Latest news with #CaseyMeans
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Why Dems Have a Secret Super-Spreading Epidemic: Trump Envy
Senior-level Democrats across the country are facing an epidemic. Some cases are benign, but in others it is quite acute, with symptoms resembling insanity. And in every instance, unless properly treated the consequences can be severe—not just for Democrats but for the whole country. The disease is Trump-envy. And according to the best minds at the Department of Health and Human Services—which is admittedly setting the bar pretty low these days—there is no known vaccine. Of course, that's their response to everything so best to take it with a grain of salt. Or, per our new surgeon general nominee Casey Means, perhaps a microdose of shrooms? Nonetheless, the disease is real. I've seen it myself up close. It's not pretty. It is important to be able to distinguish between the milder forms of this 'mind virus,' which have some symptoms which are actually beneficial, and the more severe forms, which can have you talking like a CNN political consultant overnight. I've witnessed the former even among close friends and respected colleagues. These are smart people with lengthy public service careers and a proven dedication to our national interests. They understand the threat Trump poses to our democracy and to our standing in the world; his corruption, his racism, misogyny and general odiousness. In other words, their reasoning powers are unimpaired. But here's what I have heard from them. Often even those who served at high levels in the Biden Administration and were deeply loyal to our former president will say, sotto voce, 'I wish that we could have acted as decisively as Trump does.' Or, 'We would really be better off if we could keep our party in line the way he does.' Or, 'Yes, he may be a dictator, gutting the constitution, and stripping away our human rights but we should have taken more aggressive steps to reduce the size of some bloated cabinet departments too.' (Yes, some DC-lifers get wistful about bureaucratic reorganizations. It's a sign of a different disease. But let's leave that for another column.) Sometimes their begrudging appreciation for what Trump has done is more specifically policy-driven. Many have come to the view that Democrats should have been tougher on immigration. They wouldn't have gone as far as Trump has done. But in retrospect they think that we would have been better off if Biden had been as tough on immigration as say, America's toughest president on the issue, Barack Obama—who deported people at twice the current rate being achieved by Trump. Many top national security professionals with whom I have spoken also appreciated the swiftness of Trump's decision to change America's approach to Syria in ways that might give the new government in that country a chance. They were happy to see Trump give the cold shoulder to Netanyahu during his recent Middle East trip. They were glad to see him moving toward a nuclear deal with Iran and actively promoting AI leadership in the US. Yes, they'll be the first to admit, the Syria decision may have been premature. Yes, Trump's chill with Netanyahu is playing out alongside a continuation of Biden's policy in support of war crimes in Gaza. Yes, it was Trump who blew up the original Iran deal that he now seems intent on putting back into place (in some form or another). And yes, it may be that Trump's stance on AI is influenced by the interests of some of his big donors. But nonetheless, veterans of the last Democratic administration are saying—quietly, behind closed doors—that they appreciate some of what Trump has been doing even as the excoriate much of the rest. And while such open-mindedness can be dangerous if it loses its moorings in facts and morality, a willingness to admit when the opposing side gets something right, even if it happens infrequently, is pretty healthy. What is downright dangerous is when Trump envy takes over the organs which directly control political ambition. If you don't know what I mean, turn on any cable news channel where you will hear chin-stroking political greybeards positing that the only way forward for Democrats is to mimic Trump—finding the party's own Joe Rogan, rebuilding its relationship with young men, maybe building out a few migrant detention camps, but more comfortable. Maybe with some bottled water and wifi? Never mind that a left-wing Rogan-stein is a terrible idea. That there are a lot more sensible young voters concerned about issues like climate change or gun control or having an economic future or control over their own bodies than there are Three Percenter gamers who might switch sides. That Trump is already alienating many who voted for him and the best thing Democrats can do is shine a light on the pain his presidency is causing—and underscore that basic principles like creating opportunity, promoting tolerance, helping those who can't help themselves and defending the rule of law are precisely the right agenda for the moment. Those suffering from acute Trump envy have lost their bearings. Yes, Democrats need to evolve. Yes, there are things we could learn from Trump's victories—like embracing patriotism and strength. But we should not forget that over the past thirty years Democrats have won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. That's seven of the last nine elections. Yes, we have to win the electoral vote but the prospects look very good in 2026 and 2028. Furthermore, the Democrats who understand Trump's true strengths—clear communication, speaking in terms his base can understand—are out there. As it happens, they are not the ones triangulating victories and offering to meet fascism halfway (yes, I mean you Gavin Newsom). They are people with the one gift politicians can't hire a consultant to teach them: authenticity. Of course, many of these that the Trump-envy sufferers are targeting most for criticism are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the strongest, clearest, most effective voices in the Democratic Party now. Such criticism is a big mistake. AOC gets it. That said, if AOC is not for you, there are other prospective candidates who have properly learned the lessons of the past few years without completely going off their heads—like J.B. Pritzker or Gretchen Whitmer or Jasmine Crockett or Wes Moore. What is important is this: In politics there is no cure for some degree of envy toward those who have actually won. It's the nature of the beast. But too much envy can result in losing touch with reality—and with your base; with who you are and why you are in politics in the first place. For every Democrat at the top levels of the party, and even for those of us whose role is not to strategize but to vote, to donate, to work for wins in the years ahead, it is vital we learn how to tell the difference.