Factcheck.org

Republicans say funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits — formerly known as food stamps — will run out on Nov. 1 due to the federal government shutdown, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Democrats say there’s a contingency fund that could and should continue to fund regular SNAP benefits. And, in fact, that was the Republican plan up until at least a few weeks ago. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, says it can’t legally tap the contingency fund for that purpose. “There has to be a preexisting appropriation for the contingency fund to be used, and Democrats blocked that appropriation when they rejected the clean continuing resolution,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a press conference on Oct. 27. “The best way for SNAP benefits to be paid on time is for the Democrats to end their shutdown.” We can’t say whether the USDA is barred from tapping the contingency funds for regular SNAP benefits — ultimately that may be a decision for the courts — but the USDA position that Johnson cited has apparently changed in the past month. When the Trump administration’s USDA issued a “Lapse of Funding Plan” on Sept. 30, it stated that the contingency fund, estimated to be more than $5 billion, can and should be used to fund SNAP payments in the event of a shutdown. “In addition, Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” the document states. “These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.” That document has since been scrubbed from the USDA website, but it’s still available via the Wayback Machine archives. “It’s also important to note that the money currently exists within the Trump administration, including $5 billion in a contingency fund, specifically, for this kind of circumstance, to continue providing SNAP benefits to the American people, including 16 million children who might otherwise go hungry, if Donald Trump successfully withholds these SNAP benefits,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on CNN on Oct. 29. “The Trump administration doesn’t need Congress to act in order to continue providing nutritional and food assistance to everyday Americans.” What’s at Stake? Democrats and Republicans have been locked in a stalemate over efforts to extend federal government funding. Democrats have insisted legislation should include an extension of the more generous Affordable Care Act subsidies, which were first enacted in 2021, and a repeal of some health care measures affecting Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans have balked at those demands, and have offered only a “clean” bill to temporarily extend current federal government funding levels. As a result, the government shut down on Oct. 1. Photo by jetcityimage / stock.adobe.com. Funding of SNAP benefits continued through October, however, because, as the since-deleted “Lapse of Funding Plan” explained, the Office of Management and Budget’s general counsel advised obligating fiscal 2025 funds to cover SNAP benefits in October in the event of a government shutdown at the start of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). But the USDA now says it has no way to continue funding SNAP benefits beyond October, jeopardizing food assistance used by nearly 42 million Americans each month. A banner at the top of the USDA Food & Nutrition website now states, “Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.” (The votes cited in that message were votes on Republican funding bills that didn’t include the Democrats’ demands on health care funding changes.) Democratic leaders say the Trump administration could continue funding, but has chosen not to as a form of leverage in the shutdown standoff. Contingency Fund The SNAP program is funded through annual appropriations, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, allocated about $122 billion to fund food and nutrition programs (mostly SNAP benefits), in addition to $3 billion in reserve “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations” through the end of September 2026. The reserve fund is good for two years, and together with funding from the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, the contingency reserve totaled about $6 billion prior to the shutdown. The amount is now likely between $5 billion and $6 billion, as some of the reserve was tapped to pay administrative costs in October, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As we said, up until earlier this month, the USDA’s “Lapse of Funding Plan” envisioned tapping that reserve to pay regular SNAP benefits in the event of a shutdown. That has been the understanding guiding past administrations, as well. For example, the USDA’s 2021 contingency plan — cited in the run-up to a 2023 shutdown — assured that SNAP benefits would be paid during a shutdown, in part by tapping “multi-year carry over funds” and “contingency reserves.” That was also the guidance during Trump’s first presidential term, according to CBPP. During a shutdown in early 2019, the USDA assured that SNAP benefits would continue to be paid even “without an additional appropriation from Congress.” “At President Trump’s direction, we have been working with the Administration on this solution. It works and is legally sound. And we want to assure states, and SNAP recipients, that the benefits for February will be

An ad campaign from the government of Ontario featured audio of former President Ronald Reagan denouncing tariffs on foreign goods. The video rearranges what Reagan said in a 1987 radio address, and it ignores some of the context. But it does not alter the former president’s sentiments, contrary to President Donald Trump’s claim that Canada “lied.” Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced on Oct. 14 that $75 million would be spent to air the ad to “every Republican district there is” across the U.S. “It’s not a nasty ad; it’s actually just very factual,” Ford said, adding that the TV spot uses the words of Reagan, “the best president the country’s ever seen, in my opinion.” In a Truth Social post on Oct. 23, Trump denounced the ad as “FAKE” and said that it was intended to “interfere with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” which is set to hear arguments on Nov. 5 in cases from businesses and states that have challenged some of Trump’s tariffs. As a result of the “egregious” ad, Trump said he terminated all trade negotiations with Canada. In posts and comments to the media the following day, Trump said the ad was “a fraud” and claimed Canada “lied.” Trump even suggested Reagan’s words had been created by artificial intelligence. “They cheated on a commercial,” Trump said in remarks to reporters on Oct. 24. “Ronald Reagan loved tariffs and they said he didn’t. And I guess it was AI or something. They cheated badly. Canada got caught cheating on a commercial, can you believe it?” On Oct. 24, Ford announced via X that the ad would be paused on Oct. 27 — after it had aired during the first two World Series baseball games — “so that trade talks can resume.” “Our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses,” Ford stated. “We’ve achieved our goal, having reached U.S. audiences at the highest levels.” In a Truth Social post the following day, Trump stated, “Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts, and hostile act, I am increasing the Tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now.” As we’ve explained before, tariffs on foreign goods are paid by