Latest news with #DemetriusFreeman
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 days ago
- Health
- Yomiuri Shimbun
White House MAHA Report May Have Garbled Science by Using AI, Experts Say
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a Make America Healthy Again Commission event at the White House on May 22. Some of the citations that underpin the science in the White House's sweeping 'MAHA Report' appear to have been generated using artificial intelligence, resulting in numerous garbled scientific references and invented studies, AI experts said Thursday. Of the 522 footnotes to scientific research in an initial version of the report sent to The Washington Post, at least 37 appear multiple times, according to a review of the report by The Post. Other citations include the wrong author, and several studies cited by the extensive health report do not exist at all, a fact first reported by the online news outlet NOTUS on Thursday morning. Some references include 'oaicite' attached to URLs – a definitive sign that the research was collected using artificial intelligence. The presence of 'oaicite' is a marker indicating use of OpenAI, a U.S. artificial intelligence company. A common hallmark of AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, is unusually repetitive content that does not sound human or is inaccurate -as well as the tendency to 'hallucinate' studies or answers that appear to make sense but are not real. AI technology can be used legitimately to quickly survey the research in a field. But Oren Etzioni, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington who studies AI, said he was shocked by the sloppiness in the MAHA Report. 'Frankly, that's shoddy work,' he said. 'We deserve better.' 'The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again,' which addressed the root causes of America's lagging health outcomes, was written by a commission of Cabinet officials and government scientific leaders. It was led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of misstating science, and written in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump. It blames exposure to environmental toxins, poor nutrition and increased screen time for a decline in Americans' life expectancy. Outcry was swift following The Post's report. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) said the administration's potential use of AI to influence policy was dangerous. 'These people are unserious – but they pose a serious risk to Americans' health,' he wrote in a social media post. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) said in a statement, 'It's shameful that American parents even have to think about fake science and AI-generated studies in official White House reports on their kids' health.' The entire episode is a 'cautionary tale' for the potential use of AI in government, said Anand Parekh, chief medical adviser at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank. 'Did they not have enough staff?' he asked Friday. 'What are the checks?' One reference in the initial version of the report cited a study titled 'Overprescribing of Oral Corticosteroids for Children With Asthma' to buttress the idea that children are overmedicated. But that study didn't appear to exist. There is a similar Pediatrics article from 2017 with the same first author but different co-authors. Later Thursday, that Pediatrics article was swapped in for the apparently nonexistent study in the version of the report available online. An article credited to U.S. News & World Report about children's recess and exercise time was initially cited twice to support claims of declining physical activity among U.S. children, once with only part of the link shown. It listed Mlynek, A. and Spiegel, S. as different authors. Neither referred to Kate Rix, who wrote the story. Neither Mlynek nor Spiegel appear to be actual reporters for the publication. As of Thursday evening, Rix had been swapped in as the author on one of the references in the version of the report available online. Nearly half of the 522 citations in the initial version of the report included links to articles or studies. But a Post analysis of all the report's references found that at least 21 of those links were dead. Former governor and current New York City mayoral front-runner Andrew M. Cuomo was caught up in controversy last month after a housing policy report he issued used ChatGPT and garbled a reference. Attorneys have faced sanctions for using nonexistent case citations created by ChatGPT in legal briefs. The garbled scientific citations betray subpar science and undermine the credibility of the report, said Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. 'This is not an evidence-based report, and for all practical purposes, it should be junked at this point,' he said. 'It cannot be used for any policymaking. It cannot even be used for any serious discussion, because you can't believe what's in it.' When asked about the nonexistent citations at a news briefing Thursday, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the White House has 'complete confidence in Secretary Kennedy and his team at HHS.' 