The Dictatorship

The data on vaccine safety is public and clear — but I just spelled it out for Congress anyway

Published

9 months ago

September 14, 2025

The data on vaccine safety is public and clear — but I just spelled it out for Congress anyway

(The following is testimony presented to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on Sept. 9. It has been edited for style and length.)

The scientific evidence supporting vaccine safety and efficacy represents one of the most extensive and transparent bodies of medical research ever assembled. Vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally over 50 years, eliminated smallpox from the planet and reduced diseases like polio and measles by over 99% in the United States.

Anyone with internet access can read the same studies I read, examine the same data I examine and verify the same conclusions.

Since April 2025, I have co-led the development of a comprehensive public database cataloging 1,704 randomized controlled trials of vaccines spanning from 1941 to 2025, involving more than 10.5 million participants. Multiple independent U.S. surveillance systems continuously monitor vaccine safety in real time, detecting adverse events as rare as 1 per 1 million doses. Recent large-scale studies, including a Danish cohort following 1.2 million children, consistently demonstrate vaccine safety across diverse populations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that vaccines given to U.S. children born between 1994 and 2023 will prevent approximately 508 million illnesses, 32 million hospitalizations and 1,129,000 deaths over their lifetimes, saving nearly $2.7 trillion in societal costs. This vast evidence base is publicly accessible, peer-reviewed and continuously updated. If vaccines caused a wave of chronic disease, our safety systems — which can detect one-in-a-million events — would have seen it. They haven’t.

I am also part of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy’s Vaccine Integrity Projectwhere our team is conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of respiratory virus immunizations from approximately the last two years. This ongoing analysis has examined 590 studies from over 17,000 identified references to date.

As an infectious diseases physician at Stanford University School of Medicine, I have treated many adults with vaccine-preventable diseases throughout my career. These clinical experiences, combined with my research analyzing the extensive evidence base for vaccine safety and efficacy, inform my testimony today.

I should note that I am here in my personal capacity, and the views I share reflect my own professional experience and analysis of the scientific evidence. I have received minimal payments totaling $45.62 over multiple years for food and beverage at work-related events, as documented in the federal Open Payments database. My research time is either self-funded or supported by Stanford University. I testify in my personal capacity as a physician-scientist committed to rigorous evidence and transparent science.

The safety and efficacy data for vaccines is published in peer-reviewed journals, accessible through PubMed, analyzed by independent researchers worldwide, and scrutinized by regulatory agencies whose deliberations are public record. Anyone with internet access can read the same studies I read, examine the same data I examine and verify the same conclusions.

Our international team has built a public database of randomized controlled trials of vaccines. Every entry links directly to its peer-reviewed source publication, allowing anyone to examine the methods, data and results independently. This is how science should work — open, transparent and reproducible.

The transparency of vaccine science extends throughout history. When Edward Jenner published his vaccination findings in 1798, he self-published Variolae Vaccinae for public scrutiny. The 1954 Salk polio vaccine trial involved 1.8 million children in a publicly monitored study, with results announced to the world and data published for examination. This tradition continues today with large-scale epidemiologic studies published in peer-reviewed journals for all to examine.

The United States maintains multiple independent vaccine safety monitoring systems, each operating transparently.

When real risks exist, they are detected, quantified, disclosed and incorporated into guidance. That is how a functioning safety system works.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) makes every report publicly accessible at vaers.hhs.gov, where anyone can search, download and analyze raw data. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) covers over 10 million Americans across nine health care organizations, with findings regularly published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at public Advisory Committee meetings. The Post-licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring (PRISM) system monitors over 190 million people, publishing results openly.

These systems have successfully detected rare adverse events — including intestinal blockage with a rotavirus vaccine in 1999, leading to its withdrawal; rare blood clots with the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine (3 per 1 million doses), detected within weeks; and myocarditis signals with mRNA vaccinespromptly investigated and quantified.

When real risks exist, they are detected, quantified, disclosed and incorporated into guidance. That is how a functioning safety system works.

Vaccination has historically united Americans across political lines. George Washington ordered Continental Army variolation against smallpox in 1777, declaring, “I have determined that the troops shall be inoculated.” His orders, preserved in the Library of Congress, reflect understanding that disease threatened his army more than British forces.

