Search results for "rush hour 4"

Biographer reveals why Trump’s shady new 'BFF' exposes his massive failures

President Donald Trump has a shady new "BFF" he has been keen to keep close to him at all times, and as his one-time biographer told The Daily Beast, this decision reveals that he is well aware of how badly all of his massive failures are going.

Michael Wolff is a longtime author and journalist who has had extensive access to Trump and his officials over the years, famously writing several books about the tumult behind the scenes of his first term. During the latest episodes of his Daily Beast podcast, "Inside Trump's Head," he discussed the odd scenario playing out between the president and his Hollywood "BFF," director Brett Ratner. The disgraced Melania filmmaker accompanied Trump on his recent visit to China, with Wolff calling him the president's "security blanket."

“So when the trip in China finished — and, again, why was Brett Ratner in China? Other than to be there as Donald Trump’s BFF and security blanket, and the guy he could talk to?“ Wolff said. ”And in fact, when the trip ended, Donald Trump said to Brett Ratner, ‘I’ve got to be able to get in touch with you at all times.’”

Ratner was, at one point, a prolific, if critically maligned, director of major studio films, before allegations of sexual assault in 2017 made him a pariah in Hollywood. He has recently made a minor comeback as a close ally of Trump, notably directing the documentary about his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, which flopped at the box office after Amazon spent an unusual amount of money to produce and market, prompting allegations of bribery.

Ratner claimed that his visit to China with Trump was related to location scouting for Rush Hour 4, the comedy sequel he is returning to direct, which only exists because the president demanded that it be made.

Daily Beast editor and podcast co-host Hugh Dougherty called the situation with Trump and Ratner "crazy" and "ironic," given that it is famously easy for people to speak with the president by phone.

"He answers his phone at 6:30, at 2:30 in the morning. He’s on his phone at four in the morning," Doughterty said.

"Well, I think the issue here is Brett Ratner,” Wolff said, then imagining that Trump's mindset is essentially. “'You’re on point, you’re... my BFF, so I’ve got to be able to speak to you whenever I need to speak to you.’”

On a deeper level, Wolff explained that Trump needs new friends around him, as all his other allies are becoming figures that he is blaming for the ongoing failures of his administration.

“Well, there’s no one around him. I mean, literally. Everybody is now someone to blame,” Wolff said. “That’s the important thing — I think — takeaway here. Well, actually, there are a couple of takeaways here. But one of those takeaways is that he understands how bad things are... Now, in his way of processing that, is to blame someone else. But, of course, that doesn’t change how bad things are. And things are very bad.”

He added later: “And then, the other takeaway is a character takeaway, that the friendship with Brett Ratner exactly goes to the character of it all, or the Epstein of it all, or the Trump of it all, or the grab them by the p—— of it all.”

Paramount lands Trump-demanded sequel: 'Dumbest possible state-controlled media'

Paramount Pictures is reportedly moving ahead with an action-comedy sequel demanded by President Donald Trump, according to Deadline and other industry insiders, with one dubbing it a move towards "the dumbest possible state-controlled media."

Semafor previously reported that Trump had pressed David Ellison, the new head of Paramount since its merger with Skydance and a noted ally of the president, to resurrect the Rush Hour action-comedy series with a new sequel. The outlet described the first film in he series as "a buddy-cop comedy starring Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker that blended physical comedy, martial arts and gags about racial stereotypes."

On Tuesday, Deadline reported that Paramount had secured a deal to distribute a fourth Rush Hour film. Notably, the series originated at New Line Cinema, a studio now owned by Warner Bros., which Paramount is currently attempting to acquire, submitting a bid recently alongside Netflix and Comcast. It is not clear if the Rush Hour deal is contingent on Paramount's offer being accepted or if it will go ahead no matter what. Paramount is considered the most likely bidder to succeed in acquiring Warner Bros., but nothing is official at this time.

Trump has reportedly also had discussions with Paramount leadership about which CNN reporters will be fired if the merger is approved.

Noted entertainment industry insider Matthew Belloni also confirmed the development in a post to X, summing up the move in unflattering terms.

"I teased this last night in What I’m Hearing but now confirmed: Paramount WILL release Rush Hour 4 after prodding from Trump on behalf of Brett Ratner," Belloni wrote. "Distribution deal. Producer Tarak Ben Ammar is lining up financing. Get ready for the dumbest possible state-controlled media."

Series director Brett Ratner, who has ties to Trump and his family, also appears to be back for the sequel. Efforts to revive the franchise before Trump's intervention went nowhere over the years after the middling box office returns of Rush Hour 3 in 2007 and allegations of sexual misconduct made against Ratner in 2017.

The latest push to get Rush Hour 4 off the ground reportedly began in August 2024. Numerous distributors, including Warner Bros., declined to get involved.

Trump's counterterrorism Czar has no counterterrorism plan

March unfolded like a stress test for U.S. counterterrorism authorities.

The month opened with a gunman in an Iranian-flag shirt killing three people at a bar in Texas. Then, an attack with homemade explosives outside the mayor’s mansion in New York City. Next came a deadly shooting March 12 on a Virginia college campus and, the same afternoon, a car-ramming at a Michigan synagogue. Days later, agents arrested a man charged with threatening a mass shooting at an Ohio mosque.

To current and former national security officials, these were omens, signs of the dangers they predicted last year when President Donald Trump began redirecting counterterrorism resources toward his mass deportation campaign.

They had warned of a diminished ability to respond should major global events inflame threats at home and abroad. Now, they say, the war in Iran has locked the Trump administration into a showdown with a sophisticated state sponsor of terrorism at a time when U.S. security agencies have hemorrhaged expertise and leadership is in flux.

The urgency of the moment has trained a spotlight on Sebastian Gorka, the White House counterterrorism adviser tasked with drafting a blueprint for fighting homegrown and international threats. Nearly a year ago, Gorka declared a national counterterrorism strategy “imminent.” By July, he was “on the cusp” of unveiling the plan — a phrase he repeated three months later in October. And again in January.

To date, no strategy has appeared, and no explanation for the delay. When it is finally released, current and former counterterrorism personnel say, they expect a document rooted in politics rather than intelligence, with little detail on how to combat threats after a year of deep cuts across national security agencies.

“Strategies are only worth the amount of resources you put into them,” said a former senior official who served in the first Trump administration. “We’re entering very dangerous territory.”

The shifting promises are unsurprising to colleagues familiar with the brash, quick-tempered Gorka, a gate crasher in Washington’s buttoned-up defense establishment. His threats and boasts are laced with grandiose language and delivered in a booming, British-accented voice.

ProPublica interviewed more than two dozen national security specialists across party lines to trace Gorka’s path to one of the most sensitive jobs in government. Nearly all spoke on condition of anonymity because of the Trump administration’s record of retaliation.

His ascent, they said, tells the story of a startling transformation of the U.S. counterterrorism agenda in Trump’s second term. Eye-rolling over Gorka’s bombast has given way to anxiety about the administration’s preparedness to identify and stop major plots.

In the first Trump administration, Gorka lasted just seven months before being forced out by the “adults in the room,” as some staffers referred to the more moderate gatekeepers then around the president. In that brief stint, he reportedly struggled to obtain security clearance and faced an outcry over ties — which he denies — to a far-right group in Hungary.

After the exit, he hosted a right-wing podcast and popped up in ads selling fish-oil pills for pain relief. Then his fortunes changed again with the 2024 election that swept Trump back to power, this time with a more conspiratorially minded wing of the Make America Great Again movement. Gorka’s loyalty paid off with a phoenixlike return to the White House in a role sometimes called “counterterrorism czar.”

“I’ve been waiting 25 years for this job,” he confided on his podcast before taking office.

The first year of Trump’s second term was so frenzied that even the colorful Gorka faded into the background as the administration dismantled federal agencies and created a secretive, sometimes deadly immigration force. Now, however, the counterterrorism director’s role is coming back to light as hostilities roil the Middle East and heighten the risk of attacks in the United States or against American interests or allies overseas.

Days before U.S. military operations began in Iran, FBI Director Kash Patel fired a dozen personnel from a counterintelligence unit that monitored threats from Iran, CNN reported — part of a wider purge of some 300 agents specializing in counterterrorism.

Former officials said the sudden loss of that many colleagues is devastating to the sensitive, granular work of preventing attacks.

“I don’t think about it in raw numbers. I think about it in the wealth of expertise and knowledge that has been cut across all levels,” a former senior Justice Department official said. “What you lose is that nuance — with a smaller team, you can only go so deep.”

An FBI spokesperson said the bureau does not comment on personnel numbers but that agents are “working around the clock” and had disrupted four alleged U.S.-based terrorist plots in December alone. “The FBI continuously assesses and realigns our resources to ensure the safety of the American people,” the statement said.

ProPublica sought an interview with Gorka directly and via the White House. He did not respond to a detailed list of questions but assailed the requests in two posts on X, where he has 1.8 million followers. The first was a “no,” along with insults, addressed to several journalists who had asked him to comment on the strategy. In the second post, directed at ProPublica, Gorka accused the reporter of writing a “putrid piece of hackery.”

“If the criticism is we’re killing too many Jihadis (759) since 20th January 2024, or rescuing more US hostages in 12 months (106) than Biden did in 4 years, I stand by our historic wins for AMERICA First,” Gorka wrote, with an apparent typo. Trump took office in January 2025.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in an email that the restructuring of agencies “has made the entire foreign policy apparatus even more responsive to potential threats” and praised Gorka for “an incredible job” leading interagency talks.

