Bank

Jeffrey Epstein survivors rallied in front of Congress on Wednesday, detailing their experiences of abuse and calling for the release of all Epstein files. “We cannot heal without justice,” says one Epstein survivor, Chauntae Davies. “We cannot protect the future if we refuse to confront the past.” Survivors also announced that some victims would work to confidentially compile their own list of individuals implicated in Epstein’s crimes. This comes as lawmakers seek to force a House floor vote compelling the Justice Department to release all the files from the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Lauren Hersh, the national director of the anti-trafficking organization World Without Exploitation, is a former sex-trafficking prosecutor in New York who joined survivors for their press conference just steps from the Capitol on Wednesday. “Courage is contagious,” says Hersh, adding that “we were approached by several other Epstein survivors who we didn’t even know.”

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Survivors of serial sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein held a press conference steps away from the Capitol Wednesday to share their testimonies and demand lawmakers release all government files related to the Epstein investigation. Calls for the full files to be released have continued to grow, particularly among President Trump’s base. Trump campaigned on releasing the files but has called it a distraction and a, quote, “Democratic hoax” since taking office. The women were joined by members of Congress who have introduced a rare bipartisan bill that would make release of the Epstein investigation files law.

AMY GOODMAN: In a few minutes, we’ll speak with Congressmember Ro Khanna, who co-sponsored the bill, and Lauren Hersh of World Without Exploitation, which helped organize the survivors who spoke out Wednesday. But first, the voices of survivors.

MARINA LACERDA: My name is Marina Lacerda. I was minor victim one in federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein in New York in 2019. I was one of dozen of girls that I personally know who were forced into Jeffrey’s mansion on 9 East 71 Street in New York City when we were just kids.

Today is the first time that I ever speak publicly about what happened to me. I never thought that I would find myself here. The only reason that I am here is because it feels like the people who matter in this country finally care about what we have to say. As an immigrant from Brazil, I feel empowered knowing that the little girl struggling to get by at 14 and 15 years old finally has a voice. For the first time, I feel like I matter as an American.

I was only 14 years old when I met Jeffrey. It was the summer of high school. I was working three jobs to try to support my mom and my sister, when a friend of mine in the neighborhood told me that I could make $300 to give another guy a massage. It went from a dream job to the worst nightmare. Jeffrey assistant Lesley Groff would call me and tell me that I needed to be at the house so often that I ended up dropping out of high school before ninth grade, and I never went back. From 14 to 17 years old, I went and worked for Jeffrey instead of receiving an education. Every day, I hoped that he would offer me a real job as one of his assistants or something, something important. I would finally have made it big, as, like we say, the American dream. That day never came. I had no way. I had no way out. I was — until he finally told me that I was too old.

There are many pieces of my story that I can’t remember, no matter how hard I try. The constant state of wonder causes me so much fear and so much confusion. My therapist says that my brain is just trying to protect itself, but it’s so hard to begin to heal, knowing that there are people out there who know more about my abuse than I do. The worst part is that the government is still in possession right now of the documents and information about — that could help me remember and get over all of this, maybe, and help me heal. They have documents with my name on them that were confiscated from Jeffrey Epstein’s house and could help me put the pieces of my own life back together.

HALEY ROBSON: My name is Haley Robson. I was a 16-year-old high school student athlete who made good grades and had high aspirations for college, when I was recruited and asked by a classmate of mine, alongside with a 20-year-old male, if I wanted to give an old rich guy a massage. But what high school girl would not want to do that? That day changed my life forever.

And when I got into the massage room, Jeffrey Epstein undressed and asked me to do things to him. My eyes welled up with tears, and I have never been more scared in my life. When it was over, he made — he paid me $200 and requested, in exchange, that I bring a girl each time to make another $200. I told him I did not want to do that, and then he gave me an ultimatum: “Either you come here and massage me when I call you, or you bring me friends of yours to massage, and I will give you $200 per girl for each time she comes.”

I felt and hoped to never hear from him again, but he called me every day. He was so wealthy and powerful, and he would not let me go. I felt I had no choice. If I disobeyed him, I knew something bad would happen. So, knowing I did not want to be sexually abused — I’m sorry — I started to bring him other girls from my high school, and he paid me $200, $200 for bringing them. I just hoped each time it would be the last time.

One day, the stepmom of one of the girls brought him and called the police on Jeffrey Epstein. The police then called me, called me in for questioning. I had told them the truth, despite the fact that I was a teenager and a minor, and I was able to tell the police the names of all the other victims. The police treated me like a criminal. I had, by this time, had turned 18. I had been with Jeffrey since I was 16 and for two years. So, they had told me I distribute — I distributed to the — so, they told me I was going to be arrested. My name was then distributed to the press as a co-conspirator of my abuser, who I detested. My entire world was crashing in around me, and I started being threatened and bullied, ’til this day still receiving death threats.

CHAUNTAE DAVIES: My name is Chauntae Davies, and I’m here before you today as a survivor, a survivor of decades of pain, the trauma, betrayal at the hands of Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, and the people who enabled them, and a government that for far too long refused to help. …

I was just one of the many young women trapped in his orbit. I was even taken on a trip to Africa with former President Bill Clinton and other notable figures. In those moments, I realized how powerless I was. If I spoke out, who would believe me? Who would protect me? Epstein himself was the most powerful leader of our country — Epstein surrounded himself, I’m sorry, with the most powerful leaders of our country and the world. He abused not only me, but countless others, and everyone seemed to look away. The truth is, Epstein had a free pass. He bragged about his powerful friends, including our current president, Donald Trump. It was his biggest brag, actually.

And while I — what I endured will haunt me forever. I live every day with PTSD. I live as a mother trying to raise my child while distrusting a world that has betrayed me. This kind of trauma never leaves you. It breaks families apart. It shapes the way we see everyone around us. But one thing is certain: Unless we learn from this history, monsters like Epstein will rise again.

