SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " payer " 402 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Trump government ads draw scrutiny weeks before midterm elections
Taxpayer-funded ads featuring Trump, including spots celebrating a "golden age of America" and one with a chorus singing "love me" on repeat, are drawing bipartisan criticism and legal questions.
Trump personally helped orchestrate taxpayer-funded ads promoting himself and his policies, source says
President Donald Trump has personally driven the controversial, tax-payer funded video ads promoting himself and his administration’s policies, including helping select the imagery and videos used, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.
White House releases 3rd taxpayer-funded ad for Trump, raising ethics concerns
The administration defends the commercials as public service announcements
White House releases 3rd taxpayer-funded ad for Trump, raising ethics concerns
The administration defends the commercials as public service announcements
White House releases 3rd taxpayer-funded ad for Trump, raising ethics concerns
The administration defends the commercials as public service announcements
12 moves that illustrate the brazenness of Trump’s second term
When the Trump administration began running taxpayer-funded “public service announcements” that looked suspiciously like campaign ads for President Donald Trump last week, the White House gamely maintained they were “very clearly not campaign ads.”
Trump ignites outrage from political world by ‘stealing’ from taxpayers to fund ad campaign: ‘Completely illegal’
Experts rail against ‘corrupt’ use of public dollars for ‘political propaganda’ ahead of midterm elections
Trump Sends Political Messages With Taxpayer Cash
In American politics, presidential public service announcements have encouraged Americans to get their COVID-19 vaccines, raised awareness of sexual assault or promoted volunteerism in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. With less than 40 days before the midterm elections, President Donald Trump has ...
Trump paying for political ads with taxpayer money?
Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for the president to win over voters, promote his agenda, and make a last-ditch push to win the midterms.
Trump administration uses taxpayer money to air 2024 Trump campaign ad
A television advertisement from Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign is the latest in a series of ads promoting the president ahead of the midterms that the White House maintains are “public service announcements.”
Trump administration begins airing 2024 Trump campaign ad
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is using taxpayer funds to air a television advertisement from Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign in the latest in a series of ads promoting the president ahead of the midterms that the White House maintains are “public service announcements.” The 30-second video, which is virtually identical to one that […]
Trump uses taxpayer funds for another TV ad, warns of 'final battle'
President Trump launched a second taxpayer-funded television ad ahead of the midterm elections, this one warning of a \
Trump paying for political ads with taxpayer money?! Lindsey Granger
Unbiased Politics News
Opinion: Duplicate billing fix can lower cost of health care
Addressing duplicative billing in healthcare is critical for New England’s Medicare beneficiaries -- and for taxpayers.
White House releases new taxpayer-funded ad describing ‘final battle’
The ad is nearly identical to one Trump’s presidential campaign released in 2024.
White House expands taxpayer-paid ad campaign boosting Trump
New taxpayer funded ads featuring President Trump have sparked debate over whether they violate federal law.
Clinic owner stole millions from military health program to buy luxuries like gold-plated Cybertruck, DOJ says
A Texas man is accused of stealing millions of taxpayer dollars from a military health care program.
White House expands taxpayer-paid ad campaign boosting Trump
The taxpayer-funded campaign borrows the president's political rhetoric as the White House defends the spots as “public service” announcements.
Video: Trump’s 2024 Campaign Ad Returns, With Taxpayers Paying For It
An ad nearly identical to one President Trump ran during his 2024 campaign returned on Saturday, paid for using public money. Several ethics lawyers it may violate federal law.
Taxpayer-funded Trump ads draw bipartisan scrutiny ahead of midterms
TV ads featuring Trump are expanding nationally, prompting bipartisan questions over whether they comply with restrictions on taxpayer-funded publicity.
Trump administration begins airing 2024 Trump campaign ad in latest taxpayer-funded messaging
The Trump administration is using taxpayer funds to air a television advertisement from Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign in the latest in a series of ads promoting the president ahead of the midterms that the White House maintains are “public service announcements.” | 830 WCCO
Trump administration begins airing 2024 Trump campaign ad in latest taxpayer-funded messaging
The Trump administration is using taxpayer funds to air a television advertisement from Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign in the latest in a series of ads promoting the president ahead of the midterms that the White House maintains are “public service announcements.”.
Trump administration begins airing 2024 Trump campaign ad in latest taxpayer-funded messaging
The Trump administration is using taxpayer funds to air a television advertisement from Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign in the latest in a series of ads promoting the president ahead of the midterms that the White House maintains are “public service announcements.”.
Republican senator criticizes White House for taxpayer-funded Trump ads
John Kennedy pushes back against such spending as pro-Trump ‘public service announcements’ air before midterms
The Trump Admin Is Airing Yet Another Taxpayer-Funded Political Ad
The video, originally from Trump's 2024 campaign, shows the president vowing to destroy "villains" with the disclaimer, "Paid for by the U.S. Government."
White House airs another government-funded ad, this time with Trump warning of ‘final battle’
The Trump administration is set to launch another overtly political campaign ad funded by taxpayer dollars, attacking the “fake news media” and “the sick political class that hates our country.”
White House claims pro-Trump ad it paid Fox to air was ‘public service announcement’
Some Democrats say taxpayer-funded ad could be illegal government propaganda aimed at influencing voters
Democratic lawmakers oppose state dollars for nuclear
They argue that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be asked to subsidize new nuclear projects.
Democratic lawmakers oppose state dollars for nuclear
They argue that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be asked to subsidize new nuclear projects.
Trump administration runs taxpayer-funded ‘love me’ ad
Democratic lawmakers have demanded more details about the ad
New Trump-focused "Love Me" ad campaign paid for by taxpayers hits airwaves
ICYMI: Chairman Smith on The Will Cain Show: Big Insurance Cashed in on Taxpayer Subsidies for Health Care That Wasn’t Actually Provided
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) joined Fox News’ The Will Cain Show to discuss...
Fossil-fuel firms in line for billions in benefits after answering Trump’s donation call
Senators’ report says taxpayers face higher bills after ‘bargain’ between president and major polluters
Voters, scientists say candidates should dig into environmental issues
Extreme weather events cost taxpayers and impact recreation and health, experts say.