Throughout American history, presidents from both parties have championed vaccination as essential public health policy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Poliomyelitis Vaccination Assistance Act in 1955, stating, “We all hope that the dread disease of poliomyelitis can be eradicated from our society.” President Ronald Reagan proclaimed National Adult Immunization Awareness Week, noting that “vaccination against infectious diseases saves lives and lowers health care costs.” President George H.W. Bush mobilized CDC teams to cities during the 1991 measles resurgence, urging parents: “The vaccines are available. Please, make sure your child is immunized.” Even recently, President Donald Trump acknowledged: “Look, you have vaccines that work — they just pure and simple work. They’re not controversial at all.”

The evidence of vaccine effectiveness is documented in every health department report and mortality database. This data is not hidden — it is published by the CDC and available to anyone.

Before vaccines, measles infected 3-4 million Americans annually, killing approximately 500 children each year. After widespread vaccination led to elimination in 2000, deaths typically numbered zero to two per year. We are currently experiencing our worst outbreak in decades — 1,431 cases through September 2025, with three deaths, overwhelmingly in undervaccinated communities.

Polio paralyzed 16,000 Americans annually in the pre-vaccine era. In 1952 alone, polio caused 57,879 cases and 3,145 deaths, and paralyzed 21,269 Americans. Since 1979there have been zero cases of wild poliovirus in the United States — a 100% reduction.

Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) caused 20,000 cases of severe disease in children under 5 each year, killing approximately 1,000 annually. After vaccine introduction in 1987, cases dropped by over 99%. From 2009 to 2018, only 36 total Hib cases occurred in American children under 5 — across that entire decade.

The transformation is striking: diphtheria killed 13,000-15,000 Americans annually in the early 20th century; in 2024, we had one case. Pertussis killed hundreds of infants yearly; today, typically fewer than 10. Vaccines have saved an estimated 154 million lives globally over 50 years, including 146 million children under 5 years old and 101 million infants. For every death averted, 66 years of full health were gained on average, translating to 10.2 billion years of full health gained. Vaccination has accounted for 40% of the observed decline in global infant mortality — 52% in Africa. In 2024, a child under 10 years old is 40% more likely to survive to their next birthday because of historical vaccination programs.

For respiratory virus vaccines, the primary goal and realistic expectation is to prevent severe disease and death, not infection.

During the 2023-24 influenza season, over 200 children died from flu; among vaccine-eligible children with known vaccination status, more than 80% were not fully vaccinated. Covid-19 vaccines, developed with unprecedented transparency through publicly broadcast Food and Drug Administration and CDC meetings, prevented catastrophic loss of life. A rigorous analysis estimated vaccines prevented 2.5 million deaths globally from 2020 to 2024 (with sensitivity estimates ranging from 1.4-4.0 million). Before vaccines, ICUs were overwhelmed. By mid-2021, nearly every fatal case was among the unvaccinated. During the delta surge, unvaccinated adults were 53 times more likely to die than those vaccinated and boosted.

I cared for hundreds of Covid patients and watched far too many die. I lost many unvaccinated patients across the age spectrum — from their 30s to their 90s — who I am certain would have survived had they been vaccinated. One mother in her 40s without underlying conditions declined vaccination and died, leaving her child behind. These statistics represent preventable human tragedies.

When vaccine safety is studied with robust designs — large, linked databases, matched cohorts, self-controlled methods comparing people to themselves over time — the findings are consistent: no broad increase in chronic diseases among vaccinated people.

Every medical intervention exists on a spectrum of effectiveness. Statins reduce heart attack risk by approximately 30%, not 100%. Cancer chemotherapy may help roughly 40% of patients, not all. We use these treatments because benefits outweigh limitations. Influenza vaccines, used since the 1940s, prevent an estimated 40%-60% of influenza illness in good years, perhaps 20% when the match is poor — yet still prevent thousands of deaths annually.

For respiratory virus vaccines, the primary goal and realistic expectation is to prevent severe disease and death, not infection. While vaccines cannot prevent viruses from initially entering the respiratory tract, they help our immune system recognize the pathogen and mount a rapid response that can prevent infection, transmission or severe disease, depending on the variant and vaccine match. But vaccines excel at keeping people out of the hospital, and for that critical goal, they perform remarkably well.

Our surveillance systems’ transparency was demonstrated during Covid-19 vaccine monitoring. When the possibility of an early myocarditis signal emerged, the CDC issued a Health Alert Network notice on May 27, 2021, urging clinicians to report cases to verify whether a true safety signal existed. Once confirmed through enhanced surveillance, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reviewed data publicly on June 23. The FDA added warnings on June 25. The data showed rates peaked at approximately 106 per million second doses in teenage boys in 2021, mostly mild and short-lived. By 2024-25, rates with updated formulations returned to near background levels, as documented in public ACIP presentations.