There are files, government files, that hold the truth about Epstein, who he knew, who owed him, who protected him, and why he was allowed to operate for so long without consequence. Why was Maxwell the only one held accountable when so many others played a role? Why does the government hide this information from the public? This secrecy is not protection; it’s complicity. And as long as the truth is buried, justice will remain out of reach.

That is why this bill matters. Passing it will — bless you — endure — ensure that the suffering of survivors is not in vain. Passing it will bring accountability, transparency and prevention. It will help protect the next generation of predators who seek to place themselves above the law through wealth, influence and connections.

This is not just my story. It is about every survivor who carries invisible scars. It’s about the weight we live with daily. It is about the families broken and the futures stolen. So, I ask you, President Trump and members of Congress: Why do we continue to cover up sexual abuse and assault? Who are we covering for? Let the public know the truth. We cannot heal without justice. We cannot protect the future if we refuse to confront the past.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Those were some of the Epstein survivors who spoke out Wednesday in a news conference outside the Capitol. They also called for the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, introduced by Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna, who will join us in a moment.

AMY GOODMAN: World Without Exploitation helped organize the survivors who spoke out. It’s the largest anti-trafficking coalition in the country. For more, we’re joined by its national director, Lauren Hersh, the former chief of sex-trafficking unit here in New York.

Lauren Hersh, welcome to Democracy Now! If you can talk about the significance of this moment? You had scores of women, of survivors. Some of them had never spoken before, surrounding the group of women who did speak. Talk about this moment and also what it means for them to be calling for something that the Trump administration said they were protecting the victims when they were not releasing the files, calling for the release of the Epstein files.

LAUREN HERSH: Well, good morning, and thank you so much for having me.

This was truly a historic moment. We saw more than 20 Epstein survivors come together. They stood in solidarity with one another and so many survivors of other exploiters who joined them at the Hill yesterday to listen to their voices. And it was historic for so many reasons, because this was really the first time that these women were coming together and really connecting with one another.

But also, it was so powerful to listen to their stories and also listen to their call to action, and listen to the other women who surrounded them, many of whom were exploited by other people. But interestingly, we were approached by several other Epstein survivors, who we didn’t even know who were in the space, who said, “I needed to be here today. I needed to listen to my survivor sisters. And this gave me strength and empowered me for the very first time.”

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, that’s extraordinary, Lauren. Do you think any of those people would be willing, the people who were there who were also survivors of Epstein’s or his consorts, cohorts, subject to their — to sexual abuse by them, whether they would also be willing to speak out?

LAUREN HERSH: Well, what we know is courage is contagious. And we saw that yesterday. I’m not sure if any of these women who came yesterday, who were Epstein survivors who had never said that out loud, if they planned to even approach some of us. And yet, once they listened to these survivors speaking their truth, they felt empowered and safe enough to come forward and say, “Yes, me, too.” So, I think this may be the moment where we are unlocking even more, more voices, more survivors, and the possibility of so much more truth coming out.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to President Trump’s response when asked about the Epstein survivors’ testimony, as he was sitting in the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: So, this is a Democrat hoax that never ends. … I think we’re probably having, according to what I read, even from two people in this room, we’re having the most successful eight months of any president ever. And that’s what I want to talk about. That’s what we should be talking about, not the Epstein hoax.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was President Trump. Lauren Hersh, a “hoax.” I keep thinking of one of the women saying, “I’m a Republican. I voted for President Trump. This doesn’t have to do with party politics.” Your response, Lauren?

LAUREN HERSH: I mean, what I want to talk about is listening to the voices of survivors, right? They said, loud and clear, this is not a political issue. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue about people. This is an issue about what they, these women, collectively and individually, have experienced over decades. There has been so much trauma. There has been so much terror. And they’re finally at the point where they’re saying, “No more. We are ready to speak our truth.”

And truthfully, this is not the first time that women have come forward. Many have come forward individually, saying, “We want these people to be held to account.” But this is really the first time that they’re collectively coming together. And so, we want to make sure that we’re centering those voices, we’re listening to the voices, who are saying, very loud and clear, it’s time to release all of the files.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Lauren, if you could comment on the significance of the survivors saying that they are, in fact, compiling a list of clients themselves? They didn’t say necessarily that they would release that client list, but just the fact that they’re compiling it. Your response to that?

LAUREN HERSH: My response is, there is such power in this incredible community. What you’re hearing from them are decades of frustration. These are women who have been let down by system after system, and they’re at the point where they’re saying, “We’ve got answers. We know the truth. And if we come together, we can provide the truth.” And so, that is what they intend to do. It’s very powerful.

AMY GOODMAN: Lauren Hersh, we want to thank you so much for being with us, national director of the largest anti-trafficking coalition in the country, World Without Exploitation, former sex-trafficking prosecutor in New York. The organization helped to organize the survivors who spoke out Wednesday just steps from the Capitol.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to send troops to Chicago to “straighten that one out.” New York City, he says, might be next.

Already, armed National Guard regiments are patrolling the streets of Washington, DC. All this on top of the deployment of troops to Los Angeles earlier in the summer.

The deployment of out-of-state troops to occupy cities cannot plausibly promote public order. It’s blunt force, a brutal power grab. It runs afoul of the Constitution and the proper role for states.

I write history books and consider myself an expert on the presidency. I can think of few analogies—not in this country, anyway—for such a move by a chief executive.

