Lawsuit challenges Trump’s Reflecting Pool project as projected costs soar

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-11 17:30:00 — www.pbs.org

A non-profit group suing to stop President Trump’s Reflecting Pool renovation on the National Mall claims the project breaks federal law. Last month, the president announced the pool would be repainted blue. The New York Times is also reporting that its initial cost of less than two million dollars has now ballooned to seven times that figure. Amna Nawaz discussed more with David Fahrenthold.

Amna Nawaz:
A nonprofit group trying to stop President Trump’s reflecting pool renovation on the National Mall claims the project breaks federal law.The Cultural Landscape Foundation filed a lawsuit today, saying the National Park Service violated an historic preservation act by repainting the pool — quote — “American flag blue.” The complaint says the new color — quote — “will fundamentally alter the visual and experiential character of the pool.”The president announced the project last month and drove through the pool’s construction site just last week. The New York Times is also reporting that its initial cost of less than $2 million has now ballooned to seven times that figure.For more on the project, I’m joined now by one of the reporters covering that story. That’s David Fahrenthold of The New York Times.David, welcome back.Let’s begin with your reporting on this that shows that initial cost estimate from the president of $1.8 million now up to $13.1 million. What happened there?
David Fahrenthold, The New York Times:
Well, the — President Trump has said multiple times that this project is only going to cost $1.8 million or less than $2 million. That’s never been right.From the beginning, the federal government had expected to pay $6.9 million for this contract. And then, on Friday, that cost jumped again by another 88 percent. So now we’re talking about $13.1 million.
Amna Nawaz:
And the contractor for this project, your reporting also showed, had no previous federal contracts. How unusual is that for a renovation like this?
David Fahrenthold:
It’s quite unusual for a renovation of this size and this sort of importance.Remember, this is not a swimming pool. This is a pool that’s about 2,000 feet long. It’s been around since the 1920s. It has a lot of complicated problems that come from both its age and its size. And the contractor they chose to do it, not only is this their first federal contract, but it’s not clear this is a swimming pool contractor at all.Their Web site is more about lining pipes and culverts and fuel tanks. It’s clear this is a very different project than the ones that they appear to be used to.
Amna Nawaz:
So folks will remember the images from last week that showed the president and his motorcade driving through that pool area. When we saw those, I know a lot of folks had the same question was, is that going to impact the pool in any way? What does your reporting show you on that?
David Fahrenthold:
Well, from folks we have talked to, it will not probably make the pool look any different in terms of reflectivity. If you’re standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, you’re standing at the World War II Monument on the other end, and you’re looking across the pond at a low angle, it’ll probably still be reflective.The difference, though, may come when you see it from a higher angle, from an airplane or the top of the Washington Monument. This is a space that’s meant to sort of be invisible. It’s supposed to reflect back the gray stone and the trees all around it.If what you see instead is kind of an artificial blue, like a — the water hazard at a mini golf course, that could stand out in a very jarring way on the National Mall.
Amna Nawaz:
We know that the president has framed some of these renovations as part of a broader beautification effort ahead of those America 250 celebrations. What do we know about what that means about who’s paying for much of this?
David Fahrenthold:
Well, in the cases — in this case and in the case we wrote about recently about changes to the fountains around D.C., the government is paying for it.It’s not private donors. And the money they’re using in this case is coming from people that go to national parks. If you go to a national park and pay an entrance fee, some of that money goes to the Park Service to pay for renovations. And that’s the fund they’re using here.
Amna Nawaz:
I know as we reported earlier that at least one nonprofit is trying to block this project. But this is one of several renovation projects that we know the Trump administration is looking to at least partially fund with taxpayer money.We have seen the Kennedy Center renovation, the White House ballroom, and others. As you track this, as ethics watchdogs and other track this, what are some of the concerns that are coming up here?
David Fahrenthold:
One of the biggest concerns about this project and others around the area is that these are no-bid contracts. The government is supposed to let multiple vendors bid on jobs like this so the taxpayers get their best bang for the buck.In this case, the Trump administration used sort of a special power to block out all competition and hand this job directly to a firm that President Trump says is close to him. He says, this is a company that worked on the swimming pools at his golf club in Northern Virginia.And so what happens when you give a contract directly to somebody with no competition, you don’t really know you’re getting the best deal. You don’t know that you’re getting the best person for the job. And so it raises questions about why they’re circumventing the normal contracting process and what we’re losing in the process in terms of quality or maybe overpaying.
Amna Nawaz:
David, in the 45 seconds or so I have left, I know you track the money often when it comes to the president’s decisions around things like this. Where does this latest project fit into the broader pattern?
David Fahrenthold:
Well, we have been looking at the way President Trump has been doing two things with these projects around D.C., both using no-bid contracts to direct money to firms that are close to him, and also circumventing the historic review process that’s supposed to keep the Washington core, the monuments of Washington looking consistent and preserved.And what we’re seeing here is that he evaded both those systems here and just sort of went around them all to have the reflecting pool painted blue because that’s what he wanted.
Amna Nawaz:
David Fahrenthold of The New York Times, always good to talk to you. Thank you so much.
David Fahrenthold:
Thank you.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

The ongoing controversy surrounding President Trump’s renovation of the Reflecting Pool on the National Mall has raised significant legal and financial questions. A nonprofit group, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, is suing to halt the project, claiming it violates federal law by altering the pool’s historic character with a new color described as “American flag blue.” The lawsuit argues that this change will “fundamentally alter the visual and experiential character of the pool.”

Initially, Trump stated that the renovation would cost less than $2 million, but reports indicate that the actual cost has skyrocketed to $13.1 million, a figure that is over seven times the original estimate. This discrepancy raises concerns about transparency and accountability in government spending, particularly as the project is funded through taxpayer money collected from national park entrance fees.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt highlights a significant inaccuracy in President Trump’s claims regarding the cost of the Reflecting Pool renovation. Trump has repeatedly asserted that the project would cost $1.8 million or less, which has been contradicted by reports indicating that the expected cost was actually $6.9 million from the outset and has now increased to $13.1 million. This misrepresentation of the project’s financials is a clear example of a statement that does not align with the facts presented in the reporting.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not contain any disparaging or hostile remarks made by Trump toward specific individuals or groups. Instead, it focuses on the legal and financial implications of the renovation project. Trump’s statements regarding the cost of the project are presented as part of the broader discussion about accountability and transparency in government spending, without any personal attacks or derogatory language directed at others.

In summary, the situation surrounding the Reflecting Pool renovation underscores the importance of accurate information in public projects, particularly when taxpayer money is involved. The discrepancies in Trump’s statements about the project’s costs raise serious questions about accountability that remain unresolved in the current discourse.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/lawsuit-challenges-trumps-reflecting-pool-project-as-projected-costs-soar

Trump goes to China as Iran war smolders : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-05-12 04:00:00 — www.npr.org

U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping shake hands as they depart following a bilateral meeting at Gimhae Air Base on October 30, 2025 in Busan, South Korea.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images AsiaPac

hide caption

toggle caption

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images AsiaPac

Initially delayed by the war with Iran, President Trump leaves for a state visit to China on Tuesday. But the war is not in the rear view mirror as he had hoped. The ceasefire with Iran is “on massive life support,” as Trump put it Monday and the conflict is in an unsteady and uncertain holding pattern. “It is remarkable that President Trump is prepared to go to China under these circumstances,” said Kurt Campbell, chairman of The Asia Group and a top Biden administration adviser on China. “But may I also say that it’s also deeply unusual that China is prepared to host him.”

