#Seniors Fraud Prevention

[evamadeln]

Life of Elderly | Abuse of Seniors | Seniors Live In Partners | India [Video]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Jesse Duquette

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 25, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.

Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[simply-ivanka]

Donald Trump Jr. Is the Crown Prince of the MAGA World

Don Trump Jr.’s primary focus is what happens afterward. He is working to make sure the next Trump administration and GOP Congress are stocked with more JD Vances—and to keep out those who might hinder an aggressive second-term agenda. “What I want to do is work on the transition, and it’s not about placing people,” he said. “It’s about blocking the people who would be a disaster in that administration. I will cut out so many people, people’s heads are going to spin.”

Vance refers to their project as “keeping the snakes out of the administration,” and said they have “probably discussed or floated thousands of names at this point,” from Treasury secretary and secretary of state on down to low-level appointees. It is a project with potentially momentous consequences. They are determined to avoid the conflicting agendas and infighting that dogged Trump’s first term and instead ensure that the president is unrestrained in pursuit of his desired outcomes. 

“My role will be to make sure that those bad actors are not getting into the administration to subvert my father and his policies,” Trump Jr. said.

“Now we know who those people are. In ’16, we had no idea.”

Trump’s first administration was frequently reined in by appointees desperate to stop him from doing things they believed were unwise, dangerous or illegal. Aides snatched executive orders off his desk to prevent him from signing them, cabinet members slow-walked his plans, military generals pretended to follow his orders while ignoring them and senior officials refused to draw up proposals he requested. Staffers alarmed by his impulses continually leaked to the press or quit in protest. At the end of his term, his attorney general resigned rather than pursue baseless election-fraud claims.

Putting Vance on the GOP ticket “was about finding someone who actually has that fortitude to fight, to stick to their values, and there’s just not many of them in the Republican Party,” he said. 

“I don’t want just MAGA with only Trump, and then it goes back to the old ways,” Trump Jr. added. “We need to have a bench. And for a long time I don’t think we had any of that. And this election cycle, you’ve seen the emergence of people that can actually carry that mantle. I think that’s really important.”

[beauty-funny-trippy]

[Condensed from a June 11, 2024 Military.com article by Ronald Lackey (Retired Major, U.S. Air Force)] –

When running for president in January 2016, Trump held a "fundraiser" for veterans. However, he didn't give the money to veterans' charities until after investigative reporters revealed that veterans had not received the donations. [Turns out, Trump was illegally siphoning money from the charity, using it like a piggy bank for his own personal gain.] Trump was fined $2 million by a judge for fraud and deceptive practices tied to the event.

As president, Trump canceled a visit to an American Cemetery near Paris, telling staffers, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." During that same trip, he also told senior staffers that the U.S. Marines who died there were "suckers" for getting killed. Trump didn't even want to be seen with veteran amputees because, he said "it doesn't look good for me."

More ominously, Trump said high-ranking military members who disagreed with his political beliefs should be executed.

This is the total disregard Trump has for the honorable men and women who sacrifice their bodies, family time, and even their lives for an American cause greater than themselves.

President Biden, however, has been concerned with veterans for decades. His late son, an Army officer, died of cancer that the president believes came from his exposure to chemicals in wartime burn pits. That loss has driven a very personal commitment to the welfare of military members. While serving as president, Biden has signed more than two dozen laws that benefit veterans, including the PACT Act, which expanded the benefits and services for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals.

Working with partners in Congress, Biden's administration also expanded veterans access to health care and child care; took steps to curtail veteran homelessness (and asked Congress to triple its housing vouchers to needy veterans); lowered health care costs for World War II veterans; and expanded support to military suicide prevention programs (and established the 988 Veterans Crisis Line).

Biden has demonstrated his commitment to veterans' welfare throughout his decades of public service. His reelection would genuinely benefit military members and veterans.

Trump has shown only contempt.

~Ronald Lackey, Retired Major, U.S. Air Force

[lost-carcosa]

After allowing Elon Musk and his college-aged Department of Government Efficiency groupies to root around federal agencies for weeks, the Trump administration apparently still hasn’t uncovered any fraud or abuse.

During a press hearing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt waved around screenshots of “contracts upon contracts” that she claimed DOGE had “found” in the government. But as she ran through a list of the financial arrangements—some of which had to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts from previous administrations—it became clear that the DOGE-targeted contracts didn’t constitute fraud but instead were simply “against the president’s policies and his America-first agenda.”

“Are all those things you just mentioned fraud? Or are they just contrary to the president’s policies?” pressed CBS News senior White House reporter Jennifer Jacobs.

“I would argue that all of these things are fraudulent,” Leavitt responded. “They are wasteful, and they are an abuse of the American taxpayer’s dollar. This is not what the government should be spending money on. They are contrary to the president’s priorities and agenda.”