importers in the U.S., not the foreign countries. What’s in the Ad? The one-minute ad quotes Reagan as saying the following: “When someone says, ‘Let’s impose tariffs on foreign imports,’ it looks like they’re doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while, it works. But only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industries shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs. Throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. America’s jobs and growth are at stake.” On Oct. 23, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute posted a statement on X saying the government of Ontario “created an ad campaign using selective audio and video” of Reagan’s radio address on April 25, 1987. “The ad misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address,” the group said, adding that the government of Ontario “did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks” and that the foundation was “reviewing its legal options in this matter.” The foundation and institute invited readers to watch and listen to the full five-minute video. Full transcript of Reagan’s radio address President Ronald Reagan, radio address on free and fair trade, from Camp David, Maryland, April 25, 1987: My fellow Americans, Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan will be visiting me here at the White House next week. It’s an important visit, because while I expect to take up our relations with our good friend Japan, which overall remain excellent, recent disagreements between our two countries on the issue of trade will also be high on our agenda. As perhaps you’ve heard, last week I placed new duties on some Japanese products in response to Japan’s inability to enforce their trade agreement with us on electronic devices called semiconductors. Now, imposing such tariffs or trade barriers and restrictions of any kind are steps that I am loath to take. And in a moment, I’ll mention the sound economic reasons for this, that over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. But the Japanese semiconductors were a special case. We had clear evidence that Japanese companies were engaging in unfair trade practices that violated an agreement between Japan and the United States. We expect our trading partners to live up to their agreements. As I’ve often said, our commitment to free trade is also a commitment to fair trade. But you know, in imposing these tariffs, we were just trying to deal with a particular problem, not begin a trade war. So next week, I’ll be giving Prime Minister Nakasone this same message. We want to continue to work cooperatively on trade problems and want very much to lift these trade restrictions as soon as evidence permits. We want to do this because we feel both Japan and the United States have an obligation to promote the prosperity and economic development that only free trade can bring. Now, that message of free trade is one I conveyed to Canada’s leaders a few weeks ago, and it was warmly received there. Indeed, throughout the world, there’s a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now, there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing. And today, many

Donald Trump made crime a centerpiece of his 2024 presidential campaign. But he has surprised even himself, he said at an Oct. 15 press conference, with the intensity of federal efforts he has directed at cities, in what he says is an effort to fight crime, most controversially by sending military troops into cities such as Portland and Chicago, over the objection of local elected officials. Residents and protesters clash with federal agents on Oct. 14 in the East Side neighborhood of Chicago after tear gas was detonated. Photo by Joshua Lott/The Washington Post via Getty Images. “I didn’t realize I was going to make this such a big factor,” Trump said. “And now it’s like a passion for me. … I did get elected for crime, but I didn’t get elected for what we’re doing. This is many, many steps above.” Trump had said for weeks that he would send National Guard troops to Chicago, wrongly claiming on social media that the city is the “MURDER CAPITAL OF THE WORLD.” As we’ve written, the city has a high number of murders among U.S. cities, but not the highest murder rate in the U.S., let alone the world. The homicide rate has been declining this year, mirroring the general trend among U.S. cities. As for Portland, Trump claimed the city has been overrun by “antifa thugs” who have “repeatedly attacked our officers and laid siege to federal property in an attempt to violently stop the execution of federal law.” And, he said, the city “is burning to the ground,” which is false. On Sept. 28, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard troops for 60 days. And on Oct. 4, Hegseth federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members and later deployed more than 200 members of the Texas National Guard in Chicago. Mayors in both cities and the state governors have opposed the deployments, accusing the president of exacerbating conflict. Their lawyers have called the administration’s claims of a crisis “manufactured” and “wildly hyperbolic.” Courts have since temporarily delayed deployment of federal troops in both cities. While Trump’s rhetoric has largely focused on overall crime, the deployments are specifically targeted at protecting federal immigration operations and facilities. Here, we’ll unravel some of the rhetoric with a Q&A about what’s happening in Portland and Chicago, what the Trump administration is doing and under what authority, and what the courts have had to say about it so far. Under what authority can the president mobilize National Guard troops in states?Why does the Trump administration say troops are needed?What’s the Insurrection Act?What’s happening in Portland?What have the courts said in the Portland case?What’s happening in Chicago?What have the courts said in the Chicago case? Under what authority can the president mobilize National Guard troops in states? Each state, three territories (Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the District of Columbia have National Guard organizations. With the exception of Washington, D.C., where the guard unit is under federal control, the guard is under each state’s or territory’s control, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has explained. However, in certain circumstances, state guard units can be federalized and placed under the president’s control. Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, section 12406, the president can federalize any state’s National Guard if the country “is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation,” if there’s “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the federal government’s authority, or if the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” Such an order “shall be issued through the governors of the States,” the law says. The administration has cited Title 10, section 12406 in federalizing National Guard troops for deployment to California, Illinois and Oregon, over the objection of the states’ governors. In a June 7 memo prior to deploying troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against federal immigration policy, Trump pointed to the statute’s provisions about countering a rebellion and executing U.S. laws. (See “Q&A on Federalizing the National Guard in Los Angeles.”) William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and Mark P. Nevitt, an associate professor at Emory University School of Law, wrote in a piece for Just Security that the last time this statute had been invoked prior to June was in 1970, when then President Richard Nixon used the National Guard to deliver mail during a postal strike. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces, including the federalized National Guard, can’t perform civilian law enforcement tasks. In Los Angeles, this meant that the guard troops could protect federal property and personnel but not engage in law enforcement activities. However, the Insurrection Act provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and Trump has said he could invoke the law (see below for more on that). Banks and Nevitt wrote that “the last time the National Guard was federalized over a governor’s objection was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the Guard to Selma, Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.” Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act. The National Guard can be deployed for federal purposes but remain under state control under Title 32 of the U.S. Code, section 502(f). In Trump’s first term, his administration invoked this section of law to bring National Guard troops from other states to Washington, D.C., in response to protests in the city following the killing of George Floyd. But again, the president already has control of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. This statute also has been used recently to mobilize guard troops in Memphis, where Republican Gov. Bill Lee agreed to the deployment. Since the troops are under state control, they are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restriction against engaging in civilian law enforcement. But the city of Memphis says on its website that the guard troops will act in a support role to local police and won’t make arrests. Why does the Trump administration say

Donald Trump made crime a centerpiece of his 2024 presidential campaign. But he has surprised even himself, he said at an Oct. 15 press conference, with the intensity of federal efforts he has directed at cities, in what he says is an effort to fight crime, most controversially by sending military troops into cities such as Portland and Chicago, over the objection of local elected officials. Residents and protesters clash with federal agents on Oct. 14 in the East Side neighborhood of Chicago after tear gas was detonated. Photo by Joshua Lott/The Washington Post via Getty Images. “I didn’t realize I was going to make this such a big factor,” Trump said. “And now it’s like a passion for me. … I did get elected for crime, but I didn’t get elected for what we’re doing. This is many, many steps above.” Trump had said for weeks that he would send National Guard troops to Chicago, wrongly claiming on social media that the city is the “MURDER CAPITAL OF THE WORLD.” As we’ve written, the city has a high number of murders among U.S. cities, but not the highest murder rate in the U.S., let alone the world. The homicide rate has been declining this year, mirroring the general trend among U.S. cities. As for Portland, Trump claimed the city has been overrun by “antifa thugs” who have “repeatedly attacked our officers and laid siege to federal property in an attempt to violently stop the execution of federal law.” And, he said, the city “is burning to the ground,” which is false. On Sept. 28, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memo mobilizing 200 Oregon National Guard troops for 60 days. And on Oct. 4, Hegseth federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members and later deployed more than 200 members of the Texas National Guard in Chicago. Mayors in both cities and the state governors have opposed the deployments, accusing the president of exacerbating conflict. Their lawyers have called the administration’s claims of a crisis “manufactured” and “wildly hyperbolic.” Courts have since temporarily delayed deployment of federal troops in both cities. While Trump’s rhetoric has largely focused on overall crime, the deployments are specifically targeted at protecting federal immigration operations and facilities. Here, we’ll unravel some of the rhetoric with a Q&A about what’s happening in Portland and Chicago, what the Trump administration is doing and under what authority, and what the courts have had to say about it so far. Under what authority can the president mobilize National Guard troops in states?Why does the Trump administration say troops are needed?What’s the Insurrection Act?What’s happening in Portland?What have the courts said in the Portland case?What’s happening in Chicago?What have the courts said in the Chicago case? Under what authority can the president mobilize National Guard troops in states? Each state, three territories (Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and the District of Columbia have National Guard organizations. With the exception of Washington, D.C., where the guard unit is under federal control, the guard is under each state’s or territory’s control, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has explained. However, in certain circumstances, state guard units can be federalized and placed under the president’s control. Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, section 12406, the president can federalize any state’s National Guard if the country “is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation,” if there’s “a rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the federal government’s authority, or if the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” Such an order “shall be issued through the governors of the States,” the law says. The administration has cited Title 10, section 12406 in federalizing National Guard troops for deployment to California, Illinois and Oregon, over the objection of the states’ governors. In a June 7 memo prior to deploying troops to Los Angeles in response to protests against federal immigration policy, Trump pointed to the statute’s provisions about countering a rebellion and executing U.S. laws. (See “Q&A on Federalizing the National Guard in Los Angeles.”) William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law, and Mark P. Nevitt, an associate professor at Emory University School of Law, wrote in a piece for Just Security that the last time this statute had been invoked prior to June was in 1970, when then President Richard Nixon used the National Guard to deliver mail during a postal strike. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, federal military forces, including the federalized National Guard, can’t perform civilian law enforcement tasks. In Los Angeles, this meant that the guard troops could protect federal property and personnel but not engage in law enforcement activities. However, the Insurrection Act provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and Trump has said he could invoke the law (see below for more on that). Banks and Nevitt wrote that “the last time the National Guard was federalized over a governor’s objection was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed the Guard to Selma, Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.” Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act. The National Guard can be deployed for federal purposes but remain under state control under Title 32 of the U.S. Code, section 502(f). In Trump’s first term, his administration invoked this section of law to bring National Guard troops from other states to Washington, D.C., in response to protests in the city following the killing of George Floyd. But again, the president already has control of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. This statute also has been used recently to mobilize guard troops in Memphis, where Republican Gov. Bill Lee agreed to the deployment. Since the troops are under state control, they are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act’s restriction against engaging in civilian law enforcement. But the city of Memphis says on its website that the guard troops will act in a support role to local police and won’t make arrests. Why does the Trump administration say

