ReportWire

Tag: committee member

  • California’s role in shaping the fate of the Democratic Party and combating Trump on full display

    California’s potential to lead a national Democratic comeback was on full display as party leaders from across the country recently gathered in downtown Los Angeles.

    But is the party ready to bet on the Golden State?

    Appearances at the Democratic National Committee meeting by the state’s most prominent Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom, crystallized the peril and promise of California’s appeal. Harris failed to beat a politically wounded Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential race and Newsom, now among President Trump’s most celebrated critics, is considered a top Democratic contender to replace the Republican president in the White House in 2028.

    California policies on divisive issues such as providing expanded access to government-sponsored healthcare, aiding undocumented immigrants and supporting LGBTQ+ rights continually serve as a Rorschach test for the nation’s polarized electorate, providing comfort to progressives and ammunition for Republican attack ads.

    “California is like your cool cousin that comes for the holidays who is intriguing and glamorous, but who might not fit in with the family year-round,” said Elizabeth Ashford, a veteran Democratic strategist who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Harris when she was the state’s attorney general.

    Newsom, in particular, is quick to boast about California being home to the world’s fourth-largest economy, a billion-dollar agricultural industry and economic and cultural powerhouses in Hollywood and the Silicon Valley. Critics, Trump chief among them, paint the state as a dystopian hellhole — littered with homeless encampments and lawlessness, and plagued by high taxes and an even higher cost of living.

    Only two Californians have been elected president, Republicans Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. But that was generations ago, and Harris and Newsom are considering bids to end the decades-long drought in 2028. Both seized the moment by courting party leaders and activists during the three-day winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee that ended Saturday.

    Harris, speaking to committee members and guests Friday, said the party’s victories in state elections across the nation in November reflect voters’ agitation about the impacts of Trump’s policies, notably affordability and healthcare costs. But she argued that “both parties have failed to hold the public’s trust.”

    “So as we plan for what comes after this administration, we cannot afford to be nostalgic for what was, in fact, a flawed status quo, and a system that failed so many of you,” said Harris, who was criticized after her presidential campaign for not focusing enough on kitchen table issues, including the increasing financial strains faced by Americans.

    While Harris, who ruled out running for governor earlier this year, did not address whether she would make another bid for the White House in 2028, she argued that the party needed to be introspective about its future.

    “We need to answer the question, what comes next for our party and our democracy, and in so doing, we must be honest that for so many, the American dream has become more of a myth than a reality,” she said.

    Many of the party leaders who spoke at the gathering focused on California’s possible role in determining control of Congress after voters in November approved Proposition 50, a rare mid-decade redrawing of congressional districts in an effort to boost the number of Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation in the 2026 election.

    Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass rallied the crowd by reminding them that Democrats took back the U.S. House of Representatives during Trump’s first term and predicted the state would be critical in next year’s midterm elections.

    Mayor Karen Bass speaks at the Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting at the InterContinental Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Friday.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    Newsom, who championed Proposition 50, basked in that victory when he strode through the hotel’s corridors at the DNC meeting the day before, stopping every few feet to talk to committee members, shake their hands and take selfies.

    “There’s just a sense of optimism here,” Newsom said.

    Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia also won races by a significant margin last month which, party leaders say, were all telltale signs of growing voter dissatisfaction with Trump and Washington’s Republican leadership.

    “The party, more broadly, got their sea legs back, and they’re winning,” Newsom said. “And winning solves a lot of problems.”

    Louisiana committee member Katie Darling teared up as she watched fellow Democrats flock to Newsom.

    “He really is trying to bring people together during a very difficult time,” said Darling, who grew up in Sacramento in a Republican household. “He gets a lot of pushback for talking to and working with Republicans, but when he does that, I see him talking to my mom and dad who I love, who I vehemently disagree with politically. … I do think that we need to talk to each other to move the country forward.”

    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks as his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom looks on

    Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks as his wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom looks on during an election night gathering at the California Democratic Party headquarters on November 04, 2025 in Sacramento.

    (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

    Darling said she listens to Newsom’s podcast, where his choice of guests, including the late Charlie Kirk, and his comments on the show that transgender athletes taking part in women’s sports is “deeply unfair” have drawn outrage from some on the left.

    Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, another potential 2028 presidential candidate whose family has historically supported Newsom, was also reportedly on site Thursday, holding closed-door meetings. And former Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, also a possible White House contender, was in Los Angeles on Thursday, appearing on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show and holding meetings.

    Corrin Rankin, chair of the California Republican Party, cast the DNC meetings in L.A. as “anti-Trump sessions” and pointed to the homeless encampments on Skid Row, just blocks from where committee members gathered.

    “We need accountability and solutions that actually get people off the streets, make communities safer and life more affordable,” Rankin said.