Having federal line items that go against the grain of the president’s agenda doesn’t constitute fraud. Yet instead of providing legitimate receipts to back up that claim, Leavitt took the populist route, beckoning the American people to judge the media for daring to question Trump’s agenda. Leavitt further implored journalists to consider the Trump administration’s rationale, even though Musk has been granted free license to shrink federal oversight under the apparently faux banner of uprooting fraud.

“If anybody in here wants to argue that the federal government is not fraudulent, be my guest because I think that the American people at home would beg to differ,” Leavitt said.

So far, Musk’s team has gained access to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Education, Commerce, Defense, and Energy Departments, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and, among other agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration. (That last one comes during a period in which the U.S. has experienced an unprecedented uptick in critical aviation accidents, with four deadly crashes taking place since Trump took office. Before 2025, the last deadly crash involving a U.S. airliner was in 2009).

Through all these agencies, Musk has extracted sensitive data on hundreds of millions of Americans, including their Social Security numbers, home addresses, and medical histories.

[the-eternal-quest-for-balance]

Dear OMG Supporter,

BREAKING: A Senior Meta Engineer revealed that the platform uses shadowbanning to suppress posts critical of figures like Vice President Kamala Harris, reducing their visibility without notifying users. The engineer also disclosed that Meta has a team dedicated to influencing information flow, with the power to affect election outcomes.

In a revelation captured by O'Keefe Media Group, a senior software engineer at Meta, Jeevan Gyawali, admitted that the platform is actively engaged in suppressing certain content to shape political narratives. During a hidden-camera interview, Gyawali confirmed that Meta employs shadowbanning tactics to demote posts automatically, especially those critical of prominent political figures like Vice President Kamala Harris.

Gyawali explained how posts that challenge Harris, even on personal grounds—such as questioning her fitness for office because she does not have children—are “automatically demoted.” The person who makes such posts will not be notified, but their content will experience a noticeable decline in engagement and visibility.

This demotion process is managed by Meta’s "Integrity Team," which uses a system called "civic classifiers" to determine what content is suppressed, essentially shadowbanning users without their knowledge.

Beyond individual post suppression, Gyawali revealed that Meta has a Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) team dedicated to preventing platform abuse, created in April 2024. This team, according to Gyawali, continuously monitors potential threats and scenarios that could harm Meta’s vision of "protecting democracy."

However, the platform’s definition of protection, as explained by Gyawali, includes demoting or outright censoring content deemed harmful to the political narrative supported by Meta, a tactic Gyawali says is used "100%" of the time.

Gyawali confirmed without hesitation that Meta can indeed sway political outcomes, admitting that Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and CEO of Meta, fully supports this agenda and the platform's political influence, particularly in favor of the Democratic Party.

Democracy !!! Democracy !!!! Trump is going to destroy Democracy !!!

This coming from the cheaters, the frauds, the liars, the ones ACTUALLY destroying Democracy. Communist Democrats, and make no mistake, a big Blue D = Communist. You can't win elections, the true democratic action, one Person, one Vote, without CHEATING.

Democrats destroying the American Republic. No longer can it be denied ! ! !

[channeledhistory]

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is seeking access to the Internal Revenue Service’s highly sensitive taxpayer data system, a source familiar with the move told CNN.

The IRS, which contains private data on millions of Americans’ tax returns, Social Security numbers and banking information, is the latest agency to be targeted by DOGE as it seeks to significantly reduce the size of the federal workforce and root out what it characterizes as waste, fraud and abuse within the government.

Gavin Kliger, a software engineer working under DOGE, is expected to be granted access to the system “imminently,” the source said. He will be based at the IRS for at least 120 days but had not yet been given approval as of 9 p.m. ET Sunday.

Kliger will serve as a senior adviser to the acting IRS commissioner, though the nature of his work at the agency is still unclear. Kliger has the proper security clearance and is expected to sign an agreement requiring that he maintains confidentiality with tax return information and destroys such materials upon leaving the IRS, the source added.

The agreement is part of a broader memorandum of understanding being considered by the IRS that would give DOGE officials widespread access to the agency’s system, including the Integrated Data Retrieval System, or IDRS, which enables IRS employees to access specific taxpayer accounts and their bank information.

The IDRS contains some of the most sensitive financial information on American taxpayers. According to the IRS, the system is designed to prevent taxpayers’ information from getting into the wrong hands — and from unauthorized IRS employees from making changes to taxpayers’ data. Authorized employees can access taxpayers’ sensitive data only to accomplish a specific and official task.

“The taxpayer must be protected from unauthorized disclosure of information concerning his/her account and unauthorized changes to it,” the IRS says in its employee manual. “The IDRS user employee must be protected from other personnel using his/her identification to access or make changes to an account.”

Included in the data that the IDRS allows authorized employees to access is Social Security numbers, bank account information, addresses, tax returns and other personally identifying data. It also includes private information about taxpayers. For example, the IDRS includes information about taxpayers’ pending adoptions, so parents can claim dependency exemptions and child care credits.