Why is this particular turn so alarming? After all, public safety is important, and fighting crime is a worthy goal. My colleague Liza Goitein explains the legal and constitutional issues:

Trump is on even thinner legal ice with this plan than he is in Los Angeles and DC. Unlike in the capital, the president doesn’t command the Illinois National Guard unless he calls them into federal service (i.e., “federalizes” them). There are various laws that authorize him to federalize the guard, but none of them would apply here.In Los Angeles, Trump is relying on a law (Section 12406 of Title 10 of the US Code) that authorizes federalization when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,” meaning federal law. Immigration law is federal law. Trump claimed that the protests rendered him “unable... to execute” ICE raids. Although dozens of raids happened during the protests and the administration did not cite a single raid that was thwarted, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals deferred to Trump’s assessment.
But that law simply wouldn’t apply to the type of crime Trump has cited in Chicago—essentially, violent street crime. The laws that are implicated are largely those of Illinois and Chicago, not the “laws of the United States.”
Even under the Insurrection Act—which is the main exception to the law barring deployment of the military for domestic law enforcement—the president may deploy troops to execute the law only in situations involving either federal laws or those state laws designed to protect the constitutional rights of classes of people (basically, civil rights laws).
Nor can Trump ask other states’ governors to send their guard forces into Chicago, as he did in DC under a law known as Section 502(f), which authorizes governors to voluntarily use their guard forces for missions requested by the president or secretary of defense. Under this law, presidents have asked governors to deploy guard forces within their own states, in other states that consent, or (as only Trump has done) in DC without local consent. No governor has sent guard troops into another state that did not consent, as would be the case here. That’s because guard forces deployed under this law remain state officers as a legal matter. And under the Constitution, states are sovereign entities vis-à-vis one another. That means one state cannot invade another, even at the president’s request.
If the president wants to send one state’s National Guard forces into an unwilling state, he must federalize them first. But to federalize them, he needs statutory authority. And there is no statutory authority to federalize the guard to police local crime.
The Pentagon reportedly sees its planned military deployment in Chicago as a model for other cities. And of course, the other cities Trump has name-checked in this context are governed by Democrats: Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York, and Oakland.
Flooding “blue” cities with soldiers on the pretext of fighting crime would be an unprecedented abuse of power that would violate states’ rights and threaten our most fundamental liberties. The plan is profoundly un-American. And it is illegal.

Public safety matters greatly. But facts belie the (ever shifting) rationale. New York, for example, remains one of the nation’s safest large cities. As Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told Attorney General Pam Bondi yesterday, crime has dropped dramatically, even this year. Fighting crime is not a rationale—it’s a pretext.

The cities targeted so far have two things in common: a Black mayor and a fusillade of presidential rhetoric denouncing them as “hellholes.”

Bill Kristol, founder of The Bulwark and a longtime prominent Republican, surveyed events and put it this way: “What we are seeing is not merely a ‘slide toward authoritarianism.’ It’s a march toward despotism. And it’s a march whose pace is accelerating.”

What can be done to push back? Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker warned federal forces: “Do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here.” Trump, in turn, mused: “They say... ‘He’s a dictator. He’s a dictator.’ A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we’d like a dictator.’” He added, “I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator.” (As presidential quotations go, it’s about as reassuring as Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook.”)

Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul can play pivotal roles. States and cities can go to court—an epic legal battle. They can rally the public in their states and around the country. They can monitor and document the conduct of deployed forces.

We must all speak out when our Constitution is under threat.

It’s going to be a busy fall.

NOW READ: 'The tip of the iceberg': Inside the 'greatest corruption in presidential history'

On Tuesday, September 2 in the Northern District of California, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued a second injunction against President Donald Trump's use of federalized National Guard troops and the U.S. Marines in Los Angeles. Attorneys for the Trump Administration are expected to aggressively appeal Breyer's ruling, and former federal prosecutor Kimberly Wehle — now a law professor at the University of Baltimore — believes the case could ultimately "land in the U.S. Supreme Court."

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on September 4, Wehle explains why the case, if the High Court accepts it, "could prove to be the most consequential ruling since Trump v. United States, the 2024 decision that manufactured criminal pre-immunity for Trump."

Breyer's ruling, Wehle emphasizes, has major implications for the Insurrection Act as well as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The former federal prosecutor argues that

READ MORE: Economist Paul Krugman says Trump 'telling the truth' on this issue — but there's a catch

"Some background: The Framers of the Constitution, after having just a few years earlier fought a revolution to throw off the yoke of a bullying king, worried that a standing army could be used against civilians," Wehle explains. "But they also generally agreed that the federal government needed to have some coercive emergency powers…. Although this language is extremely broad, no president before Trump has dared to stretch it to the point of abuse. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously relied on the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to help children safety attend Arkansas public schools after that state's governor called in its militia to thwart implementation of Brown v. Board of Education. Presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act a handful of times to suppress riots, most recently when (President) George H.W. Bush, at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson, sent the National Guard to Los Angeles during the 1992 riots that followed the Rodney King verdict."

Wehle adds, "Those 1992 riots were far bigger and much more deadly and damaging than this year's protests in Los Angeles, which followed ICE detentions and arrests of dozens of people on June 6 in and around the city."

Wehle notes that under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, "the military cannot be invoked against civilians for local law enforcement unless a statutory exception to the law applies."

"In his latest ruling," according to Wehle, "Judge Breyer outright declared that Trump 'violated the Posse Comitatus Act.' The Marine and National Guard troops sent to California, which together were called 'Task Force 51,' were instructed during training that certain law enforcement functions are prohibited by the law. Those included security patrols, traffic control, crowd control, and riot control. (Defense Secretary Pete) Hegseth nonetheless issued a memo directing them to do what's 'necessary to ensure the execution of Federal functions and the safety of Federal personnel.'"

READ MORE: 'Sound familiar?' Mitch McConnell lobs parting shot at 'America First' Republicans

Wehle adds, "Breyer concluded: 'The evidence at trial established that Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles.'"