“Anyone attempting to smear him and the President’s national security team is only revealing that they haven’t been paying attention for the past year,” Kelly wrote, “as anyone with eyes can see that our homeland is more secure than ever.”

Keep reading... Show less

Insiders warn of nuclear catastrophe as Trump grows 'increasingly desperate'

We get the latest analysis on the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran from Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Parsi discusses the increasing “desperation” of U.S. strategy, Iran’s long-term economic control over the Strait of Hormuz and growing “hawkishness,” and the dangerous possibility of nuclear warfare.


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

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

As the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran enters its sixth week, President Trump has threatened to bomb Iran’s power plants and bridges unless the Strait of Hormuz is reopened by Tuesday. Trump’s attacks on civilian infrastructure would constitute war crimes under international law.

In a profanity-laced Truth Social post on Easter Sunday, Trump wrote, quote, “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!!” — three exclamation points. “Open the F—in’ Strait, you crazy b-------, or you’ll be living in Hell–JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah,” the president wrote — he used the actual word.

Iranian officials warned with retaliating, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Naval Command saying in a post on X, the Strait of Hormuz, quote, “will never return to its former state, especially for America and Israel,” unquote.

Earlier this morning, Iranian media reported explosions after an Israeli attack on the South Pars petrochemical complex in the city of Asaluyeh. The South pars is one of the world’s largest natural gas reserves, shared between Iran and Qatar on the Persian Gulf. South Pars accounts for about 70 to 80% of Iran’s gas supply. A separate U.S.-Israeli strike also targeted South Pars facilities in Iran last month.

Meanwhile, Iranian state media reported today that Majid Khademi, intelligence chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed in a joint U.S.-Israeli strike.

For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, author of several books, including Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.

We’re certainly not seeing any triumph of diplomacy right now, Trita Parsi. If you can talk about President Trump’s expletive-laced Easter Day message to Iran?

TRITA PARSI: What we’re seeing here is a repeat of previous threats and deadlines, but now, of course, with far greater tone of desperation from Trump. He has issued threats of this kind several times before. He hasn’t fully acted on them, backed down, recognizing that he doesn’t have escalation dominance. He cannot escalate his way out of this conflict, because if he goes after the power plants on a large scale, the Iranians will do the same to the infrastructure in the GCC and Israel, and the situation will become much worse, particularly in terms of oil prices shooting up.

Nevertheless, he is increasingly desperate, because he’s realizing he cannot just end the war by walking away. He has to have some sort of a negotiated settlement. But the negotiated settlement will be very different from the one that he first had in mind, because the realities on the ground are such that he is not in a dominant position. He cannot dictate terms. And as a result, now he’s trying to issue these ultimatums in the hope that the Iranians will surrender.

But there’s no sign whatsoever that the Iranians are in the mood of a surrender or even accepting his deadline. The Iranians are not going to accept a ceasefire that puts them in the same position as Lebanon and Gaza have been put in when they have agreed to ceasefire by the United States and Israel, which have turned out to be just temporary pauses in order for the United States or Israel to be able to regroup, rearm and then relaunch attacks. And this is clearly frustrating Trump, because he’s realizing he’s not in that position of dominance that he thought he would be.

AMY GOODMAN: If you could talk about the significance of South Pars right now, owned — the north part run by Qatar, the south, Iran, and, of course, it is a major source of energy for Iran, like 70 to 80% of its energy, threatening to blow that up, as well as bridges?

TRITA PARSI: So, South Pars is a very important field for the Iranians. It’s shared, a gas field. It’s shared with Qatar, although Qataris are extracting much more gas out of it, because the Iranians don’t have the technology, given all of the sanctions that have been imposed on Iran for a significant amount of time. Asaluyeh is another place nearby that is now being attacked currently by the Israelis, that is critical for Iran’s domestic energy consumption. And we have seen that when those fields or facilities have been struck in the past, the Iranians have retaliated. It was when the Israelis attacked South Pars last time that the Iranians struck at these gas facilities inside of Qatar, that set those back three to five years.

It’s very important to understand the difference here, in the sense that we have an oil problem right now, because a lot of tankers are being stuck in the Persian Gulf. They cannot transit through. But the oil is still being extracted out of the ground. The infrastructure of oil has not been targeted on a large scale. If Trump escalates, then those will likely be targeted. And then you don’t only have a bottleneck problem, you also have a production problem. The bottleneck problem can be resolved relatively quickly, and oil prices can go down. But if you have a production problem, then that means that the production will not go up for quite some time, and that will create a much longer-term problem on the oil markets. And that would be much, much worse than the current situation.

So, the Iranians have a lot of different ways that they can escalate matters further. Trump is aware of this, of course. This is part of the reason why he hasn’t acted on a lot of his threats. But he seems to be getting increasingly desperate, and he may actually take steps that will be absolutely devastating for the global economy and then for his own presidency.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can respond to — The Guardian just said, “Iran confirms it has received ceasefire plan, but says US is not ready for peace. The US, Iran and a group of regional mediators discussed the terms for a potential 45-day ceasefire that could lead to a permanent end to the war.” And then you have Ali Abunimah tweeting a few hours ago, “US is trying with Iran the same approach as with Gaza: phased agreements which the Americans and 'Israel' will break, and vague future arrangements to be hammered out in an indeterminate future.” Your response?

TRITA PARSI: Ali is absolutely right. This is the concern and the fear on the Iranian side, that any type of a ceasefire would be to the benefit of the United States and Israel. They would not end the war. It would just be a tactical pause. In the meantime, the Iranians would be giving up a lot of their leverage, for instance, the control over the straits. So I don’t see any chance of that succeeding at all, unless it is coupled with not this type of a phase approach, but there is actually a full agreement that includes sanctions relief and other measures.

Now, the Iranian position, I think, in some ways, have evolved and, frankly, hardened. The straits is not necessarily a tool they will use for negotiations to end the war, but rather something that they will use after the war, the control of it, in order to establish this mechanism in which countries will have to pay transit fees to go through the straits, and they will use that to restore economic relations with a lot of countries in the world that they used to have economic relations with but who have essentially stopped dealing with Iran economically because of U.S. pressure. All of those countries nevertheless need access to the straits, and the Iranians are essentially planning to use their control of the straits to reestablish those economic relations, rather than as a leverage to end the war.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to President Trump telling Fox News the U.S., quote, “sent a lot of guns to the Iranian protesters. We sent guns through the Kurds. I think the Kurds kept them,” unquote?

TRITA PARSI: So, here’s a very important revelation. We saw that during the protests in December and January, that there were some things that were very, very different from the past. We saw that there were elements within the protest movement, or acting underneath the protest movement, that used massive amounts of violence, both against civilian infrastructure, mosques, banks, etc., fire stations, but also against government forces — that’s why a lot of government forces were killed — which we have simply not seen before. These were armed elements. They operated in a rather professional and systematic way. And a lot of protesters — and I spoke to some of the protesters who were out there genuinely protesting against the policies of the government — saw these forces and were quite stunned, because they had never seen anything like that before.

Now we have the revelation, which a lot of people suspected, but we have it from the horse’s mouth, saying that the U.S. actually was providing weapons to the Kurds and other armed elements inside the country. This, I think, shows that the image we had originally, that this was just peaceful protesters clamped down by the government, was perhaps a bit simplistic. They were overwhelmingly peaceful protesters, but within them, or underneath them, there were other elements that were using the protests to essentially start a violent conflict and uprising. That was clamped down together with a lot of peaceful protesters. The Iranian government seemed to have not made much of a distinction between the two and killed several thousand people. But it was a very different scenario from what you had in 2009, for instance, in which the protest movement was not only peaceful, but also ensured that it was not hijacked by violent elements. This time around, it seems like that was not a full possibility.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei responding to Trump’s threat to attack civilian infrastructure if the new deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz is not met.

ESMAEIL BAGHAEI: [Iran’s reaction would be one of reciprocating] any such attack. Our armed forces have made it clear that in case Iran’s infrastructure is attacked, we would react in kind. They would — our armed forces would target any similar infrastructure that is owned or in any way or manner related to the United States or contributes to their act of aggression against Iran. This is not something that we will do it voluntarily or by willful decision. This is something that is as part of our defense measures against their illegal act.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson. If you can respond to what he said, Trita Parsi?

TRITA PARSI: So, this is a continuation of what we’ve seen in the past, that the Iranians will retaliate in kind, but they will target the facilities that they have within their reach, that are mainly in the GCC states, which then will be putting not only the GCC states in a terrible, terrible situation, but the entire global economy. We’ve seen that the Iranians have targeted American bases and other facilities, some of them civilian facilities, in those countries.

We have now also seen emerging evidence that many of these countries’ territory and airspace was used by the United States to attack Iran. Now, whether those countries started allowing them to be used after the Iranians started attacking them or whether those attacks were taking place from the outset or whether those attacks from their airspace or territory is being conducted without the approval of these governments is unclear at this point. But the fact that the territory is being used in several cases, Qatar — sorry, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, at this point is not quite clear. Evidence has emerged of that.

And that’s a very negative and dangerous development, particularly if it eventually leads to the Saudis and the Emiratis fully joining in on the war. That will be — again, we’ve already seen this conflict spread, but that will be major, major escalation and will make it much more difficult to be able to bring this war to an end.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Iranian intelligence agents arresting the prominent human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh at her home, according to her daughter? She’s 64 years old, Sotoudeh, renowned for defending activists, opposition politicians, and women prosecuted for removing their headscarves. Are you concerned about the possibility that Evin Prison — who knows by what side? — could also be bombed, which has been — which, of course, is where so many dissidents are held?

