Science & Health

Right wingers are more prone to having 'kooky beliefs': study

Do you believe in ghosts, mind reading and witches? If you do, you’re likely a kid — or maybe a right-wing authoritarian. New research published in The Journal of Social Psychology suggests that individuals who endorse certain right-wing political ideologies are more likely to believe in paranormal phenomena.

“There have long been speculations that esotericism and beliefs in the paranormal are related to right-wing beliefs,” said Alexander Jedinger, a senior researcher at the GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, speaking with PsyPost. “There is much research in history and cultural studies on this topic, and of course, there are a lot of references in popular culture to Nazi esotericism, exemplified in movies such as Indiana Jones and Hellboy. However, there was little quantitative evidence on these kinds of relationships.”

Past studies have hinted at a link between right-wing political views and a susceptibility to supernatural thinking, so Jedinger and his partners explored the relationship by examining specific aspects of right-wing ideology. Researchers singled out the trait recognized as “right-wing authoritarianism,” which describes a “preference for strict obedience to authority, conformity to traditional social norms, and hostility toward people who break those norms.”

They also wanted to see if the way people process information could account for any connection. People generally employ two types of thinking: intuitive thinking, which relies on fast gut feelings, and analytical thinking, which involves slow and deliberate reasoning.

“The scientists designed their study to test if this shared thinking style was the main bridge between political ideology and the paranormal.” reports PsyPost. Researchers recruited a sample of 1,139 adult participants and used an online survey with a scale for measuring participants’ willingness to accept paranormal beliefs, including phenomena like “mind reading, witchcraft, lucky charms, ghosts, and astrology.” After separated traditional religious beliefs from paranormal beliefs, they also measured political views by asking respondents to place themselves on a left-to-right political spectrum.

“Those who scored higher in right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation were more likely to endorse paranormal concepts,” PsyPost reports.

And it turned out that the willingness to believe in real witches isn’t necessarily connected to how prone you are to think “with your gut” over analysis. Kooky beliefs were more common among right-wing authoritarians, regardless of how much they relied on analytical thinking over “gut-thinking.”

“Instead, the results showed that right-wing ideology and cognitive styles independently contributed to paranormal beliefs,” PsyPost reports. “Accounting for analytical and intuitive thinking did not substantially weaken the connection between authoritarian or dominance-oriented views and belief in the supernatural.”

‘You aren’t trapped’: Nurses are choosing Canada over Trump’s America

Last month, Justin and Amy Miller packed their vehicles with three kids, two dogs, a pet bearded dragon, and whatever belongings they could fit, then drove 2,000 miles from Wisconsin to British Columbia to leave President Donald Trump’s America.

The Millers resettled on Vancouver Island, their scenic refuge accessible only by ferry or plane. Justin went to work in the emergency room at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, where he became one of at least 20 U.S.-trained nurses hired since April.

Fear of Trump, some of the nurses said, was why they left.

“There are so many like-minded people out there,” said Justin, who now works elbow to elbow with Americans in Canada. “You aren’t trapped. You don’t have to stay. Health care workers are welcomed with open arms around the world.”

The Millers are part of a new surge of American nurses, doctors, and other health care workers moving to Canada, and specifically British Columbia, where more than 1,000 U.S.-trained nurses have been approved to work since April. As the Trump administration enacts increasingly authoritarian policies and decimates funding for public health, insurance, and medical research, many nurses have felt the draw of Canada’s progressive politics, friendly reputation, and universal health care system.

Additionally, some nurses were incensed last year when the Trump administration said it would reclassify nursing as a nonprofessional degree, which would impose strict federal limits on the loans nursing students could receive.

Canada is poised to capitalize. Two of its most populous provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, have streamlined the licensing process for American nurses since Trump returned to the White House. British Columbia also launched a $5 million advertising campaign last year to recruit nurses from California, Oregon, and Washington state.

“With the chaos and uncertainty happening in the U.S., we are seizing the opportunity to attract the talent we need,” Josie Osborne, the province’s health minister, said in a statement announcing the campaign.

Fears Realized

Amy Miller, a nurse practitioner, said she and her husband were determined to move their children out of the country because they felt Trump’s second term would inevitably spiral into violence.

First, the Millers got nursing licenses in New Zealand, but when the job search took too long, they pivoted to Canada.

Justin was offered a job within weeks.

Amy found one within three months.

So they moved. And just a few days later, the Millers watched with horror from afar as their fears came true.

As federal immigration forces clashed with protesters in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, federal agents fatally shot an ICU nurse, Alex Pretti, as he filmed a confrontation and appeared to be trying to shield a woman who was knocked down. Video of the killing showed border agents pinning Pretti to the ground before seizing his concealed, licensed handgun and opening fire on him.

The Trump administration quickly called Pretti a “domestic terrorist” who intended to kill federal agents. That allegation was disputed by eyewitness videos that circulated on social media and spurred widespread outrage, including from nurses and nursing organizations, some of whom invoked the profession’s duty to care for the vulnerable.

“I don’t want to say it was expected, but that’s why we are here,” Amy Miller said. “Even our oldest kid, she was like: ‘It’s OK, Mom, because we are not there anymore. We are safe here.’ So she recognizes that, and she’s not even in middle school yet.”

Both the U.S. and Canada have a severe need for nurses. The U.S. is projected to be short about 270,000 registered nurses, plus at least 120,000 licensed practical nurses, by 2028, according to recent estimates from the Health Resources and Services Administration. In Canada, nursing job vacancies tripled from 2018 to 2023, when they reached nearly 42,000, according to a recent report from the Montreal Economic Institute, a Canadian think tank.

When asked to comment, the White House noted that industry data shows the number of nurses licensed in the U.S. increased in 2025. It dismissed accounts of nurses moving to Canada as “anecdotes of individuals with severe cases of Trump derangement syndrome.”

“The American health care workforce is the finest in the world, and it continues to expand under President Trump,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said. “Employment opportunities in the American health care system remain robust, with career advancement and pay that far exceed that of other developed nations.”

‘A Sense of Relief’

It is unknown precisely how many American nurses have moved north since Trump returned to office, because some Canadian provinces do not track or release such statistics.

British Columbia, which has done the most to recruit Americans, approved the licensing applications of 1,028 U.S.-trained nurses from when the province’s streamlined application process took effect in April 2025 through January, according to the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives. In all of 2023, only 112 applicants from the U.S. were approved, the agency said. In 2024, it was 127.

Increased interest from American nurses was also confirmed by nursing associations in Ontario and Alberta, as well as by the nationwide Canadian Nurses Association.

Angela Wignall, CEO of Nurses and Nurse Practitioners of British Columbia, said American nurses used to move north because they had fallen in love with Canada (or a Canadian). But more recently, she said, she had met nurses who feared the White House would spur violence and vigilantism, particularly against families that included same-sex couples.

“Some of them were living in fear of the administration, and they shared a sense of relief when crossing the border,” Wignall said. “As a Canadian, it’s heartbreaking. And also a joy to welcome them.”

Vancouver Island, which has a population of about 860,000, has gained 64 U.S.-trained nurses since April, including those at Nanaimo Regional, said Andrew Leyne, a spokesperson for the island’s health agency.

One of the nurses was Susan Fleishman, a Canadian who moved to the U.S. as a child, then worked for 23 years in American emergency rooms before leaving the country in November.

Fleishman said hateful rhetoric from Trump has fueled an angry division that has permeated and soured American life.

“It wasn’t an easy move — that’s for sure. But I think it’s definitely worth it,” she said, happily back in Canada. “I find there is a lot more kindness here. And I think that will keep me here.”

Brandy Frye, who also worked for decades in American ERs, said she moved to Vancouver Island last year after waiting to see whether Mark Carney would become Canada’s prime minister. Carney’s rise was widely viewed as a rejection of Trumpism.

Meanwhile, Frye said, the California hospital where she worked had been stripping words associated with diversity and equity out of its paperwork to appease the Trump administration. She couldn’t stand it.

“It felt like a step against everything I believe in,” Frye said. “And I didn’t feel like I belonged there anymore.”

Like many of the American nurses who have moved to Vancouver Island, Frye was first wooed to the area by a viral video that was meant to attract tourist dollars but ended up doing much more.

About a year ago, Tod Maffin, a social media content creator and former CBC Radio host, invited Americans to the port city of Nanaimo for a weekend event designed to offset the impact of Trump’s tariffs on the local economy.

Maffin said about 350 people attended the April event.

“A lot of them were health care workers looking for an escape route,” Maffin said. “They were there to help support our economy but also to look into Canada.”

Maffin saw an opportunity. He repurposed the event website into a recruiting tool and launched a Discord chatroom to help Americans relocate.

Maffin said he believes the campaign helped about 35 health care workers move to Vancouver Island. Volunteers in more than 30 other Canadian communities have since duplicated his website in an effort to attract their own American nurses and doctors.

“There are communities across Canada where the emergency room closes at night because one nurse is out. That’s how thin staffing is,” Maffin said.

“One new nurse in a small town, or in a midsized city like Nanaimo,” he said, “makes a difference.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Study reveals how Trump’s 2024 victory made prejudice cool again

A new study reveals that President Donald Trump’s derogatory rhetoric is making prejudice fashionable again.

“Individuals naturally want to fit in,” reports PsyPost. “They tend to hide their prejudices when society disapproves of them. However, when a prominent political figure openly uses derogatory language against specific groups, it sends a signal that these negative attitudes are now socially acceptable.”

Making people express their “previously hidden biases” was a talent Trump showed in his 2016 election, but his weird superpower expressed itself again in 2024, researchers noticed.

“After his initial campaign, voters across the political spectrum agreed that expressing prejudice against specifically targeted groups, such as immigrants and Muslims, had become much more acceptable,” PsyPost reports, so researchers needed to determine if Trump’s 2024 reelection triggered an identical reaction in a different political climate.

They recruited undergraduate students from a large midwestern state university and required them to evaluate a wide variety of social groups, including immigrants, Muslims, Asian Americans, disabled people, and many others, totaling 128 distinct groups. Sure enough, when Trump spoke harshly about marginalized communities during his campaign, such as immigrants, Haitians, and Asian Americans, participants became more likely to view prejudice against these same groups as socially acceptable after he won.

“If people have any attitudes at all about a group, they’re likely to be stable,” said Christian S. Crandall, a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas. “But Trump can create strong new prejudices, especially if people don’t have much of an opinion about the group in the first place. Attitudes are fairly difficult to change, but they’re much easier to create.”

PsyPost reports the negative political language also predicted a direct rise in the participants’ own internal biases. Following the 2024 election, individuals admitted to holding stronger personal prejudices against the exact groups that the campaign had heavily criticized, which also included Muslims and transgender people.

Crandall said the resulting prejudice was “spread out across the whole nation and population.”

“I think that various kinds of prejudice have become much more overt. Antisemitism (which the administration says it’s fighting, but that seems to be a cover to attack universities, and I’m saying that as a personal opinion, not on the data), and elimination of all DEI-relevant policies and grants seem to be backing off concern for civil rights.”

