Latest news with #SteveHayes
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Dispatch buying SCOTUSblog
The Dispatch is buying the digital media website SCOTUSblog, the outlets announced Wednesday. SCOTUSblog covers all things Supreme Court and has been a go-to resource for journalists, lawyers and court watchers for more than two decades. 'Reliable coverage of the Supreme Court has never been more important,' The Dispatch co-founder Steve Hayes wrote to readers Wednesday. 'With an unbridled executive branch and a Congress eager to surrender its constitutional prerogatives, the federal judiciary is certain to play an increasingly important role in shaping the country's direction.' The Dispatch was launched by Hayes and fellow conservative journalist Jonah Goldberg after President Trump took the Republican party by storm. 'Our job is to help our members understand this role and the decisions that will shape the nation's future, in both the short and long term,' Hayes wrote. News of the deal, the terms for which were not disclosed, was first reported by The New York Times. SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe, a top legal journalist in Washington, will join The Dispatch as part of the deal. Hayes said The Dispatch will maintain SCOTUSblog 'as users have come to enjoy it' and continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
The Dispatch buying SCOTUSblog
The Dispatch is buying the digital media website SCOUTSblog, the outlets announced on Wednesday. SCOTUSblog covers all things Supreme Court and has been a go-to resource for journalists, lawyers and court watchers for over two decades. 'Reliable coverage of the Supreme Court has never been more important,' Dispatch co-founder Steve Hayes wrote to readers on Wednesday. 'With an unbridled executive branch and a Congress eager to surrender its constitutional prerogatives, the federal judiciary is certain to play an increasingly important role in shaping the country's direction.' The Dispatch was launched by Hayes and fellow conservative journalist Jonah Goldberg after President Trump took the Republican party by storm. 'Our job is to help our members understand this role and the decisions that will shape the nation's future, in both the short and long term,' Hayes wrote. News of the deal, the terms for which were not disclosed, was first reported by The New York Times. SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe, a top legal journalist in Washington, will join The Dispatch as part of the deal. Hayes said the Dispatch will maintain SCOTUSblog 'as users have come to enjoy it' and continue to offer its existing content to all readers at no cost.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Democrats' Dilemma
From the G-File on The Dispatch Dear Reader (expect for those of you in a slippery situation), We make fun of Steve Hayes for many things here at The Dispatch. One of them is his dislike of provocative, or even clever, headlines. I think there was something in the water back at the old Weekly Standard, which inventively called its parody feature … 'Parody.' Then again, that might have made sense given that when the editors indulged their creative headline writing instincts, they'd come up with stuff like 'Corzine for a Bruisin'.' So maybe sticking to a truth-in-labeling approach to headlines was a sign of self-awareness and restraint. Hopefully you can forgive some old-school intramural ribbing from a longtime National Review guy. In the meantime, what made me think of this was a fun headline from The Nation: 'Protesters Demand Action From Feckless Democrats.' It's no 'Headless Body in Topless Bar,' but it's got some punch and accuracy to it. I found the article about the protests outside the Treasury Department via my friend Jim Geraghty, who spotted this gem in the piece (emphasis mine): As one after another member of Congress outlined the horrors perpetrated by Musk and his team of tech lackeys, protesters would shout back, 'Arrest them when they come out!' and 'Lock him up!' As the speeches continued, one especially plaintive chant took hold in the crowd: 'Tell us what to do!' That's a pretty good summary of the plight of the Democrats these days. The only thing that would have really completed the scene is if the elected Democrats speaking to the crowd chanted back, 'You tell us! Because we don't have a clue.' There's a lot of sweet, sweet, rank punditry about the plight of the Democrats—if you look for it. It's easy to miss while Elon Musk's minions treat the federal bureaucracy like they're celebrating Caddy Day at the Bushwood Country Club and Donald Trump floats the idea of turning Gaza into a Jimmy Buffett resort. Wastin' away again in GazavilleWaitin' for Allah to turn the Jews into pillars of salt [Salt! Salt!] Some infidels claim we're the ones to blameAll I know it's the Zionists' fault Sorry about that. I think people are underestimating the problem facing the Democratic Party. I think it's much more fundamental than mere messaging or strategy. But let's get there by sticking with the punditry for a bit longer. The Democratic Party hasn't been this unpopular in decades. It lost the White House, the House (albeit narrowly), and the Senate. It lost ground among pretty much every demographic group, which has to hurt for a party so obsessed with demographic groups. This week, the Democrats elected a party technocrat and apparatchik, Minnesota Democratic Chair Ken Martin, to run the national party. Martin insists that they really don't need to change much. 'Anyone saying we need to start over with a new message is wrong,' he told the New York Times. 