Kamala Harris tells Colbert that the US system is ‘broken'
Tribune News Service
In her first interview since losing the election to President Donald Trump and leaving office, former Vice President Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert on 'The Late Show' that her decision not to run for California governor was more 'basic' than saving herself for a 'different office' — which is to say, another run for president in 2028. After years of being a 'devout public servant,' Harris said in the interview, set to air Thursday night, she just doesn't want to be 'in the system' right now. 'Recently I made the decision that I just — for now — I don't want to go back in the system,' she said. 'I think it's broken.'
She said that was not to take away from the important work being done every day by 'so many good people who are public servants,' such as teachers, firefighters, police officers and scientists.
'It's not about them,' she said. 'But you know, I believe, and I always believed, that as fragile as our democracy is, our systems would be strong enough to defend our most fundamental principles. And I think right now that they're not as strong as they need to be.' She said she instead wants to travel the country and talk to Americans in a setting that isn't 'transactional, where I'm asking for their vote.' Colbert said to hear Harris — whom he called 'very qualified for the presidency' — say that the American system is broken was 'harrowing.'
'Well, but it's also evident, isn't it?' Harris replied, to applause from the studio audience. The interview came on the heels of Harris' announcements this week that she is not running for California governor and is releasing a memoir about her short, whirlwind presidential campaign following President Joe Biden's decision to drop from the race, and it was a big get for Colbert in what appears to be his final chapter on late-night TV.
CBS, blaming financial concerns across late night, announced July 17 that the 2025-2026 season of 'The Late Show' would be its last. The announcement followed Colbert sharply criticizing Paramount Global's $16-million settlement with Trump over a CBS News '60 Minutes' interview with Harris during the presidential campaign, which Trump accused the venerable news show of manipulating to make her look better. Paramount Global was at the time seeking a major merger with Skydance Media and needed the Trump administration's approval, which it ultimately got. Just days before the announcement that his show would be ending, Colbert described the '60 Minutes' settlement as a bribe to get the merger deal done.
All that caused many observers and allies of Colbert to speculate that the cancellation of the show was political in nature. The Writers Guild of America, for example, said the company appeared to be 'sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration.' Trump said it was 'not true' that he was 'solely responsible for the firing of Stephen Colbert,' and that the 'reason he was fired was a pure lack of TALENT' and that Colbert's show was losing Paramount millions of dollars a year. 'And it was only going to get WORSE!' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. Paramount has said the decision was 'not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount,' though some polling has suggested many Americans don't believe the company.
It's unclear whether Harris considered any of that in granting Colbert her first interview since leaving office. However, it would almost certainly not have been her only reason.
Colbert is liberal and seen as a friendly interviewer by Democrats. During Thursday's interview, the late-night host heaped praise on Harris. After saying it was 'harrowing' to hear she feels the system is broken, he asked whether she was giving up fighting. Harris said she was not. 'I am always going to be part of the fight,' Harris said. 'That is not going to change.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
a few seconds ago
- Gulf Today
EPA proposes to end US fight against climate change
Jody Freeman, Tribune News Service President Donald Trump has been trying to eliminate climate regulations since his first day back in office when he signed an executive order declaring the primacy of fossil fuels. But his administration's most radical step came last week, when the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a proposal that would rescind its 2009 'endangerment finding' — the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming and harm human health and well-being. This isn't just another regulatory rollback. It's an assault on the foundation of all federal climate policy. The endangerment finding originally applied to vehicle emissions, but it also underpins every major federal climate rule in America: car and truck emissions standards, power plant regulations and limits on oil and gas facilities. By removing this cornerstone, Trump's EPA is repudiating federal authority to limit greenhouse gases, our most powerful tool for fighting climate change. The irony is that no industry asked for this extreme step. Car makers need stable federal rules to compete globally. Power companies have invested billions in renewable energy, which regulatory uncertainty puts at risk. Even most oil and gas companies support a national approach to limiting methane. Companies may stay quiet to avoid crossing a vengeful administration, but they know climate change is real and that some federal regulation makes business sense. As the federal government retreats, states such as California