New reports and lawsuits raise public-health and oversight concerns
Health authorities and families are still grappling with the fallout from a high-profile infant-formula recall linked to cereulide, a toxin produced by certain bacteria. In the U.K., more than 30 clinical reports described symptoms consistent with cereulide exposure in infants. In France, at least 20 families have launched legal action alleging failures in how the recall and associated investigations were handled.
What has been established so far
Clinical reports across several countries have described illnesses in infants whose cases health officials say are consistent with cereulide toxin exposure.
Governments and industry have pulled affected batches from the market and initiated investigations; families in some countries are pursuing legal remedies focused on investigative and regulatory lapses.
Why this matters to parents and the supply chain
Trust: The recalls and ensuing litigation have shaken parents’ confidence in a highly regulated product category that many rely on exclusively.
Availability: Recalls can tighten supplies and complicate access for families already struggling with limited local stocks; substitutes are not always straightforward for medically vulnerable infants.
Oversight: The legal actions underline demands for clearer, faster testing and more transparent communication from manufacturers and regulators.
What to watch next
Results of official investigations and any updated guidance from public-health agencies.
Whether the legal cases push changes in inspection regimes, testing standards, or liability rules for producers.
Authorities continue to investigate the precise causes and scope of illness reports. For parents and caregivers, officials advise following official recall notices and consulting pediatricians about safe feeding alternatives, but supply and regulatory questions remain the central public issues.
Court halts administration’s attempt to withdraw public health funding
A federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from rescinding roughly $600 million in public health grants that had already been allocated to four Democratic-led states. The funds, which were administered by a federal agency for prevention programs, had been earmarked for state health departments and smaller partner organisations; plaintiffs challenged the administration’s effort to claw them back through legal action.
The injunction preserves funding while the lawsuit proceeds. Plaintiffs argued that withdrawing the grants after allocation would unlawfully disrupt public-health programs and harm beneficiaries; the court’s order prevents immediate disruption to services that rely on those dollars. The legal challenge and the judge’s ruling underscore how funding decisions can quickly become litigated when tied to partisan disputes.
What the ruling does and does not do
It keeps the contested grants available to the states and their partners for now.
It does not resolve the underlying legal questions; further litigation will determine whether the administration had authority to rescind the awards.
It does not create new funding obligations beyond what was already allocated.
Why this matters for public health
Program continuity: Preserving funds avoids abrupt interruptions to prevention and care services that could affect communities served by state programs and partner organisations.
Precedent: The outcome could influence future federal decisions about reallocating or retracting already-awarded public-health grants.
Political stakes: The dispute highlights how public-health financing can become entangled with federal–state political conflicts, with potential consequences for service delivery and planning.
States, federal officials, and affected organisations will be watching the litigation closely for its potential to shape grant-making and program stability going forward.
Measles resurgence: how outbreaks are spreading and what it means
Recent spikes in measles cases across the United States reflect a mix of falling childhood vaccination rates, large public gatherings, and international importations. Health departments have confirmed exposures at mass events and are contacting potentially exposed attendees; in some instances, states and regions have reported clusters that prompted local health alerts and school measures.
Public-health officials point to a longer-term decline in routine childhood immunisation coverage as a major driver. When vaccination rates fall below the levels needed for herd immunity, one imported case can ignite an outbreak. The situation has also strained public health resources and raised concerns that the U.S. risks losing its measles elimination status if transmission becomes sustained.
Immediate actions being taken
Contact tracing and targeted vaccination campaigns to contain spread.
Public advisories urging people to check immunisation records and get vaccinated if unprotected.
In affected regions, schools and local authorities have at times recommended mask use or increased health screenings.
Who should act now
Infants and unvaccinated children: catch-up immunisations are critical.
Adults without documented two-dose coverage: check records and get vaccinated if needed.
Travelers: ensure measles vaccination before international trips, especially to areas with outbreaks.