Our surveillance systems can detect extremely rare adverse events — as rare as 1 event per 1 million doses or even less. These systems identified thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (blood clots and low platelets) after the J&J vaccine at a few per million doses overall. The sensitivity of these systems would make any widespread vaccine-related chronic disease impossible to miss.

We take vaccine safety extremely seriously. Vaccines are unique medicines given to large numbers of healthy people. Ensuring their safety through rigorous testing and continuous monitoring is critical.

The evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy exists in overwhelming abundance, accessible to anyone willing to examine it.

My current work exemplifies commitment to openness. Our public database is openly accessible, with search strategies available in the spreadsheets for anyone to examine and verify. The Vaccine Integrity Project team discussed our methods at a public webinardemonstrating our commitment to transparency even before publication. Every step of our research process is designed to be reproducible and verifiable.

Beyond clinical trials, thousands of additional studies examine vaccine safety through peer-reviewed research. When concerns arise, they are investigated and results are published, whether confirming or refuting initial hypotheses.

The evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy exists in overwhelming abundance, accessible to anyone willing to examine it. From Washington’s orders to inoculate the Continental Army to today’s real-time safety monitoring systems, American vaccination policy has been built on transparency and evidence.

The data supporting vaccines is not hidden — it is reviewed by the FDA, published in peer-reviewed journals, analyzed worldwide and tracked through public surveillance systems. If vaccines caused widespread chronic disease, our safety monitoring systems would have detected it. They haven’t.

The question before this subcommittee is whether public health policy will continue to be guided by transparent, peer-reviewed evidence. As we face both emerging infectious disease threats and the return of old threats due to declining vaccination coverage — like our current measles outbreak — maintaining public confidence through evidence-based communication remains essential.

The data is public. The evidence is clear. I welcome your questions.

Jake Scott

Dr. Jake Scott is an infectious disease physician and Clinical Associate Professor at Stanford University School of Medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine.

The Dictatorship

Kennedy Center begins process of removing Trump references

Published

4 hours ago

June 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Kennedy Center begins process of removing Trump references

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Kennedy Center is beginning the process of removing references to President Donald Trump a week after a federal judge ruled that his name had been illegally added to the performing arts center.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, said in a statement to The Associated Press that “we are complying with the court’s order while evaluating all legal options to preserve this revitalization and recognize President Trump’s leadership.”

In a Thursday memo to staff from the Kennedy Center’s Office of General Counsel, the institution’s lawyers said email signatures, letterhead and other documents must reflect the name as “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or “Kennedy Center.”

The changes, the memo said, must be completed by June 12.

In a May 29 decisionU.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper also blocked the administration from closing the cultural and arts venue for major renovations that had been planned to start in July.

Hours after the ruling, Trump said he was backing away from the revamp and making arrangements to relinquish control to Congress of what, until the Republican president’s second term, had been known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The next day, Trump on social media branded Cooper as “an anti Trump Hater” and predicted that the performing arts center that he wanted to shutter for a two-year overhaul will “soon be closed, probably never to open again.”

Clearly angered by his latest legal setback, he said it was “impossible for me to be treated fairly,” tying Cooper’s ruling to earlier losses, including the Supreme Court’s rejection in February of his sweeping tariffs.

The removal marked a setback in the president’s second-term plans to remake many of Washington’s landmarks — and add new ones.

On Thursday, his administration said renovations had been completed on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, painting the bottom what Trump has called “American flag blue.” The White House East Wing was demolished to build a large ballroom, and Trump plans to build an arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

___

Associated Press writer Hillel Italie in New York contributed to this report. Kinnard reported from Columbia, S.C.

The Dictatorship

Bolton will plead guilty in classified information case, AP source says

Published

4 hours ago

June 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Bolton will plead guilty in classified information case, AP source says

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton has agreed to plead guilty to a single count of retaining classified information under a deal with the Justice Department that could allow him to avoid prison time, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The deal would resolve a criminal case filed in October that charged Bolton with 18 counts of either retaining or disseminating classified information, including diary-like notes from his time in government that officials say he shared with family members as he was preparing a memoir about his career.

Under the agreement, Bolton would also face a $2.25 million fine, said the person, who insisted on anonymity to discuss a deal that had not been made public. Any prison sentence would be capped at five years, but the agreement could also allow him to avoid time behind bars. The punishment will ultimately be up to a judge.