'We got the right message.' Quick, what was the Democrats' message in 2024? It's an honest question, because I really don't know. I couldn't even remember what Kamala Harris' slogans were. I still remember 'I'm With Hillary' and 'It's Her Turn,' but I had to google for a bit to remember 'When we fight, we win!' and 'We're not going back!' Are these the messages that Martin thinks the Democrats can win on if they just put more money behind them? Slogans are supposed to conjure deeper philosophical or ideological commitments and passions. Other than the implied anti-Trump message in, 'We're not going back,' the only conceptual superstructure I can identify is partisan team spirit. In other words, the 'we' is basically just the Democrats or maybe 'progressives,' or perhaps those of us who are not them. But that's about it. In politics, broadly speaking there aren't that many organizing principles, or ideological frameworks, that work at scale. I mean stuff like imperialism, nationalism, or socialism. Ideas that can pull adherents in from a broad and diverse population. I guess the oldest is some form of tribalism: We're the people of this valley. We're not the mountain people or the river people or those stinking nomads. We're us, and everybody else is them. As civilization progressed more sophisticated versions developed. We're the Romans, or the Etruscans, or Athenians. That kind of thing. Later it was the Christians, or the Muslims, etc. With the rise of modern nationalism, the idea of the nation obviously became one of these categories or creeds of self-identification. Not long after nationalism arrived, socialism burst on the scene. Another category that emerged around this time might be called liberalism. And liberalism—the idea of individual rights, the rule of law, freedom from the state or hostile religious authorities—is an idea you can build a political movement around. These are all big ideas that inform how we understand the role of the state, but also how we should organize society more generally. Now, you can certainly find all of these in pure forms from ideologues and activists. But the truth is most ideologies borrow bits and pieces from each other. Historically, most nationalists were socialists. And when push came to shove, most socialists were also nationalists. Most early liberals were also nationalists of a kind. They wanted their respective nation-states to be liberal. It makes sense when you think about it, because the nation-state has a defined boundary—both in terms of physical borders and conceptually in terms of where the state has authority and where it doesn't. You can preach about workers of the world uniting, but workers are also Italians, Germans, Belgians, etc. And their respective governments only have authority within those borders. Ideology doesn't just inform policy positions and language. An ideology is also a worldview, which is why many dictionaries treat them as synonyms. Progressive ideology, broadly speaking, is historically very materialist. Doctrinaire Marxism, of course, is almost pure materialism. The means of production, and their ownership, defines the form and shape of civilization. Religion, nationalism, and other prisms are distractions, myths, 'opiates' of the masses, and all that nonsense. What matters is stuff like money, food, housing, and material conditions, on the job and off. Contrary to a lot of right-wing hyperbole, not all progressives are committed Marxists. Indeed, very few of them are. But, broadly speaking, this focus on material circumstances informs progressive ideology deeply, and that's fine. It's not like that stuff doesn't matter. Indeed, it matters a lot. My objections to the progressive approach to public policy is not the desire to improve the material conditions of the poor or the working class. Most conservatives care about that stuff, too. We just disagree about the best ways to pursue similar goals. Anyway, for most of the last century or so progressives, broadly defined, saw politics through a largely materialist lens. Poverty was the all-purpose root cause for social ills. Everything flowed from that. FDR turned the state into a giant wealth-transferring machine—from Social Security to the first welfare programs to all of those government jobs and public works projects. The government was now in the business of redistributing wealth. The Great Society was a continuation of this framework. It wasn't socialism per se, but welfare-state liberalism drew on many of the same foundational assumptions. America's freedom-loving, you're-not-the-boss-of-me cussedness prevented it from ever accepting socialism outright. But Americans ultimately accepted the idea that the wealth-creating features of capitalism would be yoked to a large amount of redistribution. I can criticize the excesses and errors all day long, but at the end of the day I subscribe to that basic idea of a capitalism-funded safety net or welfare state, just like almost everybody else. In certain academic and ideological corners of progressive thought, this understanding started to get supplanted by what we can call here 'intersectionality.' Race and gender, and the related ideas of 'oppressor-oppressed' ideology, supplanted the old New Deal/Great Society paradigm. The left still believed in a generous welfare state but grew bored talking about it. Things like anti-racism, the 1619 Project, DEI, were what drew passion and energy on the left. I don't think this is particularly controversial. You could see it almost in real-time. Social democrats like Bernie Sanders, who is totally in his comfort zone talking about Medicare for All, had to start talking in the language of race and marginalized groups. He used to denounce 'open borders' as a crazy libertarian Koch Brothers kind of idea, but the Democratic Party convinced itself that immigrants were now part of the coalition of the oppressed and they had the right to entry into America based upon their oppressed or marginal status. In 2019 when he announced he was running for president, again, he was asked how he'd stand out in such a diverse field. 