TRITA PARSI: We saw that in the June war, that the Israelis did strike at the prison. Whether they did so because they believed that that actually would be a beneficial act that would bring people out in the streets or protesting or put them on the side of being opposed to the repression of the Iranian government is unclear. But it really did backfire on the Israelis. Whether they would do it again remains to be seen. So far, they’ve been focused more on attacking pharmaceutical factories and also universities.

But I think an important point that we’re seeing here is that the Islamic Republic is being changed, but it is being changed in a much more hawkish direction. This is a direct consequence of this war that was illegally launched by Israel and the United States. It was also highly predictable that under these circumstances, the Iranian government would likely become more repressive and have more restrictions on the political space in the country. We’ve seen that pattern before. So, rather than this being some sort of an effort that would bring about democracy in Iran, as some people apparently have thought, the track record was already very clear that the most likely outcome would be that we would see the most repressive and hawkish version of the Islamic Republic coming out of this war.

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us also if you’re able to communicate with people in Iran, the state-imposed near-total internet shutdown now the longest nationwide blackout on record of any country.

TRITA PARSI: It is very challenging, but I’ve managed to get through to quite a few people. It is not the same type of a blackout that we saw on January 8th 'til a couple of days, in which the Iranians really shut down everything, jammed Starlink and everything else. It's not that level, but it is nevertheless extremely restrictive. And I don’t see any likelihood of that opening up as long as the war continues to go on.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, are you concerned the U.S. or Israel would use a nuclear bomb against Iran?

TRITA PARSI: So, I’ve had conversations here in Washington, and I have been quite taken aback by seeing that a lot of former officials are very candid that this is an option on the table. It comes out of the fact that Trump appears to be increasingly desperate. He could end up going on bombing Iran for another two weeks trying to achieve some major spectacle and then just walk away, knowing that he doesn’t have the ability or the patience for the real diplomacy that is needed, doesn’t have the willingness to give compromises. So he may just escalate it in a spectacular way and then walk away, leaving the straits in the control of the Iranians. And that could potentially include the use of a nuclear weapon.

The fact that that actually is being discussed or is being contemplated and discussed by former officials as an option that Trump is looking at, or the Israelis are looking at, is telling us about how badly this war is going, how desperate the situation is becoming, and how tremendously, tremendously dangerous this would be for the entire world. As one former official told me, this would make the United States the absolutely most hated country in the world, if it uses a nuclear weapon as a way of just demonstrating its military superiority.

AMY GOODMAN: Trita Parsi, thanks so much for being with us, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. A number of books he’s written, including Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.

'Just actually tired of this': 'Exhausted' readers no longer buying books about Trump

New book titles about President Donald Trump are no longer resonating as they once did, signaling a major slowdown in the political nonfiction boom, Politico reported Tuesday.

Despite the nation's early appetite for Trump tell-alls, sales have significantly dipped. The report quoted insiders as saying that publishing houses are seeing “a slump … across all of nonfiction,” with enthusiasm waning in the president's second term.

Industry figures described a landscape where big advances are drying up and success now hinges on established names or partisan angles.

READ MORE: 'Deserves more blame': Historian reveals why Trump is in a 'deeply structural bind'

The report noted: "Trump’s first term saw books authored by prominent journalists sell hundreds of thousands of copies each as the public rushed to learn the inside details of Trump’s norm-shattering presidency."

"But similar books aren’t exactly flying off the shelves in his second term, and the bar to getting onto the coveted New York Times bestseller list has been lowered as the overall nonfiction book market has dipped," it added.

An "industry watcher" told Politico: "There’s definitely a slump, and it’s across all of nonfiction. Part of it is that we were just actually tired of this, and we’re exhausted, and we don’t want to spend 30 bucks and six or eight hours of our time feeling worse.”

The report further highlighted that the book 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America by Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf sold around 6,000 hardcover copies in its first week. According to last Wednesday’s NPD BookScan figures, the book debuted at No. 4 on the Times bestseller list, underscoring how the threshold for nonfiction success has dropped.

READ MORE: 'Pathetic crybaby': Self-described 'fascist' begs for donations after losing his job

By comparison, a No. 4 bestseller from July 2017, then-Sen. Al Franken’s (D-Min.) memoir, moved nearly 11,000 copies in the same time period, even weeks after release, per the report.

Michael Wolff, best known for Fire and Fury, saw his 2018 book sell 25,000 copies in its debut week and eventually top 900,000 in total sales.

But the report reveals that his latest release, All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America, launched in March, sold only about 3,000 print copies in its first week and has reached approximately 11,000 overall so far.

These middling results are prompting publishers to rethink investments in Trump‑themed projects.

READ MORE: (Opinion) This White House lie shows they know Trump is in trouble

One agent told Politico: “Editors are not spending anywhere near the amount of money that they did this time eight years ago. The days of just writing a book to write a book and checking the box for someone’s career — those days are over.”

How 'reckless' John Roberts caused 'irreparable harm on the American people'

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case challenging President Donald Trump’s tariffs, with plaintiffs arguing that his unilateral levies on imported goods violate the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce. The Trump administration has justified his unprecedented use of tariffs under a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but several justices seemed highly skeptical of that argument, potentially putting President Trump’s signature economic policy at risk.

“There is no genuine emergency. There is no war that is the precipitating basis for invoking IEEPA. And even if it were, it would not allow the imposition of tariffs,” says legal expert Lisa Graves, founder of True North Research and co-host of the podcast Legal AF.

Graves also discusses her new book, Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights.

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

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.

We’re staying on the subject of the Supreme Court but now turning to a major case before the court on President Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. The court heard oral arguments on Wednesday. Solicitor General John Sauer argued President Trump has the power to unilaterally impose the tariffs under a 1977 law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which grants the president the authority to regulate commerce during wartime or other national emergencies. This is the solicitor general arguing.

JOHN SAUER: I want to make a very important distinction here. We don’t contend that what’s being exercised here is the power to tax. It’s the power to regulate foreign commerce. These are regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no — no — no person ever paid them.

AMY GOODMAN: Challenging the policy in the case is a group of small businesses. This is the plaintiffs’ attorney and former solicitor general, Neal Katyal, speaking outside the court.

NEAL KATYAL: Our message today is simple: The Constitution, our framers, 238 years of American history all say only Congress has the power to impose tariffs on the American people. And tariffs are nothing but taxes on the American people, paid by Americans. This case is not about the president; it’s about the presidency. It’s not about partisanship; it’s about principle. And above all, it’s about upholding the majestic separation of powers laced into our Constitution that is the foundation for our government. We thank the justices today for their extensive questioning in this case, and we look forward to the resolution.

AMY GOODMAN: The case has moved quickly through the federal courts. The court has heard roughly two dozen emergency appeals by the Trump administration, which the conservative majority has largely allowed Trump’s aggressive agenda to go forward. But this is the first time the court will make a final decision on one of those policies. On Wednesday, the justices, including conservative justices, appeared skeptical of the government’s argument. This is Chief Justice John Roberts.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: You have a claim source, an IEEPA, that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this, this particular case. Congress uses tariffs and other provisions, but — but not here. And yet — and correct me on this if I’m not right about it — the justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, for — in any amount, for any length of time. That seems like — I’m not suggesting it’s not there, but it does seem like that’s major authority, and the basis for the claim seems to be a misfit.

AMY GOODMAN: For more on tariffs and the Supreme Court, we’re joined by Lisa Graves. She is the director and founder of the policy research group True North Research. Her new book is titled Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights. She’s also the former deputy assistant attorney general. And she’s joining us now from Superior, Wisconsin.

Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Lisa. So, in fact, the chief justice is the main focus of your book on the Supreme Court. Talk about the significance of this case. And did it surprise you, the skepticism of the conservative majority, including the three Trump appointees?

LISA GRAVES: Well, this is an important case. And I wish that I could have confidence in the — I suppose, the sincerity of those questions that John Roberts posed, but we know that just last year he invented immunity from criminal prosecution for a president, for President Trump, out of whole cloth, despite the fact that the Constitution does not provide that power. So, now here we are, over a year later, with this court deciding whether this president has the power to engage in tariffs, even though the Constitution expressly gives those powers to Congress. And this law, IEEPA, does not provide any tariff power to the president.

And as you know and your listeners know, tariffs are taxes that end up being paid by the American people in the costs of the goods that we ultimately purchase. And Trump has bragged about how these tariffs are supposedly producing so much revenue, billions and billions of dollars of revenue, and yet we had the administration argue before the court that the revenue was incidental, that this is just a normal regulatory power. It’s not. Nothing’s normal.

I do think this court, the Roberts Court, is going to strike this down, but that’s in part because this court, you know, occasionally will rule against this president. But as you note and noted at the top of this show, 24 times so far this year, this court has intervened to allow reckless and damaging actions to happen to the American people, irreparable harm on the American people. And in this instance, with the business community weighing in, perhaps it will decide against Trump this one time, and then try to use that as a shield to say, “Look, it’s fair,” when in fact this court, under John Roberts, has behaved in innumerable ways, in very unfair ways, in counter-constitutional ways and in ways that have decimated our rights, including our voting rights.

AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about who actually brought this case. The businesses are not corporate giants. They’re small and medium-sized. And when you say everyone knows that these are taxes, explain more fully who pays these tariffs, as President Trump says, you know, “We’re going to get these countries to pay.” That’s not, in fact, who pays.