The protocols are quite strict, preventing IRS employees from accessing their own files or files belonging to spouses, friends, relatives, co-workers or anyone with whom they have personal relationships or business dealings. The IRS also prohibits snooping employees from accessing tax account information to satisfy personal curiosities.

The punishment for improper use of the IDRS includes termination, fine or a prison sentence. An IRS contractor who leaked taxpayer information was sentenced in 2024 to five years in prison.

Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts expressed serious concerns about potential misuse of private taxpayer data in a letter to the IRS on Monday. The senators asked the IRS commissioner to provide details about any plans to allow DOGE members access to internal IRS systems.

[...]

[ivankahasbeentreatedsounfairly]

By Andrew DuehrenAlan RappeportTheodore SchleiferJonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman

The Trump administration pushed out a top Treasury Department official this week after he refused to give Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team access to the government’s vast payment system, part of a bid by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to choke off federal funding.

David Lebryk, a career civil servant who oversaw the more than one billion payments that the federal government makes every year, was placed on administrative leave this week after resisting requests from Mr. Musk’s lieutenants, according to people familiar with the circumstances, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive internal dynamics.

On Friday, Mr. Lebryk — who had briefly served as acting Treasury secretary until the confirmation of Scott Bessent this week — told colleagues that he would retire after more than 35 years of working for the government.

Mr. Lebryk’s abrupt departure raises questions about whether Mr. Musk will now gain control of the payment system — and, if so, how he could use it. His exit also underscores the extraordinary amount of power that Mr. Musk, whose current employment status inside the federal government remains unclear, is accumulating at the opening of the second Trump administration.

Mr. Musk, a billionaire, has dispatched aides across the bureaucracy to try to radically reduce spending. He has told Trump administration officials that he aims to take control of the Treasury computers used to complete payments in order to identify fraud and abuse, according to three people familiar with his remarks.

The Treasury Department executes payments on behalf of agencies across the government, disbursing $5.4 trillion, or 88 percent of all federal payments, in the last fiscal year. The system is run out of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, a little-known but critical office that is responsible for getting money to Social Security recipients, government employees, contractors and others.

Former Treasury officials said they were not aware of a political appointee ever seeking access to details of the payment system, which includes reams of sensitive personal information about American citizens. Control of the system could give Mr. Musk’s allies the ability to unilaterally cut off money intended for federal workers, bondholders and companies, and open a new front in the Trump administration’s efforts to halt federal payments.

“The fiscal service performs some of the most vital functions in government,” Mr. Lebryk wrote to his colleagues in an email announcing his retirement on Friday, according to a copy of the email viewed by The New York Times. “Our work may be unknown to most of the public, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t exceptionally important.” He did not respond to requests for comment.

The White House and a representative of Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency did not return requests for comment.

A spokesman for the Treasury Department declined to comment.

The departure of Mr. Lebryk, which was reported earlier by The Washington Post, and the potential for interference with the nation’s payment systems comes at a precarious moment for the U.S. economy. The Treasury Department had to begin using so-called extraordinary measures last week to prevent a government default after a suspension of the debt limit expired. The ability to use those accounting tools could expire as soon as this summer, and it will be critical for the department to accurately track federal expenditures.

Mr. Musk has told senior administration officials that he believes the federal government is sending out hundreds of billions to people who either do not exist or are fraudsters, according to people familiar with his remarks. The Government Accountability Office estimated in a report that the government made $236 billion in improper payments — three-quarters of which were overpayments — across 71 federal programs during the 2023 fiscal year.

Mr. Musk has been fixated on the Treasury system as a key to cutting federal spending. Representatives from his government efficiency initiative began asking Mr. Lebryk about source code information related to the nation’s payment system during the presidential transition in December, according to three people familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Lebryk raised the request to Treasury officials at the time, noting that it was the type of proprietary information that should not be shared with people who did not work for the federal government. Members of the departing Biden administration were alarmed by the request, according to people familiar with their thinking. The people making the requests were on the Trump landing team at the Treasury Department, according to a current White House official.

The inquiries into the Treasury Department’s payment processes have been led by the Musk allies Baris Akis and Tom Krause. Mr. Akis, a relative newcomer to Mr. Musk’s circle, is a venture capitalist who during the transition has focused on the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.

Last weekend, Mr. Krause, the chief executive of a Silicon Valley company, Cloud Software Group, again pressed Mr. Lebryk for access to the system, according to two people familiar with the request. Mr. Lebryk declined, the people said.

Mr. Akis and Mr. Krause did not respond to requests for comment.

After the request, Mr. Lebryk sought meetings with Mr. Bessent, the agency’s new secretary, and the Treasury Department’s new chief of staff, Dan Katz, to discuss the situation, according to the people familiar with the matter.