Summary The final numbers for Joe Biden’s full term are nearly all in. Here’s our rundown of various statistical measures during his presidency: Inflation roared back, shrinking the value of workers’ paychecks. Consumer prices rose 21.5%. Gasoline alone rose 31%. After adjusting for inflation, private-sector average weekly earnings shrank 4%. The economy regained millions of jobs lost during the coronavirus pandemic and around 6 million more. Unemployment averaged 4.1%, well below the historical average. The economy grew by at least 2.5% each year, with real gross domestic product growth of 2.8% in 2024. The percentage and number of Americans who lacked health insurance went down by 0.6 percentage points, or 1.2 million people, when measuring those who were uninsured for an entire year. The nationwide violent crime and property crime rates declined. The murder rate dropped by 1.7 points. All three major U.S. stock indexes set new records. The S&P 500 climbed 57.8%. After-tax corporate profits continued to set records. Consumer confidence sank to a historic low, when inflation surged, and then rose. But it was still lower when Biden left office than when his term began. Apprehensions of those trying to cross the southern border illegally were 107% higher in Biden’s last year compared with the year before he took office. The monthly average for refugee admissions was 157% higher than during his predecessor’s time in office. The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services went up by nearly 40%. Home prices rose 37.4%. The homeownership rate fluctuated slightly. The number of people receiving federal food assistance increased only slightly. The median household income, when factoring in inflation, went up by $2,150. The official poverty rate declined, but the alternative, supplemental measure increased, after pandemic stimulus payments ended. The federal publicly held debt went up by one-third. Crude oil, natural gas, natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, solar and wind all set domestic production records in Biden’s last year in office. Analysis We’ve been publishing quarterly “numbers” articles about how the country has fared under the president since Barack Obama’s second term. We last posted an update for President Joe Biden in October 2024, weeks before Election Day, and a look at what President Donald Trump inherited on Jan. 20. But it takes some time for many of the final figures to be gathered, revised and released. We’re nearly at that point now. The headline measure during Biden’s term — and a defining issue during the 2024 election — was the increase in inflation, particularly in 2022. Economists told us then that COVID-19 stimulus spending under Biden contributed to the rise in prices, though the root cause was the economic fallout from the pandemic, which created issues with supply, demand and labor, not just in the U.S. but around the world. Sanctions on Russian oil, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, further contributed. Other economic measures showed a country recovering from the pandemic, with employment hitting its pre-pandemic level and growing by millions more, and economic growth rebounding from 2020’s dip. Some statistics are a continuation of what occurred under Trump’s first term: The stock market and after-tax corporate profits again set records, for example. Other figures moved in the opposite direction than they did under Biden’s predecessor: Refugee admissions more than doubled, and the number of people lacking health insurance declined. The statistics below may be good, bad or neutral in the eye of the beholder, and we leave those judgments to the reader. Opinions also differ on how much credit or blame a president should get for what happens while he is in office. We expect some of these figures to be revised by the government, and we’ll update them again, as we did for Obama and Trump. We’ll launch our second “Trump’s Numbers” series in January, one year after Trump’s second term began. Wages and Inflation During Biden’s four years in office, wages went up but prices went up faster. CPI — The Consumer Price Index rose 21.5% under Biden — ending a long period of low inflation. Prices rose only 7.8% during the previous four years, for comparison. The worst spike came during the 12 months ending in June 2022, which saw a 9.1% increase in the CPI (before seasonal adjustment). The Bureau of Labor Statistics said that was the biggest such increase in over 40 years — since the 12 months ending in November 1981. Inflation cooled slowly for the remainder of Biden’s term, as the Federal Reserve ratcheted up interest rates. The CPI rose 3% in his final 12 months. Gasoline Prices — Inflation was advertised in foot-high letters on street corners everywhere as the price of gasoline shot up to a record high during Biden’s time. The week before he took office the national average price of regular gasoline at the pump was $2.38 per gallon, still rising from the $1.78 low point during the pandemic recession (which lasted from February to April 2020), according to figures from the Energy Information Administration. From there it shot up to the highest ever recorded — just over $5 per gallon in the week ending June 13, 2022 — as world oil markets were disrupted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The week he left office the price was down to $3.11, still 73 cents (or 31%) higher than when he came in. Wages — Paychecks grew larger also, but inflation ate up all the gain and more, leaving workers’ purchasing power worse off than before. The average weekly earnings of all private-sector workers rose 16.7%, not nearly enough to compensate for rising prices. In “real” (inflation-adjusted) terms, weekly earnings fell 4%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That reversed nearly half the gains of the previous four years, when real weekly earnings increased 8.6% Those figures apply to all private-sector workers, including executives and professionals. But the story was similar for rank-and-file production and nonsupervisory workers — who make up 81% of the entire private-sector workforce. For them, the drop in real weekly earnings under Biden was 2%, following a 9.5% increase over the previous four years. Jobs and Unemployment Employment — During Biden’s

