American Medical Association criticizes Trump executive order on childhood vaccine schedule

Administration News — 2026-08-10 21:54:00 — thehill.com

President Trump’s New Vaccine Recommendations Draw Sharp Criticism from Medical Community

President Trump’s recent executive order on childhood immunizations has sparked significant backlash from leading medical experts, who warn that his new recommendations could jeopardize children’s health. The president of the American Medical Association (AMA), Dr. Willie Underwood III, joined a growing chorus of critics on Monday, stating that Trump’s recommendations “put children’s health at risk.”

Medical Experts Challenge Trump’s Position

Dr. Underwood emphasized that “vaccines are among the most thoroughly studied, effective tools we have to protect children from serious vaccine-preventable diseases.” This statement directly challenges the implications of Trump’s executive order, which has been met with widespread concern among health professionals. The criticism highlights a fundamental disagreement between the president’s stated position and the consensus of the medical community regarding the safety and necessity of childhood immunizations.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Approach

The excerpt makes clear that Trump’s recommendations run counter to established scientific evidence about vaccines. By suggesting changes to current immunization practices, Trump is at odds with experts who cite decades of research proving the effectiveness and safety of vaccines in preventing serious diseases among children. The AMA’s response underscores the potential dangers of disregarding this evidence.

Conclusion: Public Health at Stake

President Trump’s new stance on childhood immunizations has ignited a debate with serious public health implications. As leading medical authorities warn of increased risks to children, the controversy highlights the importance of basing public health policy on sound science rather than political considerations. The strong response from the AMA and other experts serves as a reminder of the critical role vaccines play in safeguarding children’s health.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/6021625-ama-warns-childhood-immunization-risks/

Trump signs executive order to change childhood vaccine schedule : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-10 15:25:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Signs Executive Order to Slash Childhood Vaccines, Cites Debunked Autism Theory

President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping executive order aimed at drastically reducing the number of vaccines recommended for U.S. children and altering the way they are administered. The order, signed Monday in the Oval Office, calls for cutting the federal childhood vaccine schedule from 17 to 11 shots and directs the Justice Department to pressure states to lower vaccine requirements for school attendance.

Trump’s Claims and Vaccine Misinformation

At the signing ceremony, Trump claimed that “vats” of vaccines are pumped into children’s bodies and described a new approach: “We’re doing 20 percent of that at each visit. We’ll let time elapse between each visit so the body can handle the massive amount of fluid being pumped in.” He also called for the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, and rubella, to be split into three separate shots given over multiple doctor visits.

These statements echo long-debunked anti-vaccine talking points. Public health experts note that vaccines are not currently available in the U.S. as separate MMR shots, and that giving multiple vaccines at once is a standard, safe practice that reduces the number of doctor visits for families. Trump further argued that vaccines should be studied in light of rising autism rates—a theory that has been thoroughly researched and debunked by the scientific community.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Assertions

Mainstream health leaders swiftly rejected Trump’s claims. The American Academy of Pediatrics emphasized that the science behind vaccine safety and effectiveness is unchanged, and that vaccines have decades of data proving their ability to prevent deadly diseases. They also highlighted recent deaths from measles in unvaccinated children as evidence of the ongoing risks of vaccine-preventable illnesses.

Trump’s suggestion that the “massive amount of fluid” in vaccines is dangerous is not supported by evidence. Medical experts stress that the volume and content of vaccines are carefully calibrated for safety and efficacy. The claim that vaccines need to be spaced out to prevent harm has been repeatedly disproven.

Legal and Public Health Implications

The executive order is expected to face immediate legal challenges, as similar attempts to change the vaccine schedule have been blocked in the past. Public health officials warn that reducing vaccine coverage and requirements could lead to outbreaks of diseases that are currently rare in the U.S.