'We have got to look at candidates, you know, not by the color of their skin, not by their sexual orientation or their gender and not by their age,' Sanders replied. 'I mean, I think we have got to try to move us toward a non-discriminatory society which looks at people based on their abilities, based on what they stand for.' Not bad. The left ate him alive. Even Stephen Colbert mocked him. 'Yes, like Dr. King, I have a dream—a dream where this diverse nation can come together and be led by an old white guy.' That sort of thinking, call it wokeism for want of a better shorthand, ran riot in elite culture and provided the foundation for the vast bulk of the culture war fights of the last decade. Some of those fights were stupid. Some weren't. Sometimes the left had good arguments and facts on their side, but more often, in my opinion, they didn't. The Rawlsian liberalism of the left ran head first into the traditional liberalism of American culture—and lost. I think that's why the 'vibe shift' seems so much larger than warranted by the election returns. For instance, this week Trump signed an executive order to keep transgender athletes from competing in girls' and women's sports. It was, in the words of CNN's Harry Enten, 'probably the most popular thing he's ever done.' Large majorities of Independents and Democrats support it. One can exaggerate the significance of this, but symbolically, the message is pretty clear. The intersectional argument just doesn't work as an organizing principle for politics—at scale. I want to be really clear: I'm not saying that bigotry is in the driver's seat. I don't think Americans would support a Jim Crow-style regime for transgender people. It certainly wouldn't support a Jim Crow-style regime for non-whites, or gays, or anything like that. But what turns off lots of Americans is special treatment—real or perceived—for specific groups. That goes for positive treatment and negative treatment. Allowing biological males to compete in women's sports simply seems unfair—one might even say 'illiberal'—to many Americans, regardless of party affiliation. (See The Fair Jessica on this). Intersectional progressives see the dismantling of DEI as oppressive and discriminatory. Oppressed groups deserve special treatment—'equity' not just 'equality.' So the removal of a subsidy is indistinguishable from discrimination in their worldview. But that's not how large numbers of Americans see it. America is a liberal country and culture. Inherent in that liberalism is the idea that we're all equal in the eyes of God and government, and that means the state should not be in the business of picking winners and losers—based on race or creed or gender identity. (This is why the more extreme right-wing post-liberal schemes will fail. Americans will bristle at special treatment for certain faiths just as much as they bristle at special treatment for certain races or sexual orientations.) It's fine if you disagree with that. There are good arguments to be made about where to draw lines. But the simple fact is that as a practical political matter, the intersectional arguments have, at least for the time being, reached the point of diminishing returns. To reduce it to a simple point, calling Latinos 'Latinx' repels more Latino voters than it attracts. Which brings me back to the Democrats. At a forum for candidates to chair the Democratic National Committee, Jonathan Capehart asked the contenders, 'So, I'm going to have a show of hands. How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris' defeat?' All eight candidates raised their hands. Capehart replied, 'Okay. So … That's good, you all passed.' Now, I've joined in the mockery over this. I love the idea that Capehart is some kind of official gatekeeper. Answer the riddle of the Sphinx or you shall not pass. But I will offer a very slight defense of the answer, even if I think the question is a symptom of the Democrats' plight. Of course racism and misogyny 'played a role' in her defeat. She lost the popular vote by 1.5 percent. Would that margin have been smaller if there were zero racism and misogyny in America? Sure. Or at least, maybe. But come on. Moreover, this misses the point. For Capehart, racism and sexism are the salient issues. We judge politics not by the sum total of beliefs we hold but by the ideas we emphasize and talk about (for instance, for years, libertarians held all sorts of ideas, but the ones they organized around—chiefly drug legalization—defined them because that's what they talked about). The more interesting question is: Did the price of gas or eggs play a more significant role than racism and misogyny in Harris' defeat? How about the withdrawal from Afghanistan? Or Joe Biden's age and infirmity? Or the border? Or, for that matter, did Harris' shortcomings as a candidate—distinct from her race and gender—contribute to her loss more than bigotry? I think the answers to all of those questions lie somewhere between 'probably' and 'duh, of course.' But that's not what elite Democrats want to talk about. Let's assume a whole generation of Democratic and progressive activists, academics, and journalists can wean themselves of wokeism. That's a Herculean task for people trained to speak in the language and shibboleths of intersectionality. It's what they know. It's their comparative advantage. It's what got them jobs and tenure. But let's