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pressed on his new student visa policy, Trump seems unaware of basic details
As the intersection of the Trump administration's offensive against immigrants and higher education rests a misguided new policy. As NBC News reported, the president's team this week 'stopped scheduling new interviews for international students seeking visas to study in the United States,' as the State Department prepares a new effort to screen students' social media accounts. Evidently, students found to have expressed the 'wrong' ideas will be excluded from American colleges and universities. A day after his administration advanced this policy, Donald Trump was pressed for an explanation. It went badly — not because the president offered a weak defense, but because he didn't seem to know what the reporter was talking about. Asked specifically when his administration might resume interviews for foreign student visas, Trump responded, 'On what?' Reminded that she was asking about foreign student visas, Trump asked, 'For the French?' possibly in reference to the reporter's accent. When he eventually figured out what the question was about, he offered an evasive 'we're gonna see,' before changing the subject and whining anew about Harvard. Watching the exchange, it was hard not to get the impression that he simply didn't know about his administration's new policy on foreign student visas — which has proven to be a familiar problem in this White House. Earlier this month, for example, less than 24 hours after he nominated Dr. Casey Means to serve as the nation's next surgeon general, the president conceded that he didn't know who Casey Means is. A day earlier, amid reports that the administration was also planning to expand its deportations agenda to Libya, Trump was pressed on the policy. 'I don't know,' he responded. 'You'll have to ask the Department of Homeland Security.' The same week, NBC News aired Trump's latest appearance on 'Meet the Press,' and when host Kristen Welker asked whether everyone in the United States is entitled to due process, the president replied, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.' When Welker reminded her guest about the Fifth Amendment, Trump again said, 'I don't know.' As part of the same exchange, Welker went on to say, '[D]on't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?' Once again, Trump answered, 'I don't know.' As the interview continued, the host asked whether anyone in his administration is in contact with El Salvador about returning Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. 'I don't know,' the president said. 'You'd have to ask the attorney general that question." Around the same time, during a White House meeting with members of the World Cup task force, a reporter asked Trump about Russia having been banned from competing in next year's FIFA World Cup tournament. 'I didn't know that. Is that right?' Trump responded. A day later, fielding questions in the Oval Office, Trump was asked whether he agreed with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's comments about possible tariff exemptions for certain family consumer goods. 'I don't know, I'll think about it,' the president said. 'I don't know. I really don't.' Around the same time, a reporter reminded Trump that JD Vance said Russia was asking for too much to end the war in Ukraine. 'When did he say that?' the president asked. Reminded that the vice president had made the comments hours earlier, Trump added, 'Well, it's possible that's right. He may know some things.' In case that weren't quite enough, at the same Q&A, Trump also said he had no idea that Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina had announced his opposition to Ed Martin's U.S. attorney nomination a day earlier. In April, Time magazine asked Trump how much the U.S. government is paying El Salvador to imprison immigrants. 'I don't know,' the president responded. Asked if he approved the payments, the Republican added, 'No, I didn't.' A month earlier, Trump was asked about four U.S. soldiers who'd gone missing during a NATO training exercise in Lithuania, and the president was clueless. Asked about the apparent assassination of a Russian general, Trump again had no idea what the reporter was talking about. When the Republican was asked about the Signal group chat scandal and whether he believed classified information was shared, he replied, 'I don't know. I'm not sure, you have to ask the various people involved.' These weren't trick questions. No one appeared to be trying to trip the president up with unexpected inquiries about obscure topics. In all of these instances, Trump should've been able to respond to the questions with substantive responses. But he didn't. Instead, the Republican effectively said, over and over again, 'Don't look at me, I just work here.' Around this time five years ago, as the severity of the pandemic came into focus, The New York Times published a memorable analysis that included a word to describe Trump that stood out to me as significant — 'bystander.' 