Conclusion

President Trump’s executive order and public statements reflect a pattern of promoting vaccine misinformation and debunked theories. Health experts and major medical organizations continue to stand by the established science: vaccines are safe, effective, and essential for protecting children and communities from dangerous infectious diseases.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/10/nx-s1-5927313/trump-rfk-jr-vaccines-autism-executive-order

Donald J. Trump: “Chandler Hall, representing, on Television, the foolish Center for American …

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-10 21:31:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Launches Broadside Against Crime Report, Attacks Critics and Threatens Legal Action

President Donald J. Trump has forcefully rejected a recent report from the Center for American Lack of Progress, which stated that deploying the National Guard to cities—including Washington, D.C.—had “NO impact on Crime.” Trump, responding to the report and its television presentation by Chandler Hall, dismissed the findings as “just another Radical Left SCAM,” and launched a series of attacks against both the organization and its funders.

Attacks on Critics and Funders

Trump disparaged the Center and its supporters, labeling them a “gaggle of Lunatics” and listing prominent individuals and companies—including George Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates, Google, Apple, Visa, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Walmart, Toyota, T-Mobile, and NBC Universal—as part of a supposed conspiracy. He also cited foreign entities such as the Embassy of Japan, the Korea Foundation, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (Taiwan), and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates as supporters of the group.

Trump claimed that “The Dumocrats love it, and are against anything ‘TRUMP,’” and accused these individuals and organizations of being “so bad for our Country.” He asserted that their “stated course is anything to hate or demean ‘TRUMP.’”

Threats of Legal Action

In response to the report, Trump announced, “This will be met with a lawsuit, which is being drawn now.” He added that he is “strongly considering adding some of the contributors to this Fake Organization” to the legal action.

Claims About Crime

Trump insisted that “Crime is way down since I took Office, and they know it.” He accused the report’s authors and supporters of dishonesty, declaring, “Liars, at this level, must be held accountable!”

Fact-Check and Analysis

Within this statement, Trump makes several notable claims and attacks:

• He dismisses a research report’s findings on the effectiveness of the National Guard in reducing crime, without providing evidence to counter the report’s conclusion.
• He attacks a wide range of individuals, corporations, and foreign entities, suggesting a coordinated effort against him.
• He asserts, without substantiation in the excerpt, that crime has significantly decreased since he took office, a claim frequently disputed by independent crime data and fact-checkers.
• He threatens legal action against critics and funders, a tactic he has used in response to unfavorable coverage or reports.

Conclusion

President Trump’s response to the Center for American Lack of Progress report is characterized by sweeping attacks, unsubstantiated claims about crime reduction, and threats of litigation. His statements continue a pattern of dismissing critical reports as partisan attacks and targeting a broad array of perceived enemies, both domestic and foreign. As with many of Trump’s public statements, these claims warrant careful scrutiny and fact-checking to provide the public with accurate information.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40727

Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on the energy behind outsider candidates

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-10 17:30:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Endorsements Highlight His Continued Influence and Loyalty-Driven Politics in GOP Primaries

As voters in six states prepare to head to the polls, President Trump’s endorsements are once again shaping the Republican primary landscape, underscoring his ongoing influence within the party and his focus on personal loyalty over candidate electability.

Trump’s Endorsements and Party Division

In Minnesota, President Trump is backing Mike Lindell for governor. Lindell, a prominent figure in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, has become a divisive candidate among Republicans in the state. Trump’s support for Lindell is seen as a test of his ability to continue shaping the GOP, with observers noting that Trump’s endorsements often prioritize loyalty to him over broader party concerns about electability. This approach has led to divided primaries and, in some cases, weakened Republican prospects in competitive states.

Similarly, in South Carolina, Trump quickly endorsed Darline Graham, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, for Senate. Despite his endorsement, the field has not cleared, and negative campaign ads have already emerged. Trump’s history in South Carolina includes endorsing both candidates in a previous gubernatorial run-off, declaring, “I endorse them both. Whoever wins will be a great Republican.” This pattern demonstrates that Trump’s endorsements are sometimes more about maintaining influence than ensuring a unified party front.

Impact on Down-Ballot Races

The Trump effect is also evident in congressional races. In Ohio, Max Miller remains in his race despite calls to step aside, and in Florida, Cory Mills faces investigations but continues his campaign. Both candidates appear to be following what was described as the “Donald Trump playbook of deny and change the subject and win a race.” However, analysts suggest that this strategy is much harder to execute successfully for candidates who are not Trump himself, and it has led to once-safe Republican seats becoming toss-ups.

