The Dictatorship

This federal judge has zero patience for the NIH director’s dangerous ignorance

Published

1 year ago

June 19, 2025

This federal judge has zero patience for the NIH director’s dangerous ignorance

Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and renowned expert in LGBTQ health, has described the goal of her research as “trying to improve health care for a segment of the population that had been largely ignored despite a greater-than-average rate of poor outcomes.”

That’s a succinct description of health disparities research. Addressing disparities entails figuring out why there’s a failure in health or health care somewhere and how to fix it. Such failures can depend on how old you are, how wealthy, if you have a disability, how much access you have to a healthy diet, and so on. And some occur among particular racial or ethnic groups and among those who are sexual and gender minorities.

Addressing disparities entails figuring out why there’s a failure in health or health care and how to fix it.

But the National Institutes of Health terminated research related to those latter groups, including Charlton’s, stating that President Donald Trump’s NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, found such work “not scientifically valuable.”

“This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s L.G.B.T.Q. community. That’s what this is,” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in his ruling against the NIH this week. In response to a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Public Health Association and several other organizations filed against the NIH and the Department of Health and Human Services and their directors, Young found that the NIH violated federal law by withdrawing funding from thousands of active NIH research grants. Many grants were related to research on sexual and gender minority health, and programs to enhance the diversity of the research workforce.

Contrary to Bhattacharya’s assertion, the research projects NIH canceled had already been deemed scientifically valuable by an independent panel of experts charged with determining if the research will have a significant impact on health, if it is scientifically rigorous, and if the study can be conducted as proposed by the qualified research team. That process of review is intensive, as I’ve previously explained. Even grants for trainee scientists are held to an extremely high standard.

Further, it is beyond ignorance to think that such research is harmful or, as the government claimed, discriminatory. Studying health disparities isn’t about promoting one group over another. Figuring out when, and for whom, things aren’t working and figuring out ways to fix what isn’t working is part of the routine process of understanding all health and health-related interventions, and making them work better, more comprehensively and yes, DOGE, more efficiently. That’s why the work of evaluating and reducing health disparities is still written into the strategic priorities of the NIH director. Sometimes the study of differences reveals deep, entrenched, systematic disadvantages experienced by one group or another. These are health inequities, and they are challenging and critical to acknowledge and address because the failure here goes well beyond the design of an individual intervention.

One of my own research projects studied an ambitious Oregon Medicaid policy to improve the care of back pain, emphasizing nonpharmacological treatments such as physical therapy and massage over opioids, which had been shown to have little benefit and potential harm. Our team found that while many Oregonians on Medicaid shifted their care to nonpharmacologic modalities, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic enrollees did so less often.

It’s not discrimination for us to try to find out why the policy didn’t work for everyone and to try to figure out the barriers that kept some people from accessing safe and evidence-based care. These questions are the subject of our current study. Our hope is that the next time such a policy is enacted, it will have a greater impact in reducing pain and improving health outcomes across all populations.

A 1992 commentary in the Hastings Center Report called attention to the history of exclusion in medical research with the biting headline “Wanted: Single, White Male for Medical Research.” It called out the discrimination that left many out of the benefits of scientific progress. It was in recognition of that regrettable history that the Office of Minority Health and the Office of Research on Women’s Health were established in 1986 and 1990 respectively. But evidence suggests we continue to have a great deal of work to course-correct.

A 1992 commentary called attention to the history of exclusion in medical research with the biting headline “Wanted: Single, White Male for Medical Research.”

It’s right to be concerned for groups experiencing poor health outcomes. That should be enough to support the kind of research the NIH is systematically slashing. But the lowest common denominator reason to support disparities research is a selfish one: figuring them out helps whole lines of science that benefit us all. Someone on an airline flight in seat 5D would never argue that an air leak next to 10A doesn’t matter to them.

Earlier this month, NIH employees issued an open letter — a rare move for civil servants — rebuking Bhattacharya for these and other actions, urging him to “restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue.” Now a court has also ruled against slashing the grants.

Meanwhile, scientists across the country simply want to return to their health-promoting, lifesaving work. In ordinary times, no one would stand in their way.

Dr. Esther Choo

Esther Choo, M.D. M.P.H., is an emergency medicine physician, health policy researcher and founding member of Equity Quotient, a company that advises organizations on building cultures of equity. She has provided commentary on the pandemic and other health care topics through appearances on BLN, BLN, the BBC and Yahoo! Finance and editorials published in The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, The Washington Post, NBC Think and USA Today.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

21 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

21 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

21 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.