'While he presents himself as the nation's commanding figure, Mr. Trump has essentially become a bystander as school superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors and business owners across the country take it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from the president,' the Times explained. A half-decade later, it appears President Bystander has returned. Trump has taken a keen interest in countless trivialities, but on substantive issues, he's offering the public a lot of shrugged shoulders and blank stares. As for why this matters, there are a handful of angles to keep in mind. Right off the bat, there have been a great many instances in recent months when Trump has sounded a bit too much like a man who just wandered into the Oval Office. What's more, most objective observers would probably agree that if Joe Biden repeatedly said, 'I don't know' in response to simple questions about his own administration, it would be front-page news — and the Democrat's responses would be played on a loop, for hours on end, in conservative media. Similarly, Trump has personally invested considerable time and energy in accusing Biden of having been a doddering old 'autopen' president who was unaware of events unfolding around him. Given the frequency with which the Republican clings to 'I don't know' responses, he should probably consider a new line of attack. Indeed, let's not overlook that Trump has repeatedly seemed unaware of the executive orders that have been handed to him to sign. Finally, let's not overlook that Trump's authoritarian-style tendencies are rooted, at least in part, in the idea that governmental power must be concentrated in the president's hands, to be executed as he sees fit. It makes Trump's apparent cluelessness that much more alarming. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
USA Today
22-05-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Trump's ex-surgeon general suggests new nominee Casey Means lacks needed qualifications
Trump's ex-surgeon general suggests new nominee Casey Means lacks needed qualifications Trump's former surgeon general says holding a medical license is essential for the position. Trump nominee Casey Means doesn't have one. Show Caption Hide Caption Trump selects influencer Doctor Casey Means as Surgeon General US President Donald Trump has selected health entrepreneur and wellness influencer Dr. Casey Means as the US Surgeon General. unbranded - Newsworthy Means is not a practicing physician and does not have an active medical license. Adams pointed to the surgeon general's legal obligation to serve as vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps WASHINGTON ― Dr. Jerome Adams, the former U.S. surgeon general during President Donald Trump's first term, called into question the qualifications of Trump's new nominee for the post, Casey Means, as he argued the surgeon general must hold a medical license to carry out the job's duties. Means is not a practicing physician and does not have an active medical license. Without mentioning Means by name, Adams outlined his position in a May 22 post on X. Adams acknowledged that no explicit federal law mandates the surgeon general be a licensed physician. But he pointed to the surgeon general's legal obligation to serve as vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of health professionals for the federal government. To be commissioned as an officer in the PHSCC, a physician must hold a current valid medical medical license in addition to completing one year of a medical residency or another accredited postgraduate medical program. Adams said the PHSCC qualifications are "implicitly (and legally) essential" to serve as surgeon general. Since Trump nominated Means ‒ a 37-year-old Stanford University-educated wellness influencer ‒ as surgeon general on May 7, she has drawn scrutiny for her lack of medical license. Means' Oregon medical license expired in 2019 and was moved to inactive in January 2024. More: Who is Casey Means? Trump's new surgeon general nominee sparks drama Means also dropped out of a five-year medical residency program as an otolaryngologist at Oregon Health & Science University months before completing it. Yet she appears to still satisfy the PHSCC's requirement that physicians have one year of postgraduation education. "The Surgeon General's position as a trusted public health authority and physician makes full training and licensure a critical expectation in addition to an implicit legal requirement," Adams wrote. More: President Trump changes his mind on nomination for surgeon general He compared the credentials to an Army general meeting "the minimum qualifications to serve in the military" before being promoted to lead other troops held to the same standards. "This is in no way a personal criticism of any candidate, but a clarification for the sake of the integrity of the PHSCC that I was blessed and honored to lead," he added. "Failure to maintain these requirements not only compromises the mission and credibility of the service, but opens the PHS and HHS to lawsuits from others denied a commission or promotion, or terminated due to failure to meet these legal standards." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump tapped Means after withdrawing his first pick for the role, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, a Fox News medical contributor. Means, a close ally of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is an advocate for metabolic health and preventing chronic disease, who has a large social media following. Trump has lauded Means for having "impeccable 'MAHA' credentials," referring to Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement. But Means has attracted scrutiny from health professionals over her background and the ire from some on the far-right including activist Laura Loomer, an influential voice for Trump. Loomer has criticized Means' lack of medical license and accused her of having a "history being a Marxist tree hugger." Adams, an anesthesiologist and former state health commissioner of Indiana, served as Trump's only surgeon general during his first term, from 2017 to 2021. After leaving the White House, Adams joined Purdue University as executive director of the Center for Community Health Enhancement and Learning. Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