Loyalty Over Electability

The excerpt makes clear that Trump’s endorsements are often driven by personal loyalty rather than strategic calculations about a candidate’s chances in the general election. This has led to messy primaries and, at times, a lack of party unity, as seen in both Minnesota and South Carolina. The focus on loyalty has also contributed to a perception that Trump is “wrapped in Teflon,” able to withstand controversies that would sink other politicians.

Conclusion

President Trump’s continued involvement in Republican primaries highlights his enduring influence and the central role that personal loyalty plays in his political calculus. While this approach energizes certain segments of the GOP base, it also risks dividing the party and complicating efforts to win competitive races. As the primaries unfold, the effectiveness of Trump’s strategy—and its impact on the broader Republican Party—will be closely watched.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/tamara-keith-and-amy-walter-on-the-energy-behind-outsider-candidates

Trump says he hasn't spoken to Blanche or Pirro about prosecuting Fauci

Administration News — 2026-08-10 18:48:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Denies Discussing Prosecution of Dr. Anthony Fauci with Top Officials

President Trump stated Monday that he has not spoken to Attorney General Todd Blanche or Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., regarding any potential prosecution of Dr. Anthony Fauci. “I have not spoken to them about that, no,” Trump told Semafor’s Shelby Talcott during an interview in the Oval Office.

This comment comes amid ongoing Republican scrutiny of Dr. Fauci, particularly from members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Despite speculation and political pressure, Trump’s remarks indicate that he has not personally initiated conversations with key legal officials about pursuing charges against Fauci.

No Evidence of Direct Action

Trump’s denial is significant as it addresses rumors and public debate about whether he is actively seeking legal action against the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The president’s statement provides a direct response to questions about his involvement, clarifying that he has not instructed or discussed with Blanche or Pirro any prosecution efforts.

Context and Implications

The issue of prosecuting Dr. Fauci has become a flashpoint in political discourse, with some Republican lawmakers calling for investigations into his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump’s explicit denial of involvement in such discussions may influence ongoing debates within his party and among his supporters.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statement, “I have not spoken to them about that, no,” offers a clear position on his lack of direct engagement with top legal officials regarding the prosecution of Dr. Anthony Fauci. As political attention continues to focus on Fauci and the pandemic response, Trump’s remarks set the record straight on his role in the matter, at least as of his Oval Office interview.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6021520-trump-denies-fauci-prosecution-blanche/

State voting officials join CISA security call with election 85 days away

PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-10 17:40:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Claims on Voting System Hacking Prompt Federal Response Ahead of Midterms

With just 85 days remaining before the midterm elections, President Trump’s assertions about the vulnerability of voting systems to hackers have drawn national attention and prompted a significant response from federal officials. Despite Trump’s claims regarding the risk of hackers targeting voting systems, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—the federal agency responsible for protecting the cybersecurity of the nation’s critical infrastructure—recently held one of its first broad outreach efforts, convening a conference call with state election officials to discuss election security.

Trump’s Claims and the Federal Response

President Trump has repeatedly raised concerns about the security of voting systems, suggesting that hackers could target the nation’s election infrastructure. These claims have fueled public anxiety and debate about the integrity of the upcoming midterms. However, the timing of CISA’s outreach—occurring just weeks before Election Day—highlights the gap between Trump’s warnings and the federal government’s coordinated efforts to address such risks.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Assertions

While Trump’s statements have focused on the potential for hacking, the excerpt indicates that CISA’s conference call was among its first major initiatives to engage with state officials on election security. This suggests that, despite the president’s repeated claims, federal agencies had not previously undertaken broad outreach efforts at this scale. The timing and nature of CISA’s actions raise questions about the accuracy and impact of Trump’s warnings.

Conclusion: The Impact of Trump’s Rhetoric

President Trump’s claims about the risk of hackers targeting voting systems have played a significant role in shaping the national conversation on election security. However, the federal response, as demonstrated by CISA’s recent outreach, reveals a lag in coordinated action. As the midterms approach, it remains crucial to separate fact from rhetoric and to ensure that public concerns are addressed with clear, timely, and effective measures.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/state-voting-officials-join-cisa-security-call-with-election-85-days-away

Trump Stokes Islamophobia by Calling Democratic Candidates ‘Jihadists’

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-08-10 18:14:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Escalates Anti-Muslim Rhetoric, Targets Somali Americans and Muslim Candidates

President Trump on Monday intensified his pattern of inflammatory remarks about Muslims and people of Somali descent, labeling Democratic midterm candidates as “jihadists” and delivering a tirade against Somali Americans. Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump claimed, “we have jihadists being elected all over the place. We have this — whether it’s communism, jihadism.” He also disparaged Somali immigrants, saying, “They’re not smart, they have no aptitude, they have nothing going, and they’re telling us how to run our country.”