China and Iran are close allies and trading partners, and the U.S. has just spent weeks bombing Iran and is now blockading all ships connected to Iran. Meanwhile, there are questions about whether China has assisted Iran. And yet, the state visit is moving ahead as planned. “It suggests that both believe they have interests in meeting,” said Campbell. “And I think part of that is a desire to keep a relationship that is fraught and challenging with a degree at least of equilibrium.” A senior U.S. official not authorized to speak publicly said a better question would be “why would [Trump] not continue” with this trip and all the other duties that he has as president. Grand ceremonies and grand gestures are on the agenda along with trade talks and the possibility of creating a “U.S.-China Board of Trade” to manage what has been a challenging relationship between the two countries. They may also discuss AI technology, the official said, at least to establish “some channels of deconfliction.” When President Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping last fall in South Korea, the two leaders turned down the temperature on what had been an escalating trade war.

“From zero to 10 with 10 being the best, I would say the meeting was a 12,” Trump said on Air Force One after the meeting, where plans were made for this state visit. “I said but ‘we have to put on the biggest display you’ve ever had in the history of China,'” Trump said at a meeting of world leaders in Washington earlier this year. He was building hype for this visit. “You know the last time I went to China, President Xi, he treated me so well.” Trump’s schedule includes a welcome ceremony, two bilateral meetings with Xi, a state banquet, a tour of the Temple of Heaven and a tea in a whirlwind less than 48 hours on the ground. More than a dozen big name U.S. corporate executives, including Apple’s Tim Cook and Tesla’s Elon Musk, are traveling as part of the delegation. “The American people can expect the president to deliver more good deals on behalf of our country,” said Anna Kelly, the White House deputy press secretary, on a call previewing the trip. “These agreements will further rebalance trade with China while putting American workers, farmers and families first and safeguarding U.S. economic strength and national security.” Iran war’s influence When this visit was put on the books last fall, the focus was on keeping the trade truce between the two countries going. And that is still on the agenda, but now there’s this pressing new global challenge. “I do think that this war will dominate the summit,” said Lyle Goldstein, director of the China Initiative at Brown University. “Let’s face it, it will push a lot of other things off the agenda. I mean, if for no other reason … Trump is focused on it because he wants it off his desk as it were.”

Iran’s foreign minister recently went to China and met with his counterpart there. And China is credited with helping to push Iran to accept the initial ceasefire, the one Trump said is now on life support. Lyle says he could imagine Trump asking Xi to help pressure Iran to re-open the Strait of Hormuz and make a deal to end the war. This inevitably changes the dynamic between Trump and Xi headed into this high stakes visit. “The war in Iran has given President Xi sources of leverage that he would not have anticipated having at the beginning of this year,” said Ali Wyne with the International Crisis Group. For instance, he said the U.S. will need rare earth minerals from China to rebuild its supply of missile interceptors depleted by the war. To hear Trump tell it, the war with Iran hasn’t affected his friendly relationship with Xi. And when there have been questions about China possibly assisting Iran in the war, Trump has downplayed those concerns. “He’s somebody I get along with very well. Just wrote me a beautiful letter,” Trump told Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo in a recent interview. Trump said he had prompted the correspondence with his own letter to Xi asking him not to supply weapons to Iran after there had been reports of China doing just that. “And he wrote me a letter saying that essentially, he’s not doing that,” Trump said. Although China is a major customer of oil from Iran, it has been somewhat insulated from the economic shock from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Potential deals While other presidents scolded Xi about human rights and warned him to leave Taiwan alone, Trump has long expressed an admiration for Xi and the power he wields within China. “It’s not just hyperbole but the president is his own China officer,” said Dennis Wilder,a professor at Georgetown University who was a top adviser to President George W. Bush on China policy. “And he believes he understands Xi Jinping, he believes he can negotiate good deals with China.”

There are widespread expectations that China will announce plans to purchase additional soybeans and other farm goods as well as Boeing airplanes. There’s also talk of a process to formalize the trade truce between the two nations. But Melanie Hart, the senior director of the Global China Hub at the Atlantic Council says there are still meetings happening this week to lay the groundwork for Trump’s trip. “Everything is still in flux, at this point, normally at least the economic deliverables would be nailed in. That is not the case,” she said. “So this is going to be evolving up until the last minute.” The White House has said a U.S.-China Board of Trade, even if agreed to, couldn’t be finalized immediately. It would require both countries to do more work to establish such a body. And Wilder points out, this is just the first of four potential meetings between Trump and Xi this year, including a planned state visit for Xi to the U.S. in the fall. “What we’re seeing here is the setup for a year of intense dialogue to try and reset to a certain degree, the U.S.-China relationship,” said Wilder. That relationship is now vastly different than it was when Trump first visited China as president nearly a decade ago. Back then, the International Crisis Group’s Wyne said China put on a big display to convince Trump and the U.S. that it should be seen as America’s confident and capable competitor. “This time around in the run up to the meeting between President Trump and President Xi, the Chinese side doesn’t have to make that case because U.S. officials are making that case themselves, beginning with President Trump,” said Wyne. The White House national security strategy document, released late last year, describes China as a “near peer,” while the two nations remain locked in a long-term competition for global dominance.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

President Trump is set to embark on a state visit to China amid ongoing tensions due to the war with Iran, which he described as having a ceasefire that is “on massive life support.” This statement highlights the precarious situation in the region, where the U.S. has recently engaged in military actions against Iran while also blockading ships connected to the country. The excerpt indicates that despite these tensions, both Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping see value in maintaining dialogue, suggesting a mutual interest in stabilizing their complex relationship.

The excerpt also notes that Trump’s previous meeting with Xi was positively received, with Trump rating it highly. This context is crucial as it frames the upcoming visit not just as a diplomatic necessity, but as an opportunity for both leaders to showcase their ability to manage a challenging relationship. However, the excerpt does not provide external verification of Trump’s claims about the state of the ceasefire or the nature of U.S.-China relations, leaving readers to consider the broader implications of these statements.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not present any statements from Trump that are explicitly labeled as false or misleading. Instead, it outlines the current geopolitical landscape and Trump’s optimistic framing of his relationship with Xi. While there are concerns regarding China’s potential assistance to Iran, Trump’s comments about his rapport with Xi and the anticipated outcomes of the visit remain unchallenged within the text. Therefore, no verifiable lies are identified in the excerpt.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not contain any disparaging or hostile remarks directed at specific individuals or groups. Trump’s comments about Xi are characterized by a tone of admiration, emphasizing their positive relationship. There is no evidence of Trump insulting or threatening anyone, nor does he use derogatory language toward any groups. The focus remains on diplomatic engagement rather than personal attacks.

In summary, the upcoming state visit to China by Trump occurs against a backdrop of significant geopolitical tension, particularly regarding Iran. While the excerpt highlights Trump’s optimistic outlook on his relationship with Xi, it does not substantiate any claims with external verification, leaving some questions about the accuracy of his statements. Readers should remain aware of the complexities in U.S.-China relations as this visit unfolds.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/05/12/nx-s1-5818529/trump-china-iran-war

Puerto Rico Lawmakers Call for Probe of Alleged Drugs-for-Votes Scheme — ProPublica

ProPublica — 2026-05-08 12:25:00 — www.propublica.org

Federal and local lawmakers in Puerto Rico, as well as civil rights and advocacy organizations, have called for investigations after ProPublica reported how a federal probe into a drugs-for-votes scheme in Puerto Rico prisons got quashed after the 2024 elections.  