![[Lisa Jarvis] MAHA pushes unneeded glucose tracking](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F05%2F21%2Fnews-p.v1.20250521.9c4234673c8a420285e80c4b5df5c45b_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Lisa Jarvis] MAHA pushes unneeded glucose tracking](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
21-05-2025
- Health
- Korea Herald
[Lisa Jarvis] MAHA pushes unneeded glucose tracking
Casey Means, a Stanford-trained physician and wellness influencer nominated by US President Donald Trump for surgeon general, is convinced the US is experiencing an epidemic of metabolic dysfunction — a crisis silently unfolding inside the cells of millions of Americans. One solution, she says, is giving people a close-up view of that crisis. Coincidentally, Levels, a company she co-founded, sells a system that allows people to continuously track their blood glucose levels in real time. She claims this information can help people home in on food and lifestyle choices that will improve their metabolic health. It's a philosophy that other "Make America Healthy Again" movement members have pushed. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. extolled glucose monitoring devices as only costing '$80 a month, and they've been shown to be extraordinarily effective in helping people lose weight and avoid diabetes.' Meanwhile, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary told senators at his confirmation hearing that glucose monitors should not require a prescription. He similarly talked up their promise to address obesity and prevent diabetes. There's just one problem: These claims aren't backed by science. They promise to lead Americans down a path to wellness but, without more evidence, could amount to a waste of our health care dollars. 'What is the utility there? The answer is zero,' says David Nathan, a Harvard Medical School professor who has led some of the most important studies on diabetes prevention. 'This, to me, is a scam.' In an information-rich age where our smartwatches can tell us the quality of our sleep, the number of steps we've taken, oxygen levels in our blood, heart rate and more, you might ask: Why not track blood sugar? More data is not always better. It doesn't always tell us something meaningful and, worse, could even cause harm by creating unnecessary anxiety or leading us to draw the wrong conclusions about our health. Continuous glucose monitoring, or CGM, has allowed people with Type 1 diabetes to better manage their blood sugar, which, in turn, can lead to fewer serious health complications like blindness, kidney failure and even death. People with Type 2 diabetes have also used CGM to prevent dangerous fluctuations in blood sugar, but the data is mixed on the long-term benefits. And then there's CGM in people who don't have diabetes. Levels is one of several companies that charge anywhere from $199 to more than $400 per month for CGM, which is often paired with diet coaching. 'I believe CGM is the most powerful technology for generating the data and awareness to rectify our Bad Energy crisis in the Western world,' Means wrote in a blog post on her company's website. Tracking glucose can 'alert us to early dysfunction, coach us on how to eat and live in a way that promotes Good Energy in our unique bodies, and promote accountability.' In reality, the data supporting constantly monitoring blood sugar in people who don't have diabetes, and even in those with prediabetes, is virtually nonexistent, Nathan says. One 2024 review of the literature on CGM in healthy people found scant evidence of its utility. The authors found the research gaps so significant that they concluded any commercial products claiming to offer a benefit 'be labeled as misleading.' Means, meanwhile, has argued that CGM offers important information about our metabolic health. 'An extra-large spike after a meal is a clear sign that the meal had too much refined grain or refined sugar and is creating a big stress of food energy for your cells to deal with,' she wrote on the company's website. But blood glucose is influenced by so much more than the last thing you ate, says Nicola Guess, a dietician and diabetes researcher at the University of Oxford. That includes whether you just finished a vigorous workout, slept poorly the night before, your stress levels, what other foods you ate recently or alongside a particular fruit or vegetable — even a woman's menstrual cycle. Moreover, doctors don't even have enough data to tell patients what a 'healthy' glucose fluctuation looks like in people without diabetes. We don't know, for example, if a spike after a meal is harmless if it comes back down soon after, or even what 'soon' would mean, says Nicole Spartano, a diabetes researcher at Boston University. 'I do worry that people have this technology and are making changes to their diet that do not truly improve their health,' Spartano says. 'For example, you could eat hot dogs (with no bun) for every meal, and your glucose data would look perfect. Very few people would suggest that is a good diet.' Similarly, there's little evidence that blood sugar tracking can prompt people to make long-term changes in their habits, which is the foundational tenet of companies like Levels. Studies of evidence-backed lifestyle interventions show that many can elicit short-term benefits. It's the long haul that people struggle with. The influx of companies pushing CGM has prompted a more intense study of its value in healthy or prediabetic people. But we're still years away from definitive answers. The MAHA movement likes to say it's about following 'gold-standard science.' For people with diabetes, blood sugar tracking is part of gold-standard care. But for everyone else? So far, there's nothing to suggest this would be a wise way to spend our money.