The case against Bolton, filed weeks after prosecutors secured indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia Jamesunfolded against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is using its law enforcement powers to pursue perceived adversaries of President Donald Trump. The investigation burst into public view last August when FBI agents served search warrants at his Maryland home and Washington office, but it had been well underway by the time Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

FBI agents carry boxes from former National Security Advisor John Bolton's office in Washington, Aug. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File) — FBI agents carry boxes from former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s office in Washington, Aug. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File)

Wrote book critical of Trump

Bolton, 77, is a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power. He served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before being pushed out in 2019 and publishing a critical book that portrayed the Republican president as deeply misinformed and painted an unflattering portrait of his leadership and decision-making.

Trump’s administration fought unsuccessfully to block the publication of “The Room Where it Happened” on the grounds that the book contained classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer had classified information.

The indictment he faced focused on notes shared with his wife and daughter rather than the substance of the book itself.

Bolton had initially pleaded not guilty and, in a statement released after his indictment, described the charges as part of an “intensive effort” by Trump “to intimidate his opponents, to ensure that he alone determines what is said about his conduct.”

A re-arraignment, which can signal a plea agreement, is scheduled for June 26 in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

The indictment’s 18 counts carried a threat of a substantial prison sentence in the event of conviction, but the plea will avert that possibility.

Former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton, arrives for his arraignment at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, Md., Oct. 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr., File)

Accused of sharing classified material with family members

Court documents alleged that he shared “diary-like” entries with information classified as high as top secret that he had learned from meetings with other U.S. government officials, from intelligence briefings or talks with foreign leaders. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.

The indictment said that among the material shared was information about foreign adversaries that in some cases revealed details about sources and methods used by the U.S. government to collect intelligence. One document related to a foreign adversary’s plans for a missile launch, while another detailed U.S. government plans for covert action and included intelligence blaming an adversary for an attack, court papers say.

Bolton’s government service long predated the Trump administration. He had also served in the Justice Department during President Ronald Reagan’s administration and was a State Department point person on arms control during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Bolton was nominated by Bush to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but the strong supporter of the Iraq War was unable to win Senate confirmation. He resigned after serving 17 months through a recess appointment that allowed him to hold the job on a temporary basis without Senate approval.

John Bolton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill April 11, 2005, on his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook, File)

Fired after foreign policy clashes with Trump

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security adviser. His brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine.

Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure, with Trump announcing on social media in September 2019 that he had accepted Bolton’s resignation.

Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to Ukraine to that country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2020 presidential election, and members of the Biden family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”

_____

Associated Press writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

The Dictatorship

With Trump in a holding pattern on Iran war, allies and critics worry he risks getting boxed in

Published

15 hours ago

June 5, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

With Trump in a holding pattern on Iran war, allies and critics worry he risks getting boxed in

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is facing warnings from foes and allies alike that he’s getting boxed in on the Iran wara conflict he sold as a brief military incursion but that has since settled into a holding pattern.

It’s been a week since U.S. and Iranian negotiators reached a tentative agreement to extend the ceasefire in the conflict by 60 days and start a new round of talks on Iran’s nuclear program that required Trump’s signoff.

But Trump has called for unspecified changes to the agreement and Iranian officials — perhaps calculating that the Republican president is reluctant to restart the bombardment after burning through key weapons systems — are showing no signs they’ll give in to new demands.

A series of strikes by the U.S. and Iran this week has raised fresh concerns that the ceasefire could collapse. But Trump on Thursday reiterated that he’s certain his administration is on track to successfully wrap up the conflict.

“We’re going to win one way or another,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

The shaky moment follows repeated claims by Trump since a 14-day ceasefire was agreed to on April 7 — following 38 days of U.S. and Israel bombing of Iran — that a deal is just days away and the Iranian side is begging to come to a settlement.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Without an interim settlement in place to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, global energy prices remain elevated and are adding to anxieties around the world about the impact of rising costs spurred by the 3-month-old conflict on the cost of food, fuel and other goods.

After a string of reports this week that Iran was shutting down talksTrump told CNBC he “couldn’t care less” if the negotiations had bogged down and even mused they had become “boring.”

There’s anxiety Trump is getting boxed in

There’s growing concern inside the administration and among key advisers and allies that Trump now finds himself in a bind, according to a U.S. official and another person familiar with the administration’s internal deliberations, both of whom spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

He’s buffeted by Democrats seizing on oil prices and warnings from hawkish members of his base that an early exit from the conflict would amount to capitulation.