'I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA Report that are being addressed, and the report will be updated, but it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government, and is backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government,' Leavitt said. At some point between 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Thursday, the MAHA Report file was updated on the White House site to remove mentions of 'corrected hyperlinks' and one of the 'oaicite' markers. Another 'oaicite' marker, attached to a New York Times Wirecutter story about baby formula, was still present in the document until it was removed Thursday evening. The White House continued to update the report into the night. Department of Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said that 'minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same – a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation's children.' 'Under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, our federal government is no longer ignoring this crisis, and it's time for the media to also focus on what matters,' Nixon said. Kennedy has long vowed to use AI to make America's health care better and more efficient, recently stating in a congressional hearing that he had even seen an AI nurse prototype 'that could revolutionize health delivery in rural areas.' Peter Lurie, president of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said he was not surprised by the presence of possible AI markers in the report. Lurie said he had asked his own staff to look into it after noticing that the report linked to one of his organization's fact sheets but credited the Department of Agriculture and HHS as the authors. 'The idea that they would envelop themselves in the shroud of scientific excellence while producing a report that relies heavily on AI is just shockingly hypocritical,' said Lurie, who was a top Food and Drug Administration official in the Obama administration, where he wrote such government reports. There are many pitfalls in modern AI, which is 'happy to make up citations,' said Steven Piantadosi, a professor in psychology and neuroscience at the University of California at Berkeley. 'The problem with current AI is that it's not trustworthy, so it's just based on statistical associations and dependencies,' he said. 'It has no notion of ground truth, no notion of … a rigorous logical or statistical argument. It has no notions of evidence and how strongly to weigh one kind of evidence versus another. ' The Post previously reported that the document stretched the boundaries of science with some of its conclusions. Several sections offer misleading representations of findings in scientific papers.
Yomiuri Shimbun
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Democratic Troubles Revive Debate over Left-Wing Buzzwords
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan) during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on April 3. Maybe it's using the word 'oligarchs' instead of rich people. Or referring to 'people experiencing food insecurity' rather than Americans going hungry. Or 'equity' in place of 'equality,' or 'justice-involved populations' instead of prisoners. As Democrats wrestle with who to be in the era of President Donald Trump, a growing group of party members – especially centrists – is reviving the argument that Democrats need to rethink the words they use to talk with the voters whose trust they need to regain. They contend that liberal candidates too often use language from elite, highly educated circles that suggests the speakers consider themselves smart and virtuous, while casting implied judgment on those who speak more plainly – hardly a formula for winning people over, they say. The latest debate is, in part, also a proxy for the bigger battle over what the Democrats' identity should be in the aftermath of November's devastating losses – especially as the party searches for ways to reverse its overwhelming rejection by rural and White working-class voters. 'Some words are just too Ivy League-tested terms,' said Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona). 'I'm going to piss some people off by saying this, but 'social equity' – why do we say that? Why don't we say, 'We want you to have an even chance'?' Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear – who, like Gallego, is considered a potential 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful – made a similar point. 'I believe that, over time, and probably for well-meaning reasons, Democrats have begun to speak like professors and started using advocacy-speak that was meant to reduce stigma, but also removed the meaning and emotion behind words,' Beshear said, citing such examples as using 'substance abuse disorder' to refer to addiction. 'It makes Democrats or candidates using this speech sounding like they're not normal,' Beshear said. 'It sounds simple, but what the Democratic Party needs to do is be normal and sound normal.' Other Democrats and progressives strongly disagree, saying the party's problems can hardly be traced to a few terms that, they say, are used by activists far more than by actual Democratic politicians. There are good reasons for using nonprejudiced language and seeking new ways to be sensitive to those who have suffered discrimination, they say – and only bad reasons for jettisoning them in the face of Republican attacks. 'We are simply asking people to consider the language they are using as we move toward shared goals,' said Daria Hall, executive vice president of Fenton Communications, a progressive communications firm. 