After meetings with Mr. Katz and Mr. Bessent, Mr. Lebryk was placed on administrative leave, two people said. Other career officials will oversee the payment processes after Mr. Lebryk’s departure.

“For many years, Dave Lebryk’s leadership has helped to make our payment systems reliable and trusted at home and abroad,” said Jacob Lew, a Treasury secretary under President Barack Obama. “The American people should not have to worry about political interference when it comes to receiving Social Security and other payments the fiscal service makes.”

Mr. Akis has made similar inquiries at the I.R.S. about its information technology as part of an effort to automate tax collection, according to people familiar with the matter. During the transition, Mr. Akis asked to visit a major fiscal service center in Kansas City, but was rejected by agency officials, one of the people said.

It is not clear if Mr. Akis has an official government role.

Mr. Krause is now working at the Treasury Department and has an employee badge, according to three people familiar with the matter. Mr. Krause has also led interviews of current U.S. Digital Service employees, many of whom are expecting to be laid off after the technology unit was renamed the U.S. DOGE Service.

The decision by Mr. Musk’s efficiency team to integrate into the federal government, rather than set up an outside body, has been driven by its view that burrowing into the existing U.S. Digital Service will give it greater visibility into federal spending. That, Mr. Musk’s team believes, could give it the ability to take drastic action over spending by giving it access to computer systems across the government.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Mr. Musk pledged to secure about $2 trillion in spending cuts. More recently, he has halved that goal. On Thursday evening, Mr. Musk claimed on X that cutting $1 trillion “would mean no inflation” because of anticipated economic growth. “Super big deal,” he said.

[yourreddancer]

Heather Cox Richardson

January 25, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Jan 26

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Post that Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.

Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.

[misfitwashere]

January 25, 2025 

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 26

We have all earned a break for this week, but as some of you have heard me say, I write these letters with an eye to what a graduate student will need to know in 150 years. Two things from last night belong in the record of this time, not least because they illustrate President Donald Trump’s deliberate demonstration of dominance over Republican lawmakers.

Last night the Senate confirmed former Fox News Channel weekend host Pete Hegseth as the defense secretary of the United States of America. As Tom Bowman of NPR notes, since Congress created the position in 1947, in the wake of World War II, every person who has held it has come from a senior position in elected office, industry, or the military. Hegseth has been accused of financial mismanagement at the small nonprofits he directed, has demonstrated alcohol abuse, and paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of sexual assault as part of a nondisclosure agreement. He has experience primarily on the Fox News Channel, where his attacks on “woke” caught Trump’s eye.

The secretary of defense oversees an organization of almost 3 million people and a budget of more than $800 billion, as well as advising the president and working with both allies and rivals around the globe to prevent war. It should go without saying that a candidate like Hegseth could never have been nominated, let alone confirmed, under any other president. But Republicans caved, even on this most vital position for the American people's safety.

The chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker (R-MS), tried to spin Hegseth’s lack of relevant experience as a plus: “We must not underestimate the importance of having a top-shelf communicator as secretary of defense. Other than the president, no official plays a larger role in telling the men and women in uniform, the Congress and the public about the threats we face and the need for a peace-through-strength defense policy.”

Vice President J.D. Vance had to break a 50–50 tie to confirm Hegseth, as Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all the Democrats and Independents in voting no. Hegseth was sworn in early this morning.

That timing mattered. As MSNBC host Rachel Maddow noted, as soon as Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), whose “yes” was secured only through an intense pressure campaign, had voted in favor, President Trump informed at least 15 independent inspectors general of U.S. government departments that they were fired, including, as David Nakamura, Lisa Rein, and Matt Viser of the Washington Post noted, those from “the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.” Most were Trump’s own appointees from his first term, put in when he purged the inspectors general more gradually after his first impeachment.

Project 2025 called for the removal of the inspectors general. Just a week ago Ernst and her fellow Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley co-founded a bipartisan caucus—the Inspector General Caucus—to support those inspectors general. Grassley told Politico in November that he intends to defend the inspectors general.

Congress passed a law in 1978 to create inspectors general in 12 government departments. According to Jen Kirby, who explained inspectors general for Vox in 2020, a movement to combat waste in government had been building for a while, and the fraud and misuse of offices in the administration of President Richard M. Nixon made it clear that such protections were necessary. Essentially, inspectors general are watchdogs, keeping Congress informed of what’s going on within departments.

Kirby notes that when he took office in 1981, President Ronald Reagan promptly fired all the inspectors general, claiming he wanted to appoint his own people. Congress members of both parties pushed back, and Reagan rehired at least five of those he had fired. George H.W. Bush also tried to fire the inspectors general but backed down when Congress backed up their protests that they must be independent.

In 2008, Congress expanded the law by creating the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. By 2010 that council covered 68 offices.

During his first term, in the wake of his first impeachment, Trump fired at least five inspectors general he considered disloyal to him, and in 2022, Congress amended the law to require any president who sought to get rid of an inspector general to “communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Congress called the law the “Securing Inspector General Independence Act of 2022.”