assume they can do it. What's their new theory of the case? What's their new categorical imperative, their ideological framework, that they can pitch to American voters? It's not nationalism. That's taken. It's not really patriotism either. That would require a wholesale reorientation toward the founding, the Constitution, and a rejection of all sorts of narratives that define progressivism. I'm not saying that progressives are unpatriotic, by the way, I'm saying that the deep language of patriotism is a dialect that requires practice. It's not socialism. The only thing I can think of is a return to the old-style FDR-LBJ party of government approach. The government is there to help the little guy, the forgotten man, etc. The government is on your side. That's a language Democrats definitely know how to speak. And to be fair, this is an ideological framework that works—or can work—at scale. The Democrats definitely believe they can make it work again. But there are problems. The first is credibility, or the lack thereof. The Democrats have been the party of government for so long, and government has gotten so big, that the Democrats seem less like the party that will use the government as a tool for you and more like the party that uses the government for us. Public sector unions run the Democratic Party to a considerable degree and are a massive source of its funding. And public sector unions have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to reforming government. The left understands this in the narrow cases of prison guards and cops, but rejects it entirely everywhere else. Donor capture isn't just a problem for Republicans. Of course, it's not just public sector unions. Trial lawyers, environmental groups, civil rights groups—'the groups' generally see the government as their thing. Reforming it to deliver goods and services for everybody more effectively is a threat to their business models. Add in the intersectional framing, and the problem gets even more acute. A more effective government wouldn't just help members of the Democratic coalition, it would help millions of people in the white working class who are not part of the coalition. I'm sure many progressives would be fine with that, but they'd have a hard time selling the idea to 'the groups.' Last, there's the fact that the Republicans are no longer the strawman they're used to arguing with. Progressives have had a field day for generations casting the limited government, free-market message of the right as just so much 'greed.' 'Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime,' is the morally and prudentially superior position. But politically it loses almost every time to 'Vote for me and I'll give you free fish!' Donald Trump has turned the GOP into a free-fish party. I detest it, but it works. You can certainly argue that Trump won't be able to deliver, but conceptually, the no-taxes-on-tips, let-me-put-my-name-on-stimulus-checks guy is not the kind of opponent Democrats have a lot of muscle memory dealing with. Again, I loathe the fact that Trump has turned the GOP into a protectionist, interventionist, industrial policy party. But I cannot deny that it deprives the Democrats a clear lane to march down. Rather than make a case for themselves, they thought that Trump would make their case for them. That strategy might still work in 2026 and 2028, but if you think Trump is a fraction as bad as most sincere Democrats do, it should shake you to the core that you managed to lose to him in 2024. The idea that 'we had the right message' should be disqualifying. Democrats don't see this yet. One argument we heard a lot after the election was this idea that Democrats just need their own Joe Rogan. Never mind that Democrats had Joe Rogan until they effectively chased him away. This is a very old crutch, with deep ideological assumptions behind it. When Republicans captured Congress in 1994, Democrats convinced themselves it was because Republicans had talk radio on their side. We just need our Rush Limbaugh! So progressives poured money into Air America, which was a bust. With the rise of Fox News, they convinced themselves they needed their own cable network (because apparently MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS, plus the New York Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News, etc. didn't count). So Al Gore launched Current TV. For a while progressives thought that conservative think tanks gave the right a structural advantage, so they created the Center for American Progress (missing the fact that conservative think tanks were created at least in part because vastly better-funded universities had become inhospitable to conservatives). Hell, some people thought the existence of a right-wing pillow company was some boon, so they launched a left-wing pillow company (one of its founders, David Hogg, is now a vice chairman of the DNC). Their ideological priors made them think that they lost arguments and elections not because of a bad message but because they didn't have the right infrastructure. Democrats are in a bad place not because they failed to get their message out but because voters didn't like the message or the messengers. The sooner Democrats figure that out, the sooner they can get to work providing an alternative to Trumpism. Canine Update: This has been a very confusing time for the beasts. I got back from Belize on Monday morning and had to leave for a speech in Florida that night. The thing is, Kirsten parks the girls in the house in the mornings while she takes out the really small dog posse. So I've been home a couple mornings with the girls. They come back in the house and freak out that I'm here, complete with