'It is important to acknowledge the human element within populations and to recognize how they identify themselves. Language evolves; it always has.' The divides are not clear-cut. But some Democrats are emphasizing a need to embrace centrist, common-sense ideas in a plainspoken way, while others say the key is to trumpet progressive, inclusive policies that fit the angry populist mood. Recent years have seen a pattern of progressives embracing new terms that conservatives turn against them. Republicans have long excelled at using such 'politically correct' terms as 'woke,' 'critical race theory' and 'gender-fluid' to depict Democrats as out of touch. 'Honestly, Democrats trip over themselves in an attempt to say exactly the right thing,' said Allison Prasch, who teaches rhetoric, politics and culture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. 'Republicans maybe aren't so concerned about saying exactly the right thing, so it may appear more authentic to some voters.' She added: 'Republicans have a willingness to paint with very broad brushstrokes, where Democrats are more concerned with articulating multiple perspectives. And, because of that, they can be hampered by the words and phrases they utilize.' Against that backdrop, a crop of youthful, up-and-coming Democrats is arguing that liberals need to abandon what they portray as constantly evolving linguistic purity tests. Gallego derided the term 'Latinx' – which avoids the gender binary suggested by 'Latinos' and 'Latinas' – as 'stupid,' saying few Hispanics use the term. He also recalled once being told not to describe his own background as 'poor,' but rather as 'economically disadvantaged.' 'Not every person we meet is going to have the latest update on what the proper terms are,' Gallego said. 'It doesn't make them sexist or homophobic or racist. Maybe they are a little outdated, but they have a good heart.' Beshear said liberals, in genuine efforts to be more sensitive, have drained the power from many words. Saying someone has defeated 'substance abuse disorder,' he said, minimizes the sheer human triumph of beating addiction; decrying 'food insecurity' fails to convey the tragedy of hungry children. Some Democrats contend that their use of elite-sounding terms is highly exaggerated. Actual party leaders rarely use words such as woke or gender-fluid, they say, contending they are mostly used by left-leaning activists or academics – or by Republicans trying to create an issue. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan) is another rising swing-state Democrat who contends that her party needs to use language that comes, as she puts it, from the factory line and not the faculty lounge. She said the scope of her party's challenge hit home when a voter wearing a 'Make America Great Again' cap asked her, 'What's your hat?' He was hoping for a Democratic message that could fit onto a cap, she said, and she realized there was no obvious answer. She recalled speaking to a roomful of skeptical Teamsters before the November election. 'I just said, 'Hey, you motherf—ers, I don't want to hear another godd— word about all Donald Trump has done for you,'' she said, adding: 'They love it. … To me, that is a different way to enter the room.' The Democrats' renewed linguistic debate broke into the open in April, when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a progressive firebrand, was headlining a 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour to rally opposition to Trump's alliance with ultra-wealthy figures. 'We have a nation which is now run by a handful of greedy billionaires,' Sanders told an enthused crowd in Nampa, Idaho, on April 14. 'I used to talk about oligarchy and people say, 'What is he talking about?' Everybody knows what I'm talking about tonight.' In a subsequent interview with Politico, Slotkin mentioned her view that the term 'oligarchy' does not mean much to most people, and that Democrats would be better off declaring, say, that Americans do not have kings. Sanders retorted on NBC's 'Meet the Press' that 'I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Ms. Slotkin thinks they are.' Slotkin downplays the dispute, although she stands by her contention that 'oligarchy' is not a user-friendly word. More important, she said, is the Democrats' need to confront Trump with 'alpha energy,' which she described as a sort of plainspoken toughness leavened with compassion. Since taking office, Trump has continued his all-out war on words that he deems liberal or woke, ordering them excised from government websites and targeting programs that have such terms in their names as 'diversity, equity and inclusion,' or DEI. Trump says he is rescuing free speech from progressives' cultural tyranny. Liberals say Trump is doing the opposite: silencing language he opposes. The battle unfolded on a particularly emotional front in the 2024 election, when GOP leaders seized on the view of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and other Democrats that people have a right to choose their own pronouns. Trump aired ads declaring 'Kamala is for they/them; President Trump is for you' that were considered highly effective by strategists on both sides. Hall, who leads her firm's racial justice and DEI group, said the point of progressive language is not to judge anyone but to respect how people want to be identified in this moment. 