In
the 1950s, a teenage Barney Frank once thought that he could never
enter politics because he was gay. “To get elected to office you’ve got
to be popular,” Frank told TIME in 2021. “To be gay [was, at the time]
to be very unpopular.”
But the New Jersey-born
“left-handed gay Jew”—as he called himself—entered politics anyway. And
he not only managed to secure a 32-year career in the U.S. House of
Representatives but to make history as the first incumbent member of
Congress to choose to come out and the first incumbent to marry someone
of the same sex. He is also known as the lead sponsor of the Dodd-Frank
Act, Congress’ response to the 2008 financial crisis and which created
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Tributes
have poured in to honor the Democrat, who died at 86 on Tuesday, as a
champion of the LGBT rights movement as well as a major reformer of the
U.S. financial system.
“For more than three
decades in Congress, he fought tirelessly for the people of
Massachusetts, helped make housing more affordable, stood up for the
rights of LGBTQ+ Americans, and helped pass one of the most sweeping
financial reforms in history designed to protect consumers and prevent
another financial crisis,” former President Barack Obama said about
Frank in a social media post. “Barney’s passion and wit were second to
none, and our thoughts are with his family today.”
More
condolences and tributes came from others, including former House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said in a statement that “working families in
Massachusetts and beyond have lost an iconic champion” and that “all of
us fortunate enough to serve alongside him were blessed by his boundless
knowledge, sage wisdom and great humor.”
Up until his final days, Frank still engaged in politics. He spoke to Politico in April,
when he entered hospice care in his home in Maine, where he said that
one of his regrets is that he “won’t see the continued implosion of
[President] Donald Trump.”
A
psychiatrist made a frightening prediction on Wednesday about the rest
of President Donald Trump's second term during a new podcast interview.
Dr.
John Gartner, a psychiatrist and former professor at Johns Hopkins
University, told Hugh Dougherty on a new episode of "The Daily Beast
Podcast" that Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-KY) primary defeat on Tuesday may
have emboldened Trump to do something that was once considered
unthinkable. Trump may make the call to launch a nuclear strike in Iran
or elsewhere, and there may not be anyone left around him who can stop
it, he said.
"I know sometimes
people accuse me of laughing. I'll try to laugh a little less for this
strip, because I really believe that we are going to wake up one morning
and he will have launched a first nuclear strike," Gartner said. "I
believe that this is going to happen because he wants to do it."
Gartner
has frequently said Trump exhibits signs of someone suffering from
frontotemporal dementia, a condition that significantly impacts
someone's decision-making abilities. While Gartner has not examined the
president, he said he feels confident about his diagnosis because of how
seemingly disinhibited Trump has become.
Thursday, May 21, 2026. Americans know who's to blame for the awful
economy and they also know who's been working to enrich himself from the
Oval Office as polling makes clear. All of this and Chump's slush
fund.
At least 42 U.S. military aircraft — including fighter jets, drones,
refueling tankers, and reconnaissance planes — were lost or damaged
during the war with Iran, according to a report by the Congressional
Research Service, highlighting the scale and cost of a conflict that
Washington had expected to dominate from the air.
The losses
Among
the aircraft lost were some of the United States’ most advanced
systems, including four F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, one F-35A
Lightning II stealth fighter, one A-10 Thunderbolt II ground-attack
aircraft, seven KC-135 Stratotanker tanker aircraft, one E-3 Sentry
reconnaissance aircraft, two MC-130J Commando II special operations
aircraft, one HH-60W Jolly Green II rescue helicopter, 24 MQ-9 Reaper
drones, and one MQ-4C Triton surveillance drone.
These figures emerged as the Pentagon revealed that the cost of
military operations under Operation Epic Fury had already reached nearly
$29 billion.
“Much of this increase stems from a more accurate
estimate of the costs of repairing or replacing equipment,” said Jules
Hurst III, the Pentagon’s chief financial officer, during a May 12
hearing.
However, the growing number of aircraft losses risks
intensifying the debate over the true cost of the war and whether Iran
inflicted far greater damage on American forces than was initially
acknowledged.
The report is particularly significant because the
United States Department of Defense has not released a complete official
accounting of combat losses. Congressional researchers instead compiled
the figures using Pentagon statements, United States Central Command
briefings, and press reports.
They've
lied. Chump and Hegseth and others have lied. It's only due to the
Congressional Research Service that we know the number 42. Chump hasn't
told us that, Hegseth hasn't told us that.
During a speech on Feb. 19, President Donald Trump declared victory on the cost-of-living front amid cooling inflation.
“What
word have you not heard over the last two weeks? Affordability,” Trump
said during a public appearance at the Coosa Steel plant in Rome, Ga.
(1). “Because I’ve won. I’ve won affordability.”
[. . .]
As of May, 2026, the inflation rate sits at 3.8% — a three year high.
Americans
have also reported feeling more pain over the last year, and the
prospect of a prolonged war in Iran adds an element of uncertainty, too.
The
nationwide average gas price in the U.S. climbed to $4.55 per gallon on
Wednesday, up by nearly $1.60 since late February, before the U.S. and
Israel launched joint strikes on Iran.
It is
inching closer to the national average of $4.56 reported on May 7, the
highest price since the start of the war in the Middle East and the
highest under President Donald Trump’s second tenure.
If
$4.55 per gallon sounds like a very high sum already, it is worth
considering that some Americans have it much worse. According to the
latest data by the American Automobile Association (AAA), drivers in
California are paying the highest price to fill the tank on Wednesday,
for a statewide average of $6.14 per gallon of regular gas—up from
approximately $4.45 per gallon in late February.
In five other states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, the statewide average was above the $5 mark.
Chump's bad for everyone as he continues to destroy the US economy. And it's the perfect storm for farmers as Alexa St. John and Charlie Riedel (AP) note,
"Record-setting drought and hotter-than-average temperatures mixed with
sharp drops have impacted much of the U.S. early this year, including
the Plains region. Drought conditions have worsened the spread of the
wheat streak mosaic virus and barley yellow dwarf virus, which impact
the potential of the crop. Combined with climbing input costs related to fertilizer, diesel fuel and tariffs,
longtime wheat farmers say they are feeling a lot of pain." The
hospitality industry and the tourism industry have also taken a big hit
under Chump. Dale Johnson (BBC NEWS) becomes the latest to note that the tourism for the World Cup doesn't appear to be coming to America:
The World Cup was supposed to provide a tourism boom for the US, but now the fear is it may never materialise.
A report
produced by the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) has
found that bookings are well below expectations in almost every host
city.
The AHLA said this does not align with Fifa's statement that more than five million tickets have been sold, and it creates a risk that "the anticipated economic lift may fall short".
Homeland
Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has outlined Immigration and
Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) planned role in security operations for the
2026 FIFA World Cup, as the tournament faces signs of
weaker-than-expected ticket demand in the weeks leading up to kickoff.
In
a video posted on the agency’s X account, Secretary Mullin said federal
agencies would crack down on counterfeit goods and human trafficking.
[. . .]