LISA GRAVES: Yeah, that’s not who pays. So, the tariffs are tariffs on goods sold in the United States, imported in the United States, which means, ultimately, whether it’s businesses buying those goods as components for building products or whether it’s consumers buying things at the grocery store or a department store, it’s the American people who pays. Right now some of the businesses that are involved in these — in imports are not passing those tariffs on to the American consumers. They’re waiting to see what ultimately happens and absorbing those costs. But those costs are already being passed on to the American consumers in lots of ways. And so, it is — this idea that this is some sort of non or revenue incidental tariff, that it’s supposedly foreign-facing so it doesn’t affect us, that’s not true. It’s we, the American people, who ultimately pay the cost of those tariffs.

And Congress has the power to tax. Expressly, in the Constitution, it’s given to it, not the president. And simultaneously, in that same provision, Congress is given the power to impose tariffs. This statute that the Trump administration is hanging its hat on does not give the president the power to tariff or to tax. And there’s a good reason for that. It’s not just that it’s in our Constitution. Trump’s behavior is exactly why no president has ever been given this sort of power, because putting that power in the hands of one person allows for arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, vindictive action by one person, as we’ve seen Trump do. That initial round of tariffs was announced as including tariffs on Penguin Islands, but not North Korea and Russia. The tariffs are arbitrary. We’re seeing sort of a shakedown process in some of the efforts to try to get countries to appease Trump’s ego in exchange for dropping tariffs or limiting them. That’s not how tariff policy is supposed to go. It’s supposed to be passed by Congress through genuine deliberation. And more than that, because it’s a tax on the American people, it has to be something that only Congress can do, because Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. And we cannot have this president, you know, exercising all the powers, basically, of the legislative branch and the executive branch.

AMY GOODMAN: This is an exchange between Justice Elena Kagan and the Solicitor General John Sauer during oral arguments, speaking about emergency powers.

JOHN SAUER: The president has to make a formal declaration of a national emergency, which subjects him to particularly intensive oversight by Congress, repeated — you know, natural lapsing, repeated review, reports and so forth, that says you have to consult with Congress to the maximum extent possible.
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: I mean, you, yourself, think that the declaration of emergency is unreviewable. And even if it’s not unreviewable, it’s, of course, the kind of determination that this court would grant considerable deference to the — to the president on. So that doesn’t seem like much of a constraint.
JOHN SAUER: But it is a constraint.
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: And, in fact, you know, we’ve had cases recently which deals with the president’s emergency powers, and it turns out we’re in emergencies everything all the time about like half the world.

AMY GOODMAN: English, please, Lisa Graves.

LISA GRAVES: Well, so, this question under IEEPA is whether there is an emergency that’s the basis for regulation or sort of an embargo. And in this instance, there isn’t. The administration has claimed that the fentanyl crisis somehow allows it to impose these wide and arbitrary tariffs. It’s also claimed that the trade deficit, which has been part of our, you know, economy for decades, is some sort of national emergency. It’s not. We’ve seen Trump assert emergencies in Portland, in Los Angeles. Like, he basically just uses the word “emergency” to try to get away with anything.

And it is true, the Supreme Court has traditionally deferred to declarations of emergencies by presidents. But I don’t think it has any obligation to defer to this president’s claims of emergency, which are factless, which are baseless, and which are just another argument, the kind of argument John — that John Sauer tends to make in justification of his client getting to do whatever he wants. So, there is no genuine emergency. There is no war that is the precipitating basis for invoking IEEPA. And even if it were, it would not allow the imposition of tariffs.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Lisa Graves, you’ve written this new book. It’s called Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights. If you can talk more about the major points in this book, as you specifically look at Chief Justice Roberts? Start with the whole issue of the Voting Rights Act. Talk about Chief Justice John Roberts’ origin story.

LISA GRAVES: Yes. So, John Roberts chose to clerk for Bill Rehnquist, who was one of the most notorious anti-voting rights people on the Supreme Court. He, in his personal capacity, sought to make it harder for Arizonans to vote, targeting Black communities in Arizona with voter suppression, himself personally, in Bethune, in the neighborhood of Bethune. Then, when he was on the court, right before John Roberts joined him, he issued a decision, the first decision trying to cut back Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, to say that effects would not count.

So, then what happened was, Bill Rehnquist called Ken Starr, who was then the chief of staff for the new attorney general for Ronald Reagan, and urged him to hire John Roberts. John Roberts was hired by the Reagan administration and put in charge of voting rights. John Roberts had no experience in voting rights, no experience in litigation. The only experience he had was clerking for — basically, stodging for — the most regressive justice on Supreme Court when it came to voting rights. Rehnquist, by the way, actually urged that his justice he clerked for dissent from the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Rehnquist aided Barry Goldwater, the guy who — one of the, you know, senators who opposed the Civil Rights Act.

So, this is the origin story of John Roberts. He spent hundreds of hours trying to block Congress from repairing that, from overturning that ruling. And then, the Voting Rights Act was extended for more than 20 years, into 2007, and then, when John Roberts became the chief justice of the United States in 2005, as soon as there was a case teed up for him to do so, in the Shelby County case, he ruled against the Voting Rights Act. He struck down other key enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Section 4 and Section 5, that required preclearance of changes in jurisdictions that had a history of voter suppression or history of targeting Black voters. And that Shelby County decision unleashed this wave of voter suppression and voter restriction we’ve seen over the past decade. And now, right now, this court, the Roberts Court, is considering overruling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and allowing white-majority legislatures to dilute the Black vote in Louisiana and other states.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Lisa Graves. Her new book is just out. It’s called Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights. As you observe this court right now, what are your biggest concerns? And how do the other justices feel about the chief justice?

LISA GRAVES: Well, I think this court is behaving illegitimately. These emergency orders overturning the well-reasoned, factually founded, legally grounded decisions to impose temporary restraining orders in the face of unilateral, extreme actions by this president, where the plaintiffs have shown irreparable harm, these are illegitimate actions by this court basically to aid Donald Trump. And it’s part two of what it did last year in effectively pardoning Donald Trump, preventing the trial, the trial around January 6th, to go forward, and basically paving the way for his return to power. And now, once in power, John Roberts has helped to empower Donald Trump further with the help of his fellow Republican appointees.

I think the Democratic appointees to the court, in the minority, are very frustrated, as you can see from the dissents in these cases, where the court is not describing why it is overturning these lower court rulings and allowing Trump to put his foot on the gas pedal to go forward with them while people are being harmed every day.

I think that this Roberts Court is out of control. It’s behaving arrogantly. It has aggressively intervened in those cases, just like with the immunity decision. It could have let the lower court rulings, which were based on well-grounded precedent, stand, but instead it has sought to aid Trump at almost every turn and, in doing so, has exposed itself as a hyperpartisan court that isn’t really behaving like a court but is behaving like an arm of the MAGA Trump presidency.

AMY GOODMAN: What most surprised you in doing the research for your book?

LISA GRAVES: Oh my goodness. Well, it was a small thing. But, you know, everyone knows that John Roberts talked about how he was going to be a fair umpire just calling balls and strikes. When I looked into his background, it turned out that he never played baseball in high school or college. He was actually a football player. And his coach told a right-wing dark money group that helped support his confirmation that John Roberts was particularly skilled as a tackler, as someone who studied his opponents and sought to find out ways to tackle them. That’s who we really have at the helm of the Supreme Court, is a player on the field who’s moving that right-wing, regressive, Reagan revolutionary agenda forward, not the fair umpire that he claimed to be and that he sought to put — plant into the American people’s minds as who he is. He’s not that umpire. I’ve actually decided to call him a “Trumpire,” because he’s been so willing to help Trump in almost every way as he expands the presidency far more than any other president has had such power. And in fact, that ruling really took out one of the key pillars of the checks and balances in our democracy, making the oath that John Roberts administered to Donald Trump, that he would faithfully execute the law, almost meaningless.

AMY GOODMAN: Lisa Graves, I want to thank you for being with us, director and founder of the policy research group True North Research. Her new book, Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights. She was speaking to us from Superior, Wisconsin.

Newsom says California still waiting on wildfire relief while GOP rushes to help Texas

As President Donald Trump rushes resources to Texas to assist Kerr County with its recent fatal floods, his administration — along with Congressional Republicans — has yet to act on California's request for wildfire relief funds, according to Governor Gavin Newsom (D).

The Washington Post reported Wednesday on Newsom's comments, which the rumored 2028 presidential candidate delivered while visiting South Carolina. The California governor said Congress has not yet voted on the Golden State's $40 billion request to help Southern California recover from devastating fires earlier this year that displaced tens of thousands of residents (the state has received $3 billion in federal loans for small businesses impacted by the wildfires).

Newsom blasted Trump's conditioning of wildfire aid on California adopting voter ID laws that have typically disenfranchised low-income voters, young voters and other marginalized groups.

READ MORE: 'You've not even done your homework': Senator embarrasses 'unqualified' Trump nominee

“In Texas, they have very different points of view than we do in California on policy, but I would never imagine conditioning or arguing that our congressional delegation condition aid to Texas until they changed some policy on an ancillary issue,” Newsom said.

Kerr County received several months' worth of rain in just a matter of hours over the holiday weekend, leading to catastrophic flooding that has so far killed 117 people, with roughly 160 more people still missing as of Wednesday. Children reportedly make up approximately one quarter of those killed in the flood

The floods swept through Kerr County in the early morning hours, when many residents were sleeping. The New York Times reported that while the local office of the National Weather Service (NWS) sent out three alerts at 1:14 AM, 4:03 AM and 6:06 AM, the NWS meteorologist in charge of "warning coordination" previously accepted a buyout offer after Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency pushed for steep cuts to the NWS. Additionally, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had called for defunding the NWS' weather forecasting just days prior to the floods.