Teal Health raises $22M ahead of expected surge in demand with new coverage mandate
Teal Health, maker of an FDA-approved at-home cervical cancer screening device, has raised $22 million in a Series A funding round. | Starting in 2027, most health plans are required to cover the cost of self-collected tests with no cost to consumers, including follow-up tests. Teal is working to coordinate billing with major commercial payers ahead of that deadline.
Watchdog says Messmer's taxpayer-funded TV ad part of larger problem
U.S. Rep. Mark Messmer insists his recent taxpayer-funded, campaign-like commercial wasn't political. A watchdog says it shows reforms are needed.
Penelope Health Announces Partnership with Thoreau to Accelerate its Platform for Real-Time Policy Intelligence
NEW YORK, September 18, 2026--Penelope Health ("Penelope"), a real-time provider and payer policy intelligence platform, today announced a partnership with Thoreau, which is building healthcare’s foundational compute, rules, and research infrastructure platform, to create a shared infrastructure layer for real-time payments and clinical rules. Thoreau, along with other investors, has committed $100 million in funding to Penelope. Penelope will use the capital to create new products that bring ad
Ratepayer bill aimed at data center buildout blocked in Senate
WASHINGTON — High-profile legislation amounting to lawmakers’ first real stab at addressing voter anger over data centers stalled in the Senate on Thursday after securing overwhelming support in the House
CMS extends ACCESS model to more chronic conditions as agency official eye cross-payer alignment
The Trump administration is rapidly expanding its 10-year ACCESS Model, a value-based payment program that reimburses digital health companies based on patient outcomes rather than services deliver | The Trump administration is rapidly expanding its 10-year ACCESS Model, a value-based payment program that reimburses digital health companies based on patient outcomes rather than services delivered.
The public health insurance option isn't the great choice you think it is
Moderate Democrats have frequently been returning to an old Obamacare debate-era proposal called the public option. They often label it “Medicare for all who want it” in order to piggyback off the better known single-payer proposal. Those who desire reform but get anxious about a universal and single-payer insurance system dubbed “Medicare for All” understandably […]
South Carolina leaders talk to business owners about state’s economic future
With a new hospital and dozens of homes on the way, some people think Highway 321 in Indian Land needs to be improved, but taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill.
Only 46% of Gen Z, Millennial health plan members trust payers: Accenture survey
Member trust in insurers is on the decline among Gen Z and Millennials, down 10.5% between 2023 and 2026, new research from Accenture found. | This trust gap, according to analysts, could cost $3 billion in future member lifetime value for the largest commercial payers over the next decade.
Fix Colorado without shortchanging taxpayers
If we truly want to fix Colorado, we must respect taxpayers, demand accountability and prioritize classroom results. Proposition NN fails the test. The far left put forth this measure, presenting it as the only way to fund public schools. Colorado voters should look past the title and see what Prop NN really does. The Taxpayer’s Bill of […]
Broad Payer & Consumer Coalition Urges Congress to Close Loopholes in No Surprises Act That Inflate Health Costs
Two new issue briefs highlight the abuse of the appeals process by private equity and corporations, and also successful solutions at the state level that suggest a federal fix WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, as Congress comes back into session next week, a broad range of 67 consumer, labor, and employer organizations, led by the patient […]
Anomaly Insights, Inova Health partner on AI-powered RCM
Artificial intelligence-powered payer intelligence startup Anomaly Insights announced Thursday a collaboration with Inova Health to improve payment outcomes and support revenue management operation | Through the partnership, Anomaly will provide Inova with additional data and analytics to evaluate payer behavior and payment outcomes.
KCK-area school fired employee for talking politics with state rep, lawsuit claims
The employee allegedly told the rep that “trans rights are human rights” and “diverting taxpayer $ to private schools is not right,” the suit says.
‘It Is a Great Time to Double Down on Behavioral Health’: How Payer Trends Are Driving Investment
This is an exclusive BHB+ story Evolving payer pressure is reworking the paradigm for provider organizations seeking to engage in M&A
Protesters seek universal health care in Springfield
Demonstrators gathered on Chestnut Street in Springfield to advocate for legislation establishing a single-payer health care system in Massachusetts.
Where Michigan voters stand with single-payer health insurance, according to poll
Michigan voters were asked in a recent poll how they felt about the upcoming November general election. Some questions focused on Michigan voters’ opinions on the American health care system.
North Carolina MCO Alliance Health Taps Cortica to Rein in Autism Spending, Improve Outcomes
Ready to dive into what's shaping autism therapy-payer relations? Be a part of the Autism Investor Summit East this November 9–10. Get your tickets here.
Politics Threaten Medical Innovation at NIH
Santa Monica rheumatologist warns that political interference in NIH funding threatens scientific breakthroughs and patient care. Taxpayer dollars should support rigorous peer review, not politics.
Hendrickson: Taxpayer protections vital for Iowa’s business climate
This November, Iowans will be asked to vote on a simple constitutional amendment that would make it more difficult for the legislature to increase income taxes. Specifically, the amendment would
Mamdani creates new DSA-inspired office to help NYC workers unionize: 'Concerning for small business'
Happy Labor Day from Hizzoner. Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Monday announced a new taxpayer-funded office — with an undisclosed price tag — that will help New York City workers...
Within days of the January 2025 inauguration, more than 3,000 taxpayer-funded federal data sets from the CDC, the Justice Department and the Office of Personnel Management were pulled offline, and Harvard public health researchers held marathon sessions scraping the pages before they vanished
Within days of the January 2025 inauguration, thousands of federal datasets began disappearing from public websites. Researchers scrambled to mirror the pages before they vanished — and much of what was captured cannot fully replace what was lost.
Built from scratch by immigrant parents, this NYC grocery store now faces Mamdani’s taxpayer-backed rival
Spanish Harlem meat market owner Josefina Aguirre is among NYC independent grocers suing Mayor Zohran Mamdani over his plan to open taxpayer-backed city-run grocery stores.
Central Health considers raising Travis County taxes for mental health resources
New revenue may benefit care for those in crisis, but some local leaders worry about an impact on taxpayers.