U.S.
travel and immigration policies have come under increased scrutiny
ahead of the tournament. The Trump administration says it has approved
more than five million applications through the Electronic System for
Travel Authorization (ESTA), a move that could help drive visitor
numbers from visa-waiver countries. However, the uptick follows months
of concern from tourism and industry groups, which warn that tougher
immigration enforcement and travel restrictions targeting other nations
may still deter some international fans from making the trip.
Because
of reality and what we can see with our own eyes being more powerful
than lies from the Oval Office, most Americans blame Donald Chump for
the economy. Almira Dolino (BLUSHER ME) reports:
Seven
out of ten Americans walking into a grocery store, filling up a gas
tank, or paying a monthly utility bill are arriving at the same
conclusion: the policies coming out of the White House are making it
harder to get by. A CNN survey released Tuesday found that 77% of U.S.
adults believe President Trump's policies have increased the cost of
living in their communities. That number includes a majority of
Republicans. Only 8% say costs have gone down under his watch.
The
poll, conducted by SSRS from April 30 to May 4 among 1,499 U.S. adults,
carries a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points. Respondents were
asked to identify which specific policies had hurt their finances the
most. The Iran war topped the list at 75%, followed by tariffs at 65%,
artificial intelligence at 46%, and changes to tax laws at 41%. The
breadth of that list signals that Americans are not reacting to a single
policy. They are reacting to an entire direction.
Behind
the numbers is a broader picture of economic pain that has been
building since Trump began his second term. Inflation hit 3.8% in April,
the highest level since May 2023, driven primarily by rising energy
costs. Trump's economic approval rating has fallen to 30%, a new career
low. On gas prices specifically, only 21% of Americans approve of how he
is handling the situation. The data points toward a public that has
grown not just frustrated, but convinced. And then comes the question of
who they blame for it.
Again,
there are Chump's lies and then there's what we can verify with our
eyes as we stand at the gas pump or in line at the grocery store or
sitting down and staring at our bills. Chump has been a bust for
everyone. Matthew Rozsa notes:
President
Donald Trump’s spending in his second term, which is on pace to reach
$9 to $10 trillion by the start of 2029, is so bad that one of Trump’s
former aides believes a Democratic president would be impeached for it.
“If
Barack Obama had done half of what Trump is doing now, Fox News would
have been calling for impeachment,” Anthony Scaramucci, former White
House Communications Director during Trump’s first term, posted on X on
Tuesday.
“Trump has no economic philosophy,” he
added. “He spent $8.2 trillion in his first term and he's on pace for $9
to $10 trillion in this one. We're at 100 percent debt to GDP held by
investors — 122 percent if you count the Fed's balance sheet. Ray Dalio
will tell you those numbers put you in sovereign debt crisis territory.
And when that happens, the only way politicians are willing to pay for
it is through inflation. Which is the cruelest possible outcome, because
inflation is the worst tax you can impose on lower and middle income
people.”
Earlier this month, Scaramucci even pointed out that his Wall Street friends are concerned about Trump’s economic policies.
"Trump is too dangerous,” Scaramucci said at the time.
“It’s funny, all my Wall Street buddies voted for him and now they’re
regretting the fact," later clarifying that "most of the people are.”
Driving the economy into the ditch is so many things but chief among them are Chump's tariffs and his war of choice with Iran. Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes that the damage the war is doing on the economy is of no concern to Chump:
The president said he is in no rush to end the Iran war—and could be about to drag his own party down in the process.
One
day after promising to end his Middle East conflict in “two or three
days,” Donald Trump told reporters that he is in “no hurry” to make a
deal with Iran.
“Everyone is saying, ‘Oh, the midterms,’” Trump said to reporters at Joint Base Andrews Wednesday. “I’m in no hurry.”
It’s
a dramatically different timeline from the one Trump offered Tuesday,
in which the president stated in no uncertain terms that Tehran had
until Sunday to come to the negotiating table.
In
fairness to Chump, he may be lying. He lies a lot. A whole lot. And
it's equally true that he's dealing with Gulf leaders who already put an
end to his Monday "last chance" ultimatum. TACO. Last week, of
course, he told the world that he wasn't concerned about the way the
economy was impacting Americans.
The
United States spends more than any other nation on defense, but even
with a huge amount of money allocated to the military, Donald Trump
still wants more cash, and the Americans aren’t happy with his recent
proposal.
Trump has long suggested
that he wanted to see the defense budget set at $1.5 trillion. That
amount of money would be four times more than the next highest spending
nation, China, according to Common Dreams. However, in late April 2026,
the Pentagon revealed its 2027 budget request, and it was high.
On
April 21st, the 2027 fiscal year budget request of $1.5 trillion was
made public during a briefing at the Pentagon. The $1.5 trillion request
was the largest defense budget request that the Department of Defense
has ever asked for in US history.
[. . .]
The
2027 fiscal year budget proposal is 42% higher than the previous year,
and it aims to “supercharge” the American defense industrial base by
expanding the production of major weapon systems.
[. . .]
While
the Trump administration has been trying to sell the defense budget
increase as a necessary expense, Americans aren’t buying what Trump’s
officials are selling, at least according to a new poll from Rethink
Media and the Costs of War Project at Brown University, which found that
6 in 10 Americans think the new defense budget number is too costly.
Turning to Chump's slush fund. Here's Senator Patty Murray speaking at Tuesday's Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing:
Acting
Attorney General, right now families are paying four, five -- even six or
seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years
because of the president’s policies, but instead of helping Americans
get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a
slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department
settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion,
and you and the president will pick the handful of people who decide how
that money gets doled out. So let's be clear: what we are talking about
is nothing short of the sitting President of the United States looting
from the Treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this
arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal government
to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he
chooses?
The
Justice Department is creating a $1.8 billion fund—a symbolic $1,776
billion, to be exact—that will be doled out to people deemed to have
been improperly targeted by the Biden-era DOJ. "The machinery of
government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is
this Department's intention to make right the wrongs that were
previously done while ensuring this never happens again," acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a public statement. The White
House thus calls it an "anti-weaponization fund," but critics are
sounding a much different theme:
・The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal
describes the precedent as "astounding" and warns it might backfire on
Republicans. Assuming it comes to pass, the fund is "sure to become a
highlight reel of Trump Administration payments to Mr. Trump's friends
and allies," reads the editorial. "Imagine the fun Democrats will have
documenting it all between now and 2028 as the worst kind of Washington
political payoff."
・A Washington Post editorial
also cites the precedent, warning that if "this stands, it will become a
template for all future American presidents to shower financial
benefits on friends and allies without accountability." Trump, they
write, "is stretching executive authority to a breaking point," and
Democratic lawmakers should take note. "The $1.776 billion to be
deposited in the settlement fund is meant to evoke the year Americans
declared independence. It's a reminder that spending taxpayer funds
without the consent of their representatives is liable to generate
revolutionary sentiments."
The $1.8 billion fund created by the Trump administration this week to pay people who claim mistreatment
by the federal government appears to violate longstanding Justice
Department standards and practices, as well as a policy directive issued
by the administration last year, legal experts said on Wednesday.
Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, defended the fund at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, calling it “unusual” but insisting it was appropriate and reflective of past settlements.