A substantial body of evidence supports the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy, contrary to the suggestions of some members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccine advisory committee. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently reconstituted the committee. Some members misrepresented the results of Pfizer’s maternal COVID-19 vaccination trial and one made misleading claims about the quality of the evidence on vaccine safety during pregnancy.  During the Sept. 19 vaccine advisory committee meeting, which focused on vaccine recommendations for this year’s updated COVID-19 shots, Retsef Levi, chair of the COVID-19 vaccine work group, said that “most” work group members thought that pregnant women should be advised to not get vaccinated against COVID-19, but that they had decided not to bring the issue to a vote before the entire panel that day. “Most of us are extremely concerned about the safety and the lack of robust evidence, both on safety and efficacy, for not only pregnant women, but their babies,” he said. The CDC shared his comments in a video clip, highlighting the remark in a post on X. Numerous studies have shown that the COVID-19 vaccines prevent severe disease during pregnancy, and studies have not identified an increased risk of any problems at birth, during pregnancy or for newborns. “[W]e have really extensive evidence on the safety of mRNA COVID vaccines in pregnancy,” Victoria Male, an associate professor of reproductive immunology at Imperial College London, wrote on the social media platform Bluesky the day of the meeting. Male maintains a continually updated online explainer about COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and a table of relevant safety studies. Levi, who is a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s business school, is one of 12 new members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Kennedy selected the new members after he dismissed the previous panel. Several new members have a record of spreading vaccine misinformation. Levi has previously published dubious research suggesting COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and stated in 2023 that it was his “strong conviction” that vaccination programs using the mRNA shots from Pfizer and Moderna should “stop immediately.” Retsef Levi during a Sept. 19 meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images. If the CDC accepts the panel’s latest decisions on the COVID-19 vaccines, there will be no specific recommendation for pregnant people. Instead, like everyone else, pregnant people will be recommended to get a COVID-19 vaccine only after discussion with a health care provider, or what’s known as shared clinical decision-making.  An HHS spokesperson confirmed that interpretation, noting that there was “an emphasis that the risk-benefit of vaccination in individuals under age 65 is most favorable for those who are at an increased risk for severe COVID-19,” and that high-risk groups included “those who are pregnant or recently pregnant.” That would be a shift from May, when Kennedy abruptly announced that the vaccines were no longer recommended for pregnant people. (And until the CDC accepts the new ACIP recommendations, the official CDC recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy remains “no guidance/not applicable.”) At the time, HHS circulated a document to Congress that misinterpreted studies to argue against vaccination during pregnancy, as we wrote. It would also be a change from the CDC’s previous recommendations, which encouraged vaccination among pregnant people, and different from the advice of independent medical groups, which continue to advise vaccination. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, recommends COVID-19 vaccination before, during and after pregnancy, including while breastfeeding. The American Academy of Family Physicians and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly recommend COVID-19 vaccination during any trimester of pregnancy and during lactation. “COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy has been well established. There is no evidence of increased risk of negative maternal, pregnancy, or infant outcomes associated with vaccination,” ACOG’s guidance, updated in September, reads, citing a 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic. The guidance explains that vaccination during pregnancy protects pregnant individuals, who have historically been at higher risk for severe COVID-19, and their babies. Infants benefit both because of the reduction in pregnancy complications and because maternal vaccination transfers antibodies to babies that can protect them against COVID-19 in their first few months of life. Infants cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19 until they are 6 months old. Babies this age are the second most likely age group to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization, after adults age 75 and older, according to CDC data presented at the Sept. 19 meeting. Pfizer’s Maternal Trial Results Much of the ACIP meeting’s discussion about vaccination during pregnancy was focused on a small trial Pfizer conducted in 2021 in healthy pregnant individuals in the U.S., Brazil, South Africa, Spain and the U.K. It included around 340 mothers and their infants, evenly divided between a vaccine and placebo group. In explaining why the work group thought that the panel should advise people to avoid getting vaccinated during pregnancy, Levi cited the trial, stating in his presentation slides that “there was observed numerical imbalance of higher number of fetal anomalies among babies born to vaccinated women (8 vs. 2).” Earlier in the day, ACIP chair Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist formerly with Harvard University, also pointed to the imbalance, which he said was included in materials Pfizer provided to him prior to the meeting. He called it a “fourfold excess risk of birth defects” that was “very concerning,” adding that he had calculated his own p-value for the figures, and it was 0.05 — the typical threshold for determining whether a result is statistically significant. In a vote that passed, the panel also agreed to recommend an update to the CDC’s COVID-19 vaccine information statement to include mention of the “observed numerical imbalance.” (Dorit Reiss, a professor at University of California Law San Francisco who specializes in vaccine law and policy, told us that changing the VIS is an “elaborate process” that ACIP has no authority over, so the vote was “at most persuasive.”) Experts told us that a closer look at the trial results, however, shows that the imbalance is not indicative of a legitimate concern. Most, if not all, of the observed birth defects occur in early

James Comey, a former director of the FBI, was indicted on two criminal counts on Sept. 25 by a federal grand jury in Virginia. But the barely two-page indictment provides very little information about the underlying evidence for the charges of lying to Congress.  The indictment came just days after President Donald Trump publicly pressed the Department of Justice to prosecute Comey and installed Lindsey Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a former personal attorney for Trump, replaced Erik Siebert, who was pushed out of the position. ABC News reported, based on anonymous sources, that Siebert and other career prosecutors who led the investigation of Comey had believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against him. It was Halligan, who had no prior experience as a prosecutor, who presented the case to the grand jury. Comey was FBI director from 2013 to 2017, when Trump fired him. In this story, we cover the few details we know about the indictment and what Comey told Congress. What are the charges against Comey? The grand jury indicted Comey on two criminal counts: one for making a false statement to Congress and the other for obstructing a congressional proceeding. The grand jury declined to indict him on a third charge. All we know for certain is that the indictment pertains to congressional testimony Comey gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020.  