Healthcare Dealmakers—UHS closes Talkspace acquisition, Sanford's North Memorial deal clears and more
Healthcare mergers and acquisitions are in no short supply as providers, health tech companies, payers and other industry players look to expand their businesses and gain a competitive edge. | Sword Health nears Headspace all-cash acquisition, HCA Healthcare adds dozens of Texas urgent care centers and more healthcare merger and acquisition news from August.
N.J. public workers and taxpayers slammed with another massive increase in health premiums
Facing another year of premium hikes for current and retired public workers, Gov. Mikie Sherrill said she will bring unions and other leaders together to discuss cost-cutting strategies.
Sherrill accuses Trump of playing politics with New Jersey disaster aid
Gov. Mikie Sherrill accused President Donald Trump of using federal disaster relief to punish political opponents, saying New Jersey taxpayers are being
Politics keeps European stocks in America’s shadow
The bloc’s policymakers typically lean towards protecting consumers and taxpayers at the expense of investors
Pennsylvania senator prepares for push to bring single-payer healthcare to the state
Sen. Nikil Saval, representing the commonwealth’s first district in Philadelphia, circulated a letter to colleagues last week announcing his plan to introduce legislation to bring universal healthcare coverage to every resident of the state.
Federal cuts lead to growing burden on Cook County health system, taxpayers
Cook County’s sprawling safety net health system is counting on the county board to fill a budget gap of $40 million this year or face potential service cuts.
Pennsylvania lawmaker to propose bill establishing universal healthcare within the state
HARRISBURG, Pa. (WTAJ) — State Rep. Nikil Saval (D-Philadelphia) plans to introduce legislation that would establish a universal single-payer health care system in Pennsylvania. In a memo circulate…
Marshall only expensed Florida trips before hurricane damage, reports show
A review by The Star revealed that U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall stopped billing taxpayers for trips to his Florida shortly before it was hit by a hurricane.
‘No recollection’: Hope Florida grand jury hit ‘wall of silence’ in Tallahassee
High-level DeSantis administration officials told the grand jury could not remember details of key conversations about the “misappropriated” taxpayer funds.
Breaking down the findings from the Hope Florida grand jury report
The grand jury said it could “plainly see that taxpayer money was misused for political purposes,” the report said.
Grand jury finds taxpayer dollars "misappropriated" to Hope Florida, complains "nobody will take responsibility"
A Florida grand jury found the DeSantis administration misappropriated $10 million in taxpayer money for political purposes.
Trace Gallagher: LA has perfected political math
The CSD thinks if LA Mayor Karen Bass plans to flood her campaign with taxpayer cash, can’t she at least add a little water to the Palisades reservoir?
Tisdel stands with Michigan voters to get money out of politics
State Rep. Mark Tisdel today voted to reduce the influence of powerful special interests in Michigan politics and strengthen public confidence that decisions in Lansing are made on behalf of taxpayers, patients and ratepayers, not major corporations seeking political influence. “The people of Michigan have been clear: They want money out of politics and accountability […]
Radiology groups meet with CMS chief of staff to discuss No Surprises Act concerns
The meeting included the American College of Radiology, billing firm Zotec Partners and Strategic Radiology—who charge docs are receiving stagnant rates from payers.
Taxpayers donate to tax increase campaign
Give the man his due. President Donald Trump has undeniable talents. Colorado politicians are learning. Chief among The Don’s skills is taking the self-serving, ethically dubious behavior of previous politicians and putting it on steroids. Or, to borrow from the only documentary that tells the whole truth about anything, “This Is Spinal Tap,” Trump turns […]
States pour taxpayer dollars into college sports as athlete pay, soaring costs squeeze budgets
A growing number of states are providing tax dollars to university athletics.
States pour taxpayer dollars into college sports as athlete pay, soaring costs squeeze budgets
A growing number of states are providing tax dollars to university athletics.
States pour taxpayer dollars into college sports as costs squeeze budgets
A growing number of states are providing tax dollars to university athletics. North Carolina and Louisiana are earmarking sports betting taxes for their universities.
States pour taxpayer dollars into college sports as athlete pay, soaring costs squeeze budgets
A growing number of states are providing tax dollars to university athletics. The move comes as major college sports programs now are paying millions of dollars to athletes. The financial battle for the best athletes has strained many athletic departments, which are now running deficits. North Ca...
States pour taxpayer dollars into college sports as athlete pay, soaring costs squeeze budgets
A growing number of states are providing tax dollars to university athletics.
Karen Bass ripped after viral video lays out taxpayer-funded match of campaign donations
Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass faces scrutiny over a reelection ad urging donations matched 6-to-1 by taxpayers through the super match program.
R1 to Acquire Humata Health, Enhancing Phare OS with AI-Powered Prior Authorization Automation and Payer-Provider Collaboration
Acquisition Removes Friction from Complex Prior Authorizations to Benefit Patients, Clinicians, Providers, and Payers...
Data Centers and Historic Heat Test Texas’ Business Strategy
Good Counsel columnist Carliss Chatman writes that recent heat waves and mushrooming data center plans in Texas are creating tension between the Lone Star state’s welcome mat to incorporate there, and it’s ability to support the infrastructure needed for business and taxpayers.
Sauer: Mass. must get ahead of health care fraud
If policymakers drag their feet, Medicare Advantage’s waste, fraud, and abuse problems could erode public trust, drive up taxpayer costs, and threaten the long-term viability of the program.
Maryland’s new hospital payment model could drive up health insurance costs
Insurers warn the transition could shift more expenses to private payers and consumers while testing the stability of the state’s unique health care system.