The territory’s representative in Congress, Pablo José Hernández Rivera, called on members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to join him in a push for a congressional probe into the matter. 

“The report published today by ProPublica details facts that no elected official — whether in Puerto Rico or in Washington — can ignore,” he said in a statement in Spanish.

The same day, Rep. Héctor Ferrer Santiago, a Popular Democratic Party member, introduced a resolution in the territory’s House ordering its Committee on Public Security to investigate, calling the allegations “serious!” and saying the House has “an inescapable duty to investigate.” 

Their requests came the day ProPublica published its investigation detailing how prosecutors had uncovered a drugs-for-votes scheme being run by a violent gang in Puerto Rican prisons and were deep into looking at whether now-Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón or her campaign were involved. In the days following President Donald Trump’s election in 2024, as prosecutors prepared the indictment, they were told by supervisors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico to exclude the voting-related charges against inmates and prison staff, four sources with knowledge of the investigation told ProPublica. Then, once Trump took office, they were told to abandon the probe into potential political ties entirely, the sources said.

González-Colón, a longtime Republican and member of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, has declined repeated requests for interviews by ProPublica. In a statement Tuesday, she denied any wrongdoing and said she “has stood firmly against corruption” throughout her career and political campaigns. 

“I categorically reject any attempt to link me to unlawful conduct,” she wrote. González-Colón has not been charged with any crime.

She told local news outlets Wednesday she doesn’t think any investigation into the matter is warranted. “There is nothing here,” she said in Spanish. “And, if they have research from the past four years, let them do it, let them bring it to a successful conclusion. But I have absolutely nothing to do with the things that are pointed out there, much less my campaign.”

On Wednesday, leaders of the Puerto Rican Independence Party also called for an investigation. Sen. María de Lourdes Santiago, vice president of the party, said on social media that the questions of partisan intervention in prison spaces should not be ignored considering their “severe implications.” 

Thomas Rivera Schatz, president of the Puerto Rico Senate and a member of González-Colón’s party, initially told local news outlets that government officials in Puerto Rico should investigate thoroughly. But at a press conference on Thursday, he backed away from that assertion, saying of ProPublica’s report: “I do not lend it any credibility whatsoever. … It appears to follow a specific editorial line — one directed against the Republican Party and against Trump.”

An indictment filed in December 2024, while Joe Biden was still president, charged 34 members of a gang, known as Group 31 or Los Tiburones, and associates with crimes including drug distribution resulting in at least four overdose deaths, money laundering and possessing a firearm. Prosecutors also alleged that the gang made connections with government officials “for the purpose of reducing prison sentences” and that the gang mandated both the prisoners’ political affiliations and “who to vote for in primary and general elections,” but included no charges related to the drugs-for-votes scheme.

Sources familiar with the investigation said gang leaders forced inmates to vote for González-Colón or face brutal beatings and being cut off from a supply of drugs. Many of the inmates are addicted to illicit drugs. Prosecutors said they had evidence that González-Colón had spoken with one of the prison gang leaders on WhatsApp during the primary campaign and were pursuing other potential ties when they were instructed not to look any further, people with knowledge of the investigation told ProPublica. 

González-Colón said in her statement that she engaged with all sectors of society during her campaign. “That included meeting with families of incarcerated individuals concerned about rehabilitation and reintegration, because public policy must be inclusive and responsive to every community,” she said. She did not address the allegation that she had talked with a gang leader directly. 

W. Stephen Muldrow, U.S. attorney for the District of Puerto Rico, who was appointed by Trump in 2019 and has served continuously since, told ProPublica that his office does not comment on open cases. While a couple of defendants in the drug and money laundering cases have taken plea agreements, most of the cases are still pending. 

“Given the ongoing nature of the case and the importance of maintaining the integrity of active matters, it would not be appropriate for us to comment further in a press setting,” Lymarie Llovet-Ayala, spokesperson for the office, said in an email Wednesday. Previously, she said that charging corrupt public officials “has always been and remains a top priority” of the office.

As Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner in Congress —  a role similar to a U.S. representative — Hernández Rivera has the power to introduce and co-sponsor legislation and vote in committee, but is prohibited from voting on final passage of laws in the House. 

Hernández Rivera, a Democrat and member of the Popular Democratic Party, said he already has support from at least a couple of members from the House Judiciary Committee who are interested in starting the oversight process and are working on a draft letter requesting an investigation.

Political parties in Puerto Rico don’t adhere to a straight divide among Democrats and Republicans. Instead, they center much of their focus on whether Puerto Rico should become a state and so have Republicans and Democrats within each.

Hernández Rivera said the fact that the New Progressive Party has a stronghold on inmate votes is suspicious. “About the prisons in particular, it raises eyebrows from a statistical standpoint, the fact that 83% of inmates vote for the candidate of that party when no other place in Puerto Rico votes by those margins,” he said, citing a ProPublica tally of voter returns from the State Elections Commission’s website. By comparison, González-Colón won 41% of the overall vote in her victory in the five-way general election contest. 

“The issue here is more about whether the processes were followed and whether there was corruption in giving up the case,” Hernández Rivera said. 

U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, told ProPublica that while he didn’t yet know the details of the matter, he would support an investigation. He said the allegations aren’t surprising given the suspicions of election fraud across the U.S. and considering “today’s morals.” 

“I hope our committee or another committee does some investigating,” he said. 

Annette Martínez-Orabona, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico, said abandoning an investigation into a fraudulent voting scheme in prisons undermines the trust of those who believe in democracy. 

The ACLU is “advocating for full transparency about what happened with this investigation … what evidence was collected, and what was done with that evidence,” Martínez Orabona said in a written statement. 

The Power 4 Puerto Rico Coalition, a diaspora organization that advocates for more independence for the territory, said it wants answers from González-Colón and the U.S. Department of Justice. 

“Power 4 Puerto Rico calls for Congressional hearings to fully review what happened, who knew, and why the voting-related investigation did not proceed,” Erica González Martínez, director of the group, wrote in a statement. “The Puerto Rican people deserve the truth.”

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

Federal and local lawmakers in Puerto Rico are demanding investigations into a reported drugs-for-votes scheme within Puerto Rican prisons, which was allegedly suppressed following the 2024 elections. According to a ProPublica report, prosecutors had been investigating the involvement of now-Gov. Jenniffer González-Colón and her campaign in this scheme. However, after Donald Trump’s election, directives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office instructed prosecutors to exclude voting-related charges and ultimately abandon the investigation into potential political ties. This raises significant concerns about the integrity of the electoral process and the influence of political power on legal proceedings.

González-Colón has denied any wrongdoing, asserting her commitment to fighting corruption throughout her political career. She has not been charged with any crime and claims there is no basis for an investigation. However, the context of the allegations, combined with the reported actions of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, suggests a troubling intersection of politics and justice that merits further scrutiny.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not present any statements from Donald Trump that can be classified as false or misleading. Instead, it outlines allegations regarding the suppression of a federal investigation into a serious electoral fraud scheme. The claims about the investigation being quashed after Trump’s election are supported by multiple sources within the report, indicating a potential cover-up rather than a straightforward lie. The need for further evidence or verification remains, particularly regarding the motivations behind the directives issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not show Donald Trump engaging in any disparaging or hostile rhetoric toward specific individuals or groups. Instead, it focuses on the implications of his administration’s actions regarding the investigation into the alleged drugs-for-votes scheme. The tone of the report is serious and investigative, highlighting the potential corruption and the need for accountability without resorting to personal attacks or insults.