    Elected officials from across the nation are drawn to California because of its wellspring of wealthy political donors. The state was the largest source of contributions to the campaign committees of Trump and Harris during the 2024 presidential contest, contributing nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, according to the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Open Secrets, which tracks electoral finances.

    While the DNC gathering focused mostly on mundane internal business, the gathering of party leaders attracted liberal groups seeking to raise money and draw attention to their causes.

    Actor Jane Fonda and comedian Nikki Glaser headlined an event aimed at increasing the minimum wage at the Three Clubs cocktail bar in Hollywood. California already has among the highest minimum wages in the nation; one of the organizers of the event is campaigning to increase the rate to $30 per hour in some California counties.

    “The affordability crisis is pushing millions of Americans to the edge, and no democracy can survive when people who work full time cannot afford basic necessities,” Fonda said prior to the event. “Raising wages is one of the most powerful ways to give families stability and hope.”

    But California’s liberal policies have been viewed as a liability for Democrats elsewhere, where issues such as transgender rights and providing healthcare for undocumented immigrants have not been warmly received by some blue-collar workers who once formed the party’s base.

    Trump capitalized on that disconnect in the closing months of the 2024 presidential contest, when his campaign aired ads that highlighted Harris’ support of transgender rights, including taxpayer-funded gender-affirming surgery for inmates.

    “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you,” the commercial stated. The ad aired more than 30,000 times in swing states in the fall, notably during football games and NASCAR races.

    “Kamala had 99 problems. California wasn’t one of them,” said John Podesta, a veteran Democratic strategist who served a senior advisor to former President Biden, counselor to former President Obama and White House chief of staff for former President Clinton.

    He disputed the argument that California, whether through its policies or candidates, will impact Democrats’ chances, arguing there’s a broader disconnect between the party and its voters.

    “This sense that Democrats lost touch with the middle class and the poor in favor of the cultural elite is a real problem,” said Podesta. “My shorthand is, we used to be the party of the factory floor, and now we’re the party of the faculty lounge. That’s not a California problem. It’s an elitist problem.”

    While Podesta isn’t backing anyone yet in the 2028 presidential contest, he praised Newsom for his efforts to not only buck Trump but the “leftist extremists” in the Democratic party.

    The narrative of Californians being out of touch with many Americans has been exacerbated this year during the state’s battles with the Trump administration over immigration, climate change, water and artificial intelligence policy. But Newsom and committee members argued that the state has been at the vanguard of where the nation will eventually head.

    “I am very proud of California. It’s a state that’s not just about growth, it’s about inclusion,” the governor said, before ticking off a list of California initiatives, including low-priced insulin and higher minimum wages. “So much of the policy that’s coming out of the state of California promotes not just promise, but policy direction that I think is really important for the party.”

    Seema Mehta, Dakota Smith

    Source link

  • The Cold-Medication Racket

    The Cold-Medication Racket

    You wake up with a stuffy nose, so you head to the pharmacy, where a plethora of options awaits in the cold-and-flu aisle. Ah, how lucky you are to live in 21st-century America. There’s Sudafed PE, which promises “maximum-strength sinus pressure and nasal congestion relief.” Sounds great. Or why not grab DayQuil in case other symptoms show up, or Tylenol Cold + Flu Severe should whatever it is get really bad? Could you have allergies instead? Good thing you can get Benadryl Allergy Plus Congestion, too.

    Unfortunately for you and me and everyone else in this country, the decongestant in all of these pills and syrups is entirely ineffective. The brand names might be different, but the active ingredient aimed at congestion is the same: phenylephrine. Roughly two decades ago, oral phenylephrine began proliferating on pharmacy shelves despite mounting—and now damning—evidence that the drug simply does not work.

    “It has been an open secret among pharmacists,” says Randy Hatton, a pharmacy professor at the University of Florida, who filed a citizen petition in 2007 and again in 2015 asking the FDA to reevaluate phenylephrine. This week, an advisory panel to the FDA voted 16–0 that the drug is ineffective orally, which could pave the way for the agency to finally pull the drug.

    If so, the impact would be huge. Phenylephrine is combined with fever reducers, cough suppressants, or antihistamines in many popular multidrug products such as the aforementioned DayQuil. Americans collectively shell out $1.763 billion a year for cold and allergy meds with phenylephrine, according to the FDA, which also calls the number a likely underestimate. That’s a lot of money for a decongestant that, again, does not work.

    Over-the-counter oral decongestants weren’t always this bad. But in the early 2000s, states began restricting access to pseudoephedrine—a different drug that actually is effective against congestion—because it could be used to make meth; the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, signed in 2006, took the restrictions national. You can still buy real-deal Sudafed containing pseudoephedrine, but you have to show an ID and sign a logbook. Meanwhile, manufacturers filled over-the-counter shelves with phenylephrine replacements such as Sudafed PE. The PE is for phenylephrine, but you would be forgiven for not noticing the different name.