Why this matters beyond immediate cases
Measles is highly contagious and can cause severe complications. Rising incidence threatens vulnerable populations, including infants too young for routine vaccination and people with weakened immune systems. Reversing these trends requires restoring routine immunisation programs, countering misinformation, and rapid public-health responses to outbreaks to prevent wider community transmission.
FDA declines to accept Moderna’s mRNA influenza application U.S. regulators refused to move forward with Moderna’s request to license an mRNA based influenza vaccine after concluding that the company compared its candidate against a flu shot that was not the best standard of care. The Food and…
A new wave of glucagon‑like peptide‑1 (GLP‑1) drugs is changing how people treat obesity and weight regain. Originally approved for people with overweight or obesity, these medications are sometimes being used after bariatric surgery to prevent the return of pounds, or by people seeking to maintain a normal weight. They can produce meaningful weight loss for many patients, but their expanding use has raised safety and clinical questions.
Known and signaled risks
– Visual concerns: A U.K. agency issued a warning connecting some GLP‑1 drugs with potential vision problems, prompting clinicians and regulators to advise monitoring patients for eye symptoms. The exact magnitude and mechanism of this risk are not fully established.
– Surgical and organ issues: Clinicians and researchers have noted increases in some procedures, such as gallbladder removals, occurring alongside broad uptake of weight‑loss injections; researchers say more study is needed to understand any causal link.
– Long-term effects and off‑label use: Many uses now seen in practice—such as long-term maintenance in people without clinical obesity or post-surgical prevention of weight regain—extend beyond the initial trial populations. Long‑term safety data in those groups remain limited.
Practical considerations for patients and clinicians
– Weigh benefits against potential harms for each person: improved cardiometabolic risk factors and weight loss may be valuable, but monitoring plans should address gastrointestinal effects, gallbladder concerns, and any new visual complaints.
– Shared decision making: Discuss why the medication is being considered, what evidence supports the intended use, and what monitoring will occur.
– Need for research: Larger, longer studies are required to define the risk profile for newer uses and to clarify rare but serious adverse events.
At present, these drugs offer benefits for many patients, but expanding their use beyond studied populations calls for careful clinical oversight and more evidence.
Outbreaks are appearing in multiple places and health officials are urging stronger vaccine uptake. U.S. authorities and state health departments have reported rising confirmed cases, while officials in Mexico have announced clusters that have prompted school screening and mask recommendations in affected regions.
Public-health officials are reacting on several fronts. Local and national authorities are tracing contacts of confirmed cases, notifying potentially exposed people, and offering or recommending vaccination to those without confirmed immunity. Health messages from senior officials emphasize immunization as the primary prevention tool and urge people who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is uncertain to get protected.
Key actions individuals and communities can take
– Confirm immunity: Check vaccination records and get an MMR shot if not up to date. Children and adults without documented immunity should receive the vaccine.
– Watch for symptoms: Measles causes high fever, cough, runny nose, and a characteristic rash; early recognition helps with rapid public-health actions.
– Follow local guidance: Schools and local health departments may add measures such as increased screening, temporary mask recommendations, and outreach to households in affected areas.
What remains uncertain
The complete national and international case counts fluctuate as investigations and lab confirmations continue. Health authorities have warned that clusters could threaten elimination status where coverage drops, but the full scope and duration of current outbreaks will depend on how quickly vaccination and containment measures scale up.
One clear point from health experts: vitamin A can help in clinical care of measles but is not a substitute for immunization.
Study finds many chemicals in extensions and braiding hair
Researchers analyzed 43 hair extension and braiding products marketed to Black women and detected a total of 169 different chemicals. Among those identified were substances classified as potentially harmful, including flame retardants and pesticides. The study highlights how everyday cosmetic and hair-care products can be sources of chemical exposure, particularly for communities that use these products regularly.
Why these findings matter
Repeated and prolonged contact may increase cumulative exposure for users, salon workers and stylists who handle large volumes of extensions and braiding hair.
Some of the detected compounds have links, in other research, to hormone disruption, respiratory effects, or other health concerns when exposure levels are significant.
Regulatory oversight for cosmetic and accessory products varies, so consumers may not be aware of what chemicals are present or what safety testing has been done.