In summary, this situation underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in political processes, particularly when allegations of electoral fraud and corruption arise. The connections between political power and legal oversight warrant careful examination, and the calls for investigation reflect a broader concern for the integrity of democracy in Puerto Rico.

Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/puerto-rico-trump-drugs-votes-prisons-elections-jenniffer-gonzalez-colon

RFK Jr.’s Unsupported Claims About Tylenol-Autism Study He Called ‘Garbage’

FactCheck.org — 2026-04-30 16:09:00 — www.factcheck.org

During an April 17 congressional hearing, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called for retraction of a new Danish study that didn’t find a link between Tylenol and autism, repeatedly calling it “garbage” and baselessly suggesting that it was industry-generated and “fraudulent.”

There is no evidence of fraud or industry involvement, and the criticism Kennedy made was a limitation the authors of the paper acknowledged — not legitimate grounds for retraction, according to scientists.

Beginning with a press conference about autism in September — the Kennedy-imposed deadline for knowing the cause of the “autism epidemic” — President Donald Trump has repeatedly told pregnant women not to take Tylenol unless “absolutely necessary.” Kennedy has been a bit more circumspect on the topic, speaking of a “potential association” between prenatal Tylenol, also known as acetaminophen, and later autism diagnoses in children and calling the literature finding a connection “very suggestive.”

As we wrote in September, some studies have shown an association between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism. However, experts told us that these associations were likely not causal, and instead probably due to traits shared among people who tend to take more acetaminophen in pregnancy, such as a hereditary susceptibility to autism.

The new Danish study, published April 13 in JAMA Pediatrics, looked at national prescription fulfillment records for mothers of more than 1.5 million children and corresponding health records, finding no association between taking acetaminophen or taking greater doses of the drug during pregnancy and later autism diagnoses in the children.

Photo by Ronaldo Schemidt / AFP via Getty Images.

When asked about the Danish study at the House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on April 17, Kennedy moved to discredit it. “The study is a garbage study. It should be retracted,” he told Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. Kennedy went on to criticize the study for relying on prescription records when acetaminophen is also available over the counter. “It was a garbage in, garbage out study,” Kennedy continued. “The industry has the capacity to generate these studies all the time, and it’s fraudulent. It should be retracted.”

The study did rely on prescription data, which can lead to incomplete data on the use of the drug, Dr. Kira Philipsen Prahm, a doctor in the Center for Fetal Medicine at the Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet and first author of the study, told us via email. But such a limitation “does not automatically invalidate results,” she said. “The key question is whether the misclassification is likely to meaningfully bias the findings.” Her team’s analyses, along with prior research, indicate that “if there were a strong causal effect” of acetaminophen on autism, “it would be unlikely to be entirely obscured by this limitation,” she said.

Brian Lee, a professor of epidemiology at Drexel University’s Dornsife School of Public Health, told us that most acetaminophen is prescribed in Denmark, following restrictions on how much of the medication can be sold without a prescription. This makes Denmark a relatively good location to do a prescription-based study, he said, contrary to Kennedy’s implication that the approach invalidated the study. These restrictions were in place during the latter years of the study.

Furthermore, Prahm said, her team’s study did not find “a pattern suggesting increased risk with greater recorded exposure.” If acetaminophen were causing autism, one would expect to see more cases with increasing doses.

Nor are papers retracted simply because they have limitations, which all studies have. Prahm and her colleagues wrote in their paper that information about individuals’ over-the-counter acetaminophen use was missing and that “thus, the true exposure level among those with low-level exposure was likely underestimated,” while also explaining why they thought this was unlikely to have introduced meaningful bias.

Kennedy has a history of trying to “wield his considerable influence” to “force a retraction of a study without a legitimate reason,” Lee said, referring to a study about a common vaccine ingredient Kennedy said last summer should be retracted.

Legitimate reasons for retraction, Lee said, would include “analytical errors that affect the qualitative conclusions of the study, integrity issues, or loss in confidence of findings by the authors.” Prahm’s study “does not appear to feature any of these issues,” he said, calling Kennedy’s calls for retraction “unwarranted and politically coercive.” Lee was co-author of a 2024 Swedish study that pointed away from a causal association between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism in children, but he was not involved in the new Danish study.

Dr. Per Damkier, a professor in the department of clinical research at the University of Southern Denmark, told us via email that Kennedy “is well outside his domain of expertise” in assessing the scientific merits of the study. Damkier was not involved in the new study but has studied acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

Prahm said that the study was “conducted using nationwide Danish registry data and the pharmaceutical industry was not involved in funding or any other part of the study.” The study lists Danish governmental and hospital funding. One of the nine authors disclosed funding by a pharmaceutical company for unrelated work evaluating a contraceptive pill.

HHS did not reply to a request asking for the basis for Kennedy’s claims about the Danish study.

Missing Context on Acetaminophen in Denmark

Kennedy faulted the Danish study for using prescription data and for the low percentage of women it recorded as using acetaminophen. “Only 2% of the people in this study got Tylenol during pregnancy, according to the endpoint,” Kennedy told lawmakers. “In fact, we know, because Tylenol is available by over the counter, most of you have taken Tylenol. Very few of you have ever gotten a prescription.”

But Kennedy was missing context on acetaminophen in Denmark, which has been increasingly obtained via prescription in recent years.

“Reliance on prescription records alone would be bad in a setting like the US, where most acetaminophen use is” over the counter, Lee said. “However, Denmark is not the US.”

Damkier said that before 2014, “more than 60% of all acetaminophen sold in Denmark” was over the counter. But in late 2013, Denmark limited the quantity of acetaminophen that could be sold without a prescription. Following this change, “more than 80% of acetaminophen sold has been prescription based,” he said, citing his own research on the topic. “I believe exposure data from 2014 and onwards are valid and representative with low risk” of misclassifying acetaminophen use, he said.

The new study looked at prescription records from pregnancies for children born between 1997 to 2022. Damkier said that the study “can be criticized” for using prescription data prior to the change in prescription regulations but that he believes “the conclusions of the authors are substantiated” overall. “By and large, this large population-wide study supports the findings from the most recent studies: Exposure to acetaminophen during pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk of childhood” autism, he said.

Prahm said that she and her co-authors had done further analyses to see if the findings varied before or after 2013, but the team “found no statistical differences between the two periods.”

Kennedy also provided a relatively high-end estimate for acetaminophen use during pregnancy in Denmark. “Fifty percent of the women in Denmark, we know from other studies, actually took Tylenol during pregnancy,” Kennedy said. “So the study was comparing people, women who took Tylenol during pregnancy to women who took Tylenol during pregnancy.”

HHS did not reply to a question about where Kennedy got this statistic, but older, self-reported data from the Danish National Birth Cohort found this relatively high rate of use. Estimates of acetaminophen use during pregnancy vary, and one more recent study​ found that 6% of women reported using the medication during the first trimester.

Lee said that many women in the Danish National Birth Cohort study were missing responses on acetaminophen use and were not included, saying that “the 50% is almost assuredly an overestimate.”