The University of Baltimore law professor stresses that whether the U.S. Supreme Court will agree or disagree with Breyer's reasoning should it take the case remains to be seen.

"Thanks to another one of the Supreme Court's recent pro-Trump decisions, which held that so-called 'universal injunctions' operating outside a lower court’s territorial jurisdiction are unlawful, Breyer's ruling will not stop Trump from targeting Chicago and Baltimore next," Wehle argues. "If the Supreme Court does get to the case, which is likely, it has plenty of leeway to stretch the majority's approach to presidential power laid out in Trump v. U.S. — i.e., that it's virtually unlimited — to back him this round, as well. And Trump knows it."

Wehle adds, "Of the possible deployment of the National Guard in Chicago, Trump said: 'I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the president of the United States. If I think our country is in danger, and it is in danger in these cities, I can do it.' Tragically, with this supplicant Congress and enabling Supreme Court majority in tow, he might be right."

READ MORE: 'Trump takes this snub personally': Conservative mocks 'saddest little dictator'

Kimberly Wehle's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

We are in the midst of the worst public tragedy of my lifetime — the despoiling and destruction of America. The destruction is now extending beyond American democracy to encompass the American economy, American science and learning, and American culture. People ask me, in outrage or despair, “How and why is this happening?” I have my answers, as I’m sure you do.

Donald Trump is the proximate cause, but he cannot be the only cause, because one man, no matter how malignant or sociopathic, cannot do the damage that is occurring to so many dimensions of American life. Nor can the small group of twisted sycophants and lapdogs around him.

Today, I’d like to explore other major causes and have you assess which in your view is most responsible for this catastrophe other than Trump. Among the likeliest culprits:

1. Congressional Republicans. They’ve become spineless zombies, afraid to vote against whatever Trump wants for fear of being “primaried” by a Trump supporter when they’re up for reelection, or fear of being physically assaulted or even killed by Trump supporters and vigilantes. Yet because they control both chambers of Congress, Trump can get away with raiding Medicaid to give his billionaire buddies another giant tax cut, usurping the constitutional powers of Congress over spending the public’s tax dollars, allying with Putin against America’s traditional allies, putting utterly incompetent people into Cabinet positions, cutting deals with Big Oil to despoil the planet, imposing significant import taxes (tariffs) on Americans, and taking personal bribes from countries and companies eager to gain his favor.

2. The Supreme Court. Alito and Thomas were bad enough, but Trump’s three appointees combined with reactionary Chief Justice John Roberts now form a super-majority that is enabling Trump to do his worst. They’ve given him immunity from prosecution for anything he does that is arguably part of his official duties, allowed him to take over what had been designed as independent regulatory agencies, looked the other way when he sends active troops into American cities for no reason other than a baseless claim of a “crime wave,” enabled him to eliminate affirmative action from all government programs and public and private universities, and quietly assented to his reinterpretation of civil rights as “white rights” over people of color.

3. Trump voters. They’re not a majority of Americans (Trump won the 2024 election by just a 1.5 percent margin of those who bothered to vote), but they’ve become vocal, active, and belligerent. They roar with approval at his rallies, wear his hats and other paraphernalia, and act almost as if they’re in a religious cult, worshipping at the feet of Trump. Most importantly, they keep congressional Republicans in Trump’s camp. They listen to Fox News, Newsmax, and right-wing radio, all of which give them a steady stream of far-right propaganda and lies, which they repeat across their “red” states and towns, as if dispensing truth. They believe in white, male, Christian, nationalism. Most lack a college education. Most are white and living in rural areas of America. Many feel angry and bitter toward “coastal elites” they perceive as looking down on them and are easy prey for Trump’s demagoguery.

4. The Democratic Party. They’re confused and in disarray, looking for a “message” and lists of policies rather than confronting their abject failure over the last 40 years to stop widening inequalities of income and wealth and to prevent the corruption — legalized bribery in the form of large campaign contributions — by America’s big corporations and wealthiest individuals. Many Democratic politicians are afraid to tell voters the real reason incomes have stagnated and jobs have become less secure: because big corporations, their top executives, the mavens of Wall Street, and America’s billionaire oligarchy have rigged the system against average working people and in favor of profits and capital gains for themselves. Most Democratic politicians haven’t said this or done anything of significance to reverse the widening inequalities and stop the corruption, for fear of biting the hands that feed their campaign coffers.

So today’s Office Hours question: Other than Trump himself, who is most responsible for the catastrophe we’re now living through?

NOW READ: Emotionally damaged Trump is a born loser

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

The headline did not mince words. “Donald Trump is a loser,” read the title of the opinion piece, which ran in the New Hampshire Union Leader one day before the 2024 New Hampshire presidential primary.

The man who wrote it, former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, is no stranger to opposing Trump.

In 2016, Sununu, the brother of former Gov. Chris Sununu, endorsed former Ohio Gov. John Kasich for president. And in 2024, he backed former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley in her effort to block Trump’s path back to the White House.

This year, Trump is president, and Sununu is exploring another run for U.S. Senate. And he is shrugging off the importance of Trump.

“Look, this is going to be about New Hampshire,” he said in an interview with WMUR Wednesday confirming that exploration. “New Hampshire voters, New Hampshire values. Putting together a strong campaign.”

Sununu has personal experience with the Senate seat; he defeated current-Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in 2002 and held the seat for one term before Shaheen ousted him in 2008. Shaheen has kept the seat since; Sununu has worked as a board member and policy adviser for banks and lobbying firms in the meantime.

But as Sununu contemplates an entry into the race, Trump’s potential influence looms large — and two of Sununu’s would-be primary rivals are actively vying for the president’s support.

Trump has not made an endorsement, which lands in an election year where Republicans hold a bare majority and are looking for any opportunity to flip a Democrat-held seat and expand control.