Key takeaways
The analysis covered a limited sample of products, so findings indicate a potential problem but do not measure users’ actual body burdens.
The study does not establish direct health outcomes; it identifies chemical presence that merits further investigation into exposure levels and long-term risk.
Consumers and workers can reduce potential risks by improving ventilation during styling, washing hands after handling products, and advocating for clearer labeling and safety testing.
Next steps
Researchers and public-health advocates are likely to call for broader testing, better product transparency, and regulatory attention to chemicals used in products that disproportionately affect specific communities. For individuals, staying informed and following safety practices in salons can help reduce avoidable exposures.
Health authorities in both Mexico and the United States are confronting rising measles activity that has prompted alerts and vaccination appeals. Mexican states including Jalisco have declared health alerts and recommended measures such as face masks in schools as cases increase. Mexican leaders said they are confident the outbreak will be controlled, but officials also warned that the situation could threaten the country’s measles-free status.
In the United States, public-health officials are tracking clusters tied to recent events and travel. Local health departments reported possible exposures associated with gatherings such as the March for Life in Washington, D.C., and national tracking shows confirmed cases increasing in several states. A senior U.S. health official publicly urged people to get vaccinated as case counts rose; health authorities have highlighted the need to protect communities where vaccination rates have fallen.
What public-health agencies are doing
Contact tracing and outreach to people exposed at large events.
Targeted vaccination campaigns and reminders to ensure children and adults are up to date.
School and community guidance, including mask recommendations in some Mexican schools.
What we do and do not know
Officials say the outbreaks are linked to gaps in vaccination coverage and travel-related importations, but it’s still unclear how widely transmission will spread in coming weeks. Health leaders emphasize that routine measles vaccination remains the primary tool to stop transmission, and that vitamin A can help treat severe cases but is not a substitute for immunization. Authorities in both countries continue to monitor the situation and urge timely vaccination.
U.S. regulator halted review of Moderna’s mRNA influenza application The Food and Drug Administration declined to accept Moderna’s application seeking approval for an mRNA based seasonal influenza vaccine, creating an unexpected roadblock for the company and broader interest in mRNA approaches to…
Lawsuit follows marketing of unapproved copycat weight‑loss pill
Novo Nordisk filed litigation against Hims & Hers after the telehealth company marketed and sold what Novo alleges are cheaper, unapproved attempts to replicate its branded weight‑loss product. The dispute centers on intellectual property and regulatory compliance related to highly sought-after GLP‑1 weight‑loss medications.
Federal regulators and other officials had warned that the Hims product might be illegal or not appropriately authorized. In response to regulatory scrutiny, Hims & Hers withdrew the knockoff pill from sale and later said it would stop selling a compounded version of the medicine. The maker of the original drug argues that these copycat efforts infringe critical patents and undermine safety and oversight.
Why this matters
Legal and regulatory stakes: The suit signals that major drugmakers will use the courts to protect patents on high-demand obesity medicines. The case could establish how far telehealth platforms and compounding pharmacies can go in offering alternatives to patented drugs.
Patient safety and access: Regulators flagged potential legal and safety problems with the copycat product, and Hims’ withdrawal underlines the scrutiny such offerings face. For patients, the dispute creates uncertainty about affordable alternatives.
Industry consequences: Compounding pharmacies, telehealth providers, and makers of branded drugs are all watching closely. The litigation and prior regulatory warnings may prompt tighter enforcement and caution among companies attempting to market lower-cost versions.
Outstanding questions
It remains unclear how the courts will resolve the patent claims and what penalties, if any, will follow. The longer-term impact on access and pricing for obesity treatments will depend on the legal outcome and any regulatory actions that follow.
Local impact: nearly 200 jobs tied to a pork-processor shutdown
A U.S. pork-processing plant operated by Smithfield Foods is slated to close, directly affecting 190 jobs. Company announcements framed this as another local plant closure, underscoring ongoing consolidation and operational changes within large meat processors.