The participants were predominantly white college students from the midwestern United States, reports PsyPost, which leaves into question how thoroughly Trump’s talent as a prejudice accelerant jumps across race. The study also evaluated changes over a span of just a few weeks, making the long-term stability of these shifts difficult to interpret.

New research shows high-IQ men reject conservative politics: report

PsyPost reports a new study is revealing that average-intelligence men have a more conservative mentality, while gifted men and women tend to be more varied.

The study, “Exploring exceptional minds: Political orientations of gifted adults,” authored by Maximilian Krolo, Jörn R. Sparfeldt, and Detlef H. Rost, sought to discover if distinct political patterns emerge when comparing gifted adults to a control group of average intelligence.

The exhaustive multi-decade study began by administering more than 7,000 third-grade students standardized intelligence tests to measure reasoning abilities and the speed at which students processed information. Administrators then identified a group of gifted students with an IQ of 130 or higher and a control group of non-gifted students.

Six years later, when the students were in the ninth grade, the team tested them again to confirm their IQ and rule out a fluke test or lucky streak. Then, roughly 35 years after they were first identified, researchers sent them surveys to assess their political orientations.

“Specifically, non-gifted men scored higher on conservatism than gifted men,” reports PsyPost. “The non-gifted men were more likely to endorse values related to tradition and strict social order. Gifted men were less likely to hold these traditional conservative views.”

Researchers noted the difference among the women in the study was not so obvious, however, with gifted and non-gifted women both showing similar levels of comparatively lower conservatism. The divergence, reports researchers, was unique to the male participants.

“The team interpreted the findings through the lens of cognitive flexibility,” reports PsyPost. “They suggest that non-gifted men might rely more on traditional perspectives when processing complex social issues. This reliance could lead to higher conservatism scores.”

On the other hand, researchers believe gifted men may possess greater cognitive flexibility, which allows them to more easily process diverse perspectives. Consequently, they may be less inclined to adhere to rigid traditional norms.

Gifted adults appear to be as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population, but researchers say the “one notable exception” regarding non-gifted men’s preference for conservatism warrants further investigation.

The study relied on self-reported beliefs retrieved through surveys, however. And while honest reporting is assumed, researchers say it is possible that respondents sometimes describe themselves “differently than their actions might suggest.”

Trump supporters' extreme views driven by personal insecurity: research

PsyPost reports that a new study published in the journal Advances in Psychology suggests that White people who personally perceive themselves as ranking at the bottom of the racial economic hierarchy or “tied” with Black Americans were the most likely to support President Donald Trump.

Previous research identified a phenomenon known as “last place aversion,” where people fear being at the very bottom of a social hierarchy — and Trump voters apparently feel the sting of smallness more acutely than others, whether or not they are actually at the bottom rung of the ladder.

Surprisingly, researchers found that these attitudes were not driven by actual poverty. The researchers controlled for objective indicators of socioeconomic status, such as income and education levels. They found that belonging to the “last place” profile predicted Trump support and anti-DEI attitudes regardless of how much money or education the participant actually had.

“We … [expected] a subset of non-Hispanic, white Americans who feel ‘last place.’ That said, we expected this profile to be more likely among working class individuals,” Cooley told PsyPost. “However, perceiving oneself to be ‘last place’ was not associated with the lowest objective income nor the lowest objective education among the White Americans in our samples.”

The United States currently exhibits a significant racial wealth gap with economic statistics consistently showing that the average white family holds considerably more wealth than the average Black or Hispanic family. But despite this reality, surveys indicate that many white Americans feel they are “personally falling behind” in terms of status without realistically weighing the resources at their disposal.

“This line of research was motivated by recent political trends among some white Americans, including support for DEI bans, alignment with alt-right ideology, and endorsement of political violence in pursuit of political goals (e.g., January 6th),” said study authors Erin Cooley and Jazmin Brown-Iannuzzi, associate professors of psychology at Colgate University and the University of Virginia, respectively. “Many of these attitudes are not only extreme but also anti-democratic, raising questions about how such views can coexist with identities centered on being ‘most American’ (e.g., white nationalist belief systems).”

The tool researchers used to assess personal status was a box measure called the “Perceived Self-Group Hierarchy.” Participants viewed a diagram representing a status ladder based on money, education, and job prestige, and they were asked to place markers representing themselves, white people, Black people, Asian people, and Hispanic people onto this ladder.

Researchers found a consistent link between this “last place” profile and specific political views.

“White Americans who fit this profile reported the highest levels of support for Donald Trump throughout the campaign season. They also expressed the strongest intention to vote for him. When surveyed the day after the election, this group was the most likely to report having cast their ballot for Trump,” PsyPost reports.

This same group of insecure white people also showed “the strongest opposition to DEI programs, favoring policies that would ban such initiatives in universities.” Additionally, they showed higher alignment with alt-right ideologies, agreeing more frequently with statements such as “White people are generally under attack in the U.S.” and “The government threatens my personal rights.”

Astrologers think Donald Trump's destiny is tied to the eclipse

The Moon crossed the Sun’s path on February 17, causing what is known as an annular solar eclipse. The Sun was not covered completely, but the Moon blocked enough of its light to leave a fiery ring. Unless you’re deep in the southern hemisphere, you won’t have noticed.

However, astrologically speaking, eclipses have effects regardless of who is watching. In astrology, an ancient tradition that lacks scientific grounding, eclipses are regarded as being powerful and politically significant celestial events. They are traditionally associated with the destiny of rulers – and some astrologers think Donald Trump is no exception.

Astrologers interpret the meaning of eclipses through horoscopes, celestial maps that locate the Sun, Moon and planets within the 12 signs of the Zodiac that encircle our solar system. During the eclipse, the Sun and Moon were at the edges of the sign Aquarius, a position astrologers associate with endings and shakeups.

This, alongside various other factors including Trump being born during a lunar eclipse in 1946, has led some astrologers to suggest that the eclipse could mark the start of a severe crisis for the US president – even his death.

Predictions like this come around fairly often, and Trump has outlasted many of them before. But these extreme forecasts follow a very old script. For thousands of years, eclipses have been treated as political events, read as omens about kingdoms and their rulers.

Bad omens

Eclipses have been connected with the fate of rulers since at least ancient Mesopotamia, around 4,000 years ago. Keen observers there, in what is now modern-day Iraq, kept lists of phenomena they believed were linked to specific outcomes.

“If a lizard gives birth in the walkway of a house, the household will fall” and “if a white partridge is seen in the city, commercial activity will diminish” are two examples. But one omen has long outlived the others: “if there is an eclipse, the king will die”.

With such high stakes, ancient astronomers invested in systematic observation, record-keeping and calculation to predict eclipses with ever-greater accuracy. This enabled the so-called “substitute king” ritual, where royals tried to avoid their fate by temporarily making someone else king until an eclipse passed.

The link between eclipses and the death of kings spread widely in the ancient world. Egyptian papyri show evidence of this belief, and Greek and Roman history is full of stories connecting eclipses with prominent deaths.

Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded a solar eclipse around the death of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, in AD14, during which “most of the sky seemed to be on fire”. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the death of Jesus is also marked by darkened Sun.

In the medieval period, when Arabic chroniclers recorded eclipses, they usually noted concurrent deaths of rulers. And in Europe, a solar eclipse in 1133 was so closely associated with the 1135 death of King Henry I of England that it became known as “King Henry’s Eclipse”.

Premodern rulers often hired astrologers to interpret their birth charts – the horoscope cast for the moment they were born. Ideally, the astrologer would pick out an aspect of the chart they could say justified the ruler’s leadership and foretold a long and prosperous reign. This was useful astrological propaganda.

But rulers were less happy when astrologers did this without authorisation – especially if they forecast illness or death. Astrologers were expelled from ancient Rome on numerous occasions for doing just that.

In his book, Lives of the Caesars, Roman historian Suetonius recounted the fate of an astrologer called Ascletarion (or Ascletario). Ascletarion’s predictions of the Emperor Domitian’s imminent downfall in the first century AD prompted the angry emperor to order his execution.

More than 1,400 years later, an astrologer in Oxford was executed for predicting the death of the reigning English monarch, Edward IV. And in 1581, Queen Elizabeth I of England made it a felony to use horoscopes to predict her death or her successor.

Similarly in France, royal pronouncements in 1560, 1579 and 1628 prohibited astrological predictions about princes, states and public affairs. Around the same time, astrologers in Italy got into serious trouble for predicting the deaths of popes.

This was not just a matter of anxiety on the part of rulers. It was also a question of maintaining public order and political stability. State powers were concerned with the ability of astrological predictions to cause general chaos and even prompt protests and rebellions.

They were right to worry. In a time when astrology was taken very seriously, predictions could cause collective panic. During the so-called wars of the three kingdoms, a series of conflicts fought between 1639 and 1653 in England, Scotland and Ireland, astrologers’ radical political predictions about the fate of the English monarchy fed revolutionary sentiment.

One of these astrologers, Nicholas Culpeper, published predictions of the downfall of all European monarchies on the basis of a solar eclipse in 1652.

Astrology left the world of universities and political courts in the 17th century, but astrologers did not stop making political predictions. In 1790s London, an astrologer called William Gilbert predicted the death of King Gustav III of Sweden. His prophecy was fulfilled a few months later.

And after his attempted assassination in 1981, the then-US president, Ronald Reagan, asked astrologer Joan Quigley whether she could have predicted it. She said yes. Quigley worked for the Reagans for many years, and claimed that she provided advice not just on personal affairs but also on matters of the state, including the best timing to make political announcements.

Although astrology is no longer counted as a science, it remains a player in contemporary politics. Whether or not eclipse predictions come to pass is almost besides the point. Historically, what made eclipses politically dangerous was the speculation often attached to them.The Conversation

Michelle Pfeffer, Research Fellow in Early Modern History, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

One of Trump's quirky habits shared by many other American presidents

Editor's Note: This article originally misstated that only organic arsenic can appear in groundwater, when in fact inorganic arsenic can enter groundwater too.

A new report by Slate contextualized President Donald Trump’s unique relationship with McDonald’s by explaining presidents in general have been fixated on junk food.

In October Americans learned that Trump regularly consumes a “hideous Franken-burger” (per The Daily Beast) which consists of “a Filet-O-Fish, a Quarter Pounder, and a Big Mac” before combining two of them (per Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters). Slate’s Talib Visram elaborated that Trump regularly consumes “two Filet-O-Fishes, two Big Macs, and a chocolate shake (but no fries; everything in moderation).” He will add some lunchtime variety with an occasional “well-done steak with ketchup and a salad with blue cheese dressing.” One constant, though, is that he will drink “a dozen Diet Cokes” every day.