Justice
Department veterans have been deeply skeptical of those claims,
particularly when it comes to a provision in the deal that offers
President Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump
Organization immunity from tax penalties. They have also been critical
of the decision to resolve a lawsuit filed by one group of people in a
way that gives more than a billion dollars to an entirely different
category of people.
“I have never
heard of the department ever being willing to grant blanket immunity,”
said Jennifer Ricketts, a former branch director in the department’s
civil division. “That seems blatantly corrupt. It’s a shocking gift to
the president.”
Justice Department veterans also said the
new fund appeared to contradict a specific policy instituted by the
Trump administration last year under former Attorney General Pam Bondi
that largely prohibited payments to groups not involved in an underlying
lawsuit.
A Justice Department spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.
The
deal struck between the president’s lawyers and his own administration,
without oversight of a judge, could involve major payouts to people who
had not sued the government, as well.
And that's what I don't get.
A
judge steps in and says, of the $10 billion deal, no, no, this is Chump
as plaintiff and as defendent. You can't do that. But this new deal
is the exact same thing. No one was representing the people of the
United States. This was citizen Chump saying what he wanted and
President Chump ordering the agencies to go along with it.
This is corruption plain and simple and it's just as corrupt as the $10 billion deal would have been.
It is hard to imagine that any previous president would have thought he could engage in such an audacious act of self-dealing.
Sue the government he runs, then settle the lawsuit with himself by barring the Internal Revenue Service from auditing his past returns. And as part of that deal, hand over $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to his allies.
President
Trump has used the federal government to advance his own personal
interests and those of his family and allies more expansively and openly
than any past occupant of the White House. Any review of history would
suggest that it is not even close.
But
as Mr. Trump, the only convicted felon ever elected president, heads
deeper into his second term, he seems even less inhibited by the rules,
written or unwritten, that governed his predecessors. While deeply
unpopular with the general public, he has demonstrated as recently as
this week that he remains the undisputed master of his own party, and
therefore appears to feel that he can do as he likes without fear of
Congress standing in his way.
A
majority of voters have said Donald Trump is using his office for
personal gain, as the president promised that “America is thriving.”
In
typical fashion, Trump boasted about what he called the “hottest
country anywhere in the world” under his leadership at the White House
Congressional Picnic Tuesday night, which included a food tent and
Ferris wheel on the South Lawn.
“America
is thriving, America is winning, and America is respected, perhaps like
it has never been respected before,” he told members of Congress as
their constituents deal with soaring gas prices and high grocery bills.
As
Americans struggle with the cost of living, 59 percent believe Trump is
using the presidency for personal gain, according to a new The Economist/YouGov poll. Just 30 percent said the president was not using his office for his own benefit.
Let's say it plainly: There has never been a president as corrupt as Donald Trump. There is no close second in our history.
Take
two days in May as Exhibit A. Americans just found out that in the
first quarter of this year, Trump's stock portfolio made 3,600 trades -
an average of nearly 60 a day. This is a rapacious pace that would make a
day trader on meth blush. Many of these appear suspiciously timed to
benefit from actions approved by the president himself. For example, his
Nvidia stock surged after Trump announced the company would be
permitted to sell its cutting-edge AI chips to China. Similar
suspiciously well-timed calls were made ahead of big government moves
involving other companies, from Intel to Palantir to Boeing. The Trump
Organization says all trades are made by a third-party investment
advisor. If so, they appear to be psychic.
But the
apparent insider trading scam being run from within the Oval Office is
small change - merely millions of dollars - compared to the self-dealing
plunder of $1.8 billion tax-payer dollars being pushed through the DOJ
and IRS.
There's never been a sitting president
who sued his own government for $10 billion. That's because it's
absurdly corrupt. But that's what Donald Trump did, arguing he had
suffered damages from prosecutions pursued before he was reelected.
Trump, like many of his supporters, persistently confuses persecution
with prosecution.
The judge who heard the case
convened an independent panel to review the suit, suspecting it might be
a scam. Before the case could be dismissed, Acting Attorney General
Todd Blanche - who had previously served as Trump's personal lawyer -
declared that the bogus suit would be preemptively settled, not for $10
billion, but for the symbolic sum of $1.776 billion, which Trump said
will be distributed to persecuted political allies.
This
is a shakedown. The president is compelling a Justice Department he
controls to redirect money from taxpayers - that's you - to his most
fervent supporters. This slush fund will set off a cash grab among MAGA
lawyers and be used to reward partisan fanatics who attacked the U.S.
Capitol - and police officers - on his behalf.
If
that wasn't enough of a blatantly illegal use of presidential power, it
was revealed that the "settlement" deal included a pledge signed by the
acting attorney general that would ensure - in the hysterical all caps
of a Trump tweet - that the government would be "FOREVER BARRED and
PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing" any tax claims, audits or
related prosecutions against Trump, his family or their businesses. This
is an attempt to get a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card for the
Trump family - a license to steal.
All of this
is insane. All of it is unethical, and much of it is illegal and
impeachable - but our system was not designed to deal with a shamelessly
self-dealing president, a spineless Republican Congress, and a
complaint conservative Supreme Court that has refused to enforce the
emoluments clause of the Constitution and ruled that Trump has immunity
for actions he takes as president.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Washington, D.C. — Today, at a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee (SVAC) hearing
on the FY27 budget request for the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate
Appropriations Committee and a former chair and senior member of SVAC,
questioned Secretary Doug Collins on VA’s decision not to comply with
the law and roll out a childcare program, increased wait times at VA,
and the electronic health record (EHR) rollout at Mann Grandstaff.
[CHILD CARE CENTERS AT VA]
Senator Murray began by pressing Secretary Collins on VA’s
acknowledgement that the VA Kids Care program is no longer being
implemented, going against the requirement in the Isakson-Roe Veterans Health Care Improvement Act, which authorizedVA’s Childcare Assistance Program.
MURRAY: Mr. Secretary, in December of 2020, actually
when you were serving in the House, Congress passed the Isakson-Roe
Veterans Health Care Improvement Act by unanimous consent. And it was
signed into law by President Trump during his first term. Section 5107
of that law says that the secretary shall provide a form of child care
assistance by January 5, 2026, to all veterans during their VA
appointments.
Last year, your budget requested $22 million to open Kids Care sites
at 13 VA medical facilities, and Congress delivered on that request. But
you’re only planning to use $1 million of those funds in FY26. And this
year’s budget request has one sentence about the program, which was
actually our first notification that the VA Kids Care program is no
longer being implemented.
Now VA’s own data shows that 58 percent of veterans with children
have no-showed or cancelled their appointment, why? Because of lack of
child care.
So I wanted to ask you today, what is your plan to restart this program and comply with the law?
COLLINS: I think, Senator, we’re fully planning to
comply with law. It is sort of obviously [unintelligible] of the
previous administration didn’t move forward on this. We’re trying to
move forward with it. Richard can give you some more information on that
issue, but this is where it was left with us.
TOPPING: And ma’am, you do know we’ve got two sites
up and running, American Lake and Chillicothe. We are pulling in the
utilization demand and outcomes data, so that we can drive this forward.