The immediate consequences are straightforward: the affected employees will lose work, and the community that depends on the plant—for payroll tax revenue, supplier business, and local services—will feel the reverberations. For the regional supply chain, a plant shutdown can reduce local processing capacity, which may create short-term logistical pressures as product flows are rerouted to other facilities.
Key points to watch
Worker support and transition: layoffs of this size typically prompt discussions about severance, unemployment benefits, and any company-led assistance for job placement or retraining.
Supply-chain redistribution: product volume previously handled at the closed site will need to move to other Smithfield facilities or third-party processors, which can create temporary bottlenecks.
Local economic fallout: smaller vendors and service providers who relied on plant business often see reduced demand following a closure.
What remains unknown
The publicly available report does not specify the plant’s location or the timeline for the shutdown.
The company did not detail whether the jobs will be relocated, phased out gradually, or cut immediately.
A closure affecting 190 positions is significant for any small or mid-sized community; beyond the immediate job losses, it prompts broader questions about regional resilience, food-supply logistics, and how large processors will manage capacity in the months ahead.
Gaps in vaccination and local outbreaks are driving cases
Health officials have reported clusters of measles across several places, prompting targeted responses. In Mexico a growing outbreak led the state of Jalisco to issue a health alert, step up screening in schools and recommend face masks; the president of Mexico said she was confident the outbreak would be controlled. In the United States, public-health leaders warned the country risks losing its measles-elimination status as confirmed cases have risen and officials traced possible exposures among large events such as the March for Life rally.
Public-health actions so far
Enhanced screening and mask recommendations in affected Mexican schools.
Contact tracing and outreach after identified exposure events in the U.S.
Public appeals from health leaders urging vaccination, including a call by a senior health official for people to get inoculated.
Why this matters
Measles is highly contagious and can spread quickly where vaccination coverage falls. Even brief lapses in childhood vaccine uptake leave communities vulnerable and force health systems to mobilize testing, outreach and isolation measures to limit spread. Vitamin A can help treat measles complications but is not a substitute for immunization.
What remains uncertain
Officials have not published complete national timelines on how long current outbreaks might last, and broader drivers—such as the precise breakdown of immunity gaps in specific communities—are still being mapped. Public-health agencies continue to track cases and advise vaccination as the primary defense.
Benefits, rising use, and emerging safety questions
New injectable and oral GLP‑1 medications were developed and approved to help people with obesity or overweight lose weight and improve metabolic health. Their popularity has expanded rapidly: some patients use these medicines after bariatric surgery to prevent weight regain, while others are trying them to maintain a lower weight once they have lost pounds.
What is known about benefits and risks
Benefits: These drugs can produce clinically meaningful weight loss and are a tool for treating obesity when paired with lifestyle measures. They may help people sustain weight loss that otherwise tends to reverse over time.
Safety signals and concerns: Regulatory bodies and clinicians have flagged possible harms. A U.K. agency issued a warning about potential vision problems linked to these drugs. Clinicians and researchers are also looking into reports tying weight‑loss injections to increased gallbladder surgery in some settings. Longer-term effects, particularly when the drugs are used chronically to maintain a lower body weight rather than to treat obesity, remain uncertain.
Context and regulation
Demand and market activity have produced intense scrutiny: manufacturers and telehealth providers face legal and regulatory challenges, and regulators have questioned advertising claims about benefits. Compounded or copycat versions of approved treatments prompted enforcement actions and withdrawals.
Key open questions
It’s still unclear how long people should remain on GLP‑1s to sustain weight safely, whether the risk profile changes with prolonged use in people who are not classed as obese, and which patients are most likely to benefit versus be harmed. Clinicians recommend making treatment decisions case by case and monitoring for known adverse effects.
New technique uncovers eggs missed by standard searches
A recent study found that conventional methods of searching follicular fluid during egg retrieval can miss viable oocytes, and a new technology identified extra eggs in more than half of cases where the standard search had come up short. Retrieving additional eggs could directly affect the number of embryos available for fertilization and potentially increase the chances of a successful in‑vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle.