While Trump’s extreme enjoyment of McDonald’s stands out, other presidents have had idiosyncratic junk food fixations. President Joe Biden was well-known to consume large quantities of peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches with orange Gatorade, perhaps making him a culinary kin to President Ronald Reagan and the Gipper’s famous love of “Jelly Belly” jellybeans. President George W. Bush enjoyed not just any regular pizza but “cheeseburger pizzas, which his chef helpfully explained is ‘every ingredient of a cheeseburger on top of a margherita pizza.’”

Even more extreme than Trump, Biden, Reagan and Bush one can look at early 20th century Republicans like Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (who drank a gallon of coffee, or “bathtub,” per day, according to his son) and William H. Taft (who ate 8,000 calories per day and was America’s heaviest president at 350 pounds). Taft would start his day with a 12-ounce steak for breakfast, followed by eight other types of meat including “lamb chops, roast turkey, salmon filet, turtle soup, lobster stew, possum and sweet potatoes—all before dessert,” Visram wrote.

Perhaps the most eccentric junk food craze occurred in the 1970s, when presidents enjoyed mixing unhealthy condiments with cottage cheese. Presidents Richard Nixon (ketchup) and Gerald Ford (A.1. Sauce and sliced red onions, washed down with two lunchtime martinis) were both guilty of those impeachable gustatory offenses. Compared to these “treats,” one can view the normally-unhealthy cherry pies and almond cakes preferred respectively by Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as health foods.

This is not to say America has not had any presidents who were health-conscious. President Barack Obama’s “version of the fast-food banquet may have been his dinner of Vietnamese noodles in Hanoi with Anthony Bourdain” wrote Visram while his ideological antithesis, fellow Democratic President Andrew Jackson, “loved the Native American staple kanuche, or hickory-nut soup.” President Dwight Eisenhower kept himself literally regular with prune whip, and Visram wrote that President Woodrow Wilson foreshadowed the modern era’s “supplements and paleo diets” with his “special diet with elixirs and powders, and a breakfast of two raw eggs stirred into grape juice.”

On one occasion, Visram argued that a president may have been literally killed by a seemingly-healthy snack (iced milk and cherries), and then added he may have instead died by drinking the healthiest of all beverages (water).

“[President] Zachary Taylor’s binge of iced milk and cherries, after a long speech on a hot day, might have been what killed him,” Visram wrote. “For a century and a half, the meal was thought to have been poisoned—though after his body was exhumed, the prevailing theory became contaminated water.”

This refers to the theory that Taylor died from arsenic poisoning, but that would not have involved contaminated water. Writing about Taylor’s possible assassination for Salon in 2023, this author explained that Taylor became controversial in 1850 (one year into his first and only term) because he opposed aggressively expanding slavery into the Mexican territories the US had recently acquired in the Mexican-American War. He unexpectedly took sick after eating the normally-healthy snack of cherries and drinking iced milk at a 4th of July celebration, with doctors eventually deciding the fruit-and-dairy combination infected him with cholera morbus. His symptoms included “severe stomach pains, sharp pains on the side of his chest, vomiting, diarrhea, fevers, sweating, thirst, chills and fatigue.” Taylor eventually died and was replaced by his vice president, Millard Fillmore, who was well-known to sympathize with the Southern position on slavery.

Because Fillmore’s ascension seemed suspiciously-timed to benefit the pro-slavery faction, many conspiracy theorists speculated that Taylor may have actually been poisoned with arsenic. Taylor’s body was exhumed in 1991 and arsenic was discovered in his remains, although details remain controversial such as the quantity of arsenic in Taylor’s body, the study’s methodology and whether the arsenic itself was organic or inorganic. That last difference is critical because the type of arsenic which contaminated water in 1850 Washington DC (per Visram’s description) could have been either organic or inorganic — and except in very rare cases, organic arsenic does not lead to death. Inorganic arsenic, by contrast, is a commonly-used lethal poison.

"Arsenic is a metalloid that is present in all parts of the environment," Dr. Laura M. Labay, a forensic toxicologist and the Chair of the NAME Toxicology Committee, told this reporter for Salon in 2023. "For example it may be found in the water, soil and sediment." This reporter added at the time that “organic arsenic is naturally present in food like crustaceans and fish, and these forms are relatively non-toxic. ‘They will be rapidly excreted unchanged in the urine,’ Labay explained. In contrast, inorganic arsenic is highly toxic — and that is the one you want to avoid.”

While McDonald’s is not as unhealthy as arsenic, Trump nevertheless stands out among presidents because his penchant for McDonald’s is still dangerous, especially in a man turning 80 in July. Additionally, there is the irony that Trump’s economic policies may have made it harder for his supporters to share his love of McDonald’s. A Financial Times report in May found that McDonald's same-store sales in the U.S. dropped by 3.6 percent compared with the last analogous quarter because Trump’s tariffs dented consumer confidence.

"Soft data (sentiment) turning into hard data (sales) 'McDonald’s has posted the biggest drop in US sales since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic five years ago as uncertainty caused by Donald Trump’s tariffs weighs heavily on consumer sentiment,'" explained economic analyst Barry Ritholdz in a statement sharing the report.

Economic strategist Marko Kolanovic was more succinct on the social platform X, "In a recession, people prefer to eat at Microsoft."

How a Trump campaign contractor learned how to read your mind

The dealings that have been revealed between Cambridge Analytica and Facebook have all the trappings of a Hollywood thriller: a Bond villain-style CEO, a reclusive billionaire, a naïve and conflicted whistle-blower, a hipster data scientist turned politico, an academic with seemingly questionable ethics, and of course a triumphant president and his influential family.

Much of the discussion has been on how Cambridge Analytica was able to obtain data on more than 50m Facebook users – and how it allegedly failed to delete this data when told to do so. But there is also the matter of what Cambridge Analytica actually did with the data. In fact the data crunching company’s approach represents a step change in how analytics can today be used as a tool to generate insights – and to exert influence.

For example, pollsters have long used segmentation to target particular groups of voters, such as through categorising audiences by gender, age, income, education and family size. Segments can also be created around political affiliation or purchase preferences. The data analytics machine that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton used in her 2016 campaign – named Ada after the 19th-century mathematician and early computing pioneer – used state-of-the-art segmentation techniques to target groups of eligible voters in the same way that Barack Obama had done four years previously.

Cambridge Analytica was contracted to the Trump campaign and provided an entirely new weapon for the election machine. While it also used demographic segments to identify groups of voters, as Clinton’s campaign had, Cambridge Analytica also segmented using psychographics. As definitions of class, education, employment, age and so on, demographics are informational. Psychographics are behavioural – a means to segment by personality.

This makes a lot of sense. It’s obvious that two people with the same demographic profile (for example, white, middle-aged, employed, married men) can have markedly different personalities and opinions. We also know that adapting a message to a person’s personality – whether they are open, introverted, argumentative, and so on – goes a long way to help getting that message across.

Understanding people better

There have traditionally been two routes to ascertaining someone’s personality. You can either get to know them really well – usually over an extended time. Or you can get them to take a personality test and ask them to share it with you. Neither of these methods is realistically open to pollsters. Cambridge Analytica found a third way with the assistance of University of Cambridge academic Aleksandr Kogan.

Kogan sold Cambridge Analytica access to 270,000 personality tests completed by Facebook users through an online app he had created for research purposes. Providing the data to Cambridge Analytica was, it seems, against Facebook’s internal code of conduct, but only now in March 2018 has Kogan been banned by Facebook from the platform. In addition, Kogan’s data also came with a bonus: he had reportedly collected Facebook data from the test-takers’ friends – and, at an average of 200 friends per person, that added up to some 50m people.

While not all of these people had provided personality test responses, it is possible to reverse-engineer a personality profile from Facebook activity. Decades of psychological research has formed around the lexical hypothesis, that personality traits can be inferred by studying the subject’s use of language. Facebook patented a process to do just this in 2012, as part of its commercial aims to provide more targeted advertising, by mapping the contents of posts and likes against the “Big Five” model of psychological traits, sometimes known as OCEAN (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism). Whether you choose to like pictures of sunsets, puppies or people apparently says a lot about your personality: a 2015 study by other academics from the Cambridge psychology lab found that the model of predicting personality traits using Facebook data could generate a personality profile with the same accuracy as a spouse with just 300 likes.

Kogan developed his own model along the same lines and cut a deal with Cambridge Analytica. Armed with this bounty – and combined with additional data gleaned from elsewhere – Cambridge Analytica built personality profiles for more than 100m registered US voters. It’s claimed the company then used these profiles for targeted advertising.

Imagine for example that you could identify a segment of voters that is high in conscientiousness and neuroticism, and another segment that is high in extroversion but low in openness. Clearly, people in each segment would respond differently to the same political ad. But on Facebook they do not need to see the same ad at all – each will see an individually tailored ad designed to elicit the desired response, whether that is voting for a candidate, not voting for a candidate, or donating funds.

Cambridge Analytica worked hard to develop dozens of ad variations on different political themes such as immigration, the economy and gun rights, all tailored to different personality profiles. There is no evidence at all that Clinton’s election machine had the same ability.

Behavioural analytics and psychographic profiling are here to stay, no matter what becomes of Cambridge Analytica – which has robustly criticised what it calls “false allegations in the media”. In a way it industrialises what good salespeople have always done, by adjusting their message and delivery to the personality of their customers. This approach to electioneering – and indeed to marketing – will be Cambridge Analytica’s ultimate legacy.

Updated: This piece was amended on 13 Feb 2026 to make clear that while Michal Kosinski and David Stillwell’s research had demonstrated the effectiveness of using Facebook data to generate personality profiles, they were not involved with Cambridge Analytica and their work was not used by Cambridge Analytica.The Conversation

Michael Wade, Professor of Innovation and Strategy, Cisco Chair in Digital Business Transformation, International Institute for Management Development (IMD)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Americans are asking too much of their dogs

Americans love dogs.

Nearly half of U.S. households have one, and practically all owners see pets as part of the family – 51% say pets belong “as much as a human member.” The pet industry keeps generating more and more jobs, from vets to trainers, to influencers. Schools cannot keep up with the demand for veterinarians.

It all seems part of what Mark Cushing, a lawyer and lobbyist for veterinary issues, calls “the pet revolution”: the more and more privileged place that pets occupy in American society. In his 2020 book “Pet Nation,” he argues that the internet has caused people to become more lonely, and this has made them focus more intensely on their pets – filling in for human relationships.

I would argue that something different is happening, however, particularly since the COVID-19 lockdown: Loving dogs has become an expression not of loneliness but of how unhappy many Americans are with society and other people.

In my own book, “Rescue Me,” I explore how today’s dog culture is more a symptom of our suffering as a society than a cure for it. Dogs aren’t just being used as a substitute for people. As a philosopher who studies the relationships between animals, humans and the environment, I believe Americans are turning to dogs to alleviate the erosion of social life itself. For some owners, dogs simply offer more satisfying relationships than other people do.

And I am no different. I live with three dogs, and my love for them has driven me to research the culture of dog ownership in an effort to understand myself and other humans better. By nature, dogs are masters of social life who can communicate beyond the boundaries of their species. But I believe many Americans are expecting their pets to address problems that they cannot fix.