Universal Health Coverage Could Save $1 Trillion and 114,000 Lives Every Year, Yale Study Projects
A single-payer universal health care system could cover every American, save more than 100,000 lives a year, and still cost $1 trillion less than the system it
The U.S. Healthcare System is Already Mostly Socialized
Now that Abdul El-Sayed is the Democratic nominee for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the outcome of this crucial race will depend mainly on two things: Whether Republicans succeed in demonizing El-Sayed because he’s brown and a Muslim, and whether they succeed in demonizing him as a left-wing radical. I will defer for the now the question of whether bigotry will be effective this year, although I will address it another day. What I want to address instead is El-Sayed’s signature issue — healthcare. Yes, El-Sayed advocates Medicare for All, a position the usual suspects denounce as “socialism.” I will get to the politics of his stance soon. Today, however, I want to talk about the substance. We should be clear that El-Sayed doesn’t even call himself a socialist. On the contrary, he explicitly disavows the label, saying “I’m a capitalist who just knows about capitalism”. In fact, as I explained in a previous post, the policies that El-Sayed advocates qualify him as a social democrat, not a socialist. Still, El-Sayed advocates a system under which the government would pay almost all medical expenses. Isn’t that socialism? Well, if that is the criterion then much of U.S. healthcare is already socialist. In fact, the government’s role is so large that U.S. healthcare is better described as partially privatized socialism than as anything resembling a free market. Let’s start with the raw numbers on health insurance, which pays the bulk of Americans’ medical expenses. Americans receive health insurance either from private companies or from public programs, overwhelmingly Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s what the breakdown of coverage and spending between private and public looked like in 2024: While a majority of Americans with health insurance get it from private companies, well over 100 million of us are covered by government programs instead. And these government programs pay more total dollars for medical bills than the private insurers do. Why do government programs that cover a minority of the population account for a majority of health insurers’ outlays? Mainly because Medicare covers seniors, and we’re expensive. Also, while Medicaid covers many younger Americans, disabled and elderly beneficiaries account for most of its spending. Even by the raw numbers, then, U.S. health insurance looks as much public as private. But that understates the government’s role: Private health insurance in the U.S. is both highly regulated and heavily subsidized. This is obviously true for the insurance coverage purchased by tens of millions of Americans through the exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. But employment-based health insurance, which covers 161 million Americans, is far more of a government creation than most people realize. For employment-based insurance exists largely because of huge implicit government subsidies that come with major strings attached. Here’s how that works. If your employer pays you $10,000, that’s taxable income. But if your employer pays $10,000 toward a company health insurance plan that meets certain criteria, it isn’t taxable. That’s a huge effective subsidy, running at more than $300 billion a year. Take that subsidy into account, along with the more than $100 billion per year spent subsidizing policies purchased under the ACA, as well as the outlays on Medicare and Medicaid, and net effect is that the government pays for more than two-thirds of Americans’ health insurance. Granted, there are strings attached. Roughly speaking, employment-based health plans can’t discriminate based on medical history — that is, they can’t deny coverage to employees with pre-existing conditions — and they also can’t offer the plans only to highly compensated employees — a health plan that is only for the C-suite is considered taxable income. So given the restrictions of the federal tax code, employer-based health insurance is a lot like Obamacare, which also prohibits discrimination based on medical history and provides subsidies to make insurance affordable to lower-paid workers. The fact is that virtually all of private healthcare insurance is already well under some form of government control through regulation and tax subsidies. How should we think about this system? First of all, is Medicare socialist? Don’t tell anyone, but the way Medicare operates — it covers every senior’s medical expenses, whatever they turn out to be, while being funded by taxes that depend on one’s income — could be summarized by the old Marxist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” And back in 1961, when Ronald Reagan was the face of a last-ditch effort by the American Medical Association to block the creation of Medicare, he denounced Medicare as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would destroy our freedom. In reality, American freedom survived until Jan. 20, 2025, while Medicare is immensely popular, with an 82 percent favorable rating in the most recent KFF survey. Medicaid, government health insurance for lower-income Americans, comes in at 73 percent. This is in sharp contrast to public views about private insurers, who are widely disliked if not hated and accused of denying essential care. Furthermore, if Medicare is socialism, then the whole U.S. health insurance system, with the government paying most of the bills and placing conditions on private insurers, is almost equally socialist. If you insist on calling any program the government pays for and regulates socialist, then U.S. healthcare would best be described as a partially privatized form of socialism. And one must ask, what is the point of the part that is privatized? Do private insurers add anything positive? Or are they simply parasites, skimming off money that could have been paying for care? The case for viewing insurers as parasites is strong. Many Medicare benefits are now delivered via Medicare Advantage, that is, plans paid for by the government but run through insurance companies. MedPAC, an independent advisory commission, estimates that last year Medicare Advantage plans were overpaid by $84 billion, thanks to practices such as “upcoding,” in which patients’ health problems are overstated to get larger sums from Medicare. Assessing the waste from employer-based insurance is harder, but most evidence suggests that private insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than Medicare does. Furthermore, the complexity of private insurance, with multiple payers all trying to deny care when they can, is a huge burden both on providers — doctors, nurses, and hospitals — and on patients. What do private insurers offer to compensate for these costs? One must go through intellectual contortions to avoid the conclusion that they are, in fact, parasites. Which brings me back to El-Sayed. In supporting Medicare for All, he’s basically calling for an end to the partial, parasitic privatization of a healthcare system that is already hugely dependent on public funding. When one looks at it that way, it’s not at all a radical proposal. Admittedly, the political lift requires overcoming the opposition to higher taxes to pay for Medicare for All. Political realism rather than economics was the reason I and many other progressives supported Obamacare, with all its complexities, rather than demanding an immediate move to Medicare for All. But the political calculus may very well have shifted since the 2000s, as Americans are fed up with a system of unaffordable premiums, rampant claim denials, and byzantine claim administration. Moreover, funding healthcare insurance through taxation would allow for a much more progressive distribution of the cost. That is, compared to the present system, middle-income households would pay less as high-income households would pay more. And the U.S. would stop wasting large sums on pointless administrative costs. So let’s be clear: El-Sayed’s healthcare platform is perfectly reasonable on the merits of cost, fairness and health efficacy. And with private insurers never more hated, while millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, 2026 may be its time. MUSICAL CODA
California Prop 44 would force health clinics to spend 90% on patient care
A measure aimed at changing how community health clinics spend taxpayer dollars is heading to the ballot box this November. Voters will decide the fate of Proposition 44. Supporters say it will increase accountability, but opponents warn it could threaten services patients rely on.