We’re looking at reimbursement models as well. As we get the data, we
can make the decisions and come back, and that will be in our budget
request. But we are moving to implement the law.
MURRAY: Let me be clear—this is a law, it is not a
suggestion, it’s a law—and we have provided the funding you need to
ensure that veterans do have the child care they need to get to their
appointments. So I just want you to know I am going to keep—we’re going
to make sure we fund this program, and I will be following up to make
sure that the mandate is followed.
COLLINS: I appreciate it, we agree that this part,
again, like I said, this was left for four years, never really done
anything with. We’re still trying to get it implemented, and we’re doing
everything we possibly can to do it.
[INCREASING WAIT TIMES FOR VA CARE]
Senator Murray asked Secretary Collins about how VA’s dramatic
reduction in workforce last year has led to increased wait times for
medical appointments, reduced access to specialty and mental healthcare,
degraded security at VA medical centers, and created a significant
backlog in claims processing.
MURRAY: Moving on. Secretary Collins, last month I
had a roundtable with veterans in my home state of Washington. And I
heard from a number of them that wait times for behavioral health care
can sometimes be up to 90 days. That is 90 days, for behavioral health,
unacceptable.
Community care can’t be the answer, because it often takes community
care providers longer to treat veterans than it would if that veteran
remained with the VA. Those same advocates that I met with told me that
it can take up to 10 months to fill certain positions. And yet, VA’s
budget is requesting 6,000 fewer employees than VHA had in 2025.
So I want to hear specifically from you what you’re doing to help
address this crisis. How many more doctors and nurses has the VA hired
since you took over?
COLLINS: Are you talking—okay? There’s several questions there. Which one do you want to go with first?
MURRAY: Well you start with where you have an answer?
COLLINS: The I think, let’s start off first off at
the at the mental health side. There is nothing at this point keeping
any of our facilities from hiring the mental health professional that
they need. That can be hired at any point, our overall VA wide our
mental health appointments have come down. In fact, they have come down
two to three days, wherever across the country.
MURRAY: What do you mean come down? Wait times?
COLLINS: I’m sorry.
MURRAY: You’re trying to say wait times?
COLLINS: Yes, mental health has improved 2.8 days just this year from 17.8 to 15.
MURRAY: Well let me just tell you, I heard directly
from veterans myself and from VA staff. And one VA nurse actually talked
to me about how she had 3,200 patients at one point and when she’d get
into the office, she said she’d just look at her screen and start
crying—because she knew how many veterans were in crisis and needed her.
And that’s just overwhelming.
So we’re in this position because Trump did push out many
people—however you’re going to characterize it—and now we’re having the
consequences. And I am told you are holding these clinical positions
flat, instead of hiring for providers that our veterans need.
COLLINS: we’re not, and I think here’s the issue, is
that you have a clinical provider that’s telling you this, but yet not
bringing it up the chain and to the proper areas to actually getting
something fixed.
MURRAY: I’m telling it to you.
COLLINS: Well, I appreciate that. But also if you’re
working in the system and you’re listening to this today and you’re
working in the VA facility that I’m over, and you’re not letting your
leadership or making sure your leadership is aware that we need certain
things. Then I got to have VA employees who are willing to step forward.
MURRAY: Well I’m listening to this woman, I’m pretty sure she was letting everybody know.
COLLINS: Then we will address it and look forward to
it. And I look forward to working with you to continue this. I think
the biggest issue here though is looking at the facilities, looking at
what they need and how we need to go about this.
MURRAY: I just want you to be aware that out in the
field, where it counts, mental health is a real crisis, and I am hearing
from the VA themselves, I’m hearing from veterans that there’s a real
crisis in staffing. So—
COLLINS: And I appreciate that, Senator. I’m on the
road at least almost two weeks a month, I’ve been in 71 hospitals, and I
go not just for the dog and pony show, I actually go through waiting
rooms, I go through patients’ rooms, and we talk about this. There are
issues. The VA is not perfect, and I told you that the day we had our
confirmation hearing, but the one thing is, we can get better and we’ll
continue to.
MURRAY: Well I have limited time here, I just want you to know you need to be aware that this is a huge problem.
COLLINS: I am aware. Thank you.
[EHR ROLLOUT]
Senator Murray then addressed the failed EHR rollout at Mann Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, Washington.
MURRAY: Now, let me have one last question. As you
know, when the first Trump administration rolled the EHR out in
Washington state, it was a disaster.
COLLINS: Yes.
MURRAY: So, I’m really glad to see that the most recent roll outs, as you mentioned a few minutes ago, seem to have gone better.
But I want to, for my own information, when was the last time you spoke directly with providers at Mann Grandstaff?
COLLINS: I have not talked to a provider there recently, no.
MURRAY: Okay, I would like you to, because we cannot
ignore the fact that those original sites are still seeing problems and
you need to be aware of that. So, as you move forward with the 13 new
ones, I want to make sure that the budget supports both deploying to
those new sites and making sure that the old ones that have been out
there are improving, and I expect and would like to ask for a detailed
plan on how you will—
COLLINS: We can. I’ll have Dr. Lawrence make sure
that he gets you that plan, because we are trying to update the
facilities. Look, what happened in Washington state was frankly wrong.
It was bad, and you had six facilities that were allowed to act as if
they were independent, not connected, and do whatever they wanted to do,
and you had subsystem software problems. We’ve not had that problem,
we’ve fixed that issue moving forward, and we’re going to go back and
fix those as well. So, I’ll get you that information. I agree with you, I
agree with you completely.
MURRAY: Alright check back with Mann Grandstaff,
because I just have to say I’m excited that you’re moving out and not
hearing complaints. That’s great, but we still have problems at the
original site.
COLLINS: And that is what drives me every day to make sure we get it right this time.
A political analyst has made a startling prediction for President Donald Trump’s political career.
Analyst David Rothkopf gave a bleak analysis
of Trump, saying that he’s headed to a “political disaster scene” as
polls show an increasingly unsatisfied electorate, and his cognitive
health has been called into question.
[. . .]
Rothkopf also claimed that Trump, who is 79, making him the oldest person to be elected president, has declining health.
“The polling data says politically he’s in free fall, but physically and mentally he’s also in free fall,” he claimed.
Fears surrounding Trump’s health have even taken hold amongst his allies, Rothkopf also suggested.
There
have been multiple instances of concern, from the president’s
late-night Truth Social posting sprees to his seemingly nodding off on
camera moments, to his bruised hands that sometimes appear to be covered
in makeup.
“I think a lot of people in the
White House—and I’ve talked to people in the White House, I’ve talked to
people on Capitol Hill—I think a lot of people are worried because
these trends don’t get reversed,” Rothkopf said.
He
added that they’re worried that in the next several months, the
president will become much worse, a “more unfit-to-be-president Donald
Trump, simply because the clock is ticking, he’s declining, and this is
all happening at the same time that he’s in political free fall.”
I think most people would agree with Rothkopf. I know I do.