Competing for Trump’s eye

Republican candidate Scott Brown, the former Massachusetts senator, has sought to align himself with Trump’s agenda this year, praising Trump for policies on border enforcement and trade.

That bond has some history: In Trump’s first term, the president appointed Brown as ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa.

But Brown also sharply criticized Trump in May 2021 for his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 insurrection, saying that Trump “absolutely” bears responsibility for the riots and that “his presidency was diminished” because of them.

State Sen. Dan Innis, another candidate in the race, has centered his campaign around the contention he is the most pro-Trump person in the running.

On Wednesday, he reiterated that contention.

“Let’s be honest, there are bad eggs in this race,” Innis said in a statement Wednesday afternoon touting a recent drop in egg prices. “I’m the only pro-Trump conservative in this race, and I’ll never back down.”

Representatives for Brown and Innis did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday about the possibility of Sununu entering the race.

The candidates are seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate seat currently held by Shaheen, who is not running for reelection. U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas and Karishma Manzur are both competing for the Democratic nomination.

In a statement Wednesday, Pappas called Sununu a “corporate sellout” and charged Republicans with starting a “scramble to find Donald Trump’s perfect candidate.”

State Republicans see game-changer

While his potential rivals are positioning themselves for a Trump endorsement, Sununu did not appear to be in a hurry Wednesday. He told WMUR he would be conducting listening sessions around the state to gauge support for his potential candidacy. And he said he hopes to receive endorsements from a broad array of people, not just Trump.

To some state Republicans, Sununu could be a formidable challenger in the race, even with his comments about Trump.

Responding to Sununu’s announcement, House Majority Leader Jason Osborne posted on X: “This would change the whole game.” Matt Mowers, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Pappas in 2020 and 2022, also called a possible Sununu entry a “game changer,” writing that “John Sununu puts the race on the map and starts as immediate front runner.”

Lou Gargiulo, a former Republican state representative, is a longtime supporter of Trump, serving as a state co-chair of the Trump campaign in 2016 and 2020.

But Gargiulo has been an advocate for John E. Sununu for even longer, supporting his campaigns in 2002 and 2008. And on Wednesday, he argued that Sununu’s past opposition to Trump would not necessarily limit his prospects.

“He’s a fiscal conservative, I think he’s socially conservative, I think he’s good on the Second Amendment, I think he’s good on taxation — I think … that the base would be happy to see a guy like him in the race,” he said in an interview.

Gargiulo has not made up his mind on the GOP primary, he said.

But the most important factor for Sununu, Gargiulo argues, is not Trump, but Sununu’s viability as a candidate and ability to raise money. Against the financial advantages held by Pappas, that will matter most, he said.

Still, Sununu’s Trump positions could create some headaches, Gargiulo conceded. His advice: Sununu should reach out to the president and make his case.

Trump could also choose to be pragmatic, he added.

“It depends on who talks to the president about him,” Gargiulo said. “I think at this point, we want to pick up some Senate seats. And if he could deliver a Senate seat, then I think the president will be somewhat forgiving.”

A family history

Kathy Sullivan, who served as New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman during Sununu’s campaign for Senate in 2002, also doubts that Sununu’s anti-Trump positions will hold him back, at least not if he is seen as a front-runner. If that happens, his past statements won’t matter, she argued.

“As long as John E. Sununu is a member of the Republican Party, he’s a Trumpist,” Sullivan said.

Even if Sununu avoids talking about Trump, Sullivan argued he will run the risk of either being seen as not loyal enough by Trump’s base or lumped in with the president by independent voters.

“I don’t think he can hide from Trump,” she said. “He may say a thing here and a thing there to try to separate himself from Trump, but that’s not going to be much and it’s not going to help him.”

To Dante Scala, professor of political science and international affairs at the University of New Hampshire, John E. Sununu’s predicament with Trump is a familiar one for his family. As governor, Chris Sununu perfected the art of accepting Trump while leaving room for sporadic moments of disagreement.

“The Sununus never seemed content with that, with toeing the line,” he said. “Even when they bent the knee to Trump, they never wanted to come off as such, as just kind of Trump clones.”

But John E. Sununu is running for U.S. Senate, a body much more tied to the politics of the White House than the governor’s office, Scala noted. That affords him less cover to pledge neutrality or avoid conflict, he said.

It means Sununu will need to proactively define himself and his vision for Republican politics, Scala said — especially because his term, should he win, would extend beyond Trump’s final year in office.

“Chris Sununu really wanted to move his party beyond Donald Trump. He failed, but he did have that ambition. He probably still does,” Scala said.

“I wonder what kind of ambition John Sununu has, in terms of the direction of his party?”

On Wednesday, speaking to WMUR, Sununu said the state needed someone who had its values, “that’s not going to vote a party line, that’s willing to take risks and get things done.”

As for Trump?

“I would want to win support, if I were to run, across the entire spectrum, and obviously that includes the president,” he said. “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”

Today the Senate Banking Committee will consider Trump’s nomination of economic adviser Stephen Miran to be a governor of the Federal Reserve. Trump would like to get Miran confirmed in time for the Fed’s rate-setting meeting in two weeks.

Meanwhile, a federal judge has asked lawyers for Lisa Cook, the Fed governor whom Trump is trying to fire, to file more briefs as she pushes back against Trump. The law says a president can fire a member of the board only “for cause,” which normally means professional neglect or malfeasance. Trump alleges that Cook has committed mortgage fraud, but she has not been charged with any crime or convicted of any wrongdoing.

If Trump succeeds in getting Miran confirmed and firing Cook, he would be on track to have a majority on the Fed board. He’ll get a chance to name a new chair in May when Jerome Powell’s term ends.

Given everything else Trump is doing, why worry about the Fed?