will try to fill the void. But Trump is trying to block them too, directing the Justice Department to challenge state climate policies. With its cap-and-trade program, renewable energy standards and clean transportation incentives, California is helping to cut harmful emissions, and it could do more. Yet even the most ambitious state measures can't substitute for the national standards needed to tackle a problem the size of climate change. The legal foundation the administration is attacking seemed unshakeable. The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate air pollutants that endanger human health and welfare. In 2007, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and that the endangerment decision must be based on science. Two years later, after the EPA reviewed studies by the National Climate Assessment, the National Research Council and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it found that greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are a danger, pointing to higher temperatures, worse air quality, extreme weather events, spreading drought and more food- and water-borne pathogens. Following the process set out in the Clean Air Act, the agency then established national emission standards for the sources in each sector of the US economy that contribute to this problem. To unravel all of this, the Trump administration proposal offers a medley of strained legal and scientific arguments. First, it claims that greenhouse gases are not pollutants because they have global, not local, effects. This argument is hard to square with the Supreme Court's ruling to the contrary, but they are trying it anyway. The proposal also asserts that US emissions don't contribute to harms from climate change because climate impacts are too remote and American emissions are too small a share of the global total to matter. The first point demands a direct link between U.S. emissions and specific climate impacts, which is impossible to prove given that the effects of climate change are the result of global pollution from numerous sources. The second point rests on a contrived method for calculating emissions piecemeal, which makes them appear vanishingly small. No category of sources, whether cars or power plants, would produce a large enough share of greenhouse gases to justify regulation under this approach. It's a test designed to be impossible to pass. (Studies show, to the contrary, that every ton of emissions avoided counts when it comes to reducing climate risks, and that even incremental reductions bring significant public health and economic gains.) The proposal goes on to attack the scientific basis for the endangerment finding, calling it unreliable based largely on a report from the Department of Energy written by five handpicked scientists known for their outlier views. The report asserts, among other things, that global warming is on balance more beneficial than harmful, that cold temperatures are the greater threat and that extreme weather events are not worse than they have been historically. To say that such claims defy the consensus is an understatement. Relying on a commissioned report by a closed group looks especially suspect given that Trump disbanded the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated periodic review conducted by hundreds of climate scientists and involving more than a dozen government agencies, which has warned of climate dangers in five reports since 2000. The proposal also folds policy objections into the scientific assessment, asserting that regulating greenhouse gases simply costs too much and accomplishes too little. But this muddles the issues. Whether climate change is harmful is a purely scientific assessment. How stringently to regulate is a separate question that must weigh both costs and benefits. On that score, the proposal's cost analysis is highly skewed, citing the burdens of regulation while ignoring the substantial public health and economic benefits of limiting warming. In all, the proposal's scattershot justifications seem designed to offer the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court — where the issue will likely land — a variety of ways to agree. After all, the five members of the Massachusetts vs. EPA majority have retired or died, while three of the four dissenters remain. The current court has steadily limited that decision's reach by narrowing the EPA's authority. Given their recent rulings, the justices could well reject the proposal's most far-fetched arguments while concluding that the EPA simply has broad discretion not to regulate greenhouse gases. Even if the administration ultimately loses in court, it wins by paralysing climate action for years. As EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin put it in announcing the proposal, the administration is 'driving a dagger through the heart of climate change religion.' But climate change isn't a religion — it's physics and chemistry. And science doesn't care about politics. We can't solve climate change with regulation alone. But we certainly can't solve it by pretending the problem doesn't exist. The administration's assault on climate action won't change the evidence or reality of climate change. As scientists have predicted, storms are growing more intense, heat waves more deadly, wildfires more destructive. We spend billions annually on disaster response while other countries surge ahead in clean energy innovation and manufacturing. China now dominates solar panel and electric vehicle production; Europe leads in offshore wind. The question isn't whether we'll eventually return to responsible climate policy — we will because we must. The question is how much time we'll lose, and how much damage we'll suffer, while politics masquerades as good policy.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Trump imposes additional 25% tariff on goods from India