The chair of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, Hannibal “Mike” Ware, responded immediately to the information that Trump wanted to fire inspectors general. Ware recommended that Director of Presidential Personnel Sergio Gor, who had sent the email firing the inspectors general, “reach out to White House Counsel to discuss your intended course of action. At this point, we do not believe the actions taken are legally sufficient to dismiss” the inspectors general, because of the requirements of the 2022 law.

This evening, Nakamura, Rein, and Viser reported in the Washington Postthat Democrats are outraged at the illegal firings and even some Republicans are expressing concern and have asked the White House for an explanation. For his part, Trump said, incorrectly, that firing inspectors general is “a very standard thing to do.” Several of the inspectors general Trump tried to fire are standing firm on the illegality of the order and plan to show up to work on Monday.

The framers of the Constitution designed impeachment to enable Congress to remove a chief executive who deliberately breaks the law, believing that the determination of senators to hold onto their own power would keep them from allowing a president to seize more than the Constitution had assigned him.

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton tried to reassure those nervous about the centralization of power in the new Constitution that no man could ever become a dictator because unlike a king, “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”

But the framers did not anticipate the rise of political parties. Partisanship would push politicians to put party over country and eventually would induce even senators to bow to a rogue president. MAGA Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming told the Fox News Channel today that he is unconcerned about Trump’s breaking the law written just two years ago. “Well, sometimes inspector generals don't do the job that they are supposed to do. Some of them deserve to be fired, and the president is gonna make wise decisions on those.”

There is one more story you’ll be hearing more about from me going forward, but it is important enough to call out tonight because it indicates an important shift in American politics. In an Associated Press/NORC poll released yesterday, only 12% of those polled thought the president relying on billionaires for policy advice is a good thing. Even among Republicans, only 20% think it’s a good thing.

Since the very earliest days of the United States, class was a central lens through which Americans interpreted politics. And yet, in the 1960s, politicians began to focus on race and gender, and we talked very little about class. Now, with Trump embracing the world’s richest man, who invested more than $250 million in his election, and with Trump making it clear through the arrangement of the seating at his inauguration that he is elevating the interests of billionaires to the top of his agenda, class appears to be back on the table.

—

[evamadeln]

Willow Domestic Violence Center awarded $1.5 million [Video]

[darkmaga-returns]

Today’s book is:

Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC by Kevin Barry

Vaccine Whistleblower is a gripping account of four legally recorded phone conversations between Dr. Brian Hooker, a scientist investigating autism and vaccine research, and Dr. William Thompson, a senior scientist in the vaccine safety division at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Thompson, who is still employed at the CDC under protection of the federal Whistleblower Protection Act, discloses a pattern of data manipulation, fraud, and corruption at the highest levels of the CDC, the federal agency in charge of protecting the health of Americans.

Thompson states, “Senior people just do completely unethical, vile things and no one holds them accountable.”

This book nullifies the government’s claims that “vaccines are safe and effective,” and reveals that the government rigged research to cover up the link between vaccines and autism. Scientific truth and the health of American children have been compromised to protect the vaccine program and the pharmaceutical industry.

The financial cost of the CDC’s corruption is staggering. The human cost is incalculable. Vaccine Whistleblower provides context to the implications of Thompson’s revelations and directs the reader to political action.

You can buy the book here (Amazon link).

[brookston]

Holidays 8.21

Holidays

Actuaries Day (India)

Appreciation Day (Elder Scrolls)

Aquino Day (Philippines)

Argonian Day

Ask Questions Day

Bitcoin Infinity Day

Black Indie Authors Day

Buhe (Ethiopia)

Bunny Day (Japan)

Cadillac Day

Crazy Day

Eagle Scout Day

821 Day (Texas)

Festival of Goliath, Parade of Giants begins (Ath, Belgium)

Fête de la Jeunesse (a.k.a. Youth Day; Morocco, Western Sahara)

Good Roads Day

Gospel Day (Micronesia)

Grandfather and Grandson’s Day (Argentina)

ICBM Day

International Day of Mosques

International Day of Remembrance of and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism (UN)

Internet Self-Care Day

Kosrae (Gospel Day; Micronesia)

National Brazilian Blowout Day

National Dreams Are Possible Day

National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day

National Meme Day

National Report Upcoding Fraud Day

National Senior Citizens Day

Ninoy Aquino Day (Philippines)

Officer’s Day (Russia)

Order of the Lone Star Day

Our Lady of Knock

Poet's Day

San Martin Day (Argentina)

Senior Citizens' Day

Six-Row Barley Day (French Republic)

Thiruonam (Parts of India)

World Entrepreneurs’ Day

World Fashion Day

World Goat Day

Youth Day (Morocco)

Food & Drink Celebrations

Beer Institute Day

Grog Day

National Shiraz Day (Australia)