Pattern of Vilification

These statements are part of a broader trend throughout Trump’s political career, in which he has vilified Muslims and people of Arab descent. He has repeatedly stoked anger among his supporters and advocated for harsh immigration restrictions, including a ban on Muslims entering the United States. In recent months, anti-Muslim rhetoric has become more normalized within the Republican Party, especially following the election victories of prominent Muslim politicians such as Zohran Mamdani in New York and Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.

Trump has declined to condemn this rhetoric and, as demonstrated on Monday, has leaned into it. Two days before his latest comments, he posted on social media an image contrasting himself and the first lady with Dr. El-Sayed and his wife, captioned “Two VERY DIFFERENT America’s.” The post included Dr. El-Sayed’s full name, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, and came as Republican campaign ads attempted to link El-Sayed to terrorism.

Continued Attacks on Somali Community

Trump’s comments on Monday were not isolated. Last December, he called Somali immigrants “garbage” and said he did not want them in the United States. More recently, he shared a video of Somali kindergartners in Minnesota, commenting, “Every girl is in a hijab… in kindergarten.” On Monday, he reiterated his disdain: “They come from, let’s say, as an example, Somalia. They come in and then they tell us how to, how our Constitution, how our Declaration of Independence, how it works. It doesn’t work that way.” When asked by The New York Times earlier this year if he was concerned about painting the Somali community with a broad brush, Trump responded, “I don’t care.”

Impact and Response

White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on how Trump’s statements could alienate Muslims in the United States. While some Republican officials have condemned the anti-Muslim language, most have remained silent. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana was one of the few to speak out, emphasizing that “everyone should be treated as an individual.”

Conclusion

Trump’s repeated false and disparaging statements about Muslims and Somali Americans are part of a consistent pattern of rhetoric that has fueled division and normalized bigotry within mainstream political discourse. His refusal to condemn, and frequent amplification of, anti-Muslim sentiment continues to draw criticism and raises concerns about the broader impact on American society and the safety of minority communities.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/10/us/politics/trump-democrats-somalis-jihadists-muslim.html

David Hearn says Reflecting Pool case isn’t over : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-08-10 15:49:00 — www.npr.org

Trump Repeats False Claims About Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool Vandalism Despite Contradictory Evidence

President Trump has continued to assert that vandals, specifically naming David Hearn, damaged the lining of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, despite clear evidence contradicting his claims. In a recent post on Truth Social, Trump insisted, “A National Park Service career employee, a highly credible witness, saw David Hearn (ActBlue) in broad daylight vandalize the Reflecting Pool by ‘violently’ ripping and tugging at the Pool’s somewhat delicate coating,” while also conceding, “there was also some contractor error.”

These statements come after federal prosecutors moved to dismiss the vandalism case against Hearn and three others, following a legal filing by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro that attributed the damage to “botched installation” of the pool’s lining, not vandalism. Pirro’s 20-page legal filing, supported by Department of the Interior records, stated, “It is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Trump’s repeated claims directly contradict the findings of the federal investigation and the official legal filings. Despite the evidence, Trump has publicly criticized Pirro, accusing her of “folding like an umbrella” for moving to dismiss the case.

The case against Hearn, a former U.S. Olympian, has become a national story and a symbolic referendum on the Trump administration’s handling of the situation. Hearn and his legal team continue to seek a dismissal “with prejudice” to prevent the case from being reopened, arguing that the charges were politically motivated and unsupported by facts.