Budget Battle Erupts in Nation’s Capital Over Opioid Settlement Money
Washington, D.C.’s 2027 fiscal-year blueprint reflects a debate playing out around the U.S.: whether opioid settlement money should be used to free up taxpayer dollars by paying for existing responsibilities instead of new programs.
Oregon universal health care board punts single-payer report over funding uncertainty
A state board in charge of developing a universal health plan for all Oregonians will delay the release of its final report to lawmakers, citing uncertainty over how to pay for it. The Universal Health Plan Governance Board voted unanimously Thursday morning to extend its deadline to Dec. 1 for its report that will describe […]
Developer's big flex project could be 'largest taxpayer' small town south of Austin
Capital Construction LLC plans a 208,400-square-foot business park in Uhland, south of Austin, after city council approval on Aug. 5.
WATCH LIVE: Justice Department unveils major health care fraud crackdown
Trump administration officials announce new charges and an anti-fraud initiative designed to strengthen investigations and protect taxpayer-funded health care programs.
Coverage and Reimbursement Roadmap for Women’s Health Innovation
Women's health has long been underserved by a coverage system built around inadequate research, insufficient billing codes, and payers that have been slow to re
If Not AOC, Then Who?
What do we do if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez decides not to run for president in 2028? It makes sense that many leftists are currently focused on calling on her to take the plunge. But the absence of a Plan B, or even much discussion about one, is worrisome. The US Left can’t afford to sit out the 2028 Democratic primary. Doing so in 2024 was a disaster: our abstention self-marginalized anti-billionaire politics from the national conversation and thereby gave space for Harris to pivot to the “center” (i.e. the policy preferences of corporate donors, establishment hacks, and AIPAC). Abstaining again in 2028 would be especially counterproductive since democratic socialists now have so much wind in our sails after our big electoral wins in NYC and across the country. It’s time to deepen our momentum, organization, and profile — not to retreat to the margins during America’s single most important political battle. Even more urgently, keeping Trump’s heir out of the White House may depend on whether leftists and the party’s unprecedentedly disenchanted base can force the Democrats in 2028 to take meaningful steps towards a very angry electorate and away from the corporate-consultant blob that has helped get us into this mess. If AOC (or Abdul El-Sayed) decides to run, we should enthusiastically go all in — DSA, fighting unions, progressive organizations, anybody who wants to see a better country and world. But, as far as I can tell from the outside, there’s a real chance that she doesn’t run. And we can’t just wait and see where she lands before discussing alternatives, since AOC’s decision might not come for quite a while, giving us little time to scramble at the last minute for an alternative. So we should start working now on getting a Plan B into motion, and recruiting a good candidate for the role. Here’s one idea. A Worker Candidate — Healthcare Not Warfare 2028 Run a union worker Leftists don’t need to always run experienced, well-known socialist politicians for high-profile contests. Lula, the current president of Brazil, began his political career as a metalworker militant who ran for governor of São Paulo in 1982. Especially in an era of institutional distrust, it’s possible to lean hard into making a virtue out of a working-class comrade’s distance from traditional politics. Experience abroad shows this clearly. Rachel Kéké — an immigrant hotel housekeeper — ran as the candidate of the leftist La France Insoumise for the National Assembly in 2022, defeating a former minister in the Macron government. The Belgian Workers’ Party in 2024 won its first Flemish seat in the European Parliament by running Rudi Kennes, a three-decade veteran of the Opel Antwerp auto factory. And the South Korean left in 2024 elected auto factory militant Yoon Jong-oh to the National Assembly. If a tiny French Trotskyist organization could make such a big splash in 2002 and 2007 by running a well-spoken postal worker cadre for office — the LCR’s Olivier Besancenot received about 1.5 million first-round votes — it’s not far-fetched to expect that a much larger organization like DSA, together with a broader coalition of the willing, could run this playbook to much greater effect. This is especially the case now that almost everything DSA does immediately becomes a national news story. We don’t need someone famous. We just need a charismatic, well-vetted comrade who works in a relatable working-class occupation — e.g. a nurse, or a worker in auto or construction, or at Amazon. Ideally, they have a compelling personal story or have been part of a significant strike or organizing campaign, but even those criteria don’t necessarily have to be deal-breakers. The main lesson of the Graham Platner fiasco isn’t that we should never run outsiders for office (the momentum he generated proves the exact opposite), but that they need proper vetting and roots in democratic membership organizations like DSA or a union. In any case, there are plenty of ways to signal working-class authenticity without resorting to Platner’s or Fetterman’s performative macho white dude affect. Better to have someone of any gender or race who is actually working class, with firm socialist politics, who can speak from experience about the day-to-day realities of trying to make it in America. There are surely at least a dozen such worker leaders in our movement nationwide; we just need to sit down and convince one that their personal sacrifice for the greater good (i.e. running for president) will be worth it. If we don’t have a frontrunner with a clear path to victory like AOC (or El-Sayed, were he to win Michigan), it’s better to embrace someone whose decision to run in itself tells an important story about US politics: workers have been iced out of our political system and are now fighting hard to break back in. The novelty factor, in itself, would generate press. And it would help democratic socialists signal to the American public that our movement’s defining characteristic is that we represent workers vs. bosses, not that we’re “the furthest left” force in American politics — a framework that suggests we’re extremists and that helps our opponents isolate us from non-college-educated voters by highlighting extremely minoritarian (and misguided) stances included in DSA’s platform like prison abolition. We don’t get many opportunities to speak to tens of millions of Americans; we need to use these opportunities to broaden our appeal beyond those already in our orbit. Run to polarize the 2028 primary and general election around “Medicare for All” and “End All Aid to Israel” Why should democratic socialists use our scarce time and volunteer energy to run in a race we’re unlikely to win? Running in the 2028 primary will not only recruit us scores of members (imagine having a DSA member intervening in eleven nationally televised primary debates!), but — more importantly — it has the potential to be a decisive leap forward towards an America that finally starts meeting the needs of working people instead of HMO and AIPAC billionaire donors. Polarizing litmus tests are good, actually — as long as they’re fought for around popular demands in a thoughtful and strategic way. Democratic socialists have an opportunity and responsibility to make the 2028 primary about two of the most widely and deeply felt issues of our moment: domestically, America’s