Dogs over people

During the pandemic, people often struggled with the monotony of spending too much time cooped up with other humans – children, romantic partners, roommates. Meanwhile, relationships with their dogs seemed to flourish.

Rescuing shelter animals grew in popularity, and on social media people celebrated being at home with their pets. Dog content on Instagram and Pinterest now commonly includes hashtags like #DogsAreBetterThanPeople and #IPreferDogsToPeople.

“The more I learn about people, the more I like my dog” appears on merchandise all over e-commerce sites such as Etsy, Amazon and Redbubble.

One 2025 study found that dog owners tend to rate their pets more highly than their human loved ones in several areas, such as companionship and support. They also experienced fewer negative interactions with their dogs than with the closest people in their lives, including children, romantic partners and relatives.

The late primatologist Jane Goodall celebrated her 90th birthday with 90 dogs. She stated in an interview with Stephen Colbert that she preferred dogs to chimps, because chimps were too much like people.

Fraying fabric

This passion for dogs seems to be growing as America’s social fabric unravels – which began long before the pandemic.

In 1972, 46% of Americans said “most people can be trusted.” By 2018, that percentage dropped to 34%. Americans report seeing their friends less than they used to, a phenomenon called the “friendship recession,” and avoid having conversations with strangers because they expect the conversation to go badly. People are spending more time at home.

Today, millennials make up the largest percentage of pet owners. Some cultural commentators argue dogs are especially important for this generation because other traditional markers of stability and adulthood – a mortgage, a child – feel out of reach or simply undesirable. According to the Harris Poll, a marketing research firm, 43% of Americans would prefer a pet to a child.

Amid those pressures, many people turn to the comfort of a pet – but the expectations for what dogs can bring to our lives are becoming increasingly unreasonable.

For some people, dogs are a way to feel loved, to relieve pressures to have kids, to fight the drudgery of their job, to reduce the stress of the rat race and to connect with the outdoors. Some expect pet ownership to improve their physical and mental health.

And it works, to a degree. Studies have found dog people to be “warmer” and happier than cat people. Interacting with pets can improve your health and may even offer some protection against cognitive decline. Dog-training programs in prisons appear to reduce recidivism rates.

Unreasonable expectations

But expecting that dogs will fill the social and emotional gaps in our lives is actually an obstacle to dogs’ flourishing, and human flourishing as well.

In philosophical terms, we could call this an extractive relationship: Humans are using dogs for their emotional labor, extracting things from them that they cannot get elsewhere or simply no longer wish to. Just like natural resource extraction, extractive relationships eventually become unsustainable.

The late cultural theorist Lauren Berlant argued that the present stage of capitalism creates a dynamic called “slow death,” a cycle in which “life building and the attrition of life are indistinguishable.” Keeping up is so exhausting that, in order to maintain that life, we need to do things that result in our slow degradation: Work becomes drudgery under unsustainable workloads, and the experience of dating suffers under the unhealthy pressure to have a partner.

Similarly, today’s dog culture is leading to unhealthy and unsustainable dynamics. Veterinarians are concerned that the rise of the “fur baby” lifestyle, in which people treat pets like human children, can harm animals, as owners seek unnecessary veterinary care, tests and medications. Pets staying at home alone while owners work suffer from boredom, which can cause chronic psychological distress and health problems. And as the number of pets goes up, many people wind up giving up their animal, overcrowding shelters.

So what should be done? Some philosophers and activists advocate for pet abolition, arguing that treating any animals as property is ethically indefensible.

This is a hard case to make – especially with dog lovers. Dogs were the first animal that humans domesticated. They have evolved beside us for as long as 40,000 years, and are a central piece of the human story. Some scientists argue that dogs made us human, not the other way around.

Perhaps we can reconfigure aspects of home, family and society to be better for dogs and humans alike – more accessible health care and higher-quality food, for example. A world more focused on human thriving would be more focused on pets’ thriving, too. But that would make for a very different America than this one.The Conversation

Margret Grebowicz, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, Missouri University of Science and Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Senate Dems expose Trump's new 'fraud'

Led by Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, four Democratic senators on Wednesday outlined plans to reduce the costs of prescription drugs after President Donald Trump claimed he would do so—only to allow Big Pharma companies to delay negotiating lower prices and secure “zero commitments” from top executives on making lifesaving medications more affordable for millions of Americans.

“There is no greater fraud than Donald J. Trump when it comes to lower drug prices,” Wyden (D-Ore.) said. “Our doors are wide open to anybody who wants to take the bold next step forward on lowering drug costs for Americans.”

Along with a “flash report” on Trump’s “broken promises” regarding his pledge to bring drug prices down “to levels nobody ever thought was possible,” Wyden sent a Dear Colleague letter to Democratic senators regarding his committee’s plans to follow through with lowering costs.

“Finance Committee minority staff will dedicate substantial time and effort this year to developing the next generation of healthcare solutions that lower costs for American families,” Wyden wrote. “These solutions will rein in Big Pharma’s outrageous price increases, lower costs for consumers, guarantee predictability for patients, and reduce wasteful government spending that pads the profits of big corporations. Alongside the co-signers of this letter, I invite you to be a part of this bold vision.”

The letter, co-signed by Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), notes that “the only concrete drug pricing policy Trump enacted within the past year was a price hike for the biggest blockbuster cancer drugs on Earth, giving an $8.8 billion windfall to the pharmaceutical industry.”

In contrast, the senators wrote, the Senate Finance Committee will develop policies to incorporate international pricing models into the Medicare drug price negotiation framework, including by allowing Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to consider international prices as a factor or penalize drugmakers when pricing for US customers exceeds international benchmarks.

“Democrats are determined to bring prices down, and we’re willing to work with anyone to find concrete ways to do it.”

The committee will also work to end Republican “blockbuster drug bailouts from negotiation,” like the ones included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that shielded several high-priced drugs—including the cancer drug Keytruda—from Medicare price negotiations.

“The Republican budget bill contained a nearly $9 billion sweetheart deal that benefits the biggest drug companies by delaying or exempting some lifesaving medications from negotiation,” reads the Democrats’ flash report.

Gallego said that “when Big Pharma gets richer off the back of a grandmother struggling to pay for cancer medication, the system is broken.”

“That’s what this is all about: Big Pharma execs sitting in their fancy corner offices profiting off of sick, working-class Americans,” the senator said. “We are not going to accept an America where millions of families live in fear of getting sick and needing to fill a prescription. We are going to fight and fight hard for a healthcare system that does what Donald Trump never did: actually lower costs for working families.”

The lawmakers emphasized that even if manufacturers are forced to lower drug prices, patients are not currently guaranteed to directly benefit, because as much as 45% of the $5.4 trillion the US spends on healthcare annually is “absorbed by middlemen such as insurers, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and drug distributors.”

“Healthcare middlemen profit when drug costs are high because they make money off of drug margin or payments that are linked to the price of a drug, ripping off patients who pay more than they should. Medicare Part D and the patients it serves should stop footing the bill for inflated drug prices and instead pay for drugs in a more transparent manner that reduces middleman margin,” wrote the senators.

The Finance Committee will develop policies to eliminate abuses in the prescription drug supply chain including “egregious drug price markups,” and to ensure that patient cost-sharing on drugs more closely aligns with the costs to plans and PBMs.

Finally, the Democrats said they would work to fix the “unmitigated disaster” that Trump and Kennedy have been “for innovation and drug development,” as the administration has proposed slashing the National Institutes of Health budget by 40% and has cut off access to treatment for an estimated 74,000 patients who were enrolled in NIH clinical trials.

The Finance Committee, they said, plans to create new incentives for innovation and drug development, including through the tax code.

In their flash report, the Democrats wrote that while failing to force Big Pharma to the negotiating table to save money for Americans, Trump “has been parading Big Pharma executives through the White House, claiming to be cutting cost-saving deals with these corporations.”

“One look under the hood reveals the truth: Trump is giving them a pass on tariffs, while receiving zero commitments about how they will lower costs for taxpayers and patients,” they wrote. “Donald Trump is getting fleeced by Big Pharma CEOs, and Americans are going to foot the bill.”

Welch said that the president “loves to talk a big game and make promises to working families about lowering prescription drug prices. But in reality, his administration is handling this like a PR problem: They’ve got to keep moving and talking about it, but then do nothing to really address the crisis.”

“Democrats are determined to bring prices down, and we’re willing to work with anyone to find concrete ways to do it,” said Welch. “We’re going to lower healthcare costs and ensure everyone can access affordable, lifesaving, and pain-relieving medication.”

Trying to predict what Trump will do next is bad for your brain — according to science

Donald Trump can change the temperature of a room with a sentence. One minute he is certain, the next he is backtracking. One day he is threatening, the next he is hinting at a deal. Even before anything concrete happens, people brace for his next turn.

That reaction is not just political. It is what unpredictability does to any system that requires stability. To act at all, you need some working sense of what is happening and what is likely to happen next.

One influential framework in brain science called predictive processing suggests the mind does not wait passively for events. It constantly guesses what will happen, checks those guesses against reality, and adjusts.

A brain that predicts can prepare, even when what it prepares for is uncertainty.The gap between what you expect and what actually happens is known as a prediction error. These gaps are not mistakes but the basis of learning. When they resolve, the brain updates its picture of the world and moves on.

This is not about what anyone intends, but about what unpredictability does to systems that need some stability to work. Trouble starts when mismatches do not resolve because the source keeps changing. People are told one thing, then the opposite, then told the evidence was never real.

The brain may struggle to settle on what to trust, so uncertainty stays high. In this view, attention is how the brain weighs up what counts as best evidence, and turns the volume up on some signals and down on others.

Uncertainty can be worse than bad news

When this keeps happening, it’s hard to get closure. Effort is spent checking and second guessing. That is one reason why uncertainty can feel worse than bad news. Bad news closes the question, uncertainty keeps it open. When expectations will not stabilise, the body stays on standby, prepared for many possible futures at once.

One idea from this theory is that there are two broad ways to deal with persistent mismatch. One is to change your expectations by getting better information and revising your view. The other is to change the situation so that outcomes become more predictable. You either update the model, or you act to make the world easier to deal with.

On the world stage, flattery can be a crude version of the second route, an attempt to make a volatile person briefly easier to predict. Everyday life shows the same pattern, such as unpredictable workplaces. When priorities change without warning, people cannot anticipate what is required. Extra effort may go into reducing uncertainty rather than doing the job.

Research links this kind of unpredictability to higher daily stress and poorer wellbeing.

The same pattern shows up in close relationships. When someone is unpredictable, people scan tone and try to guess whether today brings warmth or conflict. It can look obsessive, but it is often an attempt to avoid the wrong move.

Studies link unpredictable early environments to poorer emotional control and more strained relationships later in life.