This episode highlights a pattern in which Trump persists in making public claims that are not supported by official evidence or legal findings, raising concerns about the impact of such statements on public trust and the justice system.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/08/10/nx-s1-5925117/reflecting-pool-david-hearn-legal-fight

Explaining the Medicare Drug-Plan Subsidy That Trump Is Ending

FactCheck.org — 2026-08-10 13:13:00 — www.factcheck.org

Trump Administration Ends Medicare Part D Premium Subsidy, Raising Concerns Over Higher Costs for Seniors

The Trump administration has announced it will end a temporary subsidy that has been reducing premiums for Medicare Part D standalone prescription drug plans—a move that could lead to higher costs for some Medicare beneficiaries.

Subsidy Program to End in 2027

The subsidy, originally put in place by the Biden administration and intended to run through at least 2027, was designed to offset expected premium increases after significant changes to the Part D benefit. The Trump administration renewed the subsidy at a lower level for 2026, but has now decided it will not continue in 2027.

Potential Impact on Seniors

Analysts warn that the end of this subsidy could result in higher prescription drug premiums for some Medicare recipients. The full impact will not be clear until the federal government releases detailed information about 2027 premiums this fall. The temporary subsidy had been effective in reducing premiums by an estimated $16 per month on average for 2026, according to the federal Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Without it, some seniors might face nearly 50% higher costs for drug coverage.

Administration’s Position

Officials from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, under the Trump administration, argue that the market has stabilized and the subsidy is no longer necessary. They claim that most Medicare recipients will see premiums rise by less than $10 per month, with many even seeing lower premiums. However, outside experts caution that without the enhanced financial support, some beneficiaries could face deeper premium increases, and there may be changes in drug coverage or cost-sharing as insurers adjust.

Broader Implications

The move could also affect the stability of the standalone Part D market, especially in rural areas where Medicare Advantage options are limited. Experts note that standalone Part D plans already face stronger financial challenges compared to Medicare Advantage plans, which are more heavily subsidized.

Conclusion

While the Trump administration maintains that ending the subsidy will not lead to significant premium increases for most, experts and advocates urge Medicare beneficiaries to review their options carefully during open enrollment this fall. The ultimate impact on premiums and coverage will become clearer when new plan details are released in September.

Source article

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/08/explaining-the-medicare-drug-plan-subsidy-that-trump-is-ending/

Donald J. Trump: "RT: https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/11707216814923661…

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-08-10 12:37:00 — trumpstruth.org

Trump Demands Compensation from Iran, Makes Disputed Claims About Protester Deaths

President Donald J. Trump has responded to reported Iranian requests for compensation related to a recent military conflict by demanding that Iran pay reparations for violence attributed to its government and military leaders. In a statement, Trump said, “I am likewise demanding compensation from Iran, for all of the people that they have killed and gravely wounded with their roadside bombs and many conflicts, for which they are famous, as led initially by General Soleimani, including the families of those killed on the USS Cole, and thousands of others killed in combat.”

False and Exaggerated Claims

Trump went further, stating, “Additionally, compensation should be paid to the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent protestors that Iran has killed over the last 50 years, not to mention the 52,000 that have been killed in the last five months.” This claim about protester deaths is not supported by credible evidence. While Iran has faced international criticism for its violent crackdowns on dissent, no reputable source has documented hundreds of thousands of protester deaths over the last half-century, nor 52,000 deaths in a recent five-month period. These figures are widely seen as gross exaggerations.

Attacks and Attribution

Trump’s statement also singles out Iran’s late General Qassem Soleimani, attributing to him and Iran responsibility for attacks such as the bombing of the USS Cole and deaths from roadside bombs. While Soleimani was a key military figure and Iran has been linked to various regional conflicts, the direct attribution of all such incidents to Iran or Soleimani is a sweeping generalization that does not reflect the complexity of regional violence and its many actors.

Policy Position and Negotiation Stance

Trump concluded by stating, “I have instructed my representatives to put this firmly into any, and all, future negotiations.” This signals a hardline stance in any future diplomatic engagement with Iran, demanding compensation for a broad and disputed range of alleged actions.

Conclusion

President Trump’s statement combines demands for compensation with highly questionable and exaggerated claims about Iranian actions, particularly regarding protester deaths. These assertions lack factual support and serve to escalate rhetoric rather than clarify the historical record. As the U.S. and Iran continue to navigate a tense relationship, such statements risk further inflaming tensions based on misinformation.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/40703