unaffordable, family-breaking private healthcare system; internationally, America’s bankrolling of the genocidal Israeli government. A candidacy relentlessly demanding Medicare for All and No Aid to Israel would pose a sharp question to the American public, the Democratic Party, and other 2028 contenders: Why can’t working-class Americans afford their healthcare bills at the same time that our government is spending at least $3.8 billion yearly to fund an Israeli regime eager to keep dragging us and the world into more forever wars? Our candidate can agitate around a clear message: I’m running to give voice to all those working-class Americans who are struggling to get by. No matter what state you live in, who you voted for in 2024, or your background, it’s just plain common sense that we should make healthcare more affordable instead of spending billions to enable the Israeli government’s crimes against humanity. Every American who agrees with me when I say ‘Medicare for All — Not a Dime for Israel’ should make their voice heard through our campaign. Racking up a high number of votes for this agenda is a crucial way to show the Democratic Party and the country as a whole that we can’t keep supporting a life-destroying status quo in our healthcare system and in the Middle East. If we want to defeat Trump’s handpicked crony this coming November, we need to speak to ordinary people’s frustrations with the status quo — we can’t keep running the same tired establishment playbook and expecting a different result. For those highly engaged voters (or skeptical media pundits) who raise concerns about wasting votes, the candidate can take the time to explain why this isn’t the case: It's true I'm a long shot. But Zohran showed anything can happen — and voting for me is a pragmatic decision, not a wasted vote. In a heavily divided primary with a large number of candidates and a very discredited establishment, my campaign and the democratic socialist movement I’m part of are positioned to be the balance of power if we can get a large enough number of voters to loudly demand Healthcare Not Warfare. Since there’s a high chance no candidate will get to 50% in the 2028 primaries, the Democrats could very well be heading towards a brokered convention, where a disciplined, principled current committed to breaking from corporate donors can play an outsized role in making sure whoever ends up with the nomination raises the banner of single-payer healthcare and cutting aid to Israel. How exactly could running this sort of primary campaign be translated into actual leverage? The candidate replies: I’m aiming to win the nomination, but if I don’t achieve that goal, my delegates and I will pledge our support in the primary only for a candidate who agrees in the general election to call for ending US aid to Israel and establishing Medicare for All at home. These are both winning planks for November against the Republicans, and the only reason I can see that other candidates haven’t yet raised these is that they’re still more scared of the donor class than they are of the people. That needs to change. If Democratic leaders want young people, workers, and those sick of the status quo to show up in big numbers this November, they need to meet us halfway. In this way, whether or not we win the nomination, democratic socialists could still play a decisive role in 2028. The approach outlined here is similar to what radical left parties periodically do in parliamentary democracies like Denmark or Sweden when they find themselves as a junior partner electorally: they dictate to center-left allies what their terms would be for enabling, from the outside, the formation of a new government. Running a Healthcare Not Warfare candidate will make it significantly more likely that the 2028 Democratic candidate stands with ordinary people instead of donors on these two pivotal planks — a shift that will, in turn, make it easier to achieve the existentially important task of defeating MAGA’s heir in November. Look at how much popular traction the Uncommitted movement got with a similar strategy in 2024 with so little on-the-ground organization — surely we can go much further with a working-class candidate, a much bigger DSA, and a Democratic Party base that has turned against Israel, billionaires, and the hacks in the party who prop them up. Objections and Responses There are quite a few objections to this proposal, many of which are very reasonable. Let me briefly address each here. Socialists shouldn’t waste their scarce time and resources on a candidate unlikely to win. This is a good rule in general, but there are important exceptions, and presidential elections are the main one. There’s no other political contest that gets anything like this level of attention and engagement in the US, so if you want to be a serious force in nationwide politics, you basically can’t afford not to have a candidate. Far from being an overall drain on our resources, running a dynamic 2028 campaign would likely result in a major net increase in members and capacity. In that spirit, the very pragmatic Milwaukee sewer socialists — who mostly ran to win at home in Wisconsin — supported Eugene Debs’s propagandistic presidential campaigns, which they correctly saw as a crucial means of recruiting to the Socialist Party. And now that the (post-1972) Democratic Party gives more weight to voters than party operatives in determining its presidential nomination, it’s become feasible to run as a socialist in primaries without risking a split in the vote against the Republicans in November. We should just support Ro Khanna, who also supports M4A and ending aid to Israel. I like Ro Khanna and would enthusiastically vote and canvass for him for president were he to get the nomination. But there’s a real chance that Khanna’s bid for office doesn’t catch on; he lacks the grassroots organizational apparatus of DSA, and, because he’s not really of the Left or labor (despite his current very good positions), he’s unlikely to generate the type of buy-in and enthusiasm that a DSA candidate would. Moreover, Khanna would be running as an individual, not as someone emerging from and building an organized movement — his campaign would not likely focus on building sustained power from below, nor would it likely polarize the 2028 primary around M4A and Israel aid. Also, and not inconsequentially, the poor electoral results for Tom Steyer and Saikat Chakrabarti this spring suggest that there’s perhaps not much of a popular appetite in the Democrats’ base to support multi-millionaire class traitors. Much better, then, to run a democratic socialist worker. If by Super Tuesday it’s clear that our campaign has captured the main left lane in the primary, Khanna should drop out and endorse us; conversely, if he’s managed to capture this lane, DSA could at that point transform its Healthcare Not Warfare campaign into an independent campaign to elect Ro Khanna focused on winning (and holding him accountable to) those two critical planks. An openness to consolidating an anti-corporate candidate by Super Tuesday is a necessary component of the strategy I’m proposing, because otherwise we risk splitting the primary votes (per DNC rules, you need at least 15% to get any delegates to convention). We should convince Shawn Fain or Sara Nelson to run for president instead. I agree it’d be great if either ran for president, but my impression is that there’s basically no chance that will happen in 2028, because both are firmly focused on their union leadership duties (and, in the case of Fain, beating back a federal witch-hunt). This plan could have DSA end up endorsing a non-socialist, non-DSAer for president. That’s against our principles. It’s a myth, and bad politics, that socialists can’t ever support candidates who aren’t