"This is an atrocious situation, but we’re doing everyone a disservice if every time something like this happens, we say, ‘Now’s not the time for politics,'" Texas Democratic Party chairman Kendall Scudder told the Post.

READ MORE: 'Disgrace': Trump mocked over letter that 'reads as if it was written by a fifth grader'

Click here to read the Post's full article (subscription required).

'Special place in hell': Top Dem slams 'cult' of 'people who take food away' from kids

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), the Ranking Member of the powerful House Rules Committee, blasted his Republican colleagues for their support of President Donald Trump’s budget bill that will cut $1 trillion from Medicaid, hundreds of billions from Medicare, and greatly reduce the food program known as SNAP—also by hundreds of billions—while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

As the House began voting on the legislation on Wednesday, giving members just one hour for debate in a rush to meet the President’s July 4 deadline, Rep. McGovern took to the floor.

The Massachusetts Democrat denounced Republicans’ “attack” on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. “You can live without a lot of things, but you can’t live without food,” he reminded his GOP colleagues.

Speaking to “those Republicans who think that it’s okay to give [billionaire] Jeff Bezos a tax cut, and at the same time, cut food benefits for struggling families,” McGovern declared, “we don’t share the same values.”

READ MORE: Trump Threatens to Block NYC Democratic Mayoral Nominee He Calls a ‘Communist Lunatic’

“Unloading billions of dollars in new costs on states, money they do not have, will force them to cut benefits and throw needy people off of SNAP. It is a rotten thing to do,” he added.

“And I believe there’s a special place in hell for people who take food away from veterans, from seniors, from children, from foster youth, and from hungry families. This is sick. This is disgusting.”

He called the rushed floor vote “legislative malpractice.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Fascism’: Trump Sparks Fury After Calling to Deport U.S. Citizens

“We are not on a deadline,” he reminded House members. “No looming crisis.”

“We’re here because Donald Trump wants a Fourth of July party to celebrate this garbage bill. He wants fireworks and flags and cameras, not for this country, but for himself. So he says, ‘Close your ears, close your eyes, and vote for this bill.’ Honestly, sounds more like a cult than a Congress to me.”

After listening to a Republican—who was standing next to a big poster of President Donald Trump and fireworks—call for members to support the bill, McGovern declared, “Cult much?”

Watch the videos above or at this link.



Drought is quietly pushing American cities toward a fiscal cliff

The city of Clyde sits about two hours west of Fort Worth on the plains of north Texas. It gets its water from a lake by the same name a few miles away. Starting in 2022, scorching weather caused its levels to drop further and further. Within a year, officials had declared a water conservation emergency and, on August 1 of last year, they raised the warning level again. That meant residents rationing their spigot use even more tightly, especially lawn irrigation. The restrictions weren’t, however, the worst news that day: The city also missed two debt payments.

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Municipal bond defaults of any kind are extraordinarily rare, let alone those linked to a changing climate. But, with about 4,000 residents and an annual budget of under $10 million, Clyde has never had room to absorb surprises. So when poor financial planning collided with the prolonged dry spell, the city found itself stretched beyond its limits.

The drought meant that Clyde sold millions of gallons less water, even as it imported more of it from neighboring Abilene, at about $1,200 per day. Worse, as the ground dried, it cracked, destroying a sewer main and bursting another, quarter-million dollar, hole in the town budget. Within days of Clyde missing its payments, rating agency Standard & Poor’s slashed the city’s bond ratings, which limited its ability to borrow more money. Within weeks, officials had hiked taxes and water rates to help staunch the financial bleeding.

“There’s more to a drought than just the cost of water,” said Rodger Brown, who was mayor at the time and is now interim city manager. “It tanks your credibility.”

Drought, of course, isn’t the only climate-driven disaster hitting places like Clyde. Hurricanes, floods and fires are bankrupting cities across America. After flames ripped through Paradise, California in 2018, the town’s redevelopment agency defaulted on some of its obligations. Naples, Florida resorted to selling $11 million in bond to rebuild its pier after Hurricane Ian in 2022. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had a harder time raising money after massive fires swept the city. Kerr County, Texas is in the midst of raising taxes after devastating floods in July.

Each episode underscores how climate shocks once seen as exceptional are now straining local budgets. But drought may be the most insidious of these threats. Compared to other types of disasters, it often hits everyone in a community, affects large areas, and can last months, if not years. There are also fewer defenses and relatively limited government assistance. Experts worry that drought could ultimately prove an enormous risk to the $4 trillion municipal bond market that underwrites everything from roads and schools to the water running through millions of taps.

“I personally think this is a dark horse in the conversation right now,” said Evan Kodra, the head of climate research for the financial data company Intercontinental Exchange, or ICE. “It should be a bigger deal.”

This year alone has seen droughts in at least 43 states, from Vermont to California, affecting 125 million people. And ICE projects that more of the currently outstanding municipal debt will be located in areas prone to drought by 2040 than hurricanes, floods and wildfires combined. The financial effects of prolonged water woes can mount in ways not seen in one-off events, said Jeremy Porter, the chief economist at First Street Foundation, a nonprofit climate research firm.

“Drought is one of those things, if there is an impact, there’s a step-function impact,” he said. “You just don’t have the capacity to cover the risk.”

Droughts are particularly difficult for cities to guard against. While building codes and insurance discounts can encourage homeowners to raise their house, use wind-resistant shingles, or clear brush to slow fires, the options for making sure people have enough water are far more limited without curbing development.

Also unlike with its headline-grabbing cousins, drought has a much weaker federal safety net when something does go wrong. The Department of Agriculture offers some aid to farmers, but there’s little funding for individuals or municipalities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, hasn’t issued a drought-related emergency or disaster declaration in the United States since 1993, despite states requesting aid. “There is no adapting to drought,” said Porter. “The federal government is probably not going to come in.”

As the planet warms, the dry conditions that sent Clyde into the financial abyss are only set to become more frequent and more intense. Intercontinental Exchange researchers found that even in a ‘best-case’ climate scenario, drought, heat stress and water stress will place billions of dollars of municipal bonds at risk by 2040. Under a worst-case situation, that number could reach hundreds of billions. While Clyde’s default was relatively tiny, municipal debt is the bedrock of everything from hedge funds to retirement accounts, making a string of such events potentially catastrophic for the economy.

But well before dramatic rolling defaults, the financial pressures of drought will likely alter daily life in many regions. That’s already the reality for one community in Arizona, where the rush for water has turned into a years-long financial and political standoff.

Rio Verde Foothills lies on the outskirts of Scottsdale. Residents there have been trucking water in from its larger neighbor ever since the unincorporated, “wildcat” development was founded in the early 2000s. The arrangement worked well until 2021, when a severe drought gripped the area and Scottsdale decided it could no longer spare the dwindling resource. Cut off residents of Rio Verde scrambled and eventually signed a $12 million contract with the state’s largest private water company, Epcor Utilities, to build a permanent supply line.

Three years later, though, the feud continues. Scottsdale agreed to keep providing water through the end of this year while Epcor Utilities built new infrastructure. But construction is months behind schedule and Scottsdale is sticking to its deadline — leaving the foothills once again facing a cutoff. (Epcor remains confident this won’t happen.)

Even when the new line is connected, Rio Verde Foothills residents could see their water bills double or triple. Hikes like that are going to be a far wider concern across the West than outright disconnection, says Sara Fletcher, an environmental engineer at Stanford University who works on water scarcity issues. “Water prices are going up, and up, and up,” she said. “They are going to go up much faster than inflation for the past decade.”

The irony of drought is that as people conserve water to combat it, there is less money for the utility, whose costs remain relatively fixed. That results in “drought surcharges”, or other fees, for customers. It’s a cycle that was on full display in Clyde.

By August, 2023, the wave of aridity that hit West Texas had stretched for months, and officials in Clyde declared a stage 2 water emergency, which targets a 20 percent decrease in demand. By the following year they raised it to stage 3, or a 30 percent decline — one step below mandatory rationing. The measures worked, but at a cost. “Water sales are one of the main things that a city, almost any city, has,” said Brown. “That’s big for a city’s revenue generation.”

According to Clyde’s financial statements, it sold 7 million gallons less in 2023 than the year prior. It also had to import water from nearby Abilene at a premium of around $3 per thousand gallons. While Brown didn’t know exactly how much Clyde bought, he said it wasn’t as much as in some previous droughts but still significant. The bigger blow came when the parched ground split, shifted, and ruptured a major sewer line. The roughly $250,000 repair bill turned the cracks in the town’s finances into crevasses

“You can’t have people out here without the services. So we had to fix it,” he said. These new liabilities and dwindling income came on top of millions of dollars in debt that Clyde had amassed over the years, despite having kept taxes or utility prices relatively flat. It created what Brown called a “perfect storm.”

On August 1, 2024, the city missed two bond payments — one for $354,325, another for $308,400 — and filed a claim on its bond insurance to cover them. By the end of the year Clyde had failed to meet a total of $1.4 million in liabilities. Standard & Poor’s slashed the ratings of the bonds with missed payments from A- to D, and the city’s creditworthiness to B, moves that will raise future borrowing costs for the city.

While drought wasn’t the whole story, Brown called it a “significant reason” for Clyde’s woes. Whatever the cause, the fallout rippled quickly. The city council raised property taxes by 10 percent and tacked a $35 surcharge onto monthly utility bills. “We have people in this very room who have to decide already, do I buy medicine [or] do I buy groceries?” pleaded one person at a city council hearing. “This is reality in Clyde. You can’t raise their typical water bills any further.”