The strain does not stay in thought alone. The brain does a lot more than thinking. A big part of its work is regulating the body, such as the heart rate, energy use and the meaning of bodily sensations.

It does this by anticipating what the body will need next. When those anticipations cannot settle, regulation becomes costly.

Words matter here in a literal sense. Language does not just convey information. It shapes expectations, which changes how the body feels.

Trump can do this at a distance. A few words about a situation can raise or lower the stakes for people, whether in Minneapolis or Iran. The point is that signals from powerful, volatile sources force others to revise their models and prepare their bodies for what might come next.

Communication is a form of regulation. Clarity and consistency help other people settle. Volatility and contradiction keep them on edge.

When a single voice can repeatedly unsettle expectations across millions of people, unpredictability stops being a personal stress and becomes a collective regulatory problem.

How to deal with unpredictability

So what helps when unpredictability keeps pulling your attention? Try checking for new information if it changes your next step or plan, otherwise it just keeps the uncertainty alive.

When a source keeps changing, reduce the effort spent trying to decode it. Switch to action. Set a rule that makes the next step predictable. For example, read the news at 8am, then stop and get on with your day.

Learn where not to look. When messages keep reversing, the problem is not a lack of information, it is an unreliable source.

Biological systems survive by limiting wasted predictions. Sometimes that means changing your expectations; sometimes it means changing the situation. And sometimes it means accepting that when Donald Trump is talking, the safest move is to stop trying to predict what comes next.The Conversation

Robin Bailey, Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology, University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The top target for anti-abortion groups in 2026

This week would have marked the 53rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide — that is, until 2022, when the court overturned it. Since then, abortion has been banned in 13 states and severely limited in 10 others.

Yet anti-abortion activists remain frustrated, in some cases even more so than before Roe was overturned.

Why? Because despite the new legal restrictions, abortions have not stopped taking place, not even in states with complete bans. In fact, the number of abortions has not dropped at all, according to the latest statistics.

“Indeed, abortions have tragically increased in Louisiana and other pro-life states,” Liz Murrill, Louisiana’s attorney general, said at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing this month.

That’s due in large part to the easier availability of medication abortion, which uses a combination of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, and particularly to the pills’ availability via mail after a telehealth visit with a licensed health professional.

Allowing telehealth access was a major change originally made on a temporary basis during the covid pandemic, when visits to a doctor’s office were largely unavailable. Before that, unlike most medications, mifepristone could be dispensed only directly, and only by a medical professional individually certified by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Biden administration later permanently eliminated the requirement for an in-person visit — a change the second Trump administration has not undone.

While the percentage of abortions using medication had been growing every year since 2000, when the FDA first approved mifepristone for pregnancy termination, the Biden administration’s decision to drop the in-person dispensing requirement supercharged its use. More than 60% of all abortions were done using medication rather than a procedure in 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available. More than a quarter of all abortions that year were managed via telehealth.

Separately, President Donald Trump’s FDA in October approved a second generic version of mifepristone, angering abortion opponents. FDA officials said at the time that they had no choice — that as long as the original drug remains approved, federal law requires them to OK copies that are “bioequivalent” to the approved drug.

It’s clear that reining in, if not canceling, the approval of pregnancy-terminating medication is a top priority for abortion opponents. This month, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America called abortion drugs “America’s New Public Health Crisis,” referencing their growing use in ending pregnancies as well as claims of safety concerns — such as the risk a woman could be given the drugs unknowingly or suffer serious complications. Decades of research and experience show medication abortion is safe and complications are rare.

Another group, Students for Life, has been trying to make the case that the biological waste from the use of mifepristone is contaminating the nation’s water supply, though environmental scientists refute that claim.

Yet the groups are most frustrated not with supporters of abortion rights but with the Trump administration. The object of most of their ire is the FDA, which they say is dragging its feet on a promised review of the abortion pill and the Biden administration’s loosened requirements around its availability.

President Joe Biden’s covid-era policy allowing abortion drugs to be sent via mail ”should’ve been rescinded on day one of the administration,” SBA Pro-Life America’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said in a recent statement. Instead, almost a year later, she continued, “pro-life states are being completely undermined in their ability to enforce the laws that they passed.”

Lawmakers who oppose abortion access are also pressing the administration. “At an absolute minimum, the previous in-person safeguards must be restored immediately,” Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy said during the hearing with Murrill and other witnesses who want to see abortion pill availability curtailed.

Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) said at the hearing that he hoped “the rumors are false” that “the agency is intentionally slow-walking its study on mifepristone’s health risks.”

The White House and spokespeople at the Department of Health and Human Services have denied the review is being purposely delayed.

“The FDA’s scientific review process is thorough and takes the time necessary to ensure decisions are grounded in gold-standard science,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an emailed response to KFF Health News. “Dr. Makary is upholding that standard as part of the Department’s commitment to rigorous, evidence-based review.” That’s a reference to Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner.

Revoking abortion pill access may not be as easy as advocates hoped when Trump moved back into the White House. While the president delivered on many of the goals of his anti-abortion backers during his first term, especially the confirmation of Supreme Court justices who made overturning Roe possible, he has been far less doctrinaire in his second go-round.

Earlier this month, Trump unnerved some of his supporters by advising House Republicans that lawmakers “have to be a little flexible” on the Hyde Amendment to appeal to voters, referring to a decades-old appropriations rule that bans most federal abortion funding and that some Republicans have been pushing to enforce more broadly.

And while the anniversary of Trump’s inauguration has many analysts noting how much of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint has been realized, the most headline-grabbing portions on reproductive health have yet to be enacted. The Trump administration has not, for example, revoked the approval of mifepristone for pregnancy termination, nor has it invoked the 1873 Comstock Act, which could effectively ban abortion nationwide by stopping not just the mailing of abortion pills but also anything else used in providing abortions.

Still, abortion opponents have decades of practice at remaining hopeful — and playing a long game.

HealthBent, a regular feature of KFF Health News, offers insight into and analysis of policies and politics from KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, who has covered health care for more than 30 years.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

MAGA's 'mini baby boom' hype falls short against reality: analysis

The MAGA movement is working overtime to hype up the recently announced pregnancies of key women close to Donald Trump's administration, including White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, but according to an analysis from Salon's Amanda Marcotte, efforts by the right to spin this "mini baby boom" into a broader narrative are falling flat.

Alongside Leavitt, Second Lady Usha Vance and Katie Miller, wife of controversial top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, have also recently announced new pregnancies. As Marcotte pointed out in her analysis, "MAGA media is hyping these pregnancies as hard as possible," with a recent Fox News segment amplifying Lara Trump's claim that the U.S. will "be in a pickle if we don’t get more babies coming," and her dubious claim that the president's policies are creating "safety and security for every child."

"It would be funny if these views weren’t tied to dangerously bigoted policies and tactics, from funding anti-birth control propaganda to Trump’s unleashing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to terrorize people of color in Minnesota, whether they are citizens or not," Marcotte wrote.

The MAGA movement's efforts to will a new baby boom into existence are largely falling on deaf ears with the general public, Marcotte argued further, noting that these pregnancy announcements were largely met with mockery. Leavitt's announcement, in particular, drew numerous jokes about the 32-year age gap between the press secretary, 28, and her husband, Nicholas Riccio, 60, with one Instagram user noting that Leavitt is closer in age to her unborn child than her husband.

"Despite all the right-wing media hype around these pregnancies, the response of the general public has cut against their hopes that this would lead to a Great Fertility Awakening among young women, who suddenly realize they need to quit their jobs to spend the next 20 years of their life staying constantly pregnant," Marcotte wrote.

The response from conservatives, Marcotte noted, has not been much more inspiring. Aside from "generic congratulatory responses from elderly Republicans," she argued that most "right-wing audiences mostly just didn’t care." At worst, she added, some of the most hardcore of MAGA faithfuls expressed anger at Usha Vance's pregnancy, due to the fact that she will have "another baby who will not be white."

"Panic over 'birth rates' is a pretext, often a laughably thin one, for other right-wing grievances: social change, racial diversity and women’s equality," Marcotte concluded. "That’s why even MAGA doesn’t get too excited about prominent women getting pregnant — unless there’s a hope that it will prove the end of her career."

Trump's 'deranged' Greenland outbursts rattle medical expert about president's 'fitness'

President Donald Trump's obsession with annexing Greenland for the U.S. is reaching an unusual level of "pettiness," one political science expert told The New Republic, and it's "beyond anything" else that has happened in recent history.

On Wednesday, Elizabeth Saunders, a political scientist with expertise in international relations, was interviewed for the New Republic's podcast, Daily Blast, to discuss the latest developments in the Trump-Greenland story. In particular, host Greg Sargent pressed her on the president's "deranged text" to the prime minister of Norway, in which he claimed that being passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize was driving his push for Greenland, as he was supposedly no longer motivated only by "peace."

“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America," Trump's message read.

The Norwegian government, despite Trump's insistence, is not involved with choosing Nobel Prize winners. Norway is also not the country that controls the autonomous territory of Greenland; Denmark is.

This message left many observers stunned, with one Danish leader calling it "mad and erratic," and some American lawmakers renewing calls for Trump to be removed from office, either by impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Saunders said that while "strongly worded" messages between leaders are not uncommon, this text from Trump went beyond anything she could think of.

"It’s not that unusual for leaders to say things behind closed doors or even in diplomatic cables that are strongly worded and so forth, even in leader-to-leader [communications]," Saunders explained. "But I think this is the level of pettiness, and the accusation that Norway is somehow responsible for him not getting the Nobel Prize and that that should matter in the matter of Greenland’s sovereignty, is kind of beyond anything I think any of us have seen or even can speak about in history."

Sargent also highlighted a reaction from Dr. Jonathan Reiner, the former cardiologist for Vice President Dick Cheney, who said that the message should raise alarms about Trump's fitness for office.

“This letter, and the fact that the president directed that it be distributed to other European countries, should trigger a bipartisan congressional inquiry into presidential fitness," Reiner said in a post to X.

"I think it’s hard to disentangle the permissive environment of Trump 2.0 from the obvious signs of aging," Saunders said. "Trump’s advisers’ approach is just to let him loose. And so there is a sort of loose-cannon feeling to it now. I think you’re seeing this on so many fronts."

Trump admin orders federal employees to investigate researchers

The Trump administration is directing employees at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate foreign scientists who collaborate with the agency on research papers for evidence of “subversive or criminal activity.”

The new directive, part of a broader effort to increase scrutiny of research done with foreign partners, asks workers in the agency’s research arm to use Google to check the backgrounds of all foreign nationals collaborating with its scientists. The names of flagged scientists are being sent to national security experts at the agency, according to records reviewed by ProPublica.

At a meeting last month, USDA supervisors pushed back against the instructions, with one calling it “dystopic” and others expressing shock and confusion, according to an audio recording reviewed by ProPublica.

The USDA frequently collaborates with scientists based at universities in the U.S. and abroad. Some agency workers told ProPublica they were uncomfortable with the new requirement because they felt it could put those scientists in the crosshairs of the administration. Students and postdocs are particularly vulnerable as many are in the U.S. on temporary visas and green cards, the employees said.