'We have a lot more work to do, but we have to give ourselves some grace, because we are all learning as language continues to shift,' Hall said. The true irritant for some critics is not the words, she added, but the underlying social shifts. 'American demographics are changing, and some people have an issue with that,' Hall said. 'Diversity, equity and inclusion are not bad words unless people make them so. These words are an effort to be more inclusive, not less.' Many Democrats privately admire Trump's ability to talk in a way that connects with voters on a visceral level. He is unusually skilled, they concede, at finding words and phrases that stir powerful emotions, such as promising to 'make America great again' and decrying an 'invasion' of 'illegal' immigrants. Democrats contend that Trump's slogans are empty at best and dishonest at worst. But they have struggled to find equally powerful language to convey Democratic values and ideas. 'What the Trump team has completely failed at is having anything behind their slogans,' Slotkin said. 'They figured out the slogans, but they have no plans.' Democrats need to have effective policies, she said – but, at the same time, 'you need the tagline.' The notion that Democrats must communicate better in the 2026 and 2028 campaigns is increasingly accepted within the party, and potential candidates including Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg have been road-testing their tone and style. 'It's so important for Democrats to have a vocabulary that can reach everybody,' Buttigieg told reporters after a recent town hall in Iowa. 'And you can't fashion that vocabulary online, or only talking to people who already agree with you or who are already kind of in your political style.'
Yomiuri Shimbun
18-05-2025
- Health
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump's Actions Are Pushing Thousands of Experts to Flee Government
Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post President Donald Trump leaves the Oval Office on May 1. Offers of early resignation and voluntary separation are pushing thousands of experienced staffers out of the federal government. At the National Institutes of Health, six directors – from institutes focused on infectious disease, child health, nursing research and the human genome – are leaving or being forced out. At the Federal Aviation Administration, nearly a dozen top leaders, including the chief air traffic officer, are retiring early. And at the Treasury Department, more than 200 experienced managers and highly skilled technical experts who help run the government's financial systems chose to accept the Trump administration's resignation offer earlier this year, according to a staffer and documents obtained by The Washington Post. Across the federal government, a push for early retirement and voluntary separation is fueling a voluntary exodus of experienced, knowledgeable staffers unlike anything in living memory, according to interviews with 18 employees across 10 agencies and records reviewed by The Post. Other leaders with decades of service are being dismissed as the administration eliminates full offices or divisions at a time. The first resignation offer, sent in January, saw 75,000 workers across government agree to quit and keep drawing pay through September, the administration has said. But a second round, rolling out agency by agency through the spring, is seeing a sustained, swelling uptick that will dwarf the first, potentially climbing into the hundreds of thousands, the employees and the records show. The Post could not determine the exact number of second-round resignations, which is tightly held within each agency. But the employees and the records suggest that disproportionately older, more senior and experienced employees are heading for the exit – in part because they fear being fired or having their positions reclassified as political, at-will jobs under a new Trump program, federal workers said in interviews. Others are leaving simply because they are tired of the chaos, mismanagement and poor treatment they say they have faced under the new administration. Jeffrey Grant, a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, left federal service after 42 years in February because he saw the 'writing on the wall,' he said in an interview, as he watched the new administration prepare to fire civil servants. Now, he is noticing many talented colleagues follow in his footsteps, he said, including senior CMS staffers who ran core components of the agency's strategy and operations. CMS administers more than $1 trillion a year in health insurance, covering over 130 million Americans. 'We're losing some really smart people and really senior people,' Grant said. 