So far residents have absorbed the added costs, which has allowed the city to continue to operate. But the spiral from expensive, inaccessible, or nonexistent water could have been much worse. High bills can lead to compromises in daily life, whether that be letting parks wither or skipping showers. Over time, those inconveniences could make a town a less desirable place to live, which, in turn, might result in lower property values, a dwindling tax base, and, consequently, more financial troubles.

“If you don’t have water, if you don’t have a functioning city, there is a vicious cycle dynamic that could come into play,” said Kodra at Intercontinental Exchange. “Once your property tax base is decently lower than it was, then it’s harder to borrow money to dig out of that hole.”

First Street Foundation estimates that 11.1 million Americans are expected to move due to strained water resources by 2055. While it didn’t isolate drought specifically, the analysis also found that property values are slated to drop by $1.47 trillion over that same time period due to climate risks.

“We haven’t hit the point yet where people can’t get access to water,” said Porter. But there are inklings of that future, especially in the West. In Arizona, for example, water supply requirements for new developments are already beginning to halt some new construction.. According to Fletcher, “the fraction of the population that will face unaffordable water in the future is likely to increase unless we do something major.”

First Street also provided Grist with county-level data showing how the risk of prolonged water scarcity will change over the next 30 years. Of the 10 counties with the largest jump over that timeframe, seven are in Texas and three are in Florida. By 2055, more than 20 counties across the West will have a one in five chance of being in severe drought for at least 11 months out of the year. Over 500 counties could see 6 or more months.According to Fletcher, “the fraction of the population that will face unaffordable water in the future is likely to increase unless we do something major.”

Solutions won’t be easy to come by, and certainly won’t be painless. One logical conclusion might be that municipalities that are at risk of climate-impacts — like Clyde with drought or Tampa Bay with hurricanes — should simply pay more for their debt. In most sectors risk and interest rates traditionally correspond but, according to multiple studies, that’s not the case with municipal bonds.

“Climate poses a systemic credit risk to the municipal industry, of which it has never experienced,” said Thomas Doe, founder of Municipal Market Analytics. “[But] the marketplace is not pricing climate risk into bonds.”

The conundrum arises from the fact that people primarily buy municipal bonds to receive tax-exempt dividends. Demand, therefore, isn’t particularly sensitive to the price of the bond, but rather the risk of default, which remains extremely low. Another major bulwark against climate-pricing has been the federal government, which pumps billions of disaster aid into communities across the country — money that would have otherwise come out of state or municipal budgets.

“Bonds initially dip in price on the news of the event. Then they end up recovering because the federal government essentially rebuilds,” explained Doe. That support is in jeopardy with President Donald Trump’s deep cuts to government spending and that could eventually trickle into the municipal market. In the absence of aid, Doe says, bonds could start being priced in accordance with the risk.

Not all climate-debt, however, is bad.

This fall Norfolk, Virginia is planning to break ground on a $2.6 billion flood protection system, featuring a nearly 9-mile long seawall. The city is responsible for roughly $1 billion of that cost and is expected to issue new debt to help cover it. But Doe says that this type of climate-adaptation debt is generally considered good and should be encouraged, explaining that, “if it’s proactive, credit ratings look favorably.”

While you can’t build a wall against drought, the same principle applies for the admittedly limited tools that are available. Cities could, for instance, spend money making their water system more efficient, or building grey water recycling projects. Green infrastructure can also help keep rain from running off. More drastic steps might involve relocating people, or repurposing especially dry land for other uses, such as clean energy.

Although Clyde isn’t yet at a point where it’s climate-proofing its infrastructure, Lake Clyde is spilling over this year. That has provided the city a respite during which it can financially heal. Brown says the city has repaid its bond insurer, is back on track with debt payments, and is slowly rebuilding its emergency funds. The hope is that higher prices making the city’s recovery possible will mean less pain the next time the water runs low.

“We haven’t dug completely out,” said Brown. “But we’re still digging.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/cities/drought-is-quietly-pushing-american-cities-toward-a-fiscal-cliff/.

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

Trump 'lied': Shock as GOP bill would trigger more than $500 billion in Medicare cuts

The sprawling reconciliation package that House Republicans are rushing through committee would trigger over $500 billion in automatic cuts to Medicare, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released late Tuesday.

The CBO analysis, requested by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), came just hours before Republicans convened a dead-of-night House Rules Committee hearing on the budget legislation as they scramble to meet their Memorial Day deadline.

If enacted, the Republican bill would add trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade by delivering another round of tax cuts skewed to the rich, partially offset by huge cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

According to the CBO, the bill's addition to the deficit would trigger a process known as sequestration under the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, a law long reviled by progressives that requires spending cuts equal to legislation's average deficit impact.

Unless lawmakers offset the deficit impact of the Republican bill or agree to waive the PAYGO requirements—which the GOP measure does not do—the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) "would be required to issue a sequestration order not more than 14 days after the end of the current session of Congress (excluding weekends and holidays) to reduce spending by $230 billion in fiscal year 2026," the CBO said.

"The deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare."

Under PAYGO, automatic Medicare cuts are capped at 4%. The CBO estimates that the Republican legislation would trigger roughly $45 billion in Medicare cuts in 2026 and a total of $490 billion in cuts to the program between 2027 and 2034.

"This Republican budget bill is one of the most expensive—and dangerous—bills Congress has seen in decades," said Boyle, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "The nonpartisan CBO makes it clear: The deficit will explode so badly it will trigger automatic cuts, including over half a trillion dollars from Medicare."

"This is what Republicans do—pay for massive tax breaks for billionaires by going after programs families rely on the most: Medicaid, food assistance, and now Medicare," Boyle added. "It's reckless, dishonest, and deeply harmful to the middle class."

Boyle highlighted the CBO's findings during his testimony at the House Rules Committee hearing, which began in the early hours of Wednesday morning.

"This is really the breaking news," Boyle said. "Over the last several months, there's been no discussion of Medicare at all. There has been of Medicaid, but not of Medicare."

"Because of the size of the deficits, because of the PAYGO or Pay-As-You-Go Act, that would trigger sequestration of Medicare, and it would total over $500 billion," Boyle continued. "The official figure that CBO confirms is $535 billion in cuts to Medicare."

Boyle and other Democrats said the looming Medicare cuts amount to a betrayal of President Donald Trump's vow to shield the program—a promise that was included in the GOP's 2024 election platform.

"They're not just cutting Medicaid," said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), referring to the reconciliation bill's roughly $600 billion in proposed cuts to the healthcare program for low-income Americans. "They're cutting Medicare too."

House Budget Committee Democrats wrote on social media that "Trump promised to protect Medicare."

"He lied," they added.

NOW READ: Inside MAGA's real motive for trying to destroy America

From Your Site Articles

A fight against a deadly fungus in Arizona is under threat from the Trump admin

John Galgiani has been waiting for this call.

The 79-year-old physician is sitting on a chair in a side office at a health clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, long legs crammed under the table in front of him, hands folded at his stomach, when his cell phone rings. “There’s my guy,” he says.

The man on the other end, a physician who works in Tucson, is a touch less relaxed. One of his patients has been in and out of the hospital with a respiratory infection so severe that at one point she coughed up blood. Her skin is flaking, she’s losing her hair, and now the ventricles in her heart are taking too long to refill with blood between beats. The physician suspects some of these symptoms are being caused not by her underlying condition, but by the medication he has her on. The problem is, her insurance is refusing to cover a more expensive alternative.

Galgiani, the country’s leading expert on the disease they’re talking about, quickly cuts him off. Take the patient off the medication, he says, and see how she does. If she improves, show the insurance company proof and force its hand. “That’s actually a good idea,” the doctor replies.

The conversation is so routine, its conclusion — a change of medication — so anodyne, it’s easy to forget that the patient they’re talking about is battling a deadly and incurable fungus.

Doctors have been searching for a cure for coccidioidomycosis, the disease afflicting the patient, since the 1890s, when an Argentine soldier was hospitalized with skin lesions that returned with a zombie-like vengeance after being scrubbed or cut off. Not long after, an immigrant farmworker landed in a San Francisco hospital with the same mutilating disease. Both patients eventually died.

It would be decades before medical researchers and public health officials connected the dots between those cases and reports of a mysterious disease referred to simply as “desert rheumatism” by the waves of settlers, immigrants, and farmworkers that rippled through the West on the heels of the Gold Rush, the completion of the transcontinental railroad, and the Dust Bowl. In California’s San Joaquin Valley, the disease was known as “San Joaquin Valley Fever,” and “valley fever” became the colloquial name of the infection Galgiani later dedicated his life to studying.

By the 1930s, scientists understood that valley fever and the disease that killed the two immigrant farmworkers were different stages of one illness caused by the same fungal pathogen. They had also begun to grasp the basics of transmission. The fungus that causes the disease, called coccidioides or cocci (pronounced “cox-ee”) for short, grows in the top few inches of undisturbed earth throughout the Western U.S. and flourishes during cool, rainy periods. Then, in the summertime heat of the desert, its delicate fungal threads desiccate. Once they’re dry, any disturbance of the topsoil — a foot kicking up earth, a bulldozer digging a foundation, an earthquake shaking loose clouds of dust — sends infinitesimal spores swirling into the air, where they can be sucked through the nasal passages and into the lungs of passing humans or animals.