Furthermore, Lee and Prahm both objected to Kennedy’s characterization of the new study as comparing “women who took Tylenol during pregnancy to women who took Tylenol during pregnancy.”

“That is not an accurate description of the study design,” Prahm said. “While some individuals classified as unexposed may in fact have used over-the-counter acetaminophen, this does not mean the two groups are equivalent.”

Pros and Cons of Prescription Data

The Danish study is not alone in using prescription data. Lee explained that using prescription data has “advantages and disadvantages.” An advantage is that it provides an objective record of drug supply, whereas studying over-the-counter exposure requires asking people to report on their own use, he said.

People can misreport their medication use, Prahm said, or the data can be influenced by recall bias, a phenomenon where people can remember things differently depending on later events. For example, a parent with a child diagnosed with autism might remember their medication use during pregnancy differently than a parent without this experience.

Furthermore, while prescription-based studies do miss some exposures to acetaminophen, they are likely to capture the most impactful use.

“Prescription based exposure likely captures those women who use substantial amounts of acetaminophen as opposed to [over-the-counter] based use, which tends to be low and sporadic,” Damkier said. “If there is no signal for prescription-based use, it is consequently exceedingly unlikely that sporadic [over-the-counter] use be associated with an increased risk” of autism.

Regardless, researchers don’t rely on single studies to draw conclusions. Rather, they look for a pattern of replication among studies done using various methods and datasets, David S. Mandell, a psychiatry professor at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and director of the Center for Mental Health Policy and Services Research, told us via email. “When we see replication, we grow more confident in the findings.”

Multiple studies have found that associations between prenatal acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental conditions go away when comparing siblings. In recent months, two review studies have pulled together the available data, concluding that the evidence does not show any clear or “clinically important” link between prenatal exposure to the medication and autism.

“We now have studies from Nordic countries, Japan and Taiwan showing that Tylenol doesn’t cause autism,” Mandell said. The degree of acetaminophen use varied in the studies, “and it doesn’t make a difference in the findings.”

Prahm emphasized that her team aimed to “contribute one piece of evidence” to be interpreted in the context of the broader literature. “Overall, the current evidence does not establish a clear association,” she said.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

During an April 17 congressional hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called for the retraction of a Danish study that found no link between Tylenol and autism, labeling it “garbage” and suggesting it was fraudulent and industry-generated. However, there is no evidence to support claims of fraud or industry involvement, and the limitations Kennedy cited were acknowledged by the study’s authors themselves. This raises questions about the validity of his assertions and the motivations behind them.

President Donald Trump has also advised pregnant women to avoid taking Tylenol unless absolutely necessary, framing it within the context of an ongoing discussion about autism. While some studies have suggested a potential association between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism, experts caution that these associations are likely not causal. They attribute the observed links to shared traits among those who use acetaminophen during pregnancy, such as hereditary susceptibility to autism.

The Danish study, published on April 13 in JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed national prescription fulfillment records for over 1.5 million children and found no significant association between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism diagnoses. This comprehensive analysis contradicts the claims made by Kennedy and Trump, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the evidence before drawing conclusions about the safety of acetaminophen in pregnancy.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not confirm any falsehoods or lies directly attributed to Donald Trump. Instead, it highlights the statements made by Kennedy regarding the Danish study and his calls for its retraction, which lack supporting evidence. The scientific community has pointed out that the limitations Kennedy criticized do not warrant a retraction, indicating that his claims are unfounded. The excerpt serves to clarify that the assertions made by Kennedy are not supported by the study’s findings or by expert analysis.

Targets and tone

The excerpt illustrates Kennedy’s disparaging remarks about the Danish study, which he referred to as “garbage” and suggested should be retracted without legitimate grounds. His comments reflect a dismissive tone toward the research and its authors, implying a lack of credibility. However, there is no indication that Trump engaged in any disparaging or hostile rhetoric toward individuals or groups in this context. The focus remains on the scientific debate surrounding the study and the claims made by Kennedy, rather than personal attacks or insults.

In summary, this item underscores the importance of scrutinizing claims made by public figures regarding health and safety, particularly when they contradict established scientific findings. The lack of evidence supporting Kennedy’s assertions about the Danish study raises significant concerns about the motivations behind such statements and the potential impact on public perception of acetaminophen use during pregnancy.

Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2026/04/rfk-jr-s-unsupported-claims-about-tylenol-autism-study-he-called-garbage/

Trump says he aims to suspend gas tax “for a period of time”

Politics – CBSNews.com — 2026-05-11 18:37:00 — www.cbsnews.com

Washington — President Trump said in a phone interview with CBS News Monday morning that he aims to suspend the federal gas tax “for a period of time.””I think it’s a great idea,” the president said. “Yup, we’re going to take off the gas tax for a period of time, and when gas goes down, we’ll let it phase back in.”Gas prices have soared over 50% since the start of the Iran war on Feb. 28, hitting a high of over $4.52 on Sunday, according to AAA. Analysts say the prices are likely to remain high with Iran blocking access to the Strait of Hormuz. But suspending the excise taxes — 18.4 cents per gallon on gas and 24.4 cents a gallon on diesel — requires an act of Congress, and pausing it would cost the federal government about a half billion dollars a week. Following the president’s comments, Reublican Sen. Josh Hawley said Monday that he would introduce legislation to suspend the federal gas tax. And GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida also said she plans to introduce a bill in the House this week to suspend the federal gas tax “in light of Trump’s recent remarks.” Several Democratic lawmakers had already introduced legislation to either pause or lower it. Revenue raised by the federal gas tax goes toward the Highway Trust Fund to construct and repair roadways, and it also pays for other transit projects. In the interview, Mr. Trump rejected the idea of a bailout for U.S. air carriers as they contend with jet fuel costs that have more than doubled since the start of the war with Iran.

A bailout proposal “hasn’t really been presented,” he said. “The airlines are doing not badly.”Budget carrier Spirit Airlines shut down earlier this month as it faced surging pressure from rising jet fuel prices. Analysts say ticket prices for all airlines will increase this summer as those costs increase. Mr. Trump said he watched CBS News’ “60 Minutes” interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and called it “pretty good,” though he disagreed with Netanyahu’s claim that “nobody had perfect foresight” when it came to Iran’s willingness to choke off the Strait of Hormuz.”I did,” Mr. Trump asserted to CBS News. “I knew they closed it. That’s the only weapon they have. It’s not much of a weapon anymore, but that’s the only weapon they have. We would have had it open, except that I did the favors for certain countries that asked me not to do it, we would have had it open under Operation Freedom, but we can easily go back to that.” When asked if he does intend to restart the operation aimed at providing vessels safe passage through the strait, he said “I don’t know — either that, or (something) much more severe.”

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump declared the latest peace proposal from Iran “totally unacceptable.” Asked by CBS News to detail what it was about the proposal that he found unacceptable, he replied, “It was just a bad proposal, a stupid proposal, actually…done by people that have no clue as to the danger they’re in. Very stupid proposal. Badly written, badly delivered.” Asked whether the Iranians made any concessions when it came to their nuclear program, he replied, “Yeah, for sure, but not nearly enough.”

Kristin Brown and

Patrick Maguire

contributed to this report.