The indictment alleges that Comey “willfully and knowingly” made a “materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to a senator that day when Comey said he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.” The statement was false, the indictment says, because Comey “then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.” The indictment does not identify “PERSON 1,” “PERSON 3” or the news reports in question. But the indictment appears to be referring to an exchange Comey had when questioned in the 2020 hearing by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who had asked Comey about previous testimony Comey gave to Congress on May 3, 2017, days before Trump fired Comey. What did Cruz ask Comey? Cruz said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley had asked Comey in the 2017 hearing if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” and if he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration.” Comey testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017. Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images. Grassley actually had asked about reports about the “Clinton investigation” – not the “Clinton administration,” as Cruz said. (The Trump investigation was about alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election, and the Clinton investigation was about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.) Comey answered “never” and “no” to Grassley’s questions, Cruz pointed out. Cruz then said that Andrew McCabe, who was Comey’s deputy director at the FBI, had admitted to leaking information to the Wall Street Journal in October 2016 and said that Comey was “directly aware of it” and “directly authorized it.” When Cruz said that Comey and McCabe could not both be telling the truth, Comey said: “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.” Is the indictment about McCabe? But Cruz was wrong when he claimed that McCabe had said Comey approved the leak. McCabe had already admitted that he – not Comey –  authorized two other FBI officials to provide information about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation to the Wall Street Journal for an Oct. 30, 2016, story. A 2018 inspector general report concluded that Comey learned of the leak after the story was published, and that McCabe, in a meeting with Comey, was not initially forthcoming about being the one who permitted the disclosure to a Wall Street Journal reporter. McCabe told IG investigators that he “did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the [Wall Street Journal] article that he intended to authorize or had authorized” the leak “although he said it was possible he did.” McCabe told investigators that after the article was published, he told Comey that he had authorized the leak and Comey “did not react negatively, just kind of accepted it” and that Comey thought it was “a ‘good’ idea,” according to the IG report. Comey gave IG investigators a different account, saying that, at the time, McCabe “definitely did not tell me that he authorized” the leak. The IG investigators concluded based on “considerable circumstantial evidence” that “the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation.” McCabe spoke to the issue this week, saying in a Sept. 28 CNN interview that because Comey didn’t approve the leak, “I absolutely do not believe” that issue is the premise for the Comey indictment.  McCabe said the Justice Department has not interviewed him as part of its investigation. “If my interactions with Jim Comey nine years ago in October 2016 was going to be the basis of this entire prosecution, it’s unbelievable to think that prosecutors wouldn’t at least want to sit down and hear what I had to say about it,” McCabe said. What else could the indictment be about? Jake Tapper, who interviewed McCabe on CNN, reported on his weekday show Sept. 26 that an unnamed source familiar with the indictment told Tapper that “PERSON 3” is Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is currently a law professor at Columbia Law School. Richman is a personal friend of Comey and worked as a “special government employee” at the FBI from June 2015 until February 2017, during Comey’s tenure as

James Comey, a former director of the FBI, was indicted on two criminal counts on Sept. 25 by a federal grand jury in Virginia. But the barely two-page indictment provides very little information about the underlying evidence for the charges of lying to Congress.  The indictment came just days after President Donald Trump publicly pressed the Department of Justice to prosecute Comey and installed Lindsey Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, a former personal attorney for Trump, replaced Erik Siebert, who was pushed out of the position. ABC News reported, based on anonymous sources, that Siebert and other career prosecutors who led the investigation of Comey had believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against him. It was Halligan, who had no prior experience as a prosecutor, who presented the case to the grand jury. Comey was FBI director from 2013 to 2017, when Trump fired him. In this story, we cover the few details we know about the indictment and what Comey told Congress. What are the charges against Comey? The grand jury indicted Comey on two criminal counts: one for making a false statement to Congress and the other for obstructing a congressional proceeding. The grand jury declined to indict him on a third charge. All we know for certain is that the indictment pertains to congressional testimony Comey gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020.  The indictment alleges that Comey “willfully and knowingly” made a “materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement” to a senator that day when Comey said he “had not ‘authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports’ regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.” The statement was false, the indictment says, because Comey “then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.” The indictment does not identify “PERSON 1,” “PERSON 3” or the news reports in question. But the indictment appears to be referring to an exchange Comey had when questioned in the 2020 hearing by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who had asked Comey about previous testimony Comey gave to Congress on May 3, 2017, days before Trump fired Comey. What did Cruz ask Comey? Cruz said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley had asked Comey in the 2017 hearing if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” and if he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration.” Comey testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017. Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images. Grassley actually had asked about reports about the “Clinton investigation” – not the “Clinton administration,” as Cruz said. (The Trump investigation was about alleged collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election, and the Clinton investigation was about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.) Comey answered “never” and “no” to Grassley’s questions, Cruz pointed out. Cruz then said that Andrew McCabe, who was Comey’s deputy director at the FBI, had admitted to leaking information to the Wall Street Journal in October 2016 and said that Comey was “directly aware of it” and “directly authorized it.” When Cruz said that Comey and McCabe could not both be telling the truth, Comey said: “I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.” Is the indictment about McCabe? But Cruz was wrong when he claimed that McCabe had said Comey approved the leak. McCabe had already admitted that he – not Comey –  authorized two other FBI officials to provide information about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation to the Wall Street Journal for an Oct. 30, 2016, story. A 2018 inspector general report concluded that Comey learned of the leak after the story was published, and that McCabe, in a meeting with Comey, was not initially forthcoming about being the one who permitted the disclosure to a Wall Street Journal reporter. McCabe told IG investigators that he “did not recall telling Comey prior to publication of the [Wall Street Journal] article that he intended to authorize or had authorized” the leak “although he said it was possible he did.” McCabe told investigators that after the article was published, he told Comey that he had authorized the leak and Comey “did not react negatively, just kind of accepted it” and that Comey thought it was “a ‘good’ idea,” according to the IG report. Comey gave IG investigators a different account, saying that, at the time, McCabe “definitely did not tell me that he authorized” the leak. The IG investigators concluded based on “considerable circumstantial evidence” that “the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation.” McCabe spoke to the issue this week, saying in a Sept. 28 CNN interview that because Comey didn’t approve the leak, “I absolutely do not believe” that issue is the premise for the Comey indictment.  McCabe said the Justice Department has not interviewed him as part of its investigation. “If my interactions with Jim Comey nine years ago in October 2016 was going to be the basis of this entire prosecution, it’s unbelievable to think that prosecutors wouldn’t at least want to sit down and hear what I had to say about it,” McCabe said. What else could the indictment be about? Jake Tapper, who interviewed McCabe on CNN, reported on his weekday show Sept. 26 that an unnamed source familiar with the indictment told Tapper that “PERSON 3” is Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor who is currently a law professor at Columbia Law School. Richman is a personal friend of Comey and worked as a “special government employee” at the FBI from June 2015 until February 2017, during Comey’s tenure as

In a Sept. 22 press conference that he had billed as “one of the biggest [medical] announcements … in the history of our country,” President Donald Trump touted an unproven link between autism and the use of Tylenol, or acetaminophen, during pregnancy. Trump repeatedly told pregnant women not to take Tylenol and to “tough it out,” due to an association between the medication and autism. But the medication has not been established to cause autism, and some research indicates it likely doesn’t. Untreated pain or fever during pregnancy can be harmful to both mother and child. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary claimed the dean of Harvard University’s public health school said “there is a causal relationship” between Tylenol and autism. The dean did say that in written testimony for a lawsuit in 2023, but in a statement issued before the press conference he only said that a causal relationship was a possibility. Trump advised, “Don’t give Tylenol to the baby after the baby’s born.” Research hasn’t shown a causal link to autism for that, either. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that acetaminophen is “safe for children when taken, or dosed, correctly and under the guidance of a child’s pediatrician.” Months ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had promised a press conference like this one pinpointing the causes of autism. In an Aug. 26 Cabinet meeting, Kennedy said that the administration will “have announcements, as promised, in September. We’re finding interventions, certain interventions now, that are clearly, almost certainly causing autism.” But the press conference didn’t identify clear causes of autism. The administration’s suggestions about the role of acetaminophen go beyond what the research has shown. The hourlong press conference also included several false and misleading claims from Trump and Kennedy about autism and vaccines, which we addressed in a separate article. Tylenol During Pregnancy Trump repeatedly urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, citing an association between the medication and autism. The FDA will be telling doctors that taking Tylenol, or acetaminophen, “during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism,” Trump said. “So taking Tylenol is not good. All right, I’ll say it. It’s not good.” Photo by MichaelVi /stock.adobe.com “Don’t take Tylenol. Don’t take it. … Fight like hell not to take it,” he said later in the press conference, during which he urged women to “tough it out” and repeated the phrase “don’t take Tylenol” around a dozen times. But acetaminophen during pregnancy is far from having been established to cause autism, as we have written previously, and there is evidence indicating it likely does not. Moreover, there are limited treatments available for pregnant people experiencing pain or fever, and failing to treat these problems can have risks, expert organizations say. “As far as the evidence goes, it points towards no causal association between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism,” Brian Lee, a professor of epidemiology at Drexel University’s Dornsife School of Public Health, told us in an interview for a previous story. In observational research, it can be difficult to tell whether one thing that is associated with another actually causes that outcome. People with greater genetic risk for neurodevelopmental conditions, such as autism, are also known to take more acetaminophen in pregnancy, Lee said. So in this case, genetics could explain both why someone might use more acetaminophen and why that person might be more likely to have a child with autism. Concern about acetaminophen during pregnancy is not new, nor did Trump or others present new research into the topic at the press conference. Several studies have shown an association between acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. But some recent studies, including a large one by Lee and colleagues, have found that associations go away when comparing siblings. This suggests that acetaminophen is not causing autism or ADHD. “Today’s announcement by HHS is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children,” Dr. Steven J. Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a Sept. 22 statement. “Despite assertions to the contrary, a thorough review of existing research suggesting a potential link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and an increased risk of autism and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children has not established a causal relationship,” a statement from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine also said on the same day. In his remarks, Makary, the FDA commissioner, referred to two studies from 2019 on acetaminophen during pregnancy, including one that showed an association with autism and ADHD and another showing an association with ADHD. “We now have data we cannot ignore,” he said. Neither of the studies, which were both observational, claimed to have established acetaminophen as an autism or ADHD cause. The study showing an association between acetaminophen and both autism and ADHD, published in JAMA Psychiatry, had significant limitations, as we reported previously. Researchers found an association between the two conditions and the amount of acetaminophen components found in blood from a baby’s umbilical cord. As we wrote, looking at acetaminophen in cord blood only indicates recent use around the time of childbirth, as opposed to use throughout pregnancy. And researchers have pointed out that the sample of children in the study was unusual. All cord blood samples showed at least some acetaminophen exposure, and the children had a very high rate of autism and ADHD. Makary also mentioned a recent review study, published Aug. 14 in Environmental Health. The study did not present new research. Rather, it reviewed the existing literature on acetaminophen during pregnancy and autism, finding “evidence consistent with an association between acetaminophen exposure during pregnancy and increased incidence” of neurodevelopmental disorders. The study did not do a quantitative analysis of the studies’ findings, but rather described the existing literature, with flexibility for the authors to interpret the quality of the available studies and decide how much

In the battle over how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act affects rural hospitals, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has touted a five-year $50 billion fund as “an infusion of cash” that will “restore and revitalize” rural communities. But his statements ignore the higher estimated Medicaid spending cuts to rural areas under the law. An aerial view of Valley Health Hampshire Memorial Hospital on June 17 in Romney, West Virginia. Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images. Other administration officials have made similar claims, such as Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. He and Kennedy have misleadingly claimed the fund would be a 50% increase over Medicaid spending now going to rural hospitals. The independent health policy research organization KFF estimated that the OBBBA’s Medicaid provisions could lower federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years. An analysis by Manatt, a legal consulting firm, for the National Rural Health Association estimated a smaller impact on rural hospitals alone (not more broadly to rural areas) — a reduction of $58 billion in federal Medicaid funds over a decade. At an Aug. 26 Cabinet meeting, Kennedy said: “Right now, we spend 7% of Medicaid dollars on rural hospitals. So, they’re getting the short end of the stick. It’s about $19 billion a year. Under the rural transformation program, we give them an extra $10 billion a year. So, we’re raising an infusion of cash of rural hospitals and rural communities by 50%. It’s going to be the biggest infusion in history and it’s going to restore and revitalize these communities.” Oz used the same figures in Sept. 16 remarks at a Senate Republican press conference. In addition to the fund falling short of estimates of the law’s Medicaid cuts, there are questions about how the $50 billion fund will be distributed. “It’s unclear what portion of that would eventually go to hospitals versus other providers. It’s also ultimately unclear whether all the dollars will go to rural areas,” Zachary Levinson, project director of the KFF project on hospital costs, told us. Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families, noted that this funding was “a short-term patch,” while the Medicaid funding reductions in the law “go on forever.” On Sept. 15, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced details on how states could apply for the $50 billion fund, called the Rural Health Transformation Program, with a deadline of Nov. 5. CMS will make decisions on the applications by Dec. 31. In a video announcing the opening of the application period, Kennedy again used the 7% figure: “Right now, only 7% of Medicaid hospital spending reaches rural hospitals. That’s got to change,” he said. A White House memo said that figure came from the CMS Office of the Actuary and was the percentage of Medicaid hospital spending, both inpatient and outpatient, that goes to rural hospitals. HHS didn’t respond to our request for more information about the figure. The debate over the OBBBA included concern over the viability of rural hospitals, many of which are already on shaky financial footing. An August report from the Center for Healthcare Quality & Payment Reform said that about a third of rural hospitals in the U.S. “are at risk of closing because of the serious financial problems they are experiencing,” and 14%, or 322 rural hospitals, are “at immediate risk of closing.” The $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program was added to the legislation to address those concerns. In July, after the OBBBA was enacted, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, who voted for the legislation, introduced a bill to double that fund to $100 billion over 10 years, and to repeal provisions of the law that impact the financing of rural hospitals. No action has been taken on the legislation. Overall, the OBBBA reduces federal Medicaid spending by $911 billion over 10 years, KFF estimates, and increases the number of people without health insurance by 10 million by 2034, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated, with most of that increase (7.5 million) because of the law’s Medicaid provisions, which include new work requirements. The Law’s Impact and How the Fund Works Reductions in insurance coverage among rural residents because of the OBBBA would mean a reduction in Medicaid dollars flowing to rural health care providers, such as hospitals. The law also affects rural hospitals by prohibiting states from increasing or instituting new provider taxes, which states have used to supplement payments to hospitals to cover uncompensated care, as we’ve written before. And it puts limits on state directed payments, which states can use to require managed care organizations to pay health care providers certain rates for services. Hawley’s bill called for repealing both of those aspects of the law. As we said, KFF estimated that the OBBBA would reduce federal Medicaid spending in rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years. That’s $87 billion more than the five-year rural health fund that Kennedy has promoted. KFF’s figure doesn’t include state matching funds, which would also decline due to decreases in Medicaid enrollment, or the potential impact of insurance coverage losses due to changes to the Affordable Care Act marketplaces under the law. (CBO estimates 2.1 million people will be uninsured by 2034 due to those changes.) “While providers could potentially offset at least some of the cuts—including through the new rural health funding—any financial pressure on hospitals and other providers could lead to layoffs of staff, more limited investments in quality improvements, fewer services, or additional rural hospital closures,” the KFF report said. States with larger rural populations would see larger reductions in Medicaid funding. “Over half of the spending reductions in rural areas are among 12 states that have large rural populations and have expanded Medicaid under the ACA, 10 of which could see rural federal Medicaid spending decline by $5 billion or more over 10 years,”