BreakingNews.ie
20-05-2025
- Politics
- BreakingNews.ie
Laura Loomer swipes at Trump from the heart of Maga
Laura Loomer once had to chain herself to a building to get attention. Not any longer. A far-right activist who has jockeyed her way up from online agitator to self-appointed presidential adviser, Loomer has long been one of US president Donald Trump's most fervent supporters. Advertisement She has recently found herself at odds with the White House, however, clashing with the administration over both policy and personnel choices that she views as counter to the Maga movement. In the past few weeks, Loomer has criticised the new pope, mounted a campaign against Mr Trump's pick for surgeon general, Casey Means, blasted his attorney general, Pam Bondi, and noisily objected to Mr Trump's diplomatic efforts during his Middle East trip. If Loomer were just another online rabble-rouser, the friction likely would not matter. But with 1.6 million followers on X and her own weekly programme that draws thousands of viewers, Loomer can claim she speaks for the Maga faithful and, in turn, influence how they view the performance of the president and his administration. Trump inner circle Loomer has said it's her job to keep Mr Trump on track. She has flitted in and out of the president's inner circle and has claimed to be responsible for the firings of National Security adviser Mike Waltz and other aides. Advertisement "What makes her more dangerous than other people is that she clearly seems to have Trump's ear,' said Peter Montgomery, who tracks conservative movements for the liberal advocacy group People For the American Way. Loomer did not respond to requests for comment for this story, but made clear how she views her role during her online video show earlier this month. 'I'm not working for President Trump. I'm not getting paid by President Trump. I'm not in the Trump White House,' Loomer said during her show. 'I wasn't even on the Trump campaign. And yet, I feel like very single day, it's a full-time job just to make sure the president is protected and that he's receiving the information he needs to receive.' White House influencer? Loomer met last month with Mr Trump at the White House, after which Mr Trump immediately fired several national security officials Loomer claimed were disloyal. Mr Trump later denied that Loomer was the reason. Advertisement A short time later, Mr Waltz himself was fired, something Loomer also claimed she engineered. But the White House says that Loomer is not a presidential adviser, unofficial or otherwise. She has no pass to enter the complex, said a White House official, and there are no further meetings planned with her. A self-proclaimed 'Islamophobe' who for years argued that the September 11th, 2001, attacks were an inside job, Loomer has a history of provocative and self-promotional actions including handcuffing herself to Twitter's headquarters in New York in 2018 after the platform banned her for hate speech. Other Trump supporters such as US representative Marjorie Taylor Greene have denounced her remarks as "racist, "hateful" and unrepresentative of the Maga movement. Advertisement Last September during the presidential campaign, Loomer traveled on Mr Trump's plane to his debate with opponent Kamala Harris and then was by his side when he commemorated the 9/11 attacks in New York, sparking outrage among critics and concern within the campaign. Earlier, she had said the 'White House would smell like curry' if Ms Harris, who is of Indian heritage, were elected. At odds Mr Trump then called her a 'strong person' and a 'free spirit". But Loomer has become increasingly critical of Mr Trump's administration, if not the president himself. She sparred online with top Trump adviser Elon Musk over skilled workforce visas. She has repeatedly argued that the administration's hires are being improperly vetted. When Mr Trump praised the new pope, Leo XIV, Loomer blasted the pontiff as 'anti-MAGA' and a Marxist. She expressed dismay last week when Mr Trump announced he was lifting economic sanctions on Syria, and when he struck an investment deal with Qatar, which she accuses of funding pro-Palestinian demonstrations in the United States. Advertisement Qatar is a longtime backer of Hamas, but there is no direct evidence tying it to funding the protests. I love President Trump. I would take a bullet for him. Loomer was scornful of the possibility Mr Trump might accept a luxury 747 from the Qatari government. 'I love President Trump. I would take a bullet for him,' Loomer wrote on X. 'We cannot accept a $400 million `gift' from jihadists in suits.' Mr Trump has said the plane would be given to the country, not him. She has continued to hammer Ms Bondi for what she says is a failure to clean up the Justice Department. On Monday, she appeared on former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's show and claimed that she has known that former president Joe Biden was terminally ill for a year. Mr Biden's office announced on Sunday that he has advanced prostate cancer. Steve Bannon Bannon, who also views himself as the conscience of the Maga base, called her 'a warrior in the information war". But the White House's biggest headache may be Loomer's crusade to derail the nomination of Casey Means as Mr Trump's surgeon general. In numerous posts, Loomer has argued that Ms Means, a wellness expert who graduated from medical school but lacks a licence to practice medicine, is unqualified. 'I want to know which one of President Trump's geniuses chose a woman who literally talks to trees and spiritual mediums,' Loomer posted on X the day Ms Means was nominated. Mr Trump has defended the choice.