Jennifer Jones, director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the directive a “throwback to McCarthyism” that could encourage scientists to avoid working with the “best and brightest” researchers from around the world.

“Asking scientists to spy on and report on their fellow co-authors” is a “classic hallmark of authoritarianism,” Jones said. The Union of Concerned Scientists is an organization that advocates for scientific integrity.

Jones, who hadn’t heard of the instructions until contacted by ProPublica, said she had never witnessed policies so extreme during prior administrations or in her former career as an academic scientist.

The new policy applies to pending scientific publications co-authored by employees in the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, which conducts research on crop yields, invasive species, plant genetics and other agricultural issues.

The USDA instructed employees to stop agency researchers from collaborating on or publishing papers with scientists from “countries of concern,” including China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela.

But the agency is also vetting scientists from nations not considered “countries of concern” before deciding whether USDA researchers can publish papers with them. Employees are including the names of foreign co-authors from nations such as Canada and Germany on lists shared with the department’s Office of Homeland Security, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. That office leads the USDA’s security initiatives and includes a division that works with federal intelligence agencies. The records don’t say what the office plans to do with the lists of names.

Asked about the changes, the USDA sent a statement noting that in his first term, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum designed to strengthen protections of U.S.-funded research across the federal government against foreign government interference. “USDA under the Biden Administration spent four years failing to implement this directive,” the statement said. The agency said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins last year rolled out “long-needed changes within USDA’s research enterprise, including a prohibition on authoring a publication with a foreign national from a country of concern.”

International research has been essential to the Agricultural Research Service’s work, according to a page of the USDA website last updated in 2024: “From learning how to mitigate diseases before they reach the United States, to testing models and crops in diverse growing conditions, to accessing resources not available in the United States, cooperation with international partners provides solutions to current and future agricultural challenges.”

Still, the U.S. government has long been worried about agricultural researchers acting as spies, sometimes with good reason. In 2016, the Chinese scientist Mo Hailong was sentenced to three years in prison for conspiring to steal patented corn seeds. And in 2022, Xiang Haitao, admitted to stealing a trade secret from Monsanto.

National security questions have also been raised about recent increases in foreign ownership of agricultural land. In 2022, Congress allocated money for a center to educate U.S. researchers about how to safeguard their data in international collaborations.

Since Trump took office last year, foreign researchers have faced increased obstacles. In March, a French researcher traveling to a conference was denied entry to the U.S. after a search of his phone at the airport turned up messages critical of Trump. The National Institutes of Health blocked researchers from China, Russia and other “countries of concern” from accessing various biomedical databases last spring. And in August, the Department of Homeland Security proposed shortening the length of time foreign students could remain in the country.

But the latest USDA instructions represent a significant escalation, casting suspicion on all researchers from outside the U.S. and asking agency staff to vet the foreign nationals they collaborate with. It’s unclear if employees at other federal agencies have been given similar directions.

The new USDA policy was announced internally in November and followed a July memo from Rollins that highlighted the national security risks of working with scientists who are not U.S. citizens.

“Foreign competitors benefit from USDA-funded projects, receiving loans that support overseas businesses, and grants that enable foreign competitors to undermine U.S. economic and strategic interests,” Rollins wrote in the memo. “Preventing this is the responsibility of every USDA employee.” The memo called for the department to “place America First” by taking a number of steps, including scrutinizing and making lists of the agency’s arrangements to work with foreign researchers and prohibiting USDA employees from participating in foreign programs to recruit scientists, “malign or otherwise.”

Rollins, a lawyer who studied agricultural development, co-founded the pro-Trump America First Policy Institute before being tapped to head the agency.

There have long been restrictions on collaborating with researchers from certain countries, such as Iran and China. But these new instructions create blanket bans on working with scientists from “countries of concern.”

In a late November email to staff members of the Agricultural Research Service at one area office, a research leader instructed managers to immediately stop all research with scientists who come from — or collaborate with institutions in — “countries of concern.”

The email also instructed employees to reject papers with foreign authors if they deal with “sensitive subjects” such as “diversity” or “climate change.” National security concerns were listed as another cause for rejection, with USDA research service employees instructed to ask if a foreigner could use the research against American farmers.

In the audio recording of the December meeting, some employees expressed alarm about the instructions to investigate their fellow scientists. The “part of figuring out if they are foreign … by Googling is very dystopic,” said one person at the meeting, which involved leadership from the Agricultural Research Service.

Faced with questions about how to ascertain the citizenship of a co-author, another person at the meeting said researchers should do their best with a Google search, then put the name on the list “and let Homeland Security do their behind the scenes search.”

Rollins’ July memo specifies that, within 60 days of receiving a list of “current arrangements” that involve foreign people or entities, the USDA’s Office of Homeland Security along with its offices of Chief Scientist and General Counsel should decide which arrangements to terminate. The USDA laid off 70 employees from “countries of concern” last summer as a result of the policy change laid out in the memo, NPR reported.

The USDA and Department of Homeland Security declined to answer questions about what happens to the foreign researchers flagged by the staff beyond potentially having their research papers rejected.

The documents also suggested new guidance would be issued on Jan. 1, but the USDA employees ProPublica interviewed said that the vetting work was continuing and that they had not received any written updates. The staff spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to talk publicly.

Scientists are often evaluated based on their output of new scientific research. Delaying or denying publication of pending papers could derail a researcher’s career. Over the past 40 years, the number of international collaborations among scientists has increased across the board, according to Caroline Wagner, an emeritus professor of public policy at the Ohio State University. “The more elite the researcher, the more likely they’re working at the international level,” said Wagner, who has spent more than 25 years researching international collaboration in science and technology.

The changes in how the USDA is approaching collaboration with foreign researchers, she said, “will certainly reduce the novelty, the innovative nature of science and decrease these flows of knowledge that have been extremely productive for science over the last years.”

Noah’s Ark museum visitors hit with 'highly contagious' measles exposure warning

Recent visitors to Ark Encounter, a Christian theme park that has drawn controversy over the years, are facing a new challenge. Kentucky health officials are warning of possible exposure to measles, after an unvaccinated individual reportedly visited the museum and a local hotel earlier this week.

“Measles is a highly contagious disease,” Northern Kentucky Health District Director for Health Jennifer Mooney, PhD, MPH, said in a press release, according to NBC affiliate WLWT. “Being around so many people at a place such as the Ark Encounter creates the potential for wide exposure. We want to make sure everyone who visited during that time is aware they may have been exposed to the measles, and they should monitor themselves for symptoms.”

“We also want to remind people that measles is preventable through the highly effective MMR (Measles, Mumps & Rubella) vaccine,” Dr. Mooney added. “The vaccine has been administered to millions of people over several decades and has a proven health and safety record.”

WDRB reported that “Measles, a highly contagious respiratory virus, can cause serious health problems, especially in young children, according to the CDC’s website. The virus spreads through the air after someone infected coughs or sneezes. It can then linger for up to two hours after the infected person leaves.”

According to the CDC, the U.S. saw 2065 cases of measles in 2025, up from 285 in 2024 and just 59 cases in 2023.

“Measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000. This was thanks to a very high percentage of people receiving the safe and effective measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. In recent years, however,” CDC reported, “U.S. national MMR coverage among kindergarteners has decreased and is now below the 95% coverage target—with much lower coverage in some communities.”

Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist wrote that “Ark Encounter offers free tickets for children,” and warned of “the possibility that unvaccinated kids will pay the price because of one irresponsible person’s ignorance.”

“It’s already happened in South Carolina,” he noted, “where one particular church is now the epicenter of a measles outbreak.”

Neuroscientist shatters MAGA’s testosterone claim

In the Manosphere, a variety of anti-feminist ideologies — from PUAs (pickup artists) to MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) to incels — often accuse feminists and progressives of trying to make men less masculine. And a conspiracy theory pushed by Infowars' Alex Jones and others on the far right claims that the left, in its quest for political dominance, is using soy products to decrease men's testosterone and make them weak and passive. "Soy boys," Jones contends, are effeminate progressive males and the result of a leftist war on masculinity.

But neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky, in an article published by the New York Times on New Year's Day 2026, stresses that high levels of testosterone aren't necessarily synonymous with masculine traits.

"In particularly prickly corners of MAGA World," Sapolsky explains, "a low-blow way of dissing the men you despise — often left-leaning guys with a fondness for empathy, equality, even democracy — is to charge them with having low levels of testosterone. Take Elon Musk, who, a while back, reposted a screed about how 'low T' men can't think freely because they 'can’t defend themselves physically.' Or consider the 'soy boy' insult popular a few years ago in the same circles, based on the false idea that chemical compounds in soy feminize men's hormonal makeup."

However, Sapolsky — a biology professor at Stanford University in California — says that extensive scientific research isn't consistent with MAGA's "soy boy" claims.

"Beyond my own research," Sapolsky notes, "decades of data show that testosterone does not ensure dominance, nor does it act as a straightforward trigger of aggression. This may come as a surprise. Males of endless species, including us, tend to have higher testosterone levels and to be more aggressive than females; aggression and testosterone levels rise in males at puberty; and males of species that compete for territories annually show increased aggression and testosterone levels at those times."

Sapolsky adds, "Note, however, that there's some evidence that the causality could run in the other direction: Engaging in aggressive behaviors may trigger a spike in testosterone."

Sapolsky points out that "within normal ranges," testosterone levels "are not strongly predictive of aggression."

"Scientists now believe that testosterone makes people and animals more sensitive to threats to their status — to the point of perceiving threats that are imagined and amplifying the aggressive response to such threats," according to the neuroscientist. "For instance, a male impala with high testosterone may be more sensitized to challenges to his territory, attacking an interloper when it comes within 100 yards of him, instead of the usual 50…. If society is riddled with aggression, don't blame testosterone; blame us for being too prone to dole out status for aggression."

Read Robert Sapolsky's full New York Times article at this link (subscription required).

The 8-hour sleep myth: How I learned everything I knew about sleep was wrong

I’ve always been at odds with sleep. Starting around adolescence, morning became a special form of hell. Long school commutes meant rising in 6am darkness, then huddling miserably near the bathroom heating vent as I struggled to wrest myself from near-paralysis. The sight of eggs turned my not-yet-wakened stomach, so I scuttled off without breakfast. In fourth grade, my mother noticed that instead of playing outside after school with the other kids, I lay zonked in front of the TV, dozing until dinner. “Lethargy of unknown cause,” pronounced the doctor.

High school trigonometry commenced at 7:50am. I flunked, stupefied with sleepiness. Only when college allowed me to schedule courses in the afternoon did the joy of learning return. My decision to opt for grad school was partly traceable to a horror of returning to the treadmill of too little sleep and exhaustion, which a 9-to-5 job would surely bring.