More from CBS News

Go deeper with The Free Press

In:

Washington — President Trump stated in a phone interview with CBS News that he intends to suspend the federal gas tax “for a period of time,” claiming it to be “a great idea.” He suggested that the tax would be lifted temporarily and reinstated when gas prices decrease. However, gas prices have surged over 50% since the onset of the Iran war on February 28, reaching a peak of over $4.52 per gallon, according to AAA. Analysts warn that prices are likely to remain elevated due to Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Importantly, suspending the federal excise taxes—18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents on diesel—requires congressional approval and could cost the federal government approximately half a billion dollars weekly. Following Trump’s remarks, Republican Senator Josh Hawley announced plans to introduce legislation to suspend the gas tax, while GOP Representative Anna Paulina Luna indicated she would also propose a bill in the House. Several Democratic lawmakers had previously introduced similar legislation. The revenue generated from the federal gas tax is crucial for funding the Highway Trust Fund, which supports roadway construction and repair.

In the same interview, Trump dismissed the idea of a bailout for U.S. airlines, which are grappling with jet fuel costs that have more than doubled since the war began. He claimed that “the airlines are doing not badly,” despite the recent shutdown of budget carrier Spirit Airlines due to rising fuel prices. Analysts predict that ticket prices across all airlines will rise this summer as a result of these increased costs. Trump also commented on a recent “60 Minutes” interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling it “pretty good,” but he disagreed with Netanyahu’s assertion that “nobody had perfect foresight” regarding Iran’s actions. Trump asserted, “I did,” claiming he was aware of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which he described as their only weapon, albeit one that is “not much of a weapon anymore.”

Over the weekend, Trump labeled the latest peace proposal from Iran as “totally unacceptable,” criticizing it as a “bad proposal” and “stupid proposal” crafted by individuals who “have no clue as to the danger they’re in.” He acknowledged that while Iran made some concessions regarding their nuclear program, they were “not nearly enough.”

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

Trump’s proposal to suspend the federal gas tax is positioned as a potential relief measure amid soaring gas prices, which have increased significantly since the beginning of the Iran war. However, the feasibility of this proposal is questionable, as it requires congressional action, and the financial implications could be substantial, costing the federal government around half a billion dollars each week. The excerpt highlights the complexity of the situation, indicating that while Trump advocates for this tax suspension, the necessary legislative support and funding mechanisms are not guaranteed.

Furthermore, Trump’s dismissal of a bailout for airlines contrasts sharply with the reality of the airline industry’s struggles, as evidenced by the shutdown of Spirit Airlines. This raises questions about the accuracy of his assessment of the industry’s health. The excerpt does not provide any external verification or support for Trump’s claims regarding the airlines or the gas tax suspension, leaving readers to consider the broader implications of his statements.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not explicitly confirm any statements made by Trump as false or misleading. However, it does raise significant concerns regarding the practicality of his gas tax suspension proposal, given that it requires congressional approval and has substantial financial implications. Additionally, Trump’s characterization of the airline industry as “doing not badly” is contradicted by the reality of recent airline shutdowns and rising ticket prices, suggesting a disconnect between his statements and the actual circumstances facing the industry.

Targets and tone

In his remarks, Trump specifically criticized the Iranian leadership, labeling their peace proposal as “totally unacceptable” and describing it as a “bad proposal” and “stupid proposal.” He further stated that it was created by individuals who “have no clue as to the danger they’re in,” which reflects a hostile tone toward those involved in the Iranian government. The excerpt does not indicate any other specific targets of disparagement or hostility beyond this context.

In summary, Trump’s statements in this interview raise significant questions about the accuracy and feasibility of his proposals, particularly regarding the gas tax suspension and the state of the airline industry. The lack of external verification for his claims leaves readers with unresolved concerns about the implications of his assertions.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-interview-suspending-gas-tax-iran-war/

Trump nominates Cameron Hamilton, fired after defending FEMA, to lead the agency

ABC News: Politics — 2026-05-12 01:21:00 — abcnews.com

President Donald Trump nominated Cameron Hamilton Monday to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a notable comeback for the former Navy SEAL who was fired from his role as FEMA’s temporary leader last year after he defended its existence. His nomination comes as the Trump administration has increasingly signaled it is backing away from promises to dismantle FEMA, an agency that has faced withering criticism by the president. The nomination of Hamilton, who argued abolishing FEMA was not in the country’s best interests, is the latest indication of that change.If confirmed, Hamilton would be the principal adviser to Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on emergency management and FEMA’s first permanent administrator in Trump’s second term. The agency has gone through three temporary leaders, including Hamilton’s brief tenure from January to May 2025. He would take over an embattled agency still reeling from Kristi Noem’s turbulent leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, of which FEMA is part. FEMA’s workforce has been worn down by mass staff departures, policies that hamstrung operations and a 75-day-long DHS shutdown that ended April 30.Hamilton will need to ensure the agency is prepared for summer disaster season, just weeks away, while answering to Trump, who is likely to expect major reforms after a council he appointed recommended sweeping changes last Friday.“Now is the opportunity to stabilize FEMA,” said Michael Coen, the agency’s chief of staff in the Obama and Biden administrations.Hamilton, who had never been a state or local emergency management director and who had publicly criticized FEMA in the past, was a controversial choice when Trump named him temporary leader in January 2025, just days before the president floated the idea of “getting rid” of FEMA. His rupture with DHS officials began as he defended a federal role in supporting disaster-impacted states, tribes and territories.“Once the conversation shifted to, ‘Now we’re going to abolish,’ I immediately expressed concern,” he said last September on the “Disaster Tough” podcast with John Scardena, a former FEMA incident management team leader.DHS officials even subjected him to a polygraph test, accusing him and other officials of leaking details of a private meeting. He passed, but said he knew his dismissal was inevitable.At a May 7 appearance before a House Appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, asked Hamilton if he believed FEMA should be abolished.“I do not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency,” he replied. The next day, he was fired.Defending FEMA despite knowing it would likely cost him his job garnered respect and trust among people whose job it is to lead communities through crisis, said Scardena, now president of the consultancy Doberman Emergency Management Group, which trains emergency managers. “He won myself over and I think a lot of people by what he did,” Scardena said.But multiple current FEMA employees who requested anonymity for fear of retribution for speaking publicly told The Associated Press they had concerns over some of the actions taken under Hamilton.In 2024, Hamilton shared posts on X promoting misinformation about FEMA spending during Hurricane Helene. During his temporary leadership, FEMA ceased door-to-door canvassing to reach survivors after disasters, and canceled a multibillion-dollar resilience grant program, since restored by a federal judge. The Department of Government Efficiency gained access to internal FEMA networks containing survivors’ private information. FEMA staff were fired for fulfilling a reimbursement payment to New York City for housing undocumented immigrants as part of FEMA’s Shelter and Services program.Hamilton has said he believes FEMA needs major reform. He has said that he wants FEMA to move faster, that the agency is saddled with responsibilities he sees as outside its remit, and that some states have become too dependent on the agency. A Trump-appointed council last week urged sweeping changes to FEMA, which would require congressional action.“I think he’s going to need to rebuild trust across the agency,” said Deanne Criswell, FEMA administrator under former President Joe Biden, adding that she believes Hamilton cares about FEMA and she appreciated his outreach to emergency management directors and former officials during and after his tenure. Hamilton could face pushback in the Senate confirmation process over never having led an emergency management agency, a common stepping stone to becoming administrator of an agency with over 21,000 employees.Federal law requires the FEMA administrator to have “a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security” and at least five years of “executive leadership and management experience.” Hamilton trained as a Navy hospital corpsman before spending a decade as a Navy SEAL on SEAL Team Eight. He then became a U.S. State Department emergency management specialist handling overseas crisis response, then directed emergency medical services at DHS.
President Donald Trump nominated Cameron Hamilton Monday to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), marking a notable comeback for the former Navy SEAL who was previously fired from his role as FEMA’s temporary leader last year after he defended the agency’s existence. This nomination comes as the Trump administration appears to be backing away from its earlier promises to dismantle FEMA, which has faced significant criticism from the president. Hamilton, who argued that abolishing FEMA was not in the best interests of the country, represents a shift in this narrative. If confirmed, he would serve as the principal adviser to Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin on emergency management and would be FEMA’s first permanent administrator in Trump’s second term.