Most people who breathe in cocci spores — about 6 in 10 — won’t develop symptoms. But the 40 percent of exposed people whose immune systems can’t or won’t fight off the fungus develop symptoms such as fatigue, muscle aches, coughing, and rash that can last weeks or months. In the 5 to 10 percent of symptomatic cases where the fungus invades the vital organs, the death rate is as high as 25 percent. The pathogen is so powerful the U.S. army weighed whether to develop it into a bioterrorism weapon in the 1960s.

Valley fever is endemic to southern Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, and parts of Central and South America, but nowhere are cases of the disease more common than in Arizona. After Arizona started mandatory laboratory reporting for valley fever in 1997, registered cases ticked up and down. But the number began trending upward dramatically in 2016. Then, in 2024, cases in the state exploded, hitting their second-highest total ever. More than 15,000 infections were reported — a 37 percent increase over 2023. California, which runs just behind Arizona in its annual valley fever caseload, registered a record-breaking 12,637 cases in 2024, representing a 39 percent increase over the previous year, which had already smashed a record set in 2019.

Some portion of the rise in reported cases represents growing awareness among physicians and an associated surge in testing. The pace of new construction in untouched areas also plays a role.

But the recent increase in cases has been so dramatic, Galgiani and other researchers across the West who study the fungus think another factor may be driving the trend: supersoaker winter monsoons followed by scorching summer heat and drought, a cycle made more intense by climate change.

Because warmer air holds more moisture, monsoons and other major rainfall events pull in larger quantities of water vapor and produce heavier downpours as the planet warms. This physical fact has fueled a spate of monster floods across the U.S. and around the world in recent years. But the same warmth can conversely lead to drought by making the atmosphere “thirstier,” or capable of absorbing more water from the land’s surface. Both conditions facilitate the spread of valley fever — the wetter conditions by encouraging growth of the spores, and the drier by facilitating desiccation and soil disturbance.

“The main driver for us is certainly this very clear association for coccidioides between heavy precipitation cycles followed by drought,” said George Thompson, a professor of medicine at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine who specializes in fungal diseases.

And it’s not just valley fever that may increase its spread thanks to climate change. Peer reviewed research shows that fungal threats of all kinds are poised to emerge and thrive in a warming world.

Since many valley fever cases are asymptomatic or diagnosed as something else, the numbers of infected people reported by states every year are widely considered underestimates. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that the true burden of valley fever in the U.S. is 10 to 18 times higher than reported, meaning tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Arizona and California have been touched by these latest spikes. Cases reported so far this year are surging in both states.

This is the kind of challenge Galgiani has spent the better part of three decades preparing for. Since 1996, Galgiani has served as director of a Tucson-based center he founded at the University of Arizona called the Valley Fever Center for Excellence, where a small army of researchers, doctors, and veterinarians works closely with county and state public health agencies and research universities on developing solutions to the state’s multifaceted valley fever problem. Years of dogged work are finally beginning to yield momentum that could prevent thousands of infections and dozens of deaths every year.

What might become the world’s first-ever fungal vaccine, discovered by Galgiani and a team of researchers at the Center for Excellence in 2013, is nearing the end of the long federal regulatory process for use against valley fever in dogs. A pharmaceutical company has already initiated the process of adapting it for use in humans.

Galgiani and his colleagues also teamed up with researchers at Arizona State University to develop a valley fever surveillance prototype that uses data from National Weather Service weather stations to track the environmental conditions that spur cases of the disease. He designed a clinical education program that trains physicians how to more quickly and accurately diagnose valley fever in their patients. The program was put to use in urgent care clinics in Phoenix and Tucson owned by Banner Health, one of the biggest nonprofit healthcare systems in the U.S.

But these efforts, some of the first homegrown examples of researchers and health professionals collaborating to protect their communities against a climate-driven health threat in the U.S., are on a collision course with the Trump administration’s new policies. In the months since Donald Trump was elected president, his administration has systematically undermined the infrastructure that supports the country’s public health systems, ordering deep cuts to government funding for vaccines, research, and personnel, and even taking aim at the systems that track and publish data on new cases of infectious disease.

For decades, Galgiani thought the work he was doing at the Valley Fever Center for Excellence was building a solid foundation that Arizona would be able to depend on in the hotter years to come. The first nine months of the second Trump administration have made that foundation look more like a Jenga tower. The infrastructure supporting everyone Galgiani works with — the research to develop a vaccine that may one day become widely available for human use, the valley fever surveillance tools that rely on government weather data to operate, and the federal funding that pays for Arizona’s public health initiatives, public universities, and research labs — is starting to wobble.

The quest to free Arizona of its fungal scourge, never closer to bearing fruit, has also never been more at risk.

As Sharon Filip, a healthy woman in her 50s, was preparing to depart Washington state for a two-week vacation in Arizona in 2001, she checked the state’s Department of Health website to find out what she should be aware of before her trip. As a result, she arrived in Tucson prepared to avoid scorpions at all costs. Nothing she read indicated that a deadly fungal disease lurked in the soil.

A week after returning home, Filip could barely lift her head off her pillow. “Every bone in my body, every muscle in my body, every part of my body, my organs — everything hurt,” she said. Her doctors had no idea what was wrong.

Filip’s son, David, took care of her, and her illness resolved on its own over the course of months, as many cases do. There is no cure for the disease, though a round of strong antifungals, which come with their own suite of painful side effects, can provide the immune system with an assist as it tries to destroy the spores. Filip said it took her 10 years to fully “come back to the world of the living.” She and her son formed a group called Valley Fever Survivor, which has served as a meeting place of sorts for people desperate for more information and guidance.

Arizona has accounted for at least two-thirds of all cases reported in the U.S. for decades, although California is beginning to reach parity as the fungus spreads. Maricopa County in particular — Arizona’s most populous and diverse county, housing four of the five biggest cities in the state, including Phoenix — is located on what appears to be a massive fungal reservoir. Half of all of the nation’s cases start in Maricopa. But even in Maricopa County, getting an accurate valley fever diagnosis often depends on whether either the patient or the doctor is aware that such a disease exists.

“I went to a hospital four different times between three different locations before I was taken seriously,” someone wrote in a valley fever support group on Facebook recently. “As a native to Arizona who has only heard of valley fever and does not know anyone who has had this, I find it all incredibly shocking.”

Unlike nearby California, Arizona has passed no workers’ protection legislation aimed at controlling one of its most commonly reported infectious diseases. The state legislature, controlled almost exclusively by a Republican majority since the mid-1960s, approved just $300,000 for valley fever surveillance in 2007. No new funding has been approved by the legislature since, though the Arizona Board of Regents, the state senate-confirmed board that governs Arizona’s university system, used $3.3 million in taxpayer dollars to fund valley fever research across six projects starting in 2022.

Sharon and David Filip are scathing about Arizona’s efforts to contain the disease, which have largely amounted to improving detection of valley fever in people who already have it, rather than preventing those infections from happening in the first place. They think the state has that backward.

“It seems like it’s more important to actually fund the protection of the people than it is to just keep track of how they’re dying and getting sick,” David Filip said. But preventing cases of valley fever — a disease that people contract simply by breathing in the wrong place at the wrong time — is a monumental job for a public health department.

When asked what Arizona is doing to combat valley fever, Irene Ruberto, who manages the Arizona Department of Health Services’ vector-borne and zoonotic disease team, pointed to the department’s efforts to raise awareness about the disease, such as the week the state dedicates to “Valley Fever Awareness” every November, as well as its ongoing work reviewing, counting, and publishing cases reported by counties. Ruberto had no firm answers to questions about the ways that new construction is exposing more residents to the fungus, and what else might be done to reach the demographics most at risk of developing the most severe form of the disease, nodding instead to research being conducted by scientists on those topics at places like the Valley Fever Center for Excellence, which the department supports.

“We don’t want to scare people,” Ruberto said. “We want people to be aware, because we’re seeing that if you know about valley fever, you know the signs and symptoms, then it’s more likely that you’re going to get tested.”

The department of health has a small pot of funding that’s already stretched thin between competing priorities. Arizona, which spent $28 per person on public health funding in 2023, less than half the national average, uses very little of its own money on its health infrastructure. If federal funding were to disappear — county health departments are funded largely by Medicaid — the state’s public health system would functionally collapse.

Those are the conditions in which Galgiani has worked for the past three decades.

“There’s a fungus amongus,” reads a small decal tucked among the various framed awards and pictures hanging on the walls of his office at the Valley Fever Center for Excellence. Galgiani spends most of the week in Tucson, but on Tuesday nights, he and his wife drive two hours north to Phoenix to an apartment they own on the bottom floor of a building a five-minute drive from one of Banner Health’s clinics. On Wednesday mornings, Galgiani goes to the clinic to see patients and train doctors.

Since 2018, Banner Health urgent care facilities in Phoenix and Tucson have been following a new clinical program Galgiani designed that aims to increase the number of people being tested for valley fever. Too often, doctors assume that patients who present with the early symptoms of valley fever have garden-variety pneumonia, and they administer antibiotics without realizing that the patient is suffering from a fungal infection that will only respond to an antifungal medication.

A retrospective study of more than 800 patients in Arizona found that more than 40 percent of them waited more than a month after their first doctor’s visit for an accurate diagnosis; many received useless prescriptions for antibacterial drugs in the interim. The costs associated with the roughly 10,000 cases of the disease that were diagnosed in the state in 2019, including direct healthcare costs and working hours lost, topped $700 million.