In my late 20s, I began to wake up often for a couple of hours in the middle of the night – a phenomenon linked to female hormonal shifts. I’ve met these vigils with dread, obsessed with lost sleep and the next day’s dysfunction. Beside my bed I stashed an arsenal of weapons against insomnia: lavender sachets, sleep CDs, and even a stuffed sheep that makes muffled ocean noises. I collected drugstore remedies -- valerian, melatonin, Nytol -- which caused me "rebound insomnia" the moment I stop taking them.

The Sleep Fairy continued to elude me.

I confessed my problem to the doctor, ashamed to fail at something so simple that babies and rodents can do it on a dime. When I asked for Ambien, she cut me a glance that made me feel like a heroin addict and lectured me on the dangers of “controlled substances.” Her offering of “sleep hygiene” bromides like reserving my bedroom solely for sleep was useless to a studio apartment-dweller.

Conventional medical wisdom dropped me at a dead end. Why did I need to use a bedroom for nothing but sleeping when no other mammal had such a requirement? When for most of history, humans didn’t either? Our ancestors crashed with beasties large and small roaming about, bodies tossing and snoring nearby, and temperatures fluctuating wildly. And yet they slept. How on earth did they do it?

A lot differently than we do, it turns out.

The 8-Hour Sleep Myth

Pursuing the truth about sleep means winding your way through a labyrinth of science, consumerism and myth. Researchers have had barely a clue about what constitutes “normal” sleep. Is it how many hours you sleep? A certain amount of time in a particular phase? The pharmaceutical industry recommends drug-induced oblivion, which, it turns out, doesn’t even work. The average time spent sleeping increases by only a few minutes with the use of prescription sleep aids. And -- surprise! -- doctors have linked sleeping pills to cancer. We have memory foam mattresses, sleep clinics, hotel pillow concierges, and countless others strategies to put us to bed. And yet we complain about sleep more than ever.

The blame for modern sleep disorders is usually laid at the doorstep of Thomas Edison, whose electric light bulb turned the night from a time of rest to one of potentially endless activity and work. Proponents of the rising industrial culture further pushed the emphasis of work over rest, and the sense of sleep as lazy indulgence.

But there’s something else, which I learned while engaged in a bout of insomnia-driven Googling. A Feb. 12, 2012 article on the BBC Web site, “The Myth of the 8-Hour Sleep,” has permanently altered the way I think about sleep. It proclaimed something that the body had always intuited, even as the mind floundered helplessly.

Turns out that psychiatrist Thomas Wehr ran an experiment back in the ‘90s in which people were thrust into darkness for 14 hours every day for a month. When their sleep regulated, a strange pattern emerged. They slept first for four hours, then woke for one or two hours before drifting off again into a second four-hour sleep.

Historian Roger Ekirch of Virginia Tech would not have been surprised by this pattern. In 2001, he published a groundbreaking paper based on 16 years of research, which revealed something quite amazing: humans did not evolve to sleep through the night in one solid chunk. Until very recently, they slept in two stages. Shazam.

In his book At Day's Close: Night in Times Past, Ekrich presents over 500 references to these two distinct sleep periods, known as the “first sleep” and the “second sleep,” culled from diaries, court records, medical manuals, anthropological studies, and literature, including The Odyssey. Like an astrolabe pointing to some forgotten star, these accounts referenced a first sleep that began two hours after dusk, followed by waking period of one or two hours and then a second sleep.

This waking period, known in some cultures as the “watch," was filled with everything from bringing in the animals to prayer. Some folks visited neighbors. Others smoked a pipe or analyzed their dreams. Often they lounged in bed to read, chat with bedfellows, or have much more refreshing sex than we modern humans have at bedtime. A 16th-century doctor’s manual prescribed sex after the first sleep as the most enjoyable variety.

But these two sleeps and their magical interim were swept away so completely that by the 20th century, they were all but forgotten.

Historian Craig Koslofsky delves into the causes of this massive shift in human behavior in his new book, Evening's Empire. He points out that before the 17th century, you’d have to be a fool to go wandering around at night, where ne’er-do-wells and cutthroats lurked on pitch-black streets. Only the wealthy had candles, and even they had little need or desire to venture from home at night. Street lighting and other trends gradually changed this, and eventually nighttime became fashionable and hanging out in bed a mark of indolence. The industrial revolution put the exclamation point on this sentence of wakefulness. By the 19th century, health pundits argued in favor of a single, uninterrupted sleep.

We have been told over and over that the eight-hour sleep is ideal. But in many cases, our bodies have been telling us something else. Since our collective memory has been erased, anxiety about nighttime wakefulness has kept us up even longer, and our eight-hour sleep mandate may have made us more prone to stress. The long period of relaxation we used to get after a hard day’s work may have been better for our peace of mind than all the yoga in Manhattan.

After learning this, I went in search of lost sleep.

Past Life Regression

“Even a soul submerged in sleep
is hard at work and helps
make something of the world.”
― Heraclitus, Fragments

What intrigued me most about the sleep research was a feeling of connection to ancient humans and to a realm beyond clock-driven, electrified industrial life, whose endless demands are more punishing than ever. Much as Werner Herzog’s documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams pulls the viewer into the lives of ancient cave dwellers in southern France who painted the walls with marvelous images, reading about how our ancestors filled their nights with dream reflection, lovemaking and 10-to-12 hour stretches of down-time produced a strange sense of intimacy and wonder.

I’m a writer and editor who works from home, without children, so I’ve had the luxury, for the last couple of weeks, of completely relinquishing myself to a new (or quite old) way of sleeping. I’ve been working at a cognitive shift – looking upon early evening sleepiness as a gift, and plopping into bed if I feel like it. I try to view the wakeful period, if it should come, as a magical, blessed time when my email box stops flooding and the screeching horns outside my New York window subside.

Instead of heading to bed with anxiety, I’ve tried to dive in like a voluptuary, pushing away my guilt about the list of things I could be doing and letting myself become beautifully suspended between worlds. I’ve started dimming the lights a couple of hours after dusk and looking at the nighttime not as a time to pursue endless work, but to daydream, drift, putter about, and enter an almost meditative state.

The books I’ve been reading in the evening hours have been specially chosen as a link to dreamy ruminations of our ancestor’s “watch” period. Volumes like Norman O. Brown’s Love’s Body or Eduardo Galeano’s Mirrors provide the kind of reflective, incantatory experience the nighttime seems made for. Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams would be another excellent choice, and I know from experience that reading it before bedtime triggers the most vivid mental journeys.

In sleep, we slip back to a more primitive state. We go on a psychic archaeological dig. This is part of the reason that Freud proclaimed dreams to be the royal road to the unconscious and lifted his metaphors from the researchers who were sifting through the layers of ancient history on Egyptian digs, uncovering relics and forgotten memories. Ghosts flutter about us when we lie down to rest. Our waking identities dissolve, and we become creatures whose rhythms derive from the moon and the seas much more than the clock and the computer.

As we learn more, we may realize that giving sleep and rest the center stage in our lives may be as fundamental to our well-being as the way we eat and the medicines that cure us. And if we come to treasure this time of splendid relaxation, we may have much more to offer in the daytime hours.

Trump admin 'pipe dream' set to inflict pain on MAGA most of all: analysis

President Donald Trump continues to suffer low approval ratings in poll after poll. An NPR/PBS/Marist poll released in late December, for example, finds his approval at only 36 percent.

Nonetheless, Trump is still popular among his hardcore MAGA base, which views him as someone who isn't afraid to tackle elites on his behalf. But in an in-depth opinion column/essay published on December 23, the New York Times' Thomas B. Edsall lays out some reasons why Trump's policies will hurt his MAGA base more than anyone.

"The Trump Administration (has) adopted policies condemning a sizable group of its core MAGA supporters — miners, firemen, manufacturing workers — to slow deaths from diseases that cut off their ability to breathe," Edsall explains. "President Trump’s attacks on the regulation of toxic chemicals in the air and water, on strong vaccination policies, on rules restricting power plant pollution are part and parcel of what amounts to a killing spree cloaked as deregulation."

Trump's "deregulation policies," Edsall warns, will lead to "rising numbers of preventable deaths in the United States from increased rates of respiratory disease, illnesses of the unvaccinated and elevated exposure to toxic chemicals and lethal pollutants emanating from coal-powered plants."

According to Harvard University economics professor David M. Cutler, Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 "will lead to less insurance coverage and consequently health losses."

Cutler told Edsall, "The most recent estimates are 10 million uninsured. The (Affordable Care Act) subsidies, if not extended, are projected to reduce insurance coverage by another four million."

Harvard professor Benjamin Sommers, who focuses on health care economics, told Edsall, "The Trump Administration is aggressively rolling back decades of progress in expanding health insurance and improving prevention through vaccination, which will lead to financial strain, barriers to care, and preventable deaths for many Americans."

According to the Times, the Trump Administration's MAHA (Make American Healthy Again) agenda is a "pipe dream" that will only cause major suffering among MAGA voters.

"One thing stands out in Trump's loosening of regulations of toxic chemicals, his anti-vaccination policies and his health care cuts," Edsall laments. "He is inflicting a disproportionate share of the worst kind of harms on the families of the men and women who love him the most: white working-class voters, especially those living in the industrial Midwest and Appalachia."

Thomas B. Edsall's full column/essay for The New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).

Two years after peppers caused him 'crippling pain,' man gets another shock: his ER bill

Maxwell Kruzic said he was in such “crippling” stomach pain on Oct. 5, 2023, that he had to pull off the road twice as he drove himself to the emergency room at Mercy Regional Medical Center in Durango, Colorado. “It was the worst pain of my life,” he said.

Kruzic was seen immediately because hospital staff members were pretty sure he had appendicitis. They inserted an IV, called a surgeon, and sent him off for a scan to confirm the diagnosis.

But the scan showed a perfectly normal appendix and no problems in his abdomen. Doctors racked their brains for other possible diagnoses. Could it be a kidney stone? Gallstones? Here was a 37-year-old man in agony, but nothing really fit.

Then, someone asked what Kruzic had eaten the night before. He said he’d consumed tacos with some hot sauce that he’d made from a kind of scorpion pepper, grown from seeds he ordered from a chile pepper research institute.

The peppers measure over 2 million Scoville heat units on the spiciness scale, he noted, compared with a jalapeño at up to 8,000 or a habanero at 100,000 to 350,000.

The peppers are among “the world’s hottest, incredibly hot,” Kruzic said. “Delicious.” He loves spicy food and had never had a problem with it, but apparently this was just too much burn for his digestive system.

Kruzic spent much of the night on a gurney in the ER. After about four hours, the pain decreased, and he was sent home with medicine to treat nausea and vomiting.

Then the bill came — about two years later.

The Medical Procedure

Kruzic underwent blood work and a CT scan of his abdomen during his ER visit for acute abdominal pain.

Consuming very spicy foods can cause painful inflammation and irritation of the digestive system. The discomfort typically resolves on its own.