members of their organization and/or who don’t call themselves socialists. Bernie, after all, was not a DSAer. And socialists abroad regularly make tactical decisions about if and when supporting a non-socialist candidate makes sense from the standpoint of promoting working-class interests, defending democracy, and building a socialist current in the process. If your “principles” prevent you and DSA from helping achieve the momentous stride forward of having a Democratic candidate in 2028 run on Medicare for All and ending aid to Israel, those “principles” are not very good. In fact, they actively undermine the causes they’re aiming to support. We shouldn’t confuse principles (working-class independence) with tactics (the best way to advance this in a given context). In my recent article in Catalyst on Milwaukee sewer socialism (I’ve uploaded the full text here), I have a section showing how similarly rigid rules about endorsements had to be eventually discarded in the old Socialist Party nationwide after WWI because they tended to lead socialists towards a sectarian abstention from broader anti-corporate electoral insurgencies beyond their party’s control. For what it’s worth, Lenin’s current under Tsarism frequently backed bourgeois candidates in the second round of elections and Lenin himself advocated that British Communists support Labour Party candidates; for his part, Kautsky in 1912 defended the German Social Democracy’s electoral pact with the Progressives in the runoffs. If our predecessors could be that tactically flexible in an era before the limits of their underlying strategic assumptions about intransigent class politics in capitalist democracies were made clear, then there’s no need to insist on being more tactically rigid today, after a century’s worth of accumulated experience. As long as you maintain your own political profile and organization while engaging in broader coalitional efforts, there’s zero inherent contradiction with the principle of political independence. More specifically: DSA and allied organizations should enthusiastically back Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed if AOC declines to run and he throws his hat in the presidential ring. (I have no idea whether he’s even considering this path, but there’ll surely be chatter about it if he wins his Senate race this November.) Though he doesn’t call himself a socialist, El-Sayed is a principled Berniecrat, a consistent fighter for Palestine, and would have a clear path to victory. Using the “s” word is far less important than whether a campaign fights for the interests of working people at home and abroad — and whether actively participating in it can grow the organized working class and the Left. And the same holds true if a less anti-corporate candidate were, under pressure, to adopt our two Healthcare Not Warfare planks. Why focus only on M4A and ending US aid to Israel? There are so many other important issues to fight for! Obviously there are many pivotal issues beyond healthcare and Israel, and our candidate — and especially our organizations involved in the campaign — should be prepared to speak on all of these. But one of the crucial lessons of the Zohran campaign is that you have to relentlessly stay on message if you want to cut through the noise. CNN and Fox News will want to talk about DSA’s views on Venezuela and abolishing the police; we need to polarize the debate on the widely and deeply felt issues that are most favorable for growing the Left, isolating our opponents, and winning urgently needed changes. One recent poll found 63% of Americans support M4A, even after respondents were told it would raise taxes and eliminate most private insurance. Another found that 74% of Democrats opposed “providing additional economic and military support to Israel.” And focusing on two demands sets the campaign up to be able to leverage its mandate to make clear demands upon other candidates (which we can’t do if we run with a laundry list of demands). Talking about a Plan B is a distraction from the more urgent work of building a groundswell of calls on AOC to run. It’s good for DSAers, fightback unionists, and progressive organizations to try to convince AOC to run. This proposal is meant as an addendum to pushes to get AOC to run and to line DSA up for that eventuality, not as a substitute for those efforts. But I’m worried that, like in 2024, we might eventually find ourselves with no time to find a viable alternative unless we start now. DSA, with its abundant deliberative processes, moves slowly. The approach you’re suggesting seems risky. If a DSA candidate runs but doesn’t receive a lot of votes, it’ll undercut our current national momentum. This is a reasonable worry. All big initiatives always carry risks, and the path I’m advocating is certainly not free of these. That said, if a Healthcare Not Warfare campaign doesn’t catch on like we envisioned, it’s a pretty simple pivot in March 2028 to explain that in the future we really need our standard-bearers like AOC, or our growing bench of national electeds, to step up in presidential primaries. Moreover, it’s worth noting that the risk of my Plan B proposal is on the whole significantly less than the risk entailed by an AOC run. We should all back her if she runs, since she’d fire up the base, provide huge openings for organizing, have a real shot at defeating a Republican (especially given MAGA’s unpopularity), be a great standard-bearer for our issues, particularly M4A and ending aid to Israel, and be less willing than mainstream candidates to capitulate to any anti-democratic machinations from Trump and co. But it’s also true that AOC could lose, which would be a devastating setback to the country and the Left. Or she could win and find herself unable to pass much, if any, of her (and our) program, a demoralizing prospect. So if we’re willing to take these risks with AOC (and we should), it follows that we should be able to take lower-level risks if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring. What’s Your Plan B? The US Left is facing its biggest opening for growth and influence since the 1930s. Initiatives that would have been impossible a few months ago are now potentially feasible. A President AOC is now easier to imagine, but if she ultimately assesses that the risks aren’t worth the potential reward in 2028, we can’t be left flat-footed. So even if you’re not convinced by the specifics of my Plan B, I hope you can at least agree that it’d be a disaster for us not to have one — and not to start getting a Plan B into motion. Hopefully other organizers and political currents will put forward their responses and alternative ideas ASAP. The stakes are too high to just wait and see. More As always, please share this article widely. This newsletter depends on all you lovely people to get the word out. Thank you! I uploaded the full text of my Catalyst article on Milwaukee sewer socialism here (it’s updated and 3x as long as the version published earlier on this substack). If you haven’t yet, please make sure to subscribe to Catalyst here; I read every issue front to back, highly recommend. 🌹🎵 Ivan Lins (arranged by Arthur Verocai) — “General da Banda” 🌹🎵
Debt Digest | Federal Debt is a Health Care Problem