extensive dingo arooing. Then Kirsten comes and takes them for the midday walk and brings them back to her house. They're super happy to see me, almost as happy as I am to see them. And then … back to the sleepover at Kirsten's. We're leaving town again tomorrow, and we didn't think we should move all of their stuff back only to ship 'em back over. It's all a bit disorienting for everybody. But they seem to be handling it well and having a grand time with Kirsten. Zoë has really cottoned to the idea that she's the boss of the wee ones. And Pippa has become basically Kirsten's lap dog, when she's not colonizing the couch. I'm very much looking forward to the end of all this travel and getting back to the routines of canine and feline domestic life. Oh, speaking of the feline, Gracie's doing great. She gets her own housesitter and doesn't have to worry about the dogs. Owner's Name: Brian Alderton Why I'm a Dispatch Member: I've always considered myself a Reagan Republican. I became an independent who leaned conservative in the 2010s. When things went off the rails in 2016, I questioned everything I believed. I found Jonah and David French and they made tons of sense to me. I eventually found The Dispatch and have been a member ever since. Personal Details: I've been an elementary school teacher for 27 years. Pet's Name: Gryzzly Pet's Breed: Golden Retriever/Border Collie Mix Pet's Age: 5 Gotcha Story: She belonged to a family with a teenage son. The son took care of her until he found a girlfriend. He spent less and less time with her. The family lived in a trailer in a neighboring state and already had two dogs. Gryzz spent much too much time in an undersized kennel. A mutual friend knew they wanted to rehome her and knew I was looking for a new sidekick since my previous dog had passed away suddenly a few months earlier. It was love at first sight for both of us and she came home with me about 30 minutes after meeting. Pet's Likes: Walks, treats, everyone she meets, barking! Pet's Dislikes: Squirrels, people who ignore her when walking by, and the stupid vacuum cleaner. Pet's Proudest Moment: She went to an event at our local public pool, the Dog Splash (end-of-season event where dogs can swim at the pool). While she is quite an excellent swimmer, her energy was infectious and she led many of the dogs in attendance as the pacer dog. They all ran laps around the pool. I swear it looked like we were at the dog track. Moment Someone (Wrongly) Said Pet Was a Bad Dog: For my birthday, my brother had barbecue from Central BBQ in Memphis shipped to me. I had a pound of pulled pork thawing in the sink. Gryzzly managed to pull the pork out of the sink when I wasn't looking and ate the whole thing. It caused stomach issues, and what I woke up to that night was traumatizing to say the least. Do you have a quadruped you'd like to nominate for Dispawtcher of the Week and catapult to stardom? Let us know about your pet by clicking here. Reminder: You must be a Dispatch member to participate. —Jonah in the jungle —PippaCoin rug pull —Fahrenheit 47 —Hold the lie —New ideology drop —Tariff this, tariff that —Markets don't lie —You're trippin' —Immaculate consharkption —Doogie Howser remake canned in post —What was he supposed to put in there? —Wafflflation —102 Dalmatians —Baaaa-con egg and cheese, please!
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Cabinet Picks Face Roadblocks Ahead
From the The Morning Dispatch on The Dispatch Happy Friday! Attention Dispatch Premium members: we're hosting the next Dispatch Premium Town Hall with Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg on Tuesday, February 4, at 8 p.m. ET, where members can interact directly with our co-founders in a Zoom discussion on the first few weeks of the Trump administration. How are the confirmation hearings going for Trump's nominees? What is in all of those executive orders? How has Washington, D.C. changed since Trump's inauguration? And most importantly, how does all of this impact your life? If you'd like to attend this special live town hall, be sure to join Dispatch Premium before next Tuesday! Officials announced Thursday that there were no survivors from the collision of a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and a passenger jet approaching D.C.'s Reagan National Airport on Wednesday night. A total of 67 people were killed, making it the deadliest crash in America since 2001. The D.C. fire and EMS chief said Thursday morning that rescue operations were switching to a recovery effort to retrieve the victims, and, as of 5:30 p.m. ET, first responders had pulled 40 bodies from the Potomac River. An investigation into the crash remains ongoing and there are no confirmed details as to the causes of the incident. Multiple outlets obtained copies of a preliminary internal Federal Aviation Administration report on the accident that said staffing at the airport's air traffic control tower during the time of the collision was 'not normal for the time of day and volume of traffic.' One air traffic controller was working both with helicopters and planes, a job typically split between two people. Eight more hostages returned to Israel on Thursday after 482 days in Hamas captivity. The individuals released included three Israelis—Agam Berger, Arbel Yehoud, and Gadi Mozes—and five Thai nationals—Thenna Pongsak, Sathian Suwannakham, Sriaoun Watchara, Seathao Bannawat, and Rumnao Surasak—who were abducted by the terrorist group on October 7, 2023. Before Yehoud and Mozes were handed over to the Red Cross, Hamas gunmen paraded them through swarming and chaotic crowds in the southern city of Khan Younis, leading the Israeli government to delay the latest release of Palestinian prisoners. Israel later freed 110 prisoners on Thursday after the two sides reached an agreement to ensure the safe passage of Israeli abductees in future exchanges. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Thursday to block Hewlett Packard Enterprise's planned $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Enterprises, a wireless local area network (WLAN) products and services company. The department said the tie-up would bring 70 percent of the WLAN suppliers market under the control of just two companies, the Hewlett and Juniper umbrella and the market leader, Cisco Systems. 'This proposed merger would significantly reduce competition and weaken innovation, resulting in large segments of the American economy paying more for less from wireless technology providers,' said Omeed Assefi, the acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. President Donald Trump said Thursday that he intends to follow through on his threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico beginning on Saturday, February 1st. But the president told reporters that the tariffs could include exemptions on oil imports, in keeping with his promises to reduce energy costs for Americans. Trump has also indicated possible plans to impose a 10 percent duty on Chinese-made goods as soon as Saturday—a move, like the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, ostensibly aimed at curbing the flow of fentanyl into the United States. Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—President Trump's picks to lead the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Department of Health and Human Services, respectively—all appeared before Senate committees for confirmation hearings on Thursday. The trio faced grillings from Democratic and some Republican lawmakers on their past statements, and, in some instances, endeavored to distance themselves from views and policies they've endorsed in the past. While Patel appeared to have garnered unified Republican support in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gabbard and Kennedy still face uphill battles in advancing beyond their respective committee votes. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported Thursday that real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024, down from 3.1 percent growth in the third quarter and slightly below economists' expectations. For all of 2024, GDP growth was 2.8 percent. The bulk of fourth-quarter growth came from consumer spending, with spending on goods and services growing 6.6 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively, both up from the third quarter. 'Bobby! Bobby!' Supporters decked out in MAHA ('Make America Healthy Again') pins and hats chanted this as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's nominee for health secretary, entered a packed room for his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing on Wednesday. But the enthusiasm of his cheerleaders belied the uphill battle Kennedy now faces in advancing beyond a committee vote and, if he gets there, winning enough support in the full Senate. Senators also grilled Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel—Trump's nominees for director of national intelligence and FBI director, respectively—this week, signaling the first serious congressional pushback against the president's picks after his first batch of Cabinet nominees sailed through the Senate with relative ease. As expected, Democrats questioned Kennedy—who appeared before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Health Committee on Thursday—on his previous advocacy against vaccinations, stance on abortion, and qualifications to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Republicans, meanwhile, appeared eager to get through the hearing as quickly as possible. Of the three M.D.s on the Senate Finance Committee, all Republicans, only one seemed to be particularly skeptical of Kennedy: Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who practiced as a gastroenterologist for more than two decades and has been a public critic of the nominee. 'Some of the things he said were just not true. For example, for hepatitis B vaccines there's no safety trials. I have actually performed hepatitis B vaccination safety trials many years ago,' he told reporters Tuesday, after meeting with Kennedy privately. Cassidy's lines of questioning generated perhaps the most damaging moment of Kennedy's first day of testimony. When the Republican senator probed the nominee on his knowledge of public healthcare financing, Kennedy failed to demonstrate an understanding of important differences between Medicare and Medicaid, and incorrectly stated that the federal government was Medicaid's sole funder. And Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health Committee, was even clearer about his concerns during the nominee's next hearing on Thursday, as John McCormack reports on the site today: At the end of Thursday's hearing, Cassidy recounted the story of an 18-year-old woman he treated who had to be flown by helicopter for an emergency liver transplant due to a case of Hepatitis B, a disease easily prevented by a vaccine. Cassidy said if someone dies because she was 'not vaccinated because of policies or attitudes you bring to the department,' the 'greatest tragedy will be her death.' An 'associated tragedy,' Cassidy continued, is that it 'will cast a shadow over President Trump's legacy, which I want to be the absolute best legacy it can be. So that's my dilemma, man, and you may be hearing from me over the weekend.' Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat, narrowed in on Kennedy's financial interests. As part of his anti-vaccine campaigning, Kennedy has received fees from law firms suing drug manufacturers. Warren noted that as HHS Secretary, he would have many tools to influence future drug-related lawsuits and asked to commit to not suing drug companies 'while you are secretary and for four years after.' Kennedy refused: 'You're asking me to not sue drug companies, and I am not going to agree to that,' he said, to cheers from many in the audience. With Democrats uniform in their opposition, a 'no' vote from Cassidy would block Kennedy from advancing out of the finance committee and make it extremely unlikely that he would get a vote on the Senate floor. But at least three more GOP senators would need to flip to doom his nomination in a full Senate vote. Moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska also expressed skepticism about Kennedy's views on Thursday. And Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, himself a polio survivor (the vaccine for which Kennedy has criticized), could be the final 'no' vote. 'I have never flinched from confronting specious disinformation that threatens the advance of lifesaving medical progress, and I will not today,' the former majority leader said last month. The audience for Gabbard's hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee was notably more subdued than Kennedy's, mostly filled with reporters, Congressional staffers, and family members and friends of the nominee. Gabbard, however, was at least as defiant and almost as controversial as the health secretary pick. Lawmakers entered the hearing with serious questions about Gabbard's views and qualifications. An eight-year Democratic congresswoman and a National Guard member for more than two decades, the Hawaiian-born Gabbard has no intelligence experience beyond a one-year stint on the House Committee on Homeland Security and two years on the House Armed Services Committee on Intelligence and Readiness. She's also demonstrated some questionable political judgment, to say the least. Gabbard has praised whistleblower Edward Snowden and requested his pardon, made comments suggesting that the U.S. is to blame for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and cast doubt on whether recently ousted Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people during the country's civil war—evidence of which is well-documented. In 2017, while serving as a member of Congress, Gabbard visited Syria on a diplomatic trip paid for by two Arab-American activists with ties to a Syrian nationalist party. Unbeknownst to her staffers, she also used the trip to set up and attend a three-hour meeting with Assad, only admitting to the sit-down after she returned to the U.S. Given Republicans' narrow 9-8 majority in the committee, any one of these issues could sink Gabbard's candidacy. By TMD's count, the nominee was asked ten times—by Republicans and Democrats—if Edward Snowden was a traitor. She declined to answer yes or no, stating simply, 'I believe Edward Snowden broke the law.' The topic is particularly resonant given Gabbard's access to highly sensitive information if confirmed, potentially creating Republican holdouts ahead of a narrow committee vote. 'It would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by members of the intelligence community if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower in American history, so-called, harmed American security,' GOP Sen. Todd Young of Indiana said during the hearing, visibly grimacing. 'I think there are a lot of questions after. Yeah,' GOP Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma told reporters when asked about Gabbard's answers on Snowden after the hearing. Senators also pressed Gabbard on her recent flip-flop on section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a program that allows the FBI to query some Americans' emails. A vocal opponent of the program during her time in the House, Gabbard introduced a bill to repeal it in 2020. But on Thursday, she appeared to change her tune. 'My actions and legislation in Congress were done to draw attention to the egregious civil liberties violations that were occurring at that time,' she said, adding that later reforms had assuaged her concerns. 'Ms. Gabbard, what are the reforms that have led you to now support 702?,' Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee's top-ranking Democrat, asked Thursday. After Gabbard mentioned reforms passed last April, Warner noted that she had criticized them as making an 'already bad' problem 'many times worse' on Joe Rogan's podcast. 'I just don't believe, on your judgment and credibility issues, that this is the appropriate role you should take going forward,' he said. Patel's hearing rounded out the contentious trio, but Democrats' fixation on highlighting their previous criticisms about the candidate may have undermined their efforts to derail his confirmation. Despite his extensive resume—Patel has served as a former public defender and Justice Department attorney, a staffer for the House Intelligence Committee, a National Security Council official, and chief of staff to the defense secretary—the nominee is less known for his professional career than for his enthusiastic embrace of conspiracy theories about the 'deep state.' Widely described as the most loyal hanger-on in Trump's orbit, Patel has even authored a children's book about the plot against 'King Donald.' If confirmed, lawmakers worry this conspiratorial mindset would cloud Patel's judgment as head of the FBI—an agency he seems to believe is complicit in alleged Democratic efforts to commandeer the federal government. The nominee has advocated for restricting the FBI's intelligence-gathering activities