The Final Bill

$8,127.41, including $5,820 for the CT scan. Kruzic paid $97.02 during his visit to the hospital, which was in-network under his insurance. After insurance payments and discounts, he owed $2,460.46 — the remainder of the $1,585.26 he owed toward his plan’s deductible and $972.22 he owed in coinsurance.

The Problem: Ghost Bills From Visits Past

This September, Kruzic received a bill for his pepper-induced ER visit in 2023.

Unfortunately for patients, there are no uniform rules for timely billing.

Anticipating a bill, Kruzic repeatedly checked the hospital’s online portal, as well as that of his insurer, UnitedHealthcare. He noted that the insurer said the claim had been processed shortly after his treatment. For about eight months, he kept checking the hospital portal’s billing section, which indicated he owed “$0.” He called UnitedHealthcare, and Kruzic said a representative assured him that if the hospital said he owed nothing, that was the case.

It is unclear what caused the nearly two-year delay. At least part of the problem seems to have involved protracted disagreements between the insurer and the hospital over how much his visit should have cost.

Lindsay Radford Foster, a spokesperson for CommonSpirit Health, the hospital system, said in a statement to KFF Health News: “United Healthcare, the insurer responsible for the medical claim, underpaid the account based on the care provided. As a result, CommonSpirit contacted UnitedHealthcare’s Payer Relations Department to rectify the underpayments.”

Asked why it had taken two years, she cited a reorganization at UnitedHealthcare and a change in the insurer’s representative assigned to the case.

But UnitedHealthcare contested that view. “This was paid accurately,” said Caroline Landree, a spokesperson for the insurer.

But those explanations don’t satisfy Kruzic, a geological consultant: “Receiving a bill two years after the service wouldn’t fly in any other industry. We could never contact a client two years after we completed a project and say, ‘By the way, we missed this charge.’”

“How could this be considered anything but surprise billing?” he added.

The federal No Surprises Act doesn’t protect against all types of medical bills that patients find surprising. It primarily protects patients from out-of-network charges when they visit an in-network hospital, or in an emergency.

But in medical billing, what’s legal and what’s reasonable are two very different issues.

“The bill certainly sounds outrageous,” said Maxwell Mehlmen, co-director of the Law-Medicine Center at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “The question is whether it’s legal.”

That, he said, “is a matter of state law and the terms of the insurance policy and the agreement between the hospital and the insurer.”

In Colorado, there are extensive regulations about how long health care providers have to file a claim and bill a patient. For instance, claims for Medicaid patients must be filed within 120 days from the date of service. For patients with private insurance, the terms may be outlined in their insurers’ contracts with individual providers.

If a hospital submitted a proper claim and the provider and insurer were working out payment in good faith, then a patient can be billed for their share of the costs years later.

The Resolution

Within hours of KFF Health News contacting the hospital’s media relations department for this article, Kruzic got a call from a hospital executive telling him his bill had been adjusted to zero.

Blaming administrative changes at the insurer, Radford Foster of CommonSpirit said that UnitedHealthcare had taken so long to properly pay the bill that the hospital couldn’t collect from the patient. She said that Kruzic’s statement balance “was to be adjusted to zero, but due to a clerical error, a statement was sent to the patient in error.”

UnitedHealthcare’s Landree said that “given the significant delay, we are addressing this issue directly with the physician’s office.”

“Mr. Kruzic will not be responsible for any additional costs related to this bill,” she said.

The Takeaway

KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” series receives complaints every year about ghost bills — bills that arrive long after a service is rendered.

Sometimes it’s because the insurer and hospital are haggling over payment, and the patient’s responsibility — usually a percentage of that number — can’t be calculated until the dispute is resolved. Other times, insurers audit old bills and, determining they overpaid, try to claw back the money, resulting in the patient (or even the patient’s surviving spouse) being billed for the difference.

For now, the legality of billing long after treatment depends primarily on the fine print of insurance contracts.

An insurer’s word that a claim has been “processed” doesn’t mean that the insurer has agreed to pay and that the billing is resolved. It could also mean that the insurer balked at the bill or completely denied payment.

As for Kruzic and his affinity for hot peppers? He said he still loves spicy food, but in his cooking, “I will not use scorpion peppers again.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and The Washington Post’s Well+Being that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

'Really dangerous': Inside the uproar at Trump's FDA

Six days after a senior FDA official sent a sweeping internal email claiming that covid vaccines had caused the deaths of “at least 10 children,” 12 former FDA commissioners released an extraordinary warning in the Dec. 3 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

They wrote that the claims and policy changes in the memo from Vinay Prasad, the head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, pose “a threat to evidence-based vaccine policy and public health security” and break sharply from long-standing scientific norms.

What is unfolding inside the FDA is not a narrow dispute over covid vaccines. It is an attempt, according to critics and vaccine scientists, to rewrite the rules governing the entire U.S. vaccine system — how risks are weighed, how benefits are proved, and how quickly lifesaving shots reach the public. Former agency leaders warn that if these changes take hold, the consequences could be lasting: fewer vaccines, slower updates, weakened public trust, and more preventable outbreaks.

Prasad made clear he sees the moment as corrective. “Never again will the US FDA commissioner have to himself find deaths in children for staff to identify it,” he wrote, telling employees the agency’s mission, and its “worldview,” would change.

Prasad’s email reopened old arguments about covid vaccines, using what is generally considered weak and misleading science in the peer-reviewed research community. He claimed that FDA staff had found “at least 10” deaths in children that happened “after and because of” covid vaccination, using reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The VAERS system is notoriously crowdsourced, meaning anyone can contribute, and scientists say it serves only as a clearinghouse for reports. For example, a person could file a report saying that after getting a flu shot, their hair turned purple. Though that report would remain in the database until it was reviewed, it cannot prove the cause of medical events. But Prasad argued that the true number of deaths was likely higher because many cases go unreported.

On Substack, Inside Medicine reported Dec. 11 that Prasad used incomplete information and that a Dec. 5 internal FDA memo set the pediatric death toll from covid shots somewhere between zero and seven. Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard wrote, “The FDA’s investigation into deaths caused by Covid vaccines is still ongoing and there’s no final count yet of those deaths.”

Prasad also accused the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of downplaying the risk of heart inflammation, called myocarditis, in young men; criticized the agency for approving shots for teenagers; and suggested that school and workplace vaccine mandates may have “harmed more children than we saved,” adding that “we do not know if we saved lives on balance.”

By comparison, more than 2,100 American children died of covid itself since the pandemic began, the CDC reported.

Based on his erroneous and misleading claims about covid vaccines, Prasad proposed a major overhaul of how vaccines are approved. He said the FDA should stop relying on immune markers to establish the efficacy of shots, such as antibody levels, and instead require large placebo-controlled randomized trials that track hospitalizations and deaths before approving most new vaccines.

Many immunologists and vaccine experts say it’s unethical to test vaccines known to be effective against disease with a control group that would receive a placebo, exposing them to infection.

“There is a rock-solid principle in bioethics that it is unethical to test any drug or vaccine against a placebo if it is known to be safe and effective. The reason is that such placebo-controlled trials would effectively deny patients access to a vaccine that could prevent a dangerous infectious disease,” said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University.

Prasad called the current flu vaccine system an “evidence-based catastrophe,” questioned the approval of vaccines for pregnant women based on immune response alone, and raised concerns about giving multiple vaccines at once. He told staff to rewrite FDA guidelines to match his new “worldview” and said anyone who disagreed with his “core principles” should resign.

The former FDA leaders expressed alarm in the NEJM article. They said Prasad is exploiting public frustration over the federal response to covid to spark doubt about the entire childhood vaccine system, which could undo decades of success in protecting children from deadly diseases.

“This is really different. And it’s really dangerous. And people will be hurt, particularly by the vaccine decisions,” former FDA commissioner Robert Califf said in an interview. He also warned that Prasad’s proposed policies — which he noted echo positions on vaccines held by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist — could shake the entire vaccine market.

“The goal of RFK seems to be to make it impossible for vaccines to be available in the U.S.,” he said. If the proposals advance, he added, “it won’t be a viable business.”

Hilliard pushed back sharply on those concerns, writing: “The American people deserve evidence-based science. Prasad’s email lays out a philosophical framework that points us toward that higher standard. We will soon release documents laying out that framework and data confirming how the COVID vaccine resulted in children’s deaths that previous leadership failed to properly investigate.”

For generations, the childhood vaccine program has depended on clear rules, strong safety systems, and public trust. Experts say Prasad’s ideas, based on claims they argue are not supported by real evidence, could make it much harder to test, approve, and deliver vaccines to families.

Fueling Parental Doubt

Prasad’s memo indicates he considers VAERS reports as proof that vaccines caused children’s deaths. The system, though, is designed to be only an “early warning system” for potential safety issues with vaccines that can be investigated further.

“VAERS signals should never be taken as proof of true vaccine risks without careful, confirmatory studies,” said Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist and longtime investigator with the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a CDC program.

Doing so, scientists say, directly feeds public fear at a time when many parents are already unsure whom to trust.

“Causation requires converging evidence, not just one report or coincidence,” said Robert Hopkins, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

Prasad’s framework, however, treats uncertainty as a reason to halt development entirely.

Experts fear this doubt won’t stay limited to covid vaccines. Once parents start to question the FDA’s honesty, they may begin doubting long-standing vaccines for measles, polio, or whooping cough — shots that have protected children for decades.

“Science must be transparent,” Gostin said. If families believe the FDA is misusing data or silencing experts, confidence in the entire vaccine system can collapse, he said. “There’s a public narrative that people have lost trust in science, but that’s not true. The vast majority want the FDA to make decisions based on the best scientific evidence. Once they believe that the agency is marginalizing scientists and cherry-picking evidence, their trust will plummet.”

Delicate Vaccine Pipeline

Prasad’s new framework will likely make it far harder for companies to produce or update vaccines. The 12 former FDA commissioners warned that requiring clinical trials for all new or updated shots would slow vaccine improvements and leave people unprotected. His plan, they wrote, “would impede the ability to update vaccines in a timely fashion, especially for respiratory viruses.”

For fast-changing viruses like flu and covid, this could be disastrous. There’s simply not enough time to run full clinical trials every time a virus mutates.

There are also major business effects. Vaccine development is costly, and companies may decide the U.S. is no longer worth the risk. If companies slow down or leave the market, families could face shortages, fewer innovations, and fewer protections for their kids.

‘Checks and Balances’

Science depends on open and public debate. Prasad’s memo warned his employees against it. In addition to demanding that FDA staff members who disagree with him resign, he said their disputes should stay private and called leaks “unethical” and “illegal.”

Susan Ellenberg, a former director of the FDA’s Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, warned that Prasad risks destroying the process that makes science credible. “If disagreement is treated as disloyalty, you lose the only mechanism that keeps science honest,” she said.

Without strong internal debate, safety reviews become weaker. “You lose the checks and balances that make vaccine safety science credible,” said Kathryn Edwards, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who served on the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network during the covid pandemic.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.