Why this matters to patients and clinics:
More retrieved eggs can mean more embryos to choose from, which may increase the probability of achieving a pregnancy from a single stimulation cycle.
Clinics could improve yield without changing hormonal stimulation protocols, reducing the physical and financial burden of additional stimulation cycles for patients.
The method may change laboratory workflows and training if adopted widely.
What remains to be determined is whether finding and using these extra eggs translates into better clinical outcomes such as higher live‑birth rates, or whether the additional oocytes are of comparable developmental quality to those found by standard methods. The study shows the technology’s capacity to identify previously hidden eggs, but long‑term data on pregnancy and birth outcomes are not yet available.
Next steps for researchers and practitioners will include validating the technique across more clinics, measuring downstream outcomes (embryo quality, implantation, live births), and assessing cost and logistical impacts for IVF centers. For people undergoing fertility treatment, the finding offers a promising advance, but clinicians and patients will want evidence that increased egg yield leads to real gains in success before altering standard practice.
Public-health officials in both countries are reporting growing measles activity and urging vaccination to contain spread. In Mexico, a notable outbreak prompted state authorities in Jalisco to increase health screenings in schools, recommend face masks, and say they are confident the outbreak will be controlled. Mexican leaders also warned the country could be at risk of losing its measles‑free status if transmission is not stopped.
In the United States, health departments have tracked confirmed cases linked to events such as the March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., and several states are reporting clusters. A senior U.S. public‑health official publicly urged people to get vaccinated, appealing directly to communities to raise immunization coverage as cases climb.
Who is most at risk
Infants too young to complete the MMR schedule
People who missed childhood vaccination or lack evidence of immunity
Close contacts of confirmed cases, including school populations and large‑event attendees
Actions being taken and recommended
Health authorities are taking several steps to limit spread: increased screening in schools, targeted contact tracing after known exposures, local mask recommendations in affected settings, and public appeals to boost MMR vaccination rates. Officials emphasize that vitamin A can help treat measles complications but is not a substitute for immunization.
What remains uncertain
The full size and trajectory of the outbreaks are still being assessed, and health authorities are monitoring whether domestic clusters and international outbreaks will affect national elimination status. Officials have called for rapid vaccination of susceptible groups to prevent wider spread.
James Van Der Beek died after a battle with colorectal cancer. Family statements and multiple reports identify the disease as stage 3 colorectal cancer; the actor had been publicly open about his diagnosis and treatment in the months leading up to his death. He passed away at age 48, and his wife Kimberly announced that he “passed peacefully” on the morning the news broke.
Friends, co‑stars and fans have described his final weeks as focused on family and gratitude. Colleagues from Dawson’s Creek and other projects paid tribute, and several pieces of coverage have documented intimate moments from his last months — photos shared by friends, hospice care updates, and reflections from those close to him.
Why the news matters
Van Der Beek was a recognizable figure across generations: a 1990s teen heartthrob whose career spanned TV and film, and later a devoted husband and father of six. His death has prompted three immediate developments:
A public outpouring of tributes from fellow actors and entertainers, highlighting both his early career and his role as a family man.
A crowdfunding effort set up by friends that quickly exceeded its initial target, reflecting the financial strain his prolonged illness placed on his family.
Headlines about his final projects and legacy, including the posthumous airing of his last TV role produced by Reese Witherspoon.
Details that remain unclear are limited: official medical specifics beyond the public identification of stage 3 colorectal cancer have not been released, and the family is navigating private matters including funeral arrangements and the practical implications for their household. What is clear from the available coverage is that his illness had been a prolonged struggle that he and his family approached with openness at times, and that his death has left loved ones and fans grappling with the sudden loss and the economic fallout that often accompanies long medical battles.
Will Lewis arrived at The Washington Post as the storied paper was working to shed 240 employees, saying then that as a result of faulty financial projections, “We’re not in a place that we want to be in and we need to get to that place as fast as we can.” The British media exec had come to the US to be CEO and publisher of the Post, starting in January of 2024. “My plan is to arrive and for us to together craft an extremely exciting way forward. I can smell it. I can feel it. I know it,” Lewis said in his first meeting with the newspaper’s staff.