National Spumoni Day

National Sweet Tea Day

Independence & Related Days

Hawaii Statehood Day (Original Date; 1959)

Latituda (Declared; 2006) [unrecognized]

Latvia (Passing of the Constitutional Law on the Status of the Republic of Latvia as a State and Actual Restoration of the Republic of Latvia; 1991)

3rd Wednesday in August

Hump Day [Every Wednesday]

JUVEDERM Day [3rd Wednesday]

Miss Crustacean Hermit Crab Beauty Pageant and Hermit Crab Races (Ocean City, NJ) [3rd Wednesday]

National Medical Dosimetrist Day [3rd Wednesday]

Wacky Wednesday [Every Wednesday]

Wandering Wednesday [3rd Wednesday of Each Month]

Website Wednesday [Every Wednesday]

Wiener Wednesday [3rd Wednesday of Each Month]

Festivals Beginning August 21, 2024

Corn Palace Festival (Mitchell, South Dakota) [thru 8.25]

gamescom (Cologne, Germany) [thru 8.25]

The Great New York State Fair (Syracuse, New York) [thru 9.2]

Hythe Venetian Fete (Hythe, United Kingdom) [thru 8.21]

Idaho County Fair (Cottonwood, Idaho) [thru 8.24]

Pluk de Nacht Film Festival (Amsterdam, Netherlands) [thru 8.31]

Ransom County Fair (Lisbon, North Dakota) [thru 8.25]

Reading and Leeds Festivals (Leeds and Reading, United Kingdom) [thru 8.25]

Tønder Festival (Tønder, Denmark) [thru 8.24]

Victoria Fringe Theatre Festival (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) [thru 9.1]

Feast Days

Abraham of Smolensk (Eastern Orthodox Church)

Albert Irvin (Artology)

Amontons (Positivist; Saint)

Apologise Day (Pastafarian)

Asher Brown Durand (Artology)

Aubrey Beardsley (Artology)

Bernard Ptolemy, Founder of the Olivetans (Christian; Saint)

Blessing Against Jealousy Day (Celtic Book of Days)

Bonosus and Maximilian (Christian; Martyrs)

Broderick Crawford Day (Church of the SubGenius; Saint)

Christian Schad (Artology)

Consualia (Ancient Roman festival to the god of the harvest and stored grain)

Euprepius of Verona (Christian; Saint)

Festival of Consus (God of Good Council; Ancient Rome)

Heraclia (Celebration of Hercules; Ancient Rome; Everyday Wicca)

Jane Francis de Chantal (Christian; Saint)

Jean-Baptiste Greuze (Artology)

Joseph (Muppetism)

Jules Michelet (Writerism)

Luxorius, Cisellus and Camerinus (Christian; Martyrs)

The Magic of Lemon Day (Starza Pagan Book of Days)

Maximilian of Antioch (Christian; Saint)

Menashe Kadishman (Artology)

Narcisse-Virgile Díaz de la Peña (Artology)

Nathaniel Everett Green (Artology)

Our Lady of Knock (Christian; Saint)

Pius X, Pope (Christian; Saint)

Radish Tordia (Artology)

Richard, Bishop of Andria (Christian; Saint)

Robert Stone (Writerism)

Sidonius Apollinaris (Christian; Saint)

Stephen Hillenburg (Artology)

Lucky & Unlucky Days

Prime Number Day: 233 [51 of 72]

Shakku (赤口 Japan) [Bad luck all day, except at noon.]

Tycho Brahe Unlucky Day (Scandinavia) [29 of 37]

Umu Limnu (Evil Day; Babylonian Calendar; 39 of 60)

Unglückstage (Unlucky Day; Pennsylvania Dutch) [22 of 30]

Premieres

Ain’t Misbehaving’, recorded by Fats Waller (Song; 1938)

American Ultra (Film; 2015)

An American Werewolf in London (Film; 1981)

Axe Me Another (Fleischer Popeye Cartoon; 1934)

Bambi (Animated Disney Film; 1942)

Be Here Now, by Oasis (Album; 1997)

Between Meals: An Appetite for Paris, by A.J. Liebling (Memoir; 1959)

Blade (Film; 1998)

A Brief History of Time (Documentary Film; 1992)

Crazy, recorded by Patsy Cline (Song; 1961)

Diesel and Dust, by Midnight Oil (Album; 1987)

Dirty Dancing (Film; 1987)

Dynamite, by BTS (Song; 2020)

Earth Abides, by George R. Stewart (Novel; 1949)

Eve of Destruction, by Barry McGuire (Song; 1965)

Facelift, by Alice In Chains (Album; 1990)

Fireman’s Brawl (Fleischer/Famous Popeye Cartoon; 1953)

First Monday in October (Film; 1981)

House of the Dragon (TV Series; 2022)

How You Remind Me, by Nickelback (Song; 2001)