'Those will be the people that can easily get jobs outside the government … they will disappear, and they may never come back. Maybe they'll come back under a different administration, but it's a huge loss for the government.' The scores of departures will have immediate consequences, government employees said, slowing or halting work such as the Food and Drug Administration's issuance of food safety warnings and the Treasury Department's disbursement of payments. Other effects will be felt over coming months and years, employees predicted, as agencies lose people representing decades of institutional knowledge – imperiling the quality of work done and services provided. Asked for comment, a White House spokesperson referred questions to the Office of Personnel Management. OPM did not respond to emails. Proponents of downsizing the government say it's a long overdue chance to thin the ranks of aging, ossified senior management. Some have argued for years that the government is due for a spike in retirements, as waves of baby boomers age out and leave. Avik Roy, a former adviser to leading GOP policymakers and chairman of the right-leaning Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, said he sees both sides of the argument. Losing people with highly specific knowledge about how agencies work could make government more inefficient, Roy said, counter to the stated goal of billionaire Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service, or Department of Government Efficiency, which has been spearheading efforts to reduce spending and staff. The federal government is more complex than Twitter, where Musk slashed staff after buying the company in 2022, Roy said: Federal employees with years of specialized experience may not be as easily replaced as software engineers. At the same time, he said, the departures could lead to much-needed reforms. 'I'm sure there are some cobwebs being cleared out,' Roy said. 'People who are, let's say, status-quo-biased.' 'We're going to lose some knowledge' High-profile officials are fleeing in bunches across agencies. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, part of the Transportation Department which coordinates responses to gas leaks and chemical spills, lost more than half of its senior executives to the first resignation offer, according to an email obtained by The Post. Departures include the executive director, the deputy chief counsel, the head of the Office of Pipeline Safety, two associate administrators and two top advisers, the email says. Multiple employees described deep brain drain throughout the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Nearly all of the executive leadership for the chief information officer retired or resigned. The Office of Public and Indian Housing – which oversees public housing and rental assistance programs nationwide – lost its highest-ranking civil servant, two deputy assistant secretaries, a chief strategy officer and multiple directors. At the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, a small, specialized team focused on autonomous vehicles has lost most of its staff, according to two former agency employees. Comprised mostly of staffers with engineering and technical experience from the private sector, the Office of Automation Safety was dedicated to developing new safety and regulatory standards for self-driving cars – something the new administration has labeled a priority. In the second-round resignation offer, the FAA is losing not only its chief air traffic officer but its associate administrator for commercial space, his deputy, the director of the audit and evaluation office, the assistant administrator for civil rights and the assistant administrator for finance and management, The Post reported. The Air Traffic Organization, which is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace as the operational arm of the FAA, is losing the vice presidents and deputy vice presidents of five major programs including mission support, and safety and technical training. The agency is already confronting a series of crises including a fatal January crash at Reagan National Airport, which left 67 dead, and communications outages in recent weeks at Newark Liberty International Airport. The Internal Revenue Service, meanwhile, has lost senior staff representing hundreds of years of government experience. The agency has gone through four commissioners since the start of the year as well as two chief counsels. The agency's chief of staff, chief procurement officer, acting chief procurement officer, chief human capital officer, chief transformation and strategy officer and numerous senior advisers have departed. Contacted for comment, a range of agencies vowed that reductions in staff will not affect their missions or operation. A Treasury spokeswoman said in a statement that the departures from the IRS will leave the agency with about the same level of staffing it had before President Joe Biden expanded its ranks from 79,431 to 102,309 employees. The infusion of new staff was meant to help cut into the agency's backlog of tens of millions of unprocessed paper returns, which taxpayer advocates and lawmakers had complained about for years, and collect more tax revenue. The spokeswoman said the vast majority of departures are voluntary and predicted the staff losses will 'improve both efficiency and quality of service.' The FAA said in a statement that it has 'a large, professional and resilient workforce' with 'a deep reserve of experienced talent.' HUD said 'service to the American people will not be impacted,' and that the department is looking at how recent resignations are shaping personnel. NHTSA said it is planning to grow its automation safety office, not shrink it. 'Our teams are built to ensure efficiency initiatives will not compromise safety,' the vehicle agency said in a statement. Still, during a recent town hall, Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy acknowledged significant losses, according to a recording obtained by The Post. After an official said about 2,500 employees were taking the second resignation offer, Duffy added that the departures had not fallen evenly across the department. 