Hamilton’s appointment follows a turbulent period for FEMA, which has seen three temporary leaders and is still recovering from the leadership of Kristi Noem at the Department of Homeland Security. The agency’s workforce has been strained by mass staff departures and operational challenges, including a recent 75-day DHS shutdown. As summer disaster season approaches, Hamilton will need to ensure FEMA is prepared while also addressing expected reforms from Trump, who recently received recommendations for sweeping changes from a council he appointed.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

The excerpt outlines the context of Cameron Hamilton’s nomination, emphasizing his previous defense of FEMA and the Trump administration’s shifting stance on the agency. To support claims about the necessity of FEMA and the implications of its potential abolition, one would typically expect evidence such as data on disaster response effectiveness, public opinion on FEMA’s role, or expert testimony on emergency management. However, the excerpt does not provide external verification or detailed evidence to substantiate these claims. Instead, it highlights Hamilton’s past criticisms of FEMA and his subsequent firing, which suggests a complex relationship with the agency that may impact his ability to lead effectively.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not present any statements from Trump that are explicitly labeled as false or misleading. While it discusses Hamilton’s previous criticisms of FEMA and his defense of the agency, it does not provide direct evidence that contradicts any specific claims made by Trump. The narrative focuses more on Hamilton’s experiences and the challenges faced by FEMA rather than on verifying or disputing Trump’s statements.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not show Trump singling out, insulting, or speaking in a hostile manner about specific individuals or groups. Instead, it focuses on the internal dynamics of FEMA and Hamilton’s role within that context. There is no evidence of disparagement or hostility directed at any particular person or group in the provided text.

In conclusion, readers should recognize the complexities surrounding Hamilton’s nomination to lead FEMA, particularly in light of his past criticisms and the agency’s current challenges. While the excerpt provides insight into the political landscape and Hamilton’s qualifications, it leaves many questions unanswered regarding the implications of his leadership and the future direction of FEMA under Trump’s administration.

Source: https://abcnews.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-nominates-cameron-hamilton-fired-after-defending-fema-132859067

Trump is backing psychedelic research: here’s why – podcast | Science

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-05-11 23:00:00 — www.theguardian.com

Last month President Trump signed an executive order designed to fast track both research and access to psychedelic drugs as treatments for mental health illnesses. The most prominent in the order was ibogaine, a drug derived from the root bark of a West African shrub, that has shown some promise in relieving the long term effects of traumatic brain injury. Madeleine Finlay talks to journalist Mattha Busby about podcaster Joe Rogan’s role in the story, what else is behind the President’s interest in psychedelic research, and what the order will change in practice for scientists and researchers
Last month, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at accelerating research and access to psychedelic drugs for mental health treatment. The order prominently features ibogaine, a substance derived from a West African shrub that has shown potential in alleviating the long-term effects of traumatic brain injury. This move raises questions about the motivations behind Trump’s interest in psychedelic research and the implications for scientists and researchers in the field.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

The executive order signed by Trump seeks to fast track research into psychedelic drugs, particularly ibogaine, which is noted for its potential benefits in treating mental health issues. For such claims to be well-supported, one would typically expect robust clinical evidence, peer-reviewed studies, and endorsements from reputable health organizations. The excerpt does not provide any such verification or detailed evidence to substantiate the efficacy of ibogaine or the broader claims regarding psychedelic treatments.

Moreover, the excerpt does not include any corrections or counter-evidence that would challenge the claims made about the executive order. Without additional context or supporting data, the assertions regarding the benefits of ibogaine remain largely unverified within the provided text.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

The excerpt does not indicate any statements made by Trump that are explicitly false or misleading. There are no contradictions or retractions present in the text that would suggest inaccuracies in the claims surrounding the executive order or the drug ibogaine. However, to fully assess the validity of the claims, readers would need access to scientific studies or expert opinions that confirm the effectiveness of ibogaine in treating mental health conditions.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not reveal any instances of Trump disparaging or speaking in a hostile manner toward specific individuals or groups. The language used is neutral and focused on the executive order and its implications rather than personal attacks or derogatory remarks. There is no indication of hostility or demeaning rhetoric directed at any identifiable targets.

In conclusion, while Trump’s executive order on psychedelic research marks a significant policy move, the excerpt lacks the necessary evidence to substantiate the claims made about ibogaine’s effectiveness. Readers should remain cautious about the implications of this order and seek further information to understand its potential impact on mental health treatment.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2026/may/12/trump-is-backing-psychedelic-research-heres-why-podcast

Trump ally Kari Lake tapped to be US ambassador to Jamaica

BBC News — 2026-05-11 21:48:00 — www.bbc.com

Lake thanked President Trump for nominating her, saying on social media that Jamaica “is a country I know very well, full of incredible people”.
Lake thanked President Trump for nominating her, saying on social media that Jamaica “is a country I know very well, full of incredible people”. This statement reflects a personal connection to Jamaica, highlighting the nominee’s familiarity and appreciation for the nation and its people. However, the excerpt does not provide any further context about the nomination or any potential implications of this statement.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

The claim made by Lake about her connection to Jamaica suggests a personal experience or relationship with the country. To substantiate such a claim, one would typically expect supporting evidence, such as details about her time spent in Jamaica or specific interactions with its people. However, the excerpt does not provide any additional information or verification regarding her experiences or qualifications related to Jamaica.

Since the excerpt is limited to Lake’s expression of gratitude for her nomination and her positive remarks about Jamaica, it does not include any corrections, denials, or counter-evidence. There is no indication of any controversy or dispute surrounding her statement.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

Based solely on the excerpt, there are no statements made by Trump or Lake that are shown to be false or misleading. The excerpt does not contain any conflicting information or retractions that would necessitate a correction. Readers would need additional context or evidence to evaluate the truthfulness of Lake’s claims about her connection to Jamaica.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not indicate that Trump or Lake directed any disparaging or hostile remarks toward specific individuals or groups. Lake’s statement is framed positively, focusing on her appreciation for Jamaica and its people. There is no evidence of hostility or negative rhetoric in the provided text.

In summary, while Lake’s statement about Jamaica reflects a personal connection, the excerpt lacks the depth needed for accountability regarding any claims made by Trump or Lake. Readers should remain aware that without further context, the implications of Lake’s remarks and her nomination remain unclear.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clypng12xq5o?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss

Congress back in session facing key funding and security deadlines

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-05-11 17:40:00 — www.pbs.org

The House and Senate returned to session this week with deadlines looming on everything from DHS funding and a farm bill to an almost-expired national security and foreign intelligence law. Lisa Desjardins reports on the long to-do list for Congress.