For
decades, Diet Coke has been a durable pop culture icon, as much a
symbol of boardroom swashbuckling as high fashion society. Its buzzy
1980s origins featured endorsements from celebrities including Paula
Abdul, Whitney Houston and Demi Moore. More recently, limited-edition
Diet Coke cans were released to coincide with “The Devil Wears Prada”
sequel.
The soda is also beloved
across generations. It has been given the mantle of “fridge cigarette”
by a Gen Z cohort who, according to Cosmopolitan, want to “blow off
steam without the actual fumes” and is repped by quintessential baby
boomers, including Bill Gates in a TikTok he posted of himself
re-creating Warren Buffett’s recipe for Dusty Diet Coke. (That’s a
bizarro mix of the soda, vanilla ice cream, chocolate syrup and malted
milk powder.)
Even the magic button that summons Diet Cokes to the Oval Office reappeared on the Resolute Desk last January, much to the irritation of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
All
of this soft-drink soft power belies an uneasy truth for Diet Coke
fanatics. The diet soda sweeping the nation is actually the beverage’s
own sibling, Coke Zero Sugar—part of a zero-sugar soda boom that
accounted for 52% of growth in soft drink sales last year, according to
the market research firm Circana. Sales of Diet Coke, by comparison,
have been, well, pretty flat since the soda peaked in popularity in
2006.
I
used to drink Diet Coke. Since Coke Zero came out, I can't drink Diet
Coke anymore. It tastes metallic to me. I drink Coke Zero or Cherry
Coke Zero unless I'm drinking water or coffee. I love the taste of Coke
Zero.
Wednesday, May 20, 2026. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appears
before the Senate and can't answer honestly on Chump's slush fund or on
Epstein (or for that matter on Maxwell) nor does he understand the
prison system he's supposed to be overseeing.
Earlier this morning on MS NOW's MORNING JOE, Joe and Mika addressed Chump's $1.8 million slush fund.
Acting
Attorney General, right now families are paying four, five -- even six or
seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years
because of the president’s policies, but instead of helping Americans
get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a
slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department
settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion,
and you and the president will pick the handful of people who decide how
that money gets doled out. So let's be clear: what we are talking about
is nothing short of the sitting President of the United States looting
from the Treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this
arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal government
to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he
chooses?
That's Senator
Patty Murray asking Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that in
yesterday's Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies hearing. Blanche disputed the
characterization. As Senator Murry noted, Senator Chris Van Hollen
raised the issue. So did Senator Chris Coons.
Senator
Chris Coons: Thank you. Let me return to the line of questioning from
the ranking member, Senator Van Hollen, that I strongly agree with. I’m
just looking at the settlement agreement in Trump v. IRS, and I just
want to make sure I heard you properly when you responded previously.
Your announcement said that the fund will send you quarterly reports.
Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans know
who’s getting taxpayer dollars out of the settlement fund? This says
they’ll be confidential. This is Section 4, Part E of the settlement
agreement.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: :
So – the reason why I want to be careful in my answer is because
there’s obviously laws that exist around privacy that may prevent some
of the information that the commission takes in from being fully public.
Beyond that, there will be full transparency, and I commit to you that
beyond the applicable laws that exist around privacy and privileges and
whatnot, but as far as being transparent and having those quarterly
reports released, yes.
Senator Chris Coons:
Thank you. You referenced a previous case, I think it was Keepseagle v.
Vilsack, under the previous administration. Did that case involve a
president suing his own government and then settling that case before it
could be reviewed or approved by a judge?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, no. Neither does the commission.
Senator
Chris Coons: No, it did not. And so when you suggested that they’re
nearly identical, they’re not identical. I think there’s a critical
difference here: President Trump is the first president to sue his own
government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach
this kind of settlement. Will you commit that none of President Trump’s
family will receive a direct payout from this fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes,
but what you just said is not true. I mean – if I can correct that –
the president did not direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we
said that the structure of the commission is similar to Keepseagle,
that’s true. It wasn’t – the underlying case is not the same, the
structure of the commission is the same as the Keepseagle commission.
Senator
CHris Coons: Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own
government for $10 billion and then directed the settlement of the case
and the establishment of a payout fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Not
that I’m aware, but there are a lot of things that President Trump’s
the first of. No president had been indicted one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight times either.
Senator
Chris Coons: Correct. No president’s been indicted. And will you commit
that none of this money will go to President Trump’s campaign donors?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I
am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself.
When you say campaign donors, they are not excluded from seeking
compensation if they were weaponized.
Senator
Chris Coons: Last question, during Police Week, I heard from a number of
law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the
possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, who had
assaulted Capitol Police officers, could receive multimillion-dollar
payouts from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been
convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this
fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So,
I share the concerns that apparently members of law enforcement gave to
you last week, although none of this was announced last week, so that’s
surprising.
Senator Chris Coons: They had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Okay,
but anybody can apply. The commissioners will set rules, I’m sure.
That’s not for me to set, that’s for the commissioners, and whether an
individual – an Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned – applies for
compensation, anybody in this country can apply.
Senator Patty Murray, noted in the video above, questioned Blanche about the slush fund.
Senator
Patty Murray: Acting Attorney General, right now families
are paying four, five -- even six or seven dollars for gas. Inflation is
at
its highest level in years because of the president's policies, but
instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using
their tax dollars to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. On
Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting
up a fund with $1.8 billion, and you and the president will pick the
handful of people who decide how that money gets doled out. So let's be
clear: what we are talking about is nothing short of the sitting
President of the United States looting from the Treasury for his own
gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The
president
telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay
billions to the people that he chooses?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: What you just described wouldn't be
appropriate, and that's absolutely not what happened, and that’s not
what's happening now. So, you just set up a series of facts most of
which that were not true to say as if --
Senator Patty Murray: No. They were true.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: No, it's not. I mean I --
Senator Patty Murray: The president has set up a slush
fund -- however you want to say it got set up --- and he will literally get to
choose through his handpicked appointees who gets paid that fund. That
is absurd.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, the president did not
set up this fund, it's not a slush fund. It's been done many times; we
have lots of funds --
Senator Patty Murray: I heard your response earlier to Senator Van
Hollen; this is not comparable to the case that you cited -- a judge was
not involved. This is the president versus himself, setting up a fund
and --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: A judge was not involved in the
distribution of the Keepseagle case at all. It just wasn't. There was a
single commissioner that was set up -- not five -- and so when I --
Senator Patty Murray: The judge signed off on that case.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes, it was a much later point in the litigation.
Senator Patty Murray: That’s my point -- that is all of our point.
And I just have to tell you: this is corruption that has never been more
blatant or more widespread. But what is happening is that you write the
check, Trump and his cronies cash it. American taxpayers -- who are
already being whacked with high prices -- are going to foot the bill. That
is what we are seeing today and that is what many of us are really,
really angry about.
Senator Jack Reed had many questions about the slush fund as well.
Senator Jack Reed: Mr. Blanche how many tax payers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Uh, how many tax payers? Excuse me?
Senator Jack Reed: How many tax payers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know the exact amount, but a lot.
Senator Jack Reed: 5,427. One of them was Donald Trump. Correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Uh, one of them was Donald Trump. Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: One of them was Donald Trump and his family were others, correct.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Right.