Control over the Fed will give Trump power over the central bank’s decisions on interest rates.

He says he wants to lower borrowing costs — making it cheaper for America to pay interest on the national debt, for businesses to get loans, and for Americans to buy homes.

But if he controls the Fed and reduces borrowing costs, lenders will correctly assume that the Fed can no longer be relied on to control inflation. As a result, lenders will charge more to lend money — a higher “risk premium” — whether lending to the United States or to businesses seeking commercial loans or individuals getting mortgages.

In other words, if Trump controls the Fed, he’ll end up with the opposite of what he says he seeks. Longer-term interest rates will rise (it’s already starting to happen). And as longer-term rates rise, the stock market will fall (put on your seatbelts, folks).

So maybe lower interest rates isn’t the real reason Trump is so intent on controlling the Fed. What else could be on his mind?

With control over the Fed, Trump also gets the Fed’s power to oversee Wall Street — making the rules that big banks must follow to operate safely and manage risks appropriately. The Fed is also a lender of last resort during crises.

And why does he want these things? Trump operates on such a different plane of policymaking that it’s often hard to understand what he’s doing and why. Let me try to put it together.

Think of all his moves — whether controlling the Fed, or occupying American cities, or unleashing ICE on immigrants, or imposing import taxes (tariffs) on American consumers, or attacking American universities and museums, or shaking down CEOs, or punishing his “enemies” — as motivated by an unquenchable thirst to accumulate bargaining power over every other actor and institution in the world.

The more bargaining power he has, the more he can extort from them the things he most cares about: money and subservience.

We are dealing with a sociopath who is continuously seeking new ways to force others to reward him with personal wealth and total domination.

Money is not enough. He relishes the submission of others. He craves obsequiousness, groveling servility, and a----kissing. He detests criticism. He wants to get even. He wants a Nobel Prize and his face carved on Mount Rushmore.

His goal is to achieve, or be perceived to have achieved, omnipotence.

Trump’s art of extortion involves finding things that other powerful actors and institutions depend on — research funding for Harvard (and other universities); access to the American market for Canada (and other countries); avoidance of environmental regulations for Big Oil; access to the government for Big Law; federal funding and freedom to operate without federal troops for mayors of “blue” cities and governors of “blue” states; supplies and components from abroad for big corporations.

Then he uses that dependence as pressure points to extort more money and submission.

Control over the Fed gives Trump way more tools for extortion. With control over interest rates, he can get America’s biggest corporations and the world’s biggest nations to bend to his will. With control over the big banks, he can get Wall Street to submit to his whims.

Normal policy debates are over what’s good for the public (hence “public” policy). But we’re no longer in a world of normal policy debate. The central question inside the Oval Office — and among Trump’s enablers in the White House and Congress — is what will enrich Trump and strengthen his dominance over everyone and everything else.

The most important public policy debate we ought to be having is how to peacefully and lawfully rid America and the world of this menace.

NOW READ: We ignore this psychologist's warning at our peril

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

Public health and access to lifesaving vaccines are on the line in a high-stakes leadership battle at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s push to fire CDC director Susan Monarez is more than an administrative shake-up. The firing marks a major offensive by Kennedy to seize control of the agency and impose an anti-vaccine, anti-science agenda that will have profound effects on the lives and health of all Americans, public health leaders say.

Kennedy wants to see the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA-based covid-19 vaccines pulled from the market, according to two people familiar with the planning who asked not to be identified because they’re not authorized to speak to the press. He’s also set his sights on restricting or halting access to some pediatric immunizations, some public health leaders say.

His actions have already reduced federal help to states, creating the potential for more infectious disease outbreaks and incidences of foodborne illness. Some public health leaders say they expect Kennedy will use the CDC to publicize health information that isn’t grounded in science.

“It’s crazy season,” said Richard Besser, former acting CDC director during the Obama administration. “People want information they can trust to make critical decisions about their health. Until now, we’ve been able to say look at the CDC. Unfortunately, we’re not able to do that anymore.”

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard disputed the criticism.

“Secretary Kennedy remains firmly committed to delivering on President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again, dismantling the failed status quo that fueled a nationwide chronic disease epidemic and eroded public trust in our public health institutions,” Hilliard said in a statement.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said Kennedy and Commissioner of Food and Drugs Marty Makary have reiterated that covid shots will remain available for Americans who need and want them.

“The Trump administration is restoring Gold Standard Science as the sole guiding principle of health decision-making,” Desai said in an email. “Only the Fake News could ignore these facts to continue pushing Democrat talking points and hysteria.”

Behind the Ouster

The shake-up began last week, when Kennedy sought to fire Monarez, a microbiologist who’d just been confirmed by the Senate in July. She refused to leave the position, and her lawyers said Kennedy sought to oust her because she wouldn’t fire senior staff or follow unscientific directives. Four top career officials at the CDC resigned on Aug. 27 in protest.

Career staffers at the CDC and some public health groups had hoped President Donald Trump would intervene and put the brakes on Kennedy. Instead, the White House backed Kennedy, saying Monarez was fired.

Trump on Sept. 1 demanded that drug companies show that covid vaccines work, in a further sign he’s not set on defending the shots.

“I hope OPERATION WARP SPEED was as ‘BRILLIANT’ as many say it was. If not, we all want to know about it, and why???” Trump said on Truth Social.

Operation Warp Speed was the initiative that Trump himself announced in 2020 to accelerate the development of covid vaccines, including the Pfizer and Moderna shots. The vaccines have proved safe and effective in multiple clinical trials; a study published in JAMA Health Forum estimated that they saved about 2.5 million lives worldwide.

CDC staffers are worried the agency’s next director won’t fight for science, according to an employee who asked not to be identified for fear of professional retaliation.