Amna Nawaz:
The House and Senate return to session this week, with deadlines looming on everything from DHS funding and a foreign bill to an almost expired national security and foreign intelligence law.Our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardins, joins us now with more on Congress’ long to-do list.Lisa, bring us up to speed.Two weeks ago, Congress managed to pass a bill that would fund and open DHS, most of DHS. As part of the deal, they left ICE and Border Patrol out.
Lisa Desjardins:
Right.
Amna Nawaz:
How are Republicans handling that now?
Lisa Desjardins:
These next two weeks are critical for those subagencies.First of all, remind people that both of those agencies, ICE and Border Patrol, got a windfall, a one-time windfall last summer. They have been living off of that. But it’s their usual annual appropriations that they have not gotten 1 cent of yet. Democrats blocked that because of what we showed in videos and also their concerns over conduct in general across the country, how Americans — killed and also being treated in ICE custody.Now, what’s happened now is that Republicans are trying to go around Democrats using a special budget procedure called reconciliation. It only needs 50 votes in the Senate. Here’s what they are proposing to pass, first of all, $38 billion for ICE, more than $25 billion for Customs and Border Protection.Those are large sums. It would be three years’ worth of beefed-up funding. The bill is expected to hit the Senate floor as soon as next week. But the politics are already hitting now, because funding three years, that’s very unusual.And, in addition, there are billions of other dollars in this, including $1 billion to find security for the president’s ballroom.
Amna Nawaz:
And that money for the ballroom we saw generate headlines just like last week. What’s your reporting on how lawmakers are seeing that?
Lisa Desjardins:
This has really dominated conversation among Republicans on the Hill behind the scenes. Talking to my sources, there is confusion at best and very high frustration at worst.I think this money right now is really on the edge of coming out of this bill. One congressional source told me the White House has to sell this money. They’re not exactly sure what the billion dollars would be for. And they’re not sure if Trump wants it.But we know he wants something because he said so to our own reporter Liz Landers. Here’s what he told her in a phone call last week.He said: “All they’re doing is financing some security, and it’s not a billion dollars. It’s just a few — what’s needed for security.”So let’s look at the legislation, though. It clearly is calling for $1 billion in numbers available for three years to support the East Wing. That is clearly the ballroom, Amna. But there are no specifics on exactly why a billion dollars would be needed. It is a huge amount of money. The U.S. Secret Service entire annual budget is $3.5 billion.So this is a large chunk of that. We may know more tomorrow. The head of Secret Service has been asked to speak to Senate Republicans behind closed doors at their lunch.
Amna Nawaz:
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on several other issues in Congress. What else is on your radar and should be on ours?
Lisa Desjardins:
There’s a lot.It was hard to pick just a couple, as you could imagine. But, first of all, we do expect an important nomination to be confirmed this week. That is of Kevin Warsh. He is the nominee to be the head of the Federal Reserve. He is expected to be confirmed this week and step into what will be one of the most powerful jobs honestly on the face of this planet.We’re also watching the farm bill. That’s something that is particular to politics, but also has enormous policy implications from nutrition to farm policy, a lot of our farmers going through a lot of stress, especially in the last couple of years. But we’re also watching what it means for ethanol, some important votes on that this week.And, finally, key powers in FISA. That’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That runs out in a month. It seems like a long time. Congress has punted it. But it’s not because, of course, Congress will have a one-week recess in the middle. And we know it is hard for them to make decisions on this controversial bill. So we’re watching that closely.
Amna Nawaz:
Busy week for you. We will see you back here soon, Lisa Desjardins.
Lisa Desjardins:
OK. Got it.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy
The excerpt outlines the current legislative challenges facing Congress, particularly regarding funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its subagencies, ICE and Border Patrol. It notes that these agencies received a one-time funding boost last summer but have not received their usual annual appropriations. The Democrats blocked these appropriations due to concerns over conduct in ICE custody and the treatment of individuals within the agency. The Republicans are now attempting to use a budget procedure called reconciliation to secure substantial funding for ICE and Customs and Border Protection, which raises questions about the unusual three-year funding proposal.

The excerpt also highlights a specific allocation of $1 billion for security related to the president’s ballroom, which has sparked confusion and frustration among lawmakers. There is no clear justification provided for this amount, especially considering that it constitutes a significant portion of the U.S. Secret Service’s annual budget. The excerpt indicates that the White House needs to clarify the necessity of this funding.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies
The excerpt does not present any statements from Trump that can be classified as outright lies or falsehoods. Instead, it reports on a conversation where Trump expressed his views on the funding for security, stating, “All they’re doing is financing some security, and it’s not a billion dollars. It’s just a few — what’s needed for security.” This statement reflects his perspective but does not provide enough context to verify its accuracy or to label it as false. The excerpt lacks external verification or evidence that would substantiate or refute Trump’s claims regarding the funding.

Targets and tone
The excerpt does not show Trump engaging in any disparaging or hostile rhetoric toward specific individuals or groups. Instead, it focuses on the legislative process and the discussions among lawmakers regarding funding issues. There are no insults or threats directed at any person or group, and the tone remains neutral throughout the discussion of the funding and legislative challenges.

In summary, the excerpt illustrates the complexities and tensions surrounding congressional funding debates, particularly regarding ICE and Border Patrol. While it captures Trump’s perspective on security funding, it does not provide sufficient evidence to classify any of his statements as false or misleading. The ongoing discussions about funding allocations and their implications remain critical for accountability in government spending.

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/congress-back-in-session-facing-key-funding-and-security-deadlines

‘A bad look’: Republicans want more details on ballroom security funding request

Donald Trump — 2026-05-11 19:07:00 — www.politico.com

The $1 billion line item in a party-line bill otherwise focused on immigration enforcement is causing political heartburn.
The political landscape is once again roiled by a contentious $1 billion line item in a party-line bill focused on immigration enforcement. This provision is stirring significant political heartburn, raising questions about the implications of such funding and the rhetoric surrounding it. As the debate unfolds, accountability remains crucial, particularly in scrutinizing the claims and statements made by political figures, including Donald Trump.

How this sits against verifiable accuracy

The excerpt highlights a $1 billion allocation within a bill primarily aimed at immigration enforcement, which has become a focal point of political contention. To assess the validity of claims surrounding this funding, one would typically require clear evidence of its intended use, the context of its introduction, and the potential impacts on immigration policy. However, the excerpt does not provide any specific corrections, denials, or counter-evidence regarding the claims made about this funding, leaving a gap in verifiable information.

What the excerpt shows about verifiable lies

Based solely on the provided excerpt, there are no statements attributed to Trump that are explicitly shown to be false or misleading. The text does not contain any retractions or corrections related to his claims. For a thorough evaluation, readers would need additional context or evidence regarding the implications of the $1 billion funding and any statements made by Trump that could be verified or disputed.

Targets and tone

The excerpt does not indicate any specific instances of Trump singling out, insulting, or demeaning individuals or groups. There is no evidence of hostile rhetoric directed at any identifiable targets within the text. The focus remains on the political implications of the funding line item rather than personal attacks or disparagement.

In conclusion, while the excerpt raises significant political issues surrounding immigration enforcement funding, it lacks concrete details necessary for accountability regarding Trump’s statements or actions. As the situation develops, it is essential for readers to remain vigilant about the claims made and the context in which they are presented, as many questions remain unanswered.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/11/republicans-ballroom-security-funding-request-00915574