Senator Jack Reed: And Donald Trump was president at the time.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: It was a criminal who worked in the IRS, yes.
Senator Jack Reed: Well he was hired under Trump's admin. This is one of the Trump --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: There was a criminal breach that led to this, yes.
Senator Jack Reed: Very good. How many of these 400,000 have received monetary reimbursement for the breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't think any have including the president.
Senator
Jack Reed: No, they haven't. But you've authorized the president. Do
you agree the president should have reimbursment, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: No, we've settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement to President Trump.
Senator Jack Reed: Well that's interesting.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: But --
Senator Jack Reed: So you're going to assure us President Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: He will not. He will not get. His family will not get.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: And who will direct the disposition of these? Who gets the money? From the victims' fund?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well, there'll be a commission of five
individuals that will be set up and they will take in requests and
claims and decide whether to do anything for emotional problems.
Senator Jack Reed: Who will name the commissioners?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I will or the Attorney General -- whoever the Attorney General is.
Senator Jack Reed: Okay.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Sorry, just to correct, and one of them
will be done in consultation with leadership of this body.
Senator
Jack Reed: Consultation. Well that's good but, when he first announced
this suit on January 30th, he said, "I think what we'll do is something
for charity, where I'll the money to charity. I'm talking about the
American Cancer Society. I would say established and respected
charities." Will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to
respected charities?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm aware that he put that in there,
said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for.
Senator Jack Reed: Well the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the Dept of Justice, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's vision of giving it to a respected charity?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I am confident his lawyers urged the president's desires.
Senator
Jack Reed: The order that you signed yesterday states that the
government pay the settlement if the Secretary of the Treasury has
certified the payment. Is that correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: Is it a coincidence that the general counsel of the Dept of Treasury resigned yesterday?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know if it's a coincidence
Senator Jack Reed: Have you looked or checked?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Have I checked?
Senator Jack Reed: Yeah
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I've not.
Senator
Jack Reed: as to why he's resigned? It just seems to be very
coincidental that a high-ranking member of The Dept of Treasury, Senate
confirmed, would resign the day that the Treasury Dept was required to
-- required essentially to certify these payments.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I believe the IRS signed the
settlement agreement as well. But I - I - I don't, I can't speak to why
he resigned, Senator.
Senator
Jack Reed: Well this all seems to be an obvious abuse of power by the
Dept of Justice, by the president. He negotiated essentially with
himself. Your his appointee. The IRS are his appointees. He's the
plaintiff. And the American people, I don't think are surprised that
suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that are in
his orbit.
And let's clear up
something here regarding the notion that this slush fund is a
replacement for Chump's $10 billion claim over the IRS exposure. As
Senator Jack Reed pointed out in the hearing, over 5,000 other people
also had their tax returns leaked. They had not sued and certainly not
sued for $10 billion dollars. More to the point, Chump can't sue this
year. He's not doing something -- giving up his ten billion claim -- to
be nice. He can't sue. It's too late for him to sue.
[Dan] Abrams
said that Trump had a legitimate gripe about the IRS leaking his tax
return information — but it’s a moot point now because the statute of
limitations has run out.
“That’s the thing so
few people are talking about — there’s a two-year statute of limitations
on this claim,” Abrams said. He added, “What’s most galling to me about
this is, this is creating what I’m gonna call a ‘constitutional crisis
in spirit.’
Abrams said he’s careful to not
declare a “constitutional crisis” over and over, because the term only
counts when the executive branch defies the courts.
But, he said, “This was clearly an effort to get it out of the courts.”
“The
judge was clearly going to dismiss this lawsuit. And so, rather than to
allow that to happen, they ‘settled it’ right?” Abrams said. “They are
gaslighting us and I’m lit! I admit it. It worked. I’m gaslit! I mean,
they know — there’s gotta be someone back there who’s laughing as
they’re creating this [weaponization] language. Like, ‘Oh, this is
really gonna piss them off!'”
Whether he was right or wrong, the statute of limitations had run out. He had two years to file a claim. It's over.
Chump's best friend of so many decades is dead now but Jeffrey Epstein, sex trafficker, continues to remain in the news. And he also popped up during the hearing.
Senator Patty Murray: So let me
move to another topic. This Dept of Justice is sending the message that
if you're wealthy. if you're powerful, if you are well-connected, you
won't be held accountable even if you abuse children. You know, it's
after Congress passed The Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOJ finally
began to release the files, your department exposed survivors' names,
their sensitive personal information and even nude photos while
redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. The message
that sends is this Dept of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy
of potential child abusers than the survivors. Your predecessor refused
to apologize to those victims but I want to give you the same
opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release
of these documents. Will you apologize to the survivors?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When the president passed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was the only time --
Senator Patty Murray: Pardon me?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When
the president signed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was when we
were legally allowed to release the files prior to the passage of the
act, which you all passed. I agree --
Senator Patty Murray: That is still not the question I'm asking.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: It was the question. You asked five or
six questions. I'm answering them in order. That was one of the
questions you asked.
Senator
Patty Murray: The question I want you to answer is: Will you apologize
to the victims whose names, sensitive personal information and even
nude photos were not redacted by your department? Will you apologize to
them?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course. That was -- We never want to release a single victim's name --
Senator Patty Murray: That is what we are hearing.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Can I answer the question, please? Is it --
Senator Patty Murray: I'm asking if you'll apologize?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, I -- and I just said yes, but I
wanted to -- I would like an explanation to be given to that. What-what
this act did is it required us to review over 6 million pieces of paper
in a very short period of time. And so 0.0001% we made mistakes and we
owned up to them. And the second that a victim or their lawyer told us
that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and we put lawyers
24-7 in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that
we fixed every single problem. And so, yes, --
Senator Patty Murray: I hear your anger.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm not angry. No, I'm not angry. I'm just making sure it's understood.
Senator
Patty Murray: I hear your anger and I will tell you who is really angry
is the people who had their nude photos released --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm just making sure it's understood that we matter.
Senator Patty Murray: I just want to hear you say, ''I apologize to those victims.''
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as I just said, of course any time
that we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, we have
failed as a Dept of Justice and so we have to do everything we can to
not fail --
Senator Patty Murray: Well, I still haven't heard the words, "I apologize to those victims."
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I'm trying to give you an
explanation of what happened but I don't think you're really interested
in that because you keep on cutting me off.
Senator
Patty Murray: Well I am but I have a few more questions here and I
want to know -- and I know that Senator Van Hollen raised this -- but I
want to ask will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors? I
have heard from them personally that DoJ refused to meet them and I'm
asking about you, I'm asking about the Justice Dept reaching out to them
to be heard. Not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has
obviously repeatedly failed them so far.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Can I answer?