'We're going to lose some knowledge, right? We're going to lose some expertise as we go through this process,' Duffy said. 'Hopefully you all will do the best you can, those who are staying, to try to get the best points from those who are leaving.' The list of vacated jobs can be mind-numbing, federal workers said. It is hard for the public to understand what many government employees did, or why they were crucial, especially if they do not number among the highest-ranking leaders with easy-to-grasp titles like 'director' or 'administrator.' Those exiting government, employees said, are people who entered public service right after college and never left. Who spent decades becoming experts in their small slices of America's sprawling federal bureaucracy. Whose names were never known to more than a handful of colleagues, but who made the government run. 'These are the people who know why things have been done a certain way for years and years and years,' said an employee with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 'Not all of this is written down, or able to find. With them gone, we won't know what the history is, so we're liable to make mistakes or to do things in an inefficient way.' One tiny corner of the General Services Administration is losing about a dozen staffers who've been there for 20 or 30 years each, in unglamorous roles oiling the gears of the U.S. bureaucracy, said an employee there. Their job titles include a sea of acronyms impenetrable to most people – such as 'COOP,' for 'Continuity of Operations' – but it all adds up to getting things done, the employee said. 'We're losing people who know how to navigate bureaucracies and red tape, to make things happen somewhat effectively and efficiently,' the GSA employee said. 'They were the doers.' At the Justice Department, an attorney who joined government in the 1980s is ending her career earlier than planned, said an employee there, depriving the office of an indispensable source of institutional knowledge. Whenever staff encountered an unfamiliar case, she'd say something like: 'Oh, I did that 18 years ago,' the employee said. 'And then a task that would have taken us three days of work to reinvent the wheel, we'd be able to get done in half the day, because she had seen it before.' And Treasury is losing a senior staffer who worked for decades on one program centered on one particular country, said an employee there, who spoke on the condition that neither he nor his workplace be named for fear of retaliation. Usually the staffer toiled quietly – but whenever there was some incident or flare-up related to the country this person studied, the employee said, everyone in the office would make a beeline for them. 'We'd be all sitting there, trying to figure this out, and this person would say, 'Oh, I remember in 2003 we had a similar problem, I'll find the [records],'' the employee said. 'That's what we're losing. It will be the difference between reading through legal briefs from a trial and just being able to go straight to the judge.'
Washington Post
04-04-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
GOP tariff woes, Musk's unforced error, Booker's speech
President Donald Trump holds a chart as he announces a plan for tariffs on imported goods during an event at the White House. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post) With the stock market roiling following the announcement of new tariffs, Republicans are confronting a challenge. Will they support President Donald Trump's economic plans, even if they don't believe in them? Or will they seek to temper his moves and draw criticism from a president who hates disloyalty? Senior reporter Aaron Blake talks with Post congressional correspondent Liz Goodwin and Senate reporter Theodoric Meyer about the mixed reactions to this week's bombshell economic news. They also discuss how special elections in Florida, and a state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, provide Democrats with some positive data points after their stinging 2024 defeat. In particular, Elon Musk's spending push in support of the conservative candidate in Wisconsin may have backfired, motivating liberal voters to turn out en masse. Plus, what Cory Booker's more than 25-hour speech from the Senate floor did and didn't accomplish. Today's show was produced by Laura Benshoff. It was edited by Reena Flores and mixed by Sean Carter. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
Washington Post
03-04-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
How Trump's new tariffs could tank the economy
President Donald Trump signs an executive order related to tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House on Wednesday. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post) President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced the largest increase in tariffs in modern U.S. history, unveiling import taxes that he said would revive domestic manufacturing and amount to a national 'Declaration of Economic Independence.' Today on 'Post Reports,' financial writer David Lynch joins host Colby Itkowitz to discuss the impact of these tariffs on the American economy, and on your wallet. Today's show was produced by Sabby Robinson and Ariel Plotnick, with help from Rennie Svirnovskiy. It was edited by Lucy Perkins and mixed by Sean Carter. Thanks to Jen Liberto. Subscribe to The Washington Post here.