Trump’s support for Monarez’s ouster was a watershed moment that signaled there are no checks on Kennedy and his agenda, public health advocates say. Leading congressional Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for Kennedy’s firing. Hundreds of HHS staffers have also implored Congress to intervene, saying Kennedy threatens science and public health. He is slated to testify Sept. 4 before the Senate Finance Committee.

Kennedy said in a message to CDC staff that his focus is on boosting the agency’s reputation and leadership. The Atlanta-based agency was already reeling after the Trump administration pushed out thousands of its staff and a gunman who reportedly believed the covid vaccine had caused him health problems fired hundreds of rounds at its campus last month, killing a police officer.

“The CDC must once again be the world’s leader in communicable disease prevention. Together, we will restore trust,” Kennedy wrote. “Together, we will rebuild this institution into what it was always meant to be: a guardian of America’s health and security.” He said his deputy, Jim O’Neill, would serve as acting CDC director.

Nine former CDC directors or acting directors who served under both Republicans and Democrats criticized Kennedy in the aftermath of the Monarez firing, saying in an op-ed in The New York Times that the impact on public health is “unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings.”

HHS spokesperson Hilliard took exception with this point, listing four covid vaccines that continue to get the nod for use.

However, the Food and Drug Administration last

week approved updated covid mRNA boosters only for people 65 or older and others at high risk of complications. The CDC has also stopped recommending the shots for healthy children and pregnant women. Previously, the shots had been advised for anyone 6 months or older.

As a result, many people who don’t meet the criteria but want the vaccine will have to get prescriptions or consult with their doctors. Insurance may not always cover the shots, which can run around $200. Major drugstores such as Walgreens and CVS have said the shots may not be available at all pharmacies and may require a prescription.

The American Academy of Pediatrics on Aug. 19 broke with the administration, recommending that all young children get the covid vaccine. Insurance still may not cover the cost in some cases and parents could face obstacles in getting the vaccines without a prescription.

Next Move: The Advisory Committee

Kennedy and his team changed official covid vaccine recommendations even though there have been no new safety issues. A dose of the 2023-24 covid mRNA vaccine prevented significant illness and death across all age groups, according to a study published in August led by a University of Michigan researcher. The virus killed about 1,000 people a week in the U.S. in mid-January, and cases are rising again and expected to accelerate this winter.

Kennedy has handpicked a vaccine advisory committee for the CDC that is reviewing mRNA-based covid vaccines, which he falsely claimed in 2021 were “the deadliest vaccine ever made.” The covid vaccine review is being led by Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has said without evidence that the shots cause serious harm, including death. If the committee recommends against them, Kennedy and the FDA could then begin the process of removing them from the market.

Taking mRNA-based covid shots off the market would leave consumers with fewer options for protection. Paxlovid, an antiviral medication that treats the infection in high-risk adults, would be available.

The CDC advisory committee reviewing the covid shots is also probing a long-debunked link between aluminum, used in many childhood immunizations such as those for hepatitis A and pneumonia, and autism or allergies.

The group’s findings are expected to support the erroneous link, some public health officials say. HHS could then require drugmakers to undertake costly reformulations of the shots or stop manufacturing them altogether.

“That would set up the elimination of all childhood vaccines,” Besser said.

The advisory group’s next meeting is set for Sept. 18, although Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) has called for the meeting to be indefinitely delayed. Cassidy, a physician who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, voted for Kennedy’s confirmation as HHS secretary after receiving assurances, he said, that the longtime vaccine opponent wouldn’t disrupt the U.S. vaccination system. Kennedy’s promises, Cassidy said, included that he wouldn’t change the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Kennedy removed all of the panel’s members in June and replaced them with his own appointees, including anti-vaccine activists.

Kennedy’s move to put his stamp on the CDC means states that have long relied on the agency’s expertise and help in crises such as disease outbreaks will largely be left to fend for themselves, said Ashish Jha, who served as President Joe Biden’s covid response coordinator from 2022 to 2023.

“States are going to be left on their own,” Jha said. “States will struggle with the CDC incapable and dysfunctional. Our system is not designed for states to go it alone.”

The CDC typically plays a critical role by assisting states with disease surveillance, public health interventions, and outbreak response, especially when a crisis spills across state lines. An outbreak of measles this year led to more than 1,400 cases nationwide, and states including Texas, where the outbreak was identified, struggled to get help from the CDC.

A CDC program that has long tracked pathogens in food has already reduced the number of hazards it looks for from eight to two, which public health leaders say is making it harder to identify outbreaks. Staff overseeing a CDC program that tracks outdoor pollution that can exacerbate asthma also have been cut.

The agency runs a hotline that doctors around the country can call to get treatment and other types of advice. Under Kennedy’s watch, the CDC has had to pare assistance because of staffing reductions, said Wendy Armstrong, vice president at the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

“Lives are 100% at stake, no question about it,” Armstrong said. “That you can no longer trust the recommendations out of the CDC is just devastating. It’s appalling to think we can’t trust that information is science-based anymore.”

Kennedy wants to shake up CDC leadership because he sees the agency as the heart of corruption and resistance within the federal health bureaucracy, according to people familiar with his planning. Kennedy has said the agency suffers from malaise and bias.

Many public health leaders, however, view the CDC as under siege by an administration they say is corrupting science for its own ends. HHS staffers signed onto a letter that now has more than 6,800 signatures, saying Kennedy is “endangering the nation’s health by repeatedly spreading inaccurate health information.”

Kennedy has also been fending off mounting criticism of his response to the shooting at the CDC’s headquarters. He responded to the attack on social media, hours later, after first posting pictures of himself fly-fishing.

Some younger staffers are considering leaving and some workers feel like the shooting accelerated Kennedy’s overhaul of the agency, the CDC employee said.