Senator Patty Murray: Yeah, will you reach out to them?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as we have said repeatedly, of
course any lawyer -- Now if the victim has a lawyer, I am not allowed to
reach out to the victim directly. You know that. But any lawyer can
reach out to the Dept of Justice. They have and I've met with many
victims and their lawyers -- as has the FBI, as has the SDNY. We will
always meet with victim's counsel and if any victim or their lawyer can
come forward to the FBGI at any time --
Senator
Patty Murray: You will always meet with victim's counsel? Well these
women -- and I've met with them and I know Senator Van Hollen has and so
many others -- they are personally so feeling abused, again and again
and again, by what happened to them originally and now what's happening
to them. I am saying to you as a human being, don't make them navigate a
system that's impossible to navigate, that has already abused them.
Reach out and ask to meet with them. That's all I'm asking.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Wait. You're asking me to call? You
want me to personally call the victims? Is that what you are asking me
to do?
Senator Patty Murray: I can help you reach them.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Oh, that would be great. Yes, because we have said from day one that --
Senator Patty Murray: And you would meet with them if I reached out to them?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course, there have been members who
have done that and we immediately reach out to the victims or their
lawyers when their lawyers say they ant to do it.
Last
week, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee held a hearing in
Florida on Epstein and the witnesses were some of the survivors. We
noted Joe Sommerlad (INDEPENDENT) report which included:
She
also attacked the Department of Justice for leaving her name, and those
of other survivors, unredacted in the Epstein files released in
December and January, saying her’s appeared more than 500 times while
those of the pedophile’s alleged accomplices were blacked out, which she
claimed had been a “choice,” not a “mistake.”
Over 500 times one survivor's name was not redacted. Over 500 times. And Blanche doesn't want to say he's sorry.
Does
Blanche understand his job? In the exchange with Senator Jack Reed
below, it did not appear that Blanche understands what he's
supervising.
Senator Jack Reed: You had an opportunity to go down and
talk to Ghislaine Maxwell and then a few days later she was transferred
from a high security prison to a very comfortable -- a very comfortable
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: That's
just not true. She was not in a high security prison. She was
transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison I mean,
you're looking at me like that's -- that's verifiable.
Senator
Jack Reed: Well I don't think at the other prison she had her own
room, she had access to a private shower, she could have pet therapy and
--
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know if any of that is true. I'm not disagreeing with you --
Senator Jack Reed: It is true and you should know it, Mr. Blanche
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:I should know that?
Senator Jack Reed: You should know.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:Whether an inmate has access to her own shower?
Senator
Jack Reed: This is a person of extra special interest to the President
of the United States. He's known her. Why did he send you down to talk
to her?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: He didn't send me. I went.
Senator Jack Reed: What do you mean?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: You think President Trump called and asked me to interview a witness in federal prison?
Senator
Jack Reed: Yes, I do, frankly. Because you know why? Because the deal
was in. He needed somebody he could rely upon to talk to her and find
out what she say if she was asked about Jeffrey Epstein. And you were
the perfect choice. And you went down there. And suddenly, Shazam!,
she's out of what is a confining situation into a much more relaxed
federal prison.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Every
word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. If
there's criticisms of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make
them. But the president did not have anything to do with my choice to
go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't have went and a career would
have went, you would have said, 'Why didn't you go yourself?' Like you
expect me to know whether she has access to her own shower. So I did
go.
Senator
Jack Reed: Everyone in the United States who reads the newspapers know
that, I guess, you don't, you know, read things like that. You know,
this whole hearing, I think is exposing something, which I think is, to
me, very frightening. You're a very gifted lawyer. But from my
perspective, you have very little faith to the Constitution and the
people of America. And you're the President's consigliore.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Your perspective is completely wrong, Senator.
Senator Jack Reed: Well I think the facts will prove me right. Thank you.
Todd Blanche lies. He declared, "She was not in a high security prison. She was transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison "
No, Ghislaine was not in a high security prison. She was in a low
security prison. That part he got right. But the prison she was
transferred to in Bryan, Texas is not a low security prison, it is a
minimum security prison -- that's the lowest classification level and it
is less restrictive than a low security prison. If you're confused on
this, you can refer to this Federal Bureau of Prisons webpage. You'll find under Minimum:
Minimum
security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have
dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited
or no perimeter fencing. These institutions are work- and
program-oriented.
A number of BOP institutions
have a small, minimum security camp adjacent to the main facility. These
camps, often referred to as Satellite Prison Camps (SCPs), provide
inmate labor to the main institution and to off-site work programs.
Bryan FPC, where Maxwell currently resides, is the second minimum security prison listed.
Under Low you'll find this:
Low
security Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs) have double-fenced
perimeters, mostly dormitory or cubicle housing, and strong work and
program components. The staff-to-inmate ratio in these institutions is
higher than in minimum security facilities.
FCI
Elkton and FCI Jesup each have a small Federal Satellite Low Security
(FSL) facility adjacent to the main institution. FCI La Tuna has a low
security facility affiliated with, but not adjacent to, the main
institution.
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) joined the Center for American Progress’ IDEAS
Conference to deliver a speech on the need for universal child care.
“As a nation, we support our economy by investing in roads and
bridges and public education — all so that our businesses and our
workers can prosper. It’s time to do the same for child care — make this
investment so that mamas and daddies can work,” said Senator Warren.
She highlighted how the cost of child care is crushing families,
pointing to data that shows child care costs have risen twice as fast as
inflation, and how in 47 out of 50 states, families are paying more for
child care for two kids than rent for their whole family.
She also criticized Democrats for not being serious enough about
getting universal child care done during a Democratic trifecta, saying Build Back Better was “an exercise in how weak and ineffective we could make the child care program and still call it child care.”
“We lost child care [in Build Back Better] because not
enough Democrats who were already in office were willing to fight for
it. I believe down to my bones that Democrats who think there is no
reward for fighting to deliver universal child care are dead wrong,” said Senator Warren.
Senator Warren called on every Democratic candidate in 2026 and 2028
to make universal child care a core part of their platform, saying “[i]t
would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking about
child care every chance we get, going into the midterms and beyond.”
The senator pressed Democrats to fight for universal child care and
have legislation ready to pass on Day One of the next Democratic
trifecta that “makes it possible for parents to access that care the
very same year.” Senator Warren has teamed up with Senator Patty Murray
(D-Wash.) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to draft
legislation that would deliver universal child care.
“We're in this fight to deliver for the American people — not to
talk, but to deliver. To lower the costs that are keeping people up at
night. And to give people some hope by showing what it looks like when
government is actually on their side,” said Senator Warren.
“Whether you have kids or not — whether you even like kids or not —
universal child care is the best investment we can make in bolstering
the middle class… As Democrats go around the country asking people to
vote for us, every single one of us should be talking about child care,”
Senator Warren concluded.
Transcript: CAP IDEAS Conference May 19, 2026
As Prepared for Delivery
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you to Neera and
CAP’s outstanding team for pulling together today’s conference. And
thank you, Jared, for the very generous introduction.
A lot of folks here today are going to tell you that costs are way
up, and Donald Trump is to blame. That’s true — and it’s a big reason
why Trump’s approval rating just hit an all-time low. But Americans are
angry — and have been angry for a long time — because costs have been
going up for decades under both parties.
If we want to win the midterms and have a fighting chance in 2028, we
need to convince Americans that we’re serious about taking on big
fights and lowering costs. That means no more general hand-waving. It
means specific proposals that would make meaningful differences in
people’s lives — specific proposals that we’re willing to be held
accountable for delivering on.