Two years later, “exciting” might not be the word that Post staffers would use regarding the publication’s “way forward.” The 148-year-old paper, which since August of 2013 has been owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, laid off over 300 journalists last week, a move that killed off its sports and books section, and left its local and international teams diminished.
And Saturday, Lewis was out too, sending a brief email to staff that reads “After two years of transformation at The Washington Post, now is the right time for me to step aside. I want to thank Jeff Bezos for his support and leadership throughout my tenure as CEO and Publisher. The institution could not have a better owner.”
“During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customers each day,” he concluded.
Will Lewis in 2023
By Carlotta Cardana/Bloomberg/Getty Images.
According to a statement from the Post, CFO Jeff D’Onofrio has taken over as acting publisher and CEO. “The Post has an essential journalistic mission and an extraordinary opportunity. Each and every day our readers give us a roadmap to success. The data tells us what is valuable and where to focus,” Bezos said in a statement regarding the transition. “Jeff, along with [executive editor Matt Murray] and [opinion editor Adam O’Neal], are positioned to lead The Post into an exciting and thriving next chapter.”
Lewis was not present on the Zoom during which Murray announced the layoffs Wednesday, Post staffers who were on the call tell Vanity Fair. He did, however, participate in meetings that day, during which he “gave no indication he was leaving,” The New York Times reports. He was spotted Thursday on the red carpet at the NFL Honors event in San Francisco, a pre-Super Bowl party attended by actor Tiffany Haddish, athlete Travis Kelce, and rap icon Too $hort, among others.
On Wednesday, Variety published the headline: “J.K. Rowling Denies Inviting Jeffrey Epstein to ‘Harry Potter & The Cursed Child’ Broadway Opening, DOJ Docs Show He Was Turned Away at Door.” One wonders why the editors decided they needed the first part of that, which is accusatory in tone—even though the second part acquits her!
Luckily for Rowling, the new information, made available as part of the federal government’s mandatory Epstein files disclosure—3 million more pages became available last Friday—knocks down this particular smear campaign. But here’s my question: What if Epstein, a schemer and a charlatan whose entire shtick was worming his way into the company of rich and famous people for the purposes of manipulating and/or blackmailing them, had somehow snuck into the show?
If the response to this latest batch of Epstein files is any indication, Rowling would have been referred to as one of those notable names brought down by the Epstein files—guilty, by insinuation, of complicity in the most infamous sexual predator’s appalling crimes. Rowling, of course, is already persona non grata among progressives, owing to her views on transgender issues, which are perfectly mainstream but toxically unpopular amongst the left. But that’s the problem: The Epstein files have become an exercise in ax-grinding among partisan actors and knee-jerk critics of people who found themselves in Epstein’s orbit—wealthy entrepreneurs, academics, the chattering class, etc.
You are reading Free Media from Robby Soave and Reason. Get more of Robby’s on-the-media, disinformation, and free speech coverage.
This is not to excuse the appalling judgment of those who consciously and deliberately continued to court Epstein’s favor even after the full extent of his depravity was well-known. Such figures include Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky, Steve Bannon, and Stacey Plaskett. Bannon and Plaskett, in particular, sought Epstein’s political counsel right up until the end of his life. Chomsky gave Epstein advice on beating the charges against him. Gates is accused of despicable behavior, which he denies.
The best thing that can be said about the release of the Epstein files is that it sheds light on the incredibly poor discernment of several individuals who are influential in public policy. This is useful information that the public has a right to know.
But the release of the Epstein files has also meant that millions of documents containing thinly-sourced accusations, misleading information, and outright falsehoods are now flooding social media, giving a veneer of confirmation to rumors, gossip, and lies. This is very much by design, since Congress—by a vote of 427–1 in the House—opted to disclose everything, including transcripts of investigations, and reports that were never deemed truthful.