Inglorious Basterds (Film; 2009)

Kiko and the Honey Bears (Terrytoons Cartoon; 1936)

Life with Fido (Terrytoons Cartoon; 1942)

Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland (Animated Film; 1992)

Motörhead, by Motörhead (Album; 1977)

Next Stoop Wonderland (Film; 1998)

Ready or Not (Film; 2019)

Ritual de lo Habitual, by Jane’s Addiction (Album; 1990)

Run, Run, Sweet Road Runner (WB MM Cartoon; 1965)

Sherman Was Right (Terrytoons Cartoon; 1932)

A Sunbonnet Blue (WB MM Cartoon; 1937)

The Wings of the Dove, by Henry James (Novel; 1902)

Wrongfully Accused (Film; 1998)

Today’s Name Days

Pius (Austria)

Agaton, Pio, Sidonija (Croatia)

Johana (Czech Republic)

Salomon (Denmark)

Sven, Sveno (Estonia)

Soini, Veini (Finland)

Christophe, Grâce, Ombeline (France)

Pia, Oius, Maximilian (Germany)

Hajna, Sémuel (Hungary)

Cristoforo, Pio (Italy)

Janīna, Linda, Sidnejs (Latvia)

Gaudvydas, Joana, Kazė, Kazimiera, Medeinė (Lithuania)

Ragni, Ragnvald (Norway)

Adolf, Adolfa, Adolfina, Alf, Bernard, Emilian, Filipina, Franciszek, Joanna, Kazimiera, Męcimir (Poland)

Jana (Slovakia)

Pío (Spain)

Jon, Jonna (Sweden)

Gianna, Jane, Janelle, Janessa, Janet, Janette, Janice, Janie, Janine, Janiya, Jayne, Shanice, Sheena (USA)

Today is Also…

Day of Year: Day 234 of 2024; 132 days remaining in the year

ISO: Day 3 of Week 34 of 2024

Celtic Tree Calendar: Coll (Hazel) [Day 19 of 28]

Chinese: Month 7 (Ren-Shen), Day 18 (Ding-Si)

Chinese Year of the: Dragon 4722 (until January 29, 2025) [Wu-Chen]

Hebrew: 17 Av 5784

Islamic: 15 Safar 1446

J Cal: 24 Purple; Threesday [24 of 30]

Julian: 8 August 2024

Moon: 94%: Waning Gibbous

Positivist: 9 Gutenberg (9th Month) [Amontons]

Runic Half Month: As (Gods) [Day 14 of 15]

Season: Summer (Day 63 of 94)

Week: 3rd Full Week of August

Zodiac: Leo (Day 31 of 31)

[cesium-sheep]

candidates tilton, cantwell, johnson, larsen, call mention cost of medical care in their candidate statements. candidate stickle makes the entire statement about medicare, though omits the loss of ability when discussing the pandemic, only mentioning loss of life. candidate cale vaguely mentions lifting people out of disability among other things, whatever the fuck that means. candidate combs conspicuously fails to mention witnessing physical illness when discussing personal experiences of homelessness. candidate makayev puts an emphasis on preventive medicine but also alternative medicine. candidate dhingra actively brags about prosecuting medicaid fraud. despite focusing almost exclusively on medical insurance, no candidate for insurance commissioner mentions permanently disabling events or chronic illness, although one mentions "seniors" and they and one other both tell stories of loved ones with severe illness. (others may have brought disability up in various ways as well but some statements I didn't read in their entireties due to early red flags or not being for my district.)

world war 3 seems to be a new popular talking point in this primary, as is fentanyl. one candidate was extremely passionate about child custody reform (in a reasonable direction but incongruously focused for the position in question). emphasis on homelessness and mental illness are still present but significantly down. one candidate randomly throws "sexual assault survivor" into their pathos list? (as well as "grandchild of veterans" bitch everyone of campaigning age is the grandchild (or child) of a veteran there was that whole big Thing right about 2-3 (familial) generations ago remember?) only 1 of the 7 candidates for commissioner of public lands mentions the ecological habitat that covers the other 2/3rds of the state's landmass.

remember that primary elections are a great opportunity to vote with your heart, even if we must vote with our heads in general elections to minimize disaster.

[mariacallous]

Editor's note: The following testimony was presented to the House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations on July 19, 2023.

Chair Van Duyne, Ranking Member Mfume, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Matthew Fiedler, and I am a health economist and a Senior Fellow with the Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution. My research focuses on a range of topics in health care policy, including health care provider payment and health insurance regulation.

My testimony will examine the administrative costs that health care providers incur to interact with health insurers (including both public insurers like Medicare and Medicaid and private insurers), as well as how public policy can reduce those costs. I will make four main points:

Health care providers incur substantial costs to interact with insurers, likely totaling hundreds of billions of dollars per year, costs that are ultimately borne in large part by consumers and taxpayers. Costly activities include negotiating contracts, collecting information about patients’ insurance coverage, obtaining prior authorization for care, submitting claims for payment, and reporting on quality performance. There are likely economies of scale in performing many of these activities, so the associated administrative burdens likely fall more heavily on smaller providers than on larger.