and threatened to 'come after' Trump's purported enemies within the media. Democrats were, predictably, alarmed by Patel's nomination. But, as The Dispatch's Charles Hilu reported from the hearing, their rage was often channeled into scoring partisan points rather than eliciting truly damaging testimony from Patel: Rather than putting Patel on the defensive, Democrats used much of their time during the five-hour hearing reciting incendiary comments Patel has made in the past and asking him to justify certain actions from Trump. They inflicted little damage, if any, on his confirmation prospects, likely missing the opportunity to deter enough Republicans from voting for him once his nomination reaches the full Senate. At one point Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island lobbed several questions at Patel regarding social media posts and podcast appearances he had made. A Whitehouse staff member held up a poster that depicted Patel saying it was 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that members of federal law enforcement were involved in starting the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Patel called that characterization 'completely incorrect' and was about to respond to the charge, but Whitehouse would not let him. 'I'll give you the opportunity in writing, but this is my time now,' Whitehouse replied, sparing Patel from needing to defend the remark. For now, it appears that Republican senators are more likely to expend political capital on opposing Kennedy and Gabbard than on putting up a fight over Patel's bid. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, both senior members of the Judiciary Committee, signaled their support for Patel as early as last month. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina also backed Patel's confirmation in an introduction before the committee. 'In my 10 years in the Senate, I hope I have established a reputation for being fair, doing my homework, and taking tough positions that have been met with harsh criticism,' he said. 'Heck, I've been censured by my party for taking tough positions, and I stand by those positions today and my position to support Kash Patel.' Patel, somewhat surprisingly, appears to be the exception in a week where Trump's top nominees at times struggled. Heading into committee votes, it appears quite possible that Gabbard and Kennedy will not receive committee recommendations—or at the very least face a tight vote on the Senate floor. Writing for the New York Times, Alex Vadukul revisited the Luddite Club—a group of Brooklyn high schoolers he profiled in 2022 who formed a club dedicated to engaging with one another free from technology. With the original group now in college, Vadukul wanted to see how their Luddism has fared. 'Two years later, I'm still asked about them. People want to know: Did they stay on the Luddite path? Or were they dragged back into the tech abyss?' he wrote. 'I put those questions to three of the original members—Ms. Watling, Jameson Butler and Logan Lane, the club's founder–when they took some time from their winter school breaks to gather at one of their old hangouts, Central Library in Brooklyn's Grand Army Plaza. They said they still had disdain for social media platforms and the way they ensnare young people, pushing them to create picture-perfect online identities that have little [to] do with their authentic selves. They said they still relied on flip phones and laptops, rather than smartphones, as their main concessions to an increasingly digital world. And they reported that their movement was growing, with offshoots at high schools and colleges in Seattle, West Palm Beach, Fla., Richmond, Va., South Bend, Ind., and Washington, D.C.' President Donald Trump had the following exchange with a reporter during a briefing yesterday on the D.C. airport crash. Reporter: Today, you have blamed the diversity element, but then told us you weren't sure the controllers made any mistake. You then said perhaps the helicopter pilots were the ones that made the mistake. Trump: Yeah, it's all under investigation. Reporter: I understand that, that's why I'm trying to figure out how you can come to the conclusion, right now, that diversity had something to do with this crash. Trump: Because I have common sense. Bloomberg: Romania's Far-Right Candidate [Calin Georgescu] Dismisses Ukraine as 'Invented' Romania's far-right presidential frontrunner called Ukraine an 'invented state' that will be dismembered after losing the war with Russia–and proceeded to make territorial claims of his own. … Georgescu said Romania should seek to benefit from a peace settlement ending the war—and reclaim territories that were once part of Romania. He mentioned several traditional regions—northern Bukovina and Maramures, as well as Budjak—that are currently part of Ukraine. 'Everybody is interested' in border changes, Georgescu said. 'We are interested.' New York Times: U.S. Funding Freeze Threatens Security at ISIS Camps in Syria After a 34-year run involving more than 82,000 gallons of paint, the Blue Man Group will hold its final Off-Broadway performance on Sunday. In the newsletters: Will Rinehart explored how AI development is moving faster than regulators and Nick Catoggio unpacked (🔒) the woes of trying to cover the second Trump term. On the site: Mike Warren details the Trump administration's rift with Catholics, John McCormack reports on RFK Jr.'s tough road ahead, Charles Hilu considers Kash Patel's confirmation odds, and Kevin Williamson argues that you can't run government like a Silicon Valley startup. Do you think any of the three nominees before the Senate this week are suited to the Cabinet positions?