For example, the latest batch of docs prompted Keith Edwards, a Democratic strategist, to post on X the claim that Epstein is the one who introduced President Donald Trump to Melania is now “confirmed.”
The claim is not confirmed. Just because someone said this, and an investigator made note of it, does not mean it’s true. On the contrary, Donald and Melania have both denied that it’s true, and The Daily Beast was previously forced to retract the claim because the official timeline of events contradicts it.
So here we have a clear case of bad-faith political actors weaponizing the Epstein files to tarnish their political enemies, even though the new documents don’t prove anything about Trump. Indeed, for partisan figures who have been obsessed with the notion that the Epstein files would demonstrate Trump’s complicity in Epstein’s sex crimes, the most stunning revelation should be that there’s no evidence of this whatsoever. There’s also no evidence that the Clintons were involved in an international cabal of pedophiles.
No one’s priors are being reconsidered, however. On the contrary, those who were interested in the Epstein files mostly because they wanted evidence that their political enemies were child rapists are now mostly claiming that such proof is still being withheld. Much like people who believe the moon-landing was fake and the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade them.
Initially, this category included many of the MAGA faithful, who earnestly believed they were about to unmask a global pedophile ring involving the Clintons. More recently, the Epstein files disclosure became a Democratic crusade, as it dawned on liberals that Trump had been friends with Epstein, too, and perhaps complicit in his crimes. Again, there’s nothing to incriminate Trump, and there’s nothing to incriminate the Clintons. Rep. James Comer (R–Ky.) won’t take no for an answer, of course. He has successfully pressured the Clintons to testify before Congress about Epstein.
It’s worth repeating that the real villain of the Epstein files is Epstein himself, a vicious sexual predator who abused underage girls. He is likely not the only one, and there are other individuals in Epstein’s orbit who reached settlements with accusers.
But the Epstein files do not contain a great deal of new evidence of sex crimes among Epstein’s friends, associates, and acquaintances. Yet everyone whose name appears in the Epstein files is now being treated like an exposed sex criminal. This includes hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, who appears in a photo alongside three young people, possibly on Epstein’s island. On X, high-follower accounts cited the photo as evidence that Dubin had sexually assaulted those children, who were probably procured for him by Epstein.
Except that’s not the case at all. Those are Dubin’s own kids!
That’s Glenn Dubin. Those are his own kids. This whole thing is becoming an insane moral panic along the lines of the Satanic child abuse panic, recovered memory, campus rape hysteria, and all of that.
Epstein was a predator, and people who kept in contact with him showed… https://t.co/1mFpPA8UXL
This is a witch hunt mentality; in fact, it’s reminiscent of the public panic over sexual misconduct on college campuses throughout the 2010s, in which junk statistics and one-sided journalism helped advance an utterly false notion that elite universities were a “hunting ground” for young women. The idea that scores of rapists hunted college women, lured them into attics, and attacked them during depraved rituals was the thrust of the infamous Rolling Stone hoax story, which was subsequently debunked.
Moreover, the release of the files may be setting a dangerous precedent. It is incredibly unusual for the federal government to unseal investigative records, which contain reports that lack corroboration. This is an unusual case, and there’s certainly an argument to be made that public confidence in the justice system requires disclosure here. But I can’t help but consider the statement by Rep. Clay Higgins (R–La.), the lone no vote on Epstein disclosure.
“If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt,” he wrote.
(We haven’t taped either yet. Stay tuned later this week!)
Freed Up, in case you are wondering, is my brand new show with Christian Britschgi, Reason‘s resident salmon-wrangler and housing reporter. Unlike Reason‘s other video products, we are not actively trying to make you any smarter or better informed about the news—though we expect, as a side effect of watching, you may accrue information about Star Wars, Chinese history, Pokemon, working out, and/or the Catholic Church.
Considers this our desperate attempt to capitalize on the success of all those two dudes hanging out podcasts. And we are inviting you to join us!