Welcome David Ditch to the Debt Dispatch! We are pleased to announce a new regular contributor: David Ditch will be joining the Cato Institute as a Policy Analyst for Budget and Entitlement Policy later this week. David has more than a decade of experience in fiscal policy issues, with a particular focus on federal spending. He previously worked at the Senate Budget Committee, the Heritage Foundation, and the Economic Policy Innovation Center. David’s areas of expertise include appropriations, transportation, agriculture, federalism, grantmaking, and policy options for deficit reduction. Originally from the Rochester, N.Y. area, David has a BA in Economics and Political Science from the University of Rochester and a MA in Political Management from George Washington University. David currently lives in Arlington, VA. You may have enjoyed his earlier guest posts: CBO: New Highway Bill Has More Spending, Taxes, and Deficits Trump Administration’s Proposed Changes to Federal Grants Highlight Problems of Big Government Here are this week’s reading links and fiscal facts: The federal debt is largely a health care problem. In a new report, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation find that “In 2026, federal subsidies for health insurance, net of related payments to the government, are projected to equal $2.4 trillion, or 7.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In CBO and JCT’s projections, those subsidies grow by 65 percent, reaching $3.9 trillion, or 8.4 percent of GDP, in 2036. Subsidies for Medicare contribute most to that overall growth, increasing by $900 billion. Over the entire 2026–2036 period, federal subsidies for health insurance total $33.6 trillion.” Cato’s Michael Cannon emphasizes, “The long-term federal debt problem is a health care problem. […] Only two categories of federal outlays will grow faster than gross domestic product (GDP): health care subsidies and interest payments on the debt. The former is, therefore, the primary driver of the latter.” The bond market fears deficits, not the loss of tariff revenue. Responding to a New York Times essay claiming tariff revenue has grown too important for a future administration to unwind, Cato’s Kyle Handley argues: “Bond investors are not attached to customs duties as a line item revenue source. They care about the government’s overall fiscal position.” He continues, “tariff revenue is a side hustle. And the Trump administration has already promised to dole out the funds through schemes like tariff dividend rebates, farm subsidies, and pay-fors on tax cuts or other spending.” Furthermore, “tariff revenue is simply not large enough to transform the government’s fiscal trajectory.” Take net interest for example: it “reached $970 billion in fiscal year 2025, absorbing 18.5 percent of federal receipts. Customs duties accounted for only 3.7 percent of receipts—and that was before refunds (see Figure 2).” Handley concludes, “The real bond-market concern is a large and growing interest bill, persistent budget deficits, and a political system unwilling to bring spending and revenue into alignment.” Medicare’s spending growth is driven by more volume and utilization. A Congressional Research Service report finds that Medicare spending “grew at an average annual rate of 7.3%” from 1985 through 2025, and the trustees project health care expenditures will keep rising “faster than gross domestic product (GDP) in most future years.” Citing CBO, the report attributes Medicare’s projected 2026–2036 spending growth to “23% from higher enrollment, 31% from inflation, and 47% from the growth of inflation-adjusted spending per beneficiary. In other words**, the largest single driver of Medicare spending growth during the next decade is expected to be higher volume and intensity of health care services.”** Boccia and Thakur explain: “as the economy grows, Medicare spending tends to grow at least as fast—and often faster—because the program automatically pays the bill for more and more healthcare consumption by seniors, even as prices rise.” The Fed has little control over market interest rates. Cato’s Jai Kedia documents that the Fed has held its rate target steady since December, yet “nearly every rate Americans actually borrow at has climbed over the same stretch.” Kedia continues, “The Fed did nothing, and the cost of credit went up anyway. […] Markets spent these months repricing macroeconomic events such as sticky core inflation, a volatile energy market driven by the conflict in the Middle East, and global trade disrupted by tariffs, among others. None of that required a policy change to show up in borrowing costs because markets, not the FOMC, set prices.” He concludes, “Accurately priced borrowing rates will come from credible disinflation and disciplined budgets and from a Fed content to follow the economy rather than pretend it leads it.” Nearly half of US farm income comes from taxpayers. Former Reagan OMB director David Stockman notes that “in the most recently completed full year (FY 2025) farmer incomes in the US totaled $97.8 billion, but fully 42.7% or $41.8 billion of that amount came from taxpayers, not the marketplace. Nor is this some kind of one-year aberration. If we look at the most recent decade as a whole, total farm income posted at nearly $708 billion, but, as indicated, fully $322 billion or 45% of this came compliments of US taxpayers.” Cato’s Chris Edwards explains why so little of that income is market-earned: “Farmers are businesspeople, but the government shields them from just about every type of weather and market risk. Furthermore, just about every part of the agricultural industry is subsidized, including insurance, loans, marketing, research, export sales, and land improvements.” The Debt Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Blanche scraps Trump’s $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund
President Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Todd Blanche, said he is formally rescinding the controversial fund. It was created as part of an agreement to settle a lawsuit from Trump against the IRS and would have offered taxpayer money to people who claimed they were victims of weaponization by the federal government.
Immigrant Business Owners Preparing to Sue NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Over Supermarket Plan
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani‘s plan to open taxpayer-funded supermarkets is angering some immigrant business owners. The New York Post reported on Tuesday, July 28, that the Multicultural Busine...
The new "science golden age" looks suspiciously like a grift
This edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️ 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 The Trump regime is trying to usher in a “Golden Age in Science” where scientific research is run like a Trump family business, artificial intelligence is all that matters, profit is everything, and expertise is for chumps. Or at least that’s the vision emerging from a new 123-page “Report to the President” from Michael Kratsios, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a normal administration, you could probably skip over learning about a science policy document — but this is no normal administration, and this is no normal science policy document. Instead, it’s Trump’s attempt to end the actual golden age of science that was kicked off in 1945 with the publication of '“The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) [ Harmeet Dhillon demonstrates danger of posting through it ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Liz Dye · Jul 29 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Bush, at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s request, laid out a vision of federal support for science that centered on funding universities to do basic research, saying that as long as those institutions were “vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere.” Kratsios’s report is supposed to be the successor to Bush’s, and even apes the format, but this isn’t really a document about science policy. It’s one about ending science research as we know it in favor of shoveling cash at big tech companies. While it might be temping to wave this away as an aspirational policy document, Trump has already begun to shift billions in research funds to AI projects