019 ProPublica investigation, multiple other corporations, including Alibaba and Broadcom, were also cited by the Trump administration as sources for new jobs, though many of these gains never materialized.
Such pledges, though, still have value to a president who once vowed to run the country like a business, regardless of their eventual success. They provide a good headline for Trump, and a chance to burnish his self-created image as a “dealmaker.”
Now that Trump is returning to power, business leaders are once more looking for ways to build influence with the administration, often with the goal of shaping favorable regulatory outcomes or government contracts. The SoftBank announcement suggests touting prominent job commitments, including those the company might not be able to deliver on, will continue to be one of those avenues.”
“Trump’s 11th-hour decision to get involved in negotiations, weighing in via social media (and seemingly without coordinating with congressional allies), is reminiscent of his first-term approach to Capitol Hill, when he regularly blew up funding talks and directly caused the longest government shutdown in US history.”
“According to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the death toll from illegal drugs during the year ending in April 2024 was 10 percent lower than the number during the previous year. This would be the largest such drop ever recorded—a striking contrast to the general trend during the previous two decades, when the number of drug deaths rose nearly every year.”
…
“Does this apparent turnaround show the war on drugs is finally succeeding? Dasgupta et al. deemed it “unlikely” that antidrug operations along the U.S.-Mexico border had helped reduce overdoses. They noted that recent border seizures had mainly involved marijuana and methamphetamine rather than illicit fentanyl, the primary culprit in overdoses, and that retail drug prices have been falling in recent years—the opposite of what you would expect if interdiction were effective.
While replacing street drugs with methadone or buprenorphine reduces overdose risk, the researchers said, it did not look like expanded access to such “medication-assisted treatment” could account for the recent drop in deaths. But they thought it was “plausible” that broader distribution of the opioid antagonist naloxone (commonly known as the brand Narcan), which quickly reverses fentanyl and heroin overdoses, had played a role.
In contrast with naloxone programs, which help reduce drug-related harm, prohibition magnifies it by birthing a black market in which quality and purity are highly variable and unpredictable. Efforts to enforce prohibition increase those hazards. The crackdown on pain pills, for example, pushed nonmedical users toward black market substitutes, replacing legally produced, reliably dosed pharmaceuticals with iffy street drugs, which became even iffier thanks to the prohibition-driven proliferation of illicit fentanyl.
That crackdown succeeded in reducing opioid prescriptions, which fell by more than half from 2010 to 2022. Meanwhile, the opioid-related death rate more than tripled, while the annual number of opioid-related deaths nearly quadrupled.
Drug warriors, in short, should not get credit for reducing overdoses. But they do deserve a large share of the blame for creating a situation in which an annual toll of more than 100,000 deaths looks like an improvement.”
“In an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) on ABC’s This Week last March, host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly and inaccurately asserted that Donald Trump, now the president-elect, had been “found liable for rape.” A week later, Trump sued ABC and Stephanopoulos for defamation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, noting that a jury had deemed Trump civilly liable for “sexual abuse,” not “rape.” Over the weekend, ABC News announced that it had reached a $15 million settlement with Trump in the form of a contribution to Trump’s presidential library. ABC also agreed to cover $1 million in Trump’s legal expenses.
The settlement is highly unusual in the annals of Trump’s many lawsuits against news outlets, which typically feature claims with a much weaker legal and empirical basis. Some Trump critics explicitly or implicitly faulted ABC for folding, saying its decision is apt to have a chilling impact on journalism. But any such threat can be mitigated by applying normal standards of journalistic care—standards that Stephanopoulos conspicuously failed to uphold in this case.
In his interview with Mace, Stephanopoulos was talking about two cases involving the journalist E. Jean Carroll’s allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. In one case, a New York jury last year concluded that Carroll had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had “sexually abused” her. The jurors also agreed that Trump had defamed Carroll by calling her a liar and awarded her $5 million in damages. But they expressly concluded that Carroll had failed to prove Trump had “raped” her.”
“During Trump’s first term, sanctuary cities refused to allow local law enforcement to share information with federal immigration agents or hand over immigrants in their custody. This time around, many are planning to do the same, even if doing so draws them into a fight with the second Trump administration.
Trump’s so-called border czar Tom Homan, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a named contributor to its Project 2025 manifesto, has indicated the incoming administration plans to make sanctuary jurisdictions targets for “mass deportations.” Homan said recently he hopes that local law enforcement will cooperate with requests from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hand over undocumented immigrants already in their custody, especially when they pose a public safety threat.
“What mayor or governor doesn’t want public safety threats out of their communities?” he told the Center Square. “Their No. 1 responsibility is to protect their communities. That’s exactly what we are going to do.”
Most Democratic leaders, however, have made it clear that they will not accept federal government overreach on deportations and that they are preparing to challenge Trump’s immigration policies in court.
“We’re not looking for a fight from the Trump administration, but if he attacks our progress, we’ll fight back,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Vox. “Immigrants are such a critical part of who we are … who we will be.””
…
“In his first term, Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions took two forms: attempting to withhold federal funding from them and challenging their policies in court.”