Two casting controversies took social media by storm this week, and they are both movies I’d like to see. First, conservatives were mad about Lupita Nyong’o, a black woman, portraying Helen of Troy in Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey. (Elon Musk quipped that Nolan had lost his integrity.) It should be noted that this casting rumor isn’t even confirmed; all we know for sure is that Nyong’o will appear in the movie. Second, some liberals were irate that Jacob Elordi is portraying Heathcliff in the new Wuthering Heights movie. In the source material, author Emily Brontë describes Heathcliff as “dark-skinned,” whereas Elordi is fair-skinned. This is rather silly, though. For Bronte, a woman of Victorian England, “dark-skinned” could have meant anything from African or Indian to Spanish or Italian. (Elordi is of Spanish descent, for the record.) Moreover, though Heathcliff is definitely lowborn and an outcast owing to his origins—and that affects his temperament and the manner in which he is treated by the other characters—his specific racial identity is not particularly important to the story.
This is insane. Heathcliff is not a “person of color” in the modern sense. He is described as a “dark skinned gipsy,” and what that means is ambiguous. For Emily Bronte, Spanish people would have been dark-skinned. (The collective white identity did not exist until recently.)… https://t.co/DNSC71MuYA
As for Helen of Troy, in Greek mythology, she emerged from an egg after her father, Zeus, mated with a swan. It’s essential to depict her as very beautiful, but she does not need to be a fair-skinned white woman like Diane Kruger, who played her in the 2004 Troy movie. (That movie was pretty great, in my opinion, and I definitely liked Kruger as Helen!) Kruger isn’t Greek; neither is Matt Damon, who’s portraying Odysseus this time around—but no one is mad about that. It’s just Nyong’o generating the anger.
And then he also announced that he was going to change the opinion page, including the editorial page, and he was going to exclude from those pages, essentially, people who didn’t buy into this ideology of free markets and individual liberties. Of course, he didn’t define that. But what it meant in practice was that anybody who was left of center, even slightly left of center, was going to be excluded from the opinion pages of The Washington Post because they were evidently too critical of Donald Trump.
And even today, there’s absolutely no moral core to these editorials today. It’s not that they won’t criticize Trump from time to time, but they do so in the softest, most mealy-mouthed way. They always use it as an opportunity to also attack the Democrats. They’re constantly falling back on the phrase “overreach.” Well, it’s not overreach. It’s abuse of power. So, with all of these decisions, from the decision not to publish a presidential endorsement to the remake of the opinion pages—and particularly the remake of the editorials themselves—they’ve just driven away readers by the hundreds of thousands who are disgusted with what they’ve seen.
And so despite that fact, the newsroom, day-in and day-out, is just doing some tremendous work, and work that does hold the administration accountable. But it seems like with every reader they get in through the front door with great news coverage, they lose through the back door through these decisions that are being made by the owner, the publisher, and then also by the kinds of editorials that they seem to be running day after day.
So when Post leadership says the decline in audience is the result of a problem with the newsroom, the way you see it, it’s the leadership that is to blame for the decline in audience?
They had a lot of work to do. They had to make some changes, too. I don’t think it’s the quality of the reporting, but I think it’s a matter of how we communicate with the public. The way that people consume news and information is dramatically changing. And so if the way people consume information is dramatically changing, then the way you deliver information has to change dramatically as well. And so clearly there were things that needed to be done. Perhaps even very disruptive things that needed to be done. That said, ownership and the publisher, I believe, made things infinitely worse with their decisions. I mean, you lose hundreds of thousands of loyal subscribers? It’s appalling.
The editorial page editor, in his couple of interviews that he did—he did one with Fox News, and he did one with The National Review, which tells you what kind of audience he’s trying to reach. He basically portrayed readers who had abandoned the Post as being partisan, that their readership of the Post was driven by partisanship. Well, it wasn’t. They saw a president who was likely to abuse his power, who was in fact abusing his power. They felt that the press needed to play an important role in holding this government or any government to account. They saw The Washington Post as doing that really well, so they supported the Post with their subscriptions. That is not partisanship. That is citizenship. The idea that the press should hold the government to account, that’s what the press ought to be doing, and it’s appropriate that people support that.