Trump is privately hearing from other Republican lawmakers as well as Pentagon officials and Gulf allies that a return to the bombing campaign is a bad idea.

Those advising against returning to military action note that the U.S. has burned through munitions at too fast a rate. It could take three years to replenish some key weapons systems.

Meanwhile, Gulf allies are worried Iran will retaliate against them and their critical infrastructure and energy interests and further set back their economies.

Plumes of smoke and fire rise after debris from an intercepted Iranian drone struck an oil facility, according to authorities, in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, March 14, 2026. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri, File)

At the same time, Trump has bristled at the idea of accepting a deal that resembles the 2015 nuclear agreement brokered by Democrat Barack Obama’s administration, which restricted Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for lifting international economic sanctions.

Trump, during his first term, abandoned the pactwhich he said had failed to permanently stop Iran’s nuclear program, ignored Iran’s ballistic-missile development and did not penalize Iran for supporting militant proxy groups across the Middle East.

Now, Trump, according to those familiar with internal deliberations, has made clear he feels strongly he can’t make “a bad deal” and is acutely aware he’s at risk of tarnishing his legacy if he missteps.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly dismissed the notion that Trump has been boxed in, or that there’s any concern within the administration about the pace of talks.

Trump resisted Israel’s push for Lebanon bombings

Israeli and hawkish allies in Washington have made the case to Trump that a deal at this point would amount to unconditional surrender, urging him to ratchet up economic pressure on Iran and back Israel’s assault on the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon.

But Trump, earlier this week, in a heated call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded Israel stand down. And on Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon said they agreed to renew a ceasefire. Hezbollah was not part of the Israel-Lebanon talks, which have been held at the ambassadorial level in Washington since the beginning of last month, and the militant group has denounced the agreement.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a Memorial Day opening ceremony at the Yad LaBanim House in Jerusalem, Monday, April 20, 2026. (Marc Israel Sellem/Pool Photo via AP)

Remaining in the current status quo with Tehran — neither a full resumption of hostilities nor sealing an interim agreement to restart nuclear talks — is a situation Iran appears better poised to exploit, argued Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the hawkish Washington think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Despite being the weaker party, Iran appears to be calculating that the longer the holding pattern lasts, the better the chances are that it can “box in” Trump, he added.

“Either way, Tehran appears more resolute than ever to not provide Trump with a victory image, hence why it isn’t budging on the battlefield or negotiating table,” Taleblu said.

Holding pattern isn’t helpful for Republicans on the ballot

At the same time, Democrats are trying to capitalize on Trump’s handling of the unpopular war ahead of November’s midterm elections. The House of Representatives on Wednesday for the first time passed a symbolic resolution calling for a halt in military action against Iran, with four Republican lawmakers joining Democrats in the rebuke of Trump’s war.

The president has dismissed the House vote as “meaningless.”

“The Democrats are fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Trump fumed in a social media post. “The four Republicans, that’s a whole other story – They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves.”

During hours of hearings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and Wednesday with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Democrats laced into Trump for discounting the economic impact of the conflict on Americans and for failing to anticipate Iran would shutter the Strait.

In one tense exchange, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker pointed to the unsteady ceasefire as a sign Iran has the upper hand.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., questions Attorney General nominee William Barr as he testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

“We are the strongest nation on the planet Earth, and we’re in a stalemate with Iran,” Booker said. “And now we’re begging to get back into a deal that you all trashed in the first place.”

Rubio dismissed the criticism, underscoring that Iran has been placed on its heels with the strikes, which have taken out multiple layers of senior leadership and left Iran’s economy in shambles.

“There’s no one begging,” Rubio responded. “I don’t know where you’re getting this perception that Iran is stronger.”

Another Democrat, Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, homed in on Trump’s comments last month that voter anxiety about the cost of living was “not even a little bit” of a motivating factor for him to reach a deal to end the war.

The president continues to downplay the rising costs for Americans at the pump and predicts that gas prices would fall sharply after the conflict ends.

Christopher Borick, the director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion in Pennsylvania, said that Democrats running in swing districts around the country are already zeroing in on Trump’s rhetoric on the war’s impact on Americans’ pocketbooks.

“There’s significant risk in having this thing drag on for Republicans,” Borick said. “But for Republicans in some of these tough swing districts, there’s a case to be made to rip the bandage off now, get some easing in the oil markets and hope there’s enough time for voters to turn the page.”

___

Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri in New York and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.