    “Thet switch from pseudoephedrine to phenylephrine was a big mistake,” says Ronald Eccles, who ran the Common Cold Unit at Cardiff University until his retirement. Eccles was critical of the switch back in 2006. The evidence, he wrote at the time, was already pointing to phenylephrine as a lousy oral drug.

    Problems started showing up quickly. Hatton, who was then a co-director of the University of Florida Drug Information Center, started getting a flurry of questions about phenylephrine: Does it work? What’s the right dose? Because my patients are complaining that it’s not doing anything. He decided to investigate, and he went deep. Hatton filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the data behind FDA’s initial evaluation of the drug in 1976. He soon found himself searching through a banker’s box of records, looking for studies whose raw data he and a postdoctoral resident typed up by hand to reanalyze. The 14 studies the FDA had considered at the time had mixed results. Five of the positive ones were all conducted at the same research center, whose results looked better than everyone else’s. Hutton’s team thought that was suspicious. If you excluded those studies, the drug no longer looked effective at its usual dose.

    All told, the case for phenylephrine was not great, but the case against was no slam dunk either. When Hatton and colleagues at the University of Florida, including Leslie Hendeles, filed a citizen petition, they asked the agency to increase the maximum dose to something that could be more effective. They did not ask to pull the drug entirely.

    There was more damning evidence to come, though. The petition led to a first FDA advisory committee meeting, in 2007, where scientists from a pharmaceutical company named Schering-Plough, which later became Merck, presented brand-new data. The company had begun studying the drug, Hatton and Hendeles recalled, because it was interested in replacing the pseudoepinephrine in its allergy drug Claritin-D. But these industry scientists did not come to defend phenylephrine. Instead, they dismantled the very foundation of the drug’s supposed efficacy.

    They showed that almost no phenylephrine reaches the nasal passages, where it theoretically could reduce congestion and swelling by causing blood vessels to constrict. When taken orally, most of it gets destroyed in the gut; only 1 percent is active in the bloodstream. This seemed to be borne out by what people experienced when they took the drug—which was nothing. The scientists presented two more studies that found phenylephrine to be no better than placebo in people congested because of pollen allergies.

    These studies, the FDA later wrote, were “remarkable,” changing the way the agency thought about how oral phenylephrine works in the body. But experts still weren’t ready to write the drug off entirely. The 2007 meeting ended with the advisory committee asking for data from higher doses.

    The story for phenylephrine only got worse from there. In hopes of making an effective product, Merck went to study higher doses in two randomized clinical trials published in 2015 and 2016. “We went double, triple, quadruple—showed no benefit,” Eli Meltzer, an allergist who helped conduct the trials for Merck, said at the FDA-advisory-panel meeting this week. In other words, not only is phenylephrine ineffective at the labeled dosage of 10 milligrams every four hours, it is not even effective at four times that dose. These data prompted Hatton and Hendeles to file a second citizen petition and helped prompt this week’s advisory meeting. This time, the panel didn’t need any more data. “We’re kind of beating a dead horse … This is a done deal as far as I’m concerned. It doesn’t work,” one committee member, Paul Pisarik, said at the meeting. The advisory’s 16–0 vote is not binding, though, so it’s still up to the FDA to decide what to do about phenylephrine.

    In any case, phenylephrine is not the only cold-and-flu drug with questionable effectiveness in its approved form. The common cough drugs guaifenesin and dextromethorphan have both come under fire. But we lack the robust clinical-trial data to draw a definitive conclusion on those one way or the other. “What really helped our case is the fact that Merck funded those studies,” Hatton says. And that Merck let its scientists publish them. Failed studies from drug companies usually don’t see the light of day because they present few incentives for publication. Changing the consensus on phenylephrine took an extraordinary set of circumstances.

    It also required two dogged guys who have now been at this work for nearly two decades. “We’re just a couple of older professors from the University of Florida trying to do what’s best for society,” Hatton told me. When I asked whether they would be tackling other cold medications, he demurred: “I don’t know if either one of us has another 20 years in us.” He would instead like to see public funding for trials like Merck’s to reevaluate other over-the-counter drugs.

    There are other effective decongestants on pharmacy shelves. Even though phenylephrine does not work in pill form, “phenylephrine is very effective if you spray it into the nose,” Hendeles says. Neo-Synephrine is one such phenylephrine spray. Other nasal sprays containing other decongestants, such as Afrin, are also effective. But the only other common oral decongestant is pseudoephedrine, which requires that extra step of asking the pharmacist.
    Restricting pseudoephedrine has not  curbed the meth epidemic, either. Meth-related overdoses are skyrocketing, after Mexican drug rings perfected a newer, cheap way to make methamphetamine without using pseudoephedrine at all. This actually effective drug still remains behind the counter, while ineffective ones fill the shelves.

    Sarah Zhang

    Source link