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday to place an additional 25% tariff on India for its purchases of Russian oil, bringing the combined tariffs imposed by the United States on its ally to 50%. US President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Wednesday imposing an additional 25% tariff on goods from India, saying the country directly or indirectly imported Russian oil. The additional tariffs mean India will face the highest levy along with Brazil, putting it at a significant disadvantage against regional competitors such as Vietnam an The tariffs would go into effect 21 days after the signing of the order, meaning that both India and Russia might have time to negotiate with the administration on the import taxes. Trump's moves could scramble the economic trajectory of India, which until recently was seen as an alternative to China by American companies looking to relocate their manufacturing. China also buys oil from Russia, but it was not included in the order signed by the Republican president. As part of a negotiating period with Beijing, Trump has placed 30% tariffs on goods from China, a rate that is smaller than the combined import taxes with which he has threatened New Delhi. Trump had previewed for reporters on Tuesday that the tariffs would be coming, saying the US had a meeting with Russia on Wednesday as the Trump administration tries to end the war in Ukraine. "We're going to see what happens," Trump said about his tariff plans. "We'll make that determination at that time." 'UNFORTUNATE' The Indian government on Wednesday called the additional tariffs "unfortunate." "We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said in a statement, adding that India would take all actions necessary to protect its interests. Jaiswal said India has already made its stand clear that the country's imports were based on market factors and were part of an overall objective of ensuring energy security for its 1.4 billion people. This combination of pictures shows, L-R, Narendra Modi, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. AFP In 2024, the US ran a $45.8 billion trade deficit in goods with India, meaning America imported more from India than it exported, according to the US Census Bureau. American consumers and businesses buy pharmaceutical drugs, precious stones and textiles and apparel from India, among other goods. At the world's largest country, India represented a way for the US to counter China's influence in Asia. But India has not supported the Ukraine-related sanctions by the US and its allies on Moscow even as India's leaders have maintained that they want peace. The US and China are currently in negotiations on trade, with Washington imposing a 30% tariff on Chinese goods and facing a 10% retaliatory tax from Beijing on American products. Socialist Unity Centre of India activists burn an effigy of Donald Trump during a rally to mark the 80th anniversary of the world's first atomic bomb attack, on Hiroshima at the end of WWII, in Kolkata. AFP The planned tariffs on India contradict past efforts by the Biden administration and other nations in the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations that encouraged India to buy cheap Russian oil through a price cap imposed in 2022. The nations collectively capped Russian oil a $60 per barrel at a time when prices in the market were meaningfully higher, The intent was to deprive the Kremlin of revenue to fund its war in Ukraine, forcing the Russian government either to sell its oil at a discount or divert money for a costly alternative shipping network. The price cap was rolled out to equal parts skepticism and hopefulness that the policy would stave off Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The cap has required shipping and insurance companies to refuse to handle oil shipments above the cap, though Russia has been able to evade the cap by shipping oil on a "shadow fleet" of old vessels using insurers and trading companies located in countries that are not enforcing sanctions. But oil prices have fallen with a barrel trading on Wednesday morning at $65.84, up 1% on the day. Agencies
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Issues over new work rules for Medicaid recipients
Katheryn Houghton, Bram Sable-Smith, Tribune News Service When President Donald Trump signed a law adding work requirements for some Medicaid recipients, he may have undercut lawmakers in at least 14 states who were designing their own plans, according to health industry observers. Georgia is the only state with a work requirement in place for Medicaid, but several states have been pursuing such a policy for years, only to be blocked by courts or, most recently, the Biden administration. Some seek state-specific touches to the new rules. Others aim to implement work requirements before the federal law takes effect at the end of 2026. These states' moves and Trump's massive tax-and-spending law share one demand: To keep their Medicaid health coverage, adults who can work must prove they're logging a minimum number of hours at a job or school, or else qualify for one of the few exemptions. But now, states that jumped ahead need to ensure their proposals, which require federal approval, don't stray too far from Trump's law. 