After Galgiani’s protocol was implemented, the percentage of Banner Health clinics enrolled in the program ordering 50 or more valley fever blood tests per year rose significantly, from 11 percent in 2018 to 78 percent in 2021 — a strong signal of progress and one that will likely withstand any changes unfolding at the federal level: The program is cheap and doesn’t rely on federal funding to run. But the Banner Health facilities using this new strategy constitute just 4 percent of the health clinics in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. The long term goal, one the state of California is currently trying to accomplish via legislation just passed by that state’s senate, is to require doctors to automatically test most patients who present with pneumonia symptoms in an endemic area for the disease.

But getting more hospitals and clinics across the southern part of Arizona, which encompasses most of the state’s fungal hotspots, to implement updated valley fever testing protocols is a constant battle against inertia. “A lot of doctors have learned to treat all pneumonias as bacterial infections,” Galgiani said. “To get them to change, they have to unlearn what they were already told was the right way to go.” He fears that, as the federal government takes a hatchet to the funding it sends to states for a wide array of public health initiatives, the momentum he and others in Arizona have been trying to sustain will lag and efforts to combat valley fever will fall to the wayside.

In late March, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, ordered deep cuts to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grant programs for states across the country. Although Arizona’s attorney general challenged that decision alongside 19 other state attorneys general, the Supreme Court handed down a brief ruling in August permitting the lion’s share of those cuts to go through. The White House’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 would further weaken the state’s public health and research infrastructure: Arizona stands to lose an estimated $135 million annually in funding from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for infectious disease research at universities and hospitals, according to an analysis by the Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project.

These cuts won’t affect the Valley Fever Center for Excellence, which is funded primarily by philanthropic dollars and was established by the Arizona Board of Regents, not the federal government. But what’s happening at the federal level is destabilizing the network of people and institutions Galgiani relies on to keep the valley fever solutions machine running, including the public health departments he works with and his collaborators at universities in California, Arizona, and Texas.

“It feels like there’s an ax hanging over our heads and we never know when it’s going to drop,” said Bridget Barker, a professor of biological sciences at Northern Arizona University who runs a valley fever project funded by NIH.

For eight months this year, Barker waited for more than $1 million in grant money the federal government had already agreed to give her so she could continue developing new antifungal medications to treat valley fever — funding that in past years has been approved in a matter of weeks. Barker wasn’t sure if the money was slow to come because so many federal employees had been fired or laid off since the beginning of Trump’s second term, or if it wasn’t going to come at all. In August, she finally got her funding. By that time, she had already had to lay off two staffers at her lab.

When Thursday morning rolls around, Galgiani is back at his desk in Tucson logging onto a Zoom call with a group of people who meet monthly to discuss valley fever in Arizona. Thomas Williamson, a valley fever epidemiologist at the state’s department of health, starts the meeting with a roll call. Representatives from public health departments across the state — Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties — are there to report their monthly valley fever numbers to the group of roughly two dozen. An infectious disease specialist from the Mayo Clinic is listening in. Galgiani is prepared to present the most recent data from his work with Banner Health clinics.

Williamson ticks down his list of invitees. “How about the CDC?” he asks. A long silence follows. Someone jumps in and asks if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was told about the meeting.

“They were sent the updates and the meeting link,” Williamson replies. “It’s up to them, really.”

It’s unclear if the federal government’s absenteeism is a result of a lack of interest or whether it can be chalked up to disarray and lack of personnel. At least seven staffers and research fellows have left the CDC’s Mycotic Diseases Branch — including the branch chief, Tom Chiller — a small division within the agency that maintains a fungal identification and testing lab and helps states with funding, disease surveillance, and public health communication surrounding fungal pathogens. Either way, Galgiani says later, the absence is unusual.

Also tuning into the Zoom call are Tanner Porter and Dave Engelthaler, two researchers who have been using air filters — initially installed around the Phoenix metropolitan area following the violence of September 11, 2001, to sense a bioterrorism attack — to measure the concentration of cocci in the air. It’s the first-ever effort to forecast where and when the spores are present across a metropolitan area.

Interest is intense among the meeting attendees as Porter and Engelthaler, who both work at a nonprofit medical research group called the Translational Genomics Research Institute, report that their preliminary findings indicate that airborne fungus is most concentrated close to new construction sites. The spores, they say, are present even on days when the wind isn’t blowing and there is no visible dust in the air.

Phoenix and other endemic areas undergoing a lot of landscape changes are a bit like minefields. Construction in places where the fungus is present, particularly when soil moisture is low and wind is blowing, can produce invisible clouds of spores that hang suspended in the air within a 1.5-mile radius. Anyone who walks through them could be at risk. Larger construction sites can send the spores swirling even further afield.

The researchers are in the midst of training a machine-learning algorithm to identify disturbed land in real time and identify where infections are likely to occur. It’s the kind of research that could help the Maricopa County public health department put out warnings in high-risk areas and encourage people to wear N95 masks, which have been shown to help reduce the risks of contracting the disease.

But the work Porter and Engelthaler are doing depends in part on dust storm records kept in a little-known database called the Storm Events Database. That database is run by the National Centers for Environmental Information, housed within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, which also runs an hourly weather data program that the researchers are pulling from to run their modeling. The Trump administration has severely weakened NOAA’s weather forecasting capabilities, which will have knock-on effects for any ongoing efforts to use federal weather data to predict where and when valley fever will emerge.

The biggest unknown in the stack of unknowns is the future of the vaccine Galgiani discovered several years ago — the holy grail of the valley fever world. Without it, there is no long-term protection for Arizonans, Californians, and anyone else exposed to a disease poised to run amok as communities push further into a desert landscape made more hospitable to coccidioides by climate change.

The vaccine has been licensed to a pet healthcare pharmaceutical company called Anivive Lifesciences, which is developing it for use in dogs — animals that are particularly susceptible to the disease because they spend so much time with their noses to the ground. The company counts former Republican Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who represented much of California’s cocci-rich Central Valley, on its board.

If everything goes exactly right, the vaccine Anivive is developing will be approved by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a branch of the United States Department of Agriculture, for use in canines by the middle of next year. In trials, two doses of the live attenuated vaccine, which contains a weakened form of the fungus, gave dogs near-total protection. Adapting the mechanism that makes the dose work in dogs to provide the same protection for humans could take another five years or more. But the federal government appears interested in making that happen — or, at least, it did.

Last year, Anivive received a contract worth up to $33 million from a division of the National Institutes of Health to initiate the process for a human phase 1 clinical trial. Once someone has recovered from valley fever, they’re more or less protected from reinfection for life, making the fungus a good vaccine candidate. The funding from NIH is in the form of a legal contract, not a grant, meaning it theoretically can’t be rescinded the same way billions of dollars worth of grant funding have been cancelled by the federal government. So far, NIH has been meeting its payments to Anivive, though they’ve been slower than usual since Trump took office.

It’s not lost on Edward Robb, chief strategy officer at Anivive and leader of the company’s valley fever vaccine project, that he’s developing a vaccine for a relatively unknown infectious disease at the same time as one of the world’s most prominent opponents of vaccines has begun reshaping America’s immunization policies.

Since taking office as secretary of health and human services, Kennedy has rolled back federal recommendations and endorsements for COVID-19 and some flu vaccines and fired all 17 independent members of a vaccine policy panel at the CDC, replacing many of them with known anti-vaccine campaigners. HHS has little say over vaccines developed for use in animals, but it could derail the regulatory process by which that vaccine is adapted for humans, a process so long and so expensive it’s often referred to as “the valley of death.”

“We’re nervous but we have no data or anything to say that things have changed,” Robb said. “Have I had lost sleep? Have I had anxiety? Have there been weeks when we think we’re doomed? Yeah.”

If NIH continues funding this phase of the project as it’s contracted to and the vaccine shows promise, there’s still the matter of finding the funding to conduct phases 2 and 3 of the approval process, when the vaccine is tested on hundreds and then thousands of people. The estimated cost of such an endeavor, Robb says, is $300 million. Anivive can’t do it alone. A major biopharmaceutical company like Pfizer or Moderna would need to step in to take it over the finish line.

“Will a major step up and say ‘put me in, coach’?” he asked. It’s looking less likely by the day. In early August, Kennedy canceled close to $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts with more than a dozen vaccine makers including Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, a move that could further dampen new vaccine research and investment.

For Galgiani, this kind of retreat from vaccine development is irrational. “It makes sense to me that state and federal support for a vaccine would be good for both public health and the economies of endemic regions,” he said.

Whether a vaccine for valley fever moves forward matters not only for the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are likely to get the disease in the coming years, but also for the 6.5 million people who get invasive fungal infections annually around the world. As with valley fever, the overall number of fungal infections is growing as climate change makes the whole Earth warmer on average.

“Unlike humans, many pathogenic fungi are thriving as the Earth’s temperature increases,” the authors of a study published last year in the peer-reviewed British medical journal The Lancet wrote. Fungi that cause disease are “quickly adapting to higher temperatures and becoming more virulent and potent.”

A growing portion of these cases are caused by fungi that have become resistant to antifungal medications. Candida auris, a relatively new yeast that has already infected over 2,800 Americans this year, is multi-drug resistant. Ninety percent of the Candida auris found in the U.S. is resistant to fluconazole, one of the most commonly used antifungals.

“If we can make a fungal vaccine for valley fever, could one of these companies make a vaccine against Candida infections?” asked Thompson, the fungal disease specialist from the University of California, Davis. “It may just be the first example of vaccines in this field, but it really may lead to some big changes and big improvements for our patients down the road.”

But that’s only if the valley fever vaccine survives the Trump administration.

Correction: This story originally misstated Sharon Filip’s age when she contracted valley fever.

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/health/valley-fever-arizona-fungus-climate-change/.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.