Let’s start with child care.
Child care costs have risen twice as fast as inflation. In 47 out of
50 states, families are paying more for child care for two kids than
rent for their whole family. And under Donald Trump, the crisis has
gotten worse.
As a young working mom, I was about an inch away from quitting my job
before my Aunt Bee moved in to help with child care. That was forty
years ago — and it’s only gotten worse since.
Today, half of all families live in child care deserts, meaning there
are two or three children who need care for every one child care slot.
If you’re lucky, you might get a spot for your infant in six months. But
you might get stuck on a two-year waitlist for the privilege of paying
$20,000 plus a year.
How did we get here? It’s Econ 101 — supply and demand. Prices are
high because lots of families need care, and there are nowhere near
enough child care providers.
And why are there not enough child care workers? Again, it’s Econ
101: There aren’t enough workers because those workers are typically
paid at lower rates than Uber drivers.
So why not pay them more? Typically, when you need more workers, you
pay more. But families are already getting flattened by sky-high costs
for care and they simply can’t afford to pay more.
In other words, the private market has not — and will not — solve the
child care market problem. The only way to develop adequate child care
is for the government to fill the gap by investing in families and
workers.
It would be a smart investment with huge payoffs. Workers would be
paid commensurate with their training and responsibilities. Babies would
get a strong start in life. And families would get relief on a huge
cost.
As a nation, we support our economy by investing in roads and bridges
and public education — all so that our businesses and our workers can
prosper. It’s time to do the same for child care — make this investment
so that mamas and daddies can work — and then we’ll all see the payoff.
Child care should not be a privilege that is reserved just for the
rich. Child care is public infrastructure that makes our communities and
our businesses flourish.
When I ran for president in 2020, I talked about child care at every
stop — but while every Democratic candidate supported expanding child
care, it wasn’t the issue they talked about on the stump.
When Joe Biden was elected, we were in the throes of the COVID
pandemic, which ripped back the curtain on how fragile our
cobbled-together child care system really is. And for the first time in a
long time, we had a Democratic trifecta. To me, this was a golden
chance — our moment to finally deliver universal child care.
I wasn’t alone in fighting for child care. Patty Murray and I burned
up the phone lines strategizing with each other. The advocates
circulated data and stories and brought families to the Hill to testify
about the difference that a good child care program would make. And,
just like during the 2020 campaign, almost every Democrat would tell you
— if they were asked — that sure, they supported including child care.
But not enough were willing to fight for it — they were just checking
the box.
The law the Democrats were putting together, Build Back Better, was
never about how to build a robust, effective child care system. Instead,
it was an exercise in how weak and ineffective we could make the child
care program and still call it child care. How little we could invest to
keep the price tag under an artificial cap. How much we could
discourage states from implementing the program so the cost on paper
wouldn’t scare Joe Manchin and the tax policies on the other side of the
ledger wouldn’t make Kyrsten Sinema give a little curtsey and vote no.
That was the frustrating, aggravating process, right up until — poof —
child care got thrown out entirely.
We lost child care because not enough Democrats who were already in
office were willing to fight for it. I believe down to my bones that
Democrats who think there is no reward for fighting to deliver universal
child care are dead wrong.
Today, states and cities across the country are leading the charge.
Democrats like Governor Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Governor Abigail
Spanberger in Virginia, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York campaigned
aggressively on increasing access to child care — and they won.
I give them huge respect, but to deliver big for every American family, states and cities can’t do it alone.
But here’s the good news: they don’t need to. Universal child care isn’t just good policy, it’s good politics.
Right now, Republicans are fumbling over the child care issue at the
most basic level. Vice President JD Vance’s solution? Just have
grandparents move in next door! Last month, Donald Trump said out loud —
on camera — that we can’t, “take care of” child care because we have to
dump a billion dollars a day into a war halfway around the world with
Iran. So much for “America first.”
It would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking
about child care every chance we get, going into the midterms and
beyond. When I look at the upcoming Democratic presidential primary,
every 2028 candidate who understands what’s happening in this country,
who wants to win, AND who will deliver for families, will make universal
child care a core piece of their agenda.
So, how do we get it done? First: Cover everyone. We can’t be afraid
of big, structural change. And that means affordable, high-quality child
care for every single American family.
Social Security is the most popular government program ever because
it benefits everyone. The same should be true of child care — every
parent, every employer, every worker needs to see exactly how our
program helps them. We must cover all families, and keep prices
manageable for all families. For the typical family, who might be paying
$25,00 a year for child care right now — this proposal would save them
$15,000 — every year! And a single mother making $60,000 a year? She’d
pay nothing at all. That’s a big deal.
Second: Speed. We need to deliver quickly to solve the affordability
crisis flattening families right now. I’m talking months, not years.
Remember what happened the last time Democrats were in power.
Talented, dedicated folks put together a whole lot of really good
policies — but speed just wasn’t baked in, so it took too long for those
investments to help families. Some benefits like Medicare Drug
negotiations were passed into law, but they were deliberately set up for
the price cuts not to kick in until years later.
When the election rolled around, people asked themselves: “what have
Democrats done for me?” Too many of them felt the answer was “not
enough” or, even worse, “nothing at all.”
Our new child care proposal needs to get resources to the states and
localities right away. That means setting up strike teams to help states
and cities create more child care slots now. That means helping the
neighbor who babysits get licensed. That means re-thinking regulations
that are keeping out new providers. Yes, we need to keep our kids safe.
And yes, we need all types of providers who can meet those standards so
we have abundant, affordable, high-quality child care for every family.
The time to get ready is now. When we get the next Democratic
trifecta, we need legislation that’s ready to pass on Day One. And our
legislation should make it possible for parents to access that care the
very same year. Some people might say that’s unrealistic. I say you
don’t get what you don’t fight for.
I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I’ve teamed up with the top
Democratic Appropriator Patty Murray, the top House Democrat for
education Bobby Scott, and the outstanding Congresswoman from New York
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The four of us are doing the hard policy work
right now. We’re working to draft a bill that will be the Day One
solution once we take back power. And we need every Democrat, whether
they are in office now or running for office, on board. Can I get an
amen?
It's a tough time. Costs — including the cost of child care — are
crushing American families, and Donald Trump is too busy starting wars
and lining his own pockets to care.
We're in this fight to deliver for the American people — not to talk,
but to deliver. To lower the costs that are keeping people up at night.
And to give people some hope by showing what it looks like when
government is actually on their side.
The impact of universal, affordable child care for all families would be seismic.
It would mean that a single mother could go back to school to become a
nurse. It would mean a young family could actually save enough to buy a
house. It would mean a couple could start that small business they’d
been dreaming of.
It would be life-changing for millions of families across the country.
Whether you have kids or not — whether you even like kids or not —
universal child care is the best investment we can make in bolstering
the middle class. And that should matter to everyone.
As Democrats go around the country asking people to vote for us,
every single one of us should be talking about child care. We can take
back Congress, then we can take back the White House, and then, we can
deliver universal child care.