'The statute sets both the floor and ceiling' for work requirements, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor with George Washington University. South Dakota, for example, announced in July that it would not submit an application for work requirements as previously planned amid concerns that the state's laxer rules would not be allowed under the new federal law. The state's Department of Social Services secretary had warned that working on a state proposal while the federal rules are being hashed out could be 'an exercise in futility.' Arkansas' plan, on the other hand, is more stringent than the federal law. There are no exemptions to its work requirements in the application, which is pending with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Arizona's proposal also includes something that's not in the federal law: a ban on 'able-bodied adults' receiving Medicaid benefits for longer than five years total in their lives. Arkansas and Arizona government officials said they were working with federal officials to square their plans with the new standards. Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services, said the department is analysing how the new federal standards interact with state waivers. The federal health department must release rules by next June that outline how states are to implement work requirements, according to Elizabeth Hinton, who has been tracking such waivers as part of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. 'We don't exactly know what that will cover,' Hinton said. It's unclear how federal officials will respond to the states' requests, she added, but 'we are aware that some folks think there is no wiggle room here.' States can tweak their Medicaid programs through what are known as demonstration waivers, which are subject to federal approval. The waivers are designed to test new ideas in policy gray areas. The states that have filed or plan to file such applications with work requirements include Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. Congressional Republicans who passed the budget reconciliation bill left room for states to use waivers to fast-track the national standards. Tara Sklar, a professor leading the University of Arizona's Health Law & Policy Program, said she expects states seeking certain stricter requirements to have a chance of approval, while more lenient ones may face denials. Federal officials may look favorably on Arizona's plan, Sklar said, as a five-year lifetime Medicaid limit is different from work requirements. Even if the federal government greenlights stricter work requirements than the federal law calls for, those programs are likely to face legal challenges, she added. The federal law includes an 80-hour-per-month minimum for work or education, with exemptions for certain adults, including people who are medically frail and parents with young, dependent children. Montana is the first state to draft a waiver application since Congress finalised national work requirements. State lawmakers first approved work requirements — called 'community engagement' standards under the state plan — in 2019, but the state's application stalled through the end of the first Trump term and the Biden administration. After Trump was elected again, Montana lawmakers lifted the 2025 expiration date of its Medicaid expansion program, making permanent the program that covered more than 76,000 adults in April, with the expectation that the Trump administration would approve work requirements. In mid-July, state officials released their draft plan to make that a reality 'as soon as is practicable.' The Montana plan largely aligns with the federal law, but it would create additional exemptions, including for people who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence. Republican state Sen. Gayle Lammers said work requirements that also protect such people who need Medicaid were a big part of persuading legislators to keep the expansion program. At the time, officials didn't know where the federal government would land on work requirements. And now, Lammers said, it makes sense for Montana to stick to its plan. 'The state should have a say,' Lammers said. 'We're very independent, and everyone is different.' In South Carolina, state officials are seeking to roll out work requirements for a limited number of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. South Carolina is one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and yet the state submitted a request with the federal government in June for a partial Medicaid expansion that includes a work requirement component that largely reflects the new federal standards. In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called South Carolina's proposal 'a state-specific solution.' The only state with an active work requirement program now wants to scale it back and awaits federal approval to do so. 'Georgia Pathways to Coverage' expires at the end of September unless CMS greenlights an extension of the program with a key change: requiring enrollees to document once a year that they're working, not monthly. That's a pivot away from the program's initial design but also differs from the new federal rules, which call for checks every six months. Fiona Roberts, a spokesperson for Georgia's Medicaid agency, said the state is still waiting to hear whether it needs to alter its plan. So Georgia is among the states in limbo, awaiting guidance from the federal government.