Many administrative processes serve valuable purposes, so efforts to reform them can involve tradeoffs and should be approached thoughtfully. For example, it is essential to have some set of procedures for compensating providers. Similarly, insurers’ prior authorization requirements can prevent delivery of inappropriate services, and audit processes can be effective tools for identifying and deterring fraud.

Certain targeted reforms could reduce administrative burdens with few substantive downsides. One is eliminating Medicare’s Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, which places large reporting burdens on clinicians, with few benefits. Another is replacing the cumbersome arbitration process that is used to determine payment rates for certain out-of- network services under the No Surprises Act with a simpler “benchmark” payment A third is reforming Medicare Advantage’s risk adjustment system to reduce plans’ ability to increase their payments by documenting additional diagnoses.

Standardizing billing, coverage, and quality reporting rules across insurers could generate larger savings but would also present more significant tradeoffs. Changes like these could help address a major reason that administrative burdens are larger in the United States than in other countries: the wide variation in rules across the United States’ many public and private insurers. However, mandating greater standardization would also limit insurers’ ability to tailor rules to their unique circumstances or experiment with novel approaches. Setting rules through a centralized process might also produce rules that are systematically better or worse than current rules.

The remainder of my testimony will examine these points in greater detail.

Read the full testimony here.

[boaringoldguy]

Another success for Free Speech!

ntd.com

US Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Order Blocking White House Social Media Contacts

NTD

6–7 minutes

The Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 9, 2023. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday kept intact a temporary injunction on restrictions that were imposed by lower courts on the Biden administration’s ability to communicate with social media companies over removing content that it deems to be misinformation.

Justice Samuel Alito temporarily placed on hold a preliminary injunction constraining how federal officials and the White House communicate with platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or X, formerly Twitter. Attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana last year filed a lawsuit against the administration and other federal officials, accusing them of censoring conservatives on topics such as the 2020 election or COVID-19 vaccines.

The order Friday will keep the matter on hold until Oct. 20, giving the Supreme Court more time to consider a request from the Biden administration to block the lower court ruling earlier this year that found officials likely coerced the companies into censoring certain posts, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment free speech protections.

Justice Alito first placed a temporary hold on the injunction pending the justices’ review on Sept. 14. That pause lapsed as a lower appeals court reheard the matter. Alito is the justice designated by the court to act on certain matters arising from a group of states including Louisiana, where the lawsuit was first filed.

In July, Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty blocked the Biden administration from communicating with the tech firms, saying that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their lawsuit and said the federal government suppressed views on COVID-19 masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, as well as fraud claims around the 2020 election.

At the time, he warned that “during the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

Later, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals shrunk the lower court’s injunction, but it affirmed that the White House, Surgeon General’s office, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FBI, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) cannot communicate with the tech firms relating to content moderation.

“In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment,” the appeals judges wrote at the time.

“The platforms’ censorship decisions were made under policies that CISA has pressured them into adopting and based on CISA’s determination of the veracity of the flagged information,” the appeals court order added. “Thus, CISA likely significantly encouraged the platforms’ content-moderation decisions and thereby violated the First Amendment.”

“On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes,” the GOP members of Congress wrote in their filing.

Response

An emergency filing from the Department of Justice (DOJ) last month asked the high court to allow officials to respond to online posts that they allege pose a danger to public health. The DOJ had argued that federal officials have to be able to respond to those posts for national security reasons as well.

“Under the injunction, the Surgeon General, the White House Press Secretary, and many other senior presidential aides risk contempt if their public statements on matters of policy cross the ill-defined lines drawn by the Fifth Circuit,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote for the DOJ. “CDC officials run the same risk if they accurately answer platforms’ questions about public health. And FBI agents risk being hauled into court if they flag content posted by terrorists or disinformation disseminated by covert malign foreign actors.”

The order handed down by Judge Doughty, she argued, was “vastly overbroad” and “covers thousands of federal officers and employees, and it applies to communications with and about all social media platforms.”

The case represents one of numerous legal battles underway pitting free speech against content moderation on the internet, with many Democrats and liberals issuing warnings of platforms’ posts about public health, fraud, and vaccines. Republicans have accused those platforms of censoring their viewpoints.

In their lawsuit filed in 2022, the two Republican attorneys general for Missouri and Louisiana wrote that content related to Hunter Biden’s laptop published initially by the New York Post two weeks before the 2020 election was also blocked by Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms.

They also alleged that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms under the threat of a possible antitrust lawsuit or allegedly threatened to change federal laws that shield those firms from lawsuits relating to users’ posts.

Reuters contributed to this report.

From The Epoch Times