With the battle for control of the CDC still raging, public health leaders are now looking to Congress to put the brakes on Kennedy. Some Republican lawmakers have called for a review of Kennedy’s actions.

“These high profile departures will require oversight by the HELP Committee,” Cassidy said Aug. 27 on the social platform X. Cassidy had backed Monarez to lead the agency.

WASHINGTON — It may now be fall, but that doesn’t mean Congress finished its summer homework.

After taking August off, Congress returns this week to face basically the same teetering stack of unfinished business that was on its plate at the end of July.

A government shutdown looms, even as the Jeffrey Epstein scandal threatens to doom President Donald Trump and the stack of nominees before the Senate has only grown longer.

Buckle up. It’s promising to be a feisty fall in the nation’s capital.

Smoke, mirrors, subpoenas

While the Epstein scandal seems to have united Democrats around a common enemy, on the GOP side of the aisle many on the far right blame fellow Republicans for attempting to bury the story.

That has veteran Republicans fuming — in their sedate congressional way.

“I see us being able to get our work done, the question is, do others?” 14-term Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) told Raw Story.

“I am a person who goes to fix, not fight. You know that. We need to understand that we've got to see the bigger picture, and that is the job the American people also sent us here to do.”

When it comes to the far right, the answer remains no — especially when it comes to Epstein.

GOP leaders’ heads are likely pounding but their lingering, months-long headaches should be a surprise to no one, especially after Speaker Mike Johnson caved to pressure from Trump and recessed the House early in July, to avoid a vote on whether to release the Epstein files.

At the time, rank-and-file Republicans were wondering why the party’s big plan was to effectively kick the can down the road.

“Does leadership really think this issue isn't going to be front and center when y'all come back in September?” Raw Story asked veteran Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC).

“No,” Norman said. “Nothing's going to change.”

“You made a promise to your people?” Raw Story asked.

“And the promise is going to be kept,” Norman said, “should it be in 30 days or should it be in 45.”

That doesn’t mean GOP leaders haven’t tried to wag the dog. For example, August brought an announcement from House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) that the committee had “issued deposition subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, Merrick Garland, Robert Mueller, William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Alberto Gonzales for testimony related to horrific crimes perpetrated by Jeffrey Epstein.”

Smoke, mirrors and subpoenas may not work this time, though.

Raw Story asked: “Do you think your leadership believes that we're not going to be asking these same questions in September?”

“I don't know what they think. They’re attorneys, I'm not. That's the difference,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said, before a horse broke his rib during the August recess.

“I’m over it,” he said. “We need to get on with it.”

Nothing’s really changed.

“Your position on forcing release of Epstein files (that don’t endanger victims) hasn’t changed since July, right?” Raw Story texted Burchett, in August.

“Right,” replied the congressman — who in October 2023 was one of eight Republicans who ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

‘Not good for the country’

Democrats seem to have exploited the Epstein drama to their political advantage, but rank-and-file members say the extended, GOP-induced impasse isn’t about scoring a win.

Since leaving town in July, they haven’t taken their eyes off the ball.

Raw Story asked: “When you guys come back in September, are we going to be having the same conversation?”

“Yes,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI).

“How frustrating is that?” Raw Story pressed. “Or is it good? Does it mean you guys are–?”

“I don't think it's good,” Dingell interjected. “I don't think it’s good policy. It's not good for the country.

“The budget expires September 30th and people are going to talk about the budget all August. They're going to talk about Epstein all August. And we're going to come back and people are going to be demanding files.”

When it comes to trying to avert a government shutdown at the end of September, Dingell said, she and her fellow Democrats will still be smarting from the Trump administration's rescissions package, which gutted foreign aid programs and left many local public media outlets struggling for survival — even after large bipartisan swaths of the 118th Congress approved those spending levels.

Additionally, Dingell didn't know then about Trump's hugely controversial “pocket rescission” of $4.9bn in foreign aid, announced at the end of August, to uproar and predictions of a shutdown for sure.

But she said her party hasn’t forgotten about Trump's charred-earth approach to spending conventions.

“There's already a debate happening within the Democratic Party about whether to allow a shutdown or whether you all should salvage it,” Raw Story pressed. “Is that the wrong debate you guys are having?”

“No it's not,” Dingell said. “If you don't have an appropriations process that's real, that if what you're going to do is going to get rescinded, why the f––– should you vote for it?”

'No trust at this point'

At least one former Trump cabinet secretary has a few reasons why Democrats should avert a shutdown at all costs.

During Trump’s first term, proud cowboy hat-wearing Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) served as Interior Secretary.

Zinke vividly remembers how when the government runs out of congressionally approved cash, as it did twice during Trump’s first term, cabinet members swiftly amass new powers.

“I had a lot of latitude of what was ‘key and essential’ — I didn't shut down the parks,” Zinke told Raw Story. “I could’ve. The previous administration did. The previous administration brought concertina wire and chain link fence around the monuments and the [National] Mall. Remember that?”

Last spring, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) faced blowback from both the party’s progressive wing and rank-and-file electeds for voting to keep the government funded, even as Democratic priorities weren’t included in the spending measure.

While many Democrats are itching for a fight with Trump, Zinke says they should think twice before withholding their support from this fall’s government funding package.

"So there is an argument that shutting it down is going to give the Trump administration more power,” Zinke said.

“I think it's more power but for a shorter amount of time, because you really can't sustain a long-term government shutdown. The consequences are too great, but you can do it for a short period of time and it gives you an enormous amount of executive power."

While Democrats fear empowering President Trump and his cabinet even more, many don’t view him, Johnson and Vice President JD Vance as honest negotiating partners.

“You guys have no trust at this point?” Raw Story asked.

“No,” Dingell replied.

“What can they do to regain your trust or is it just gone?”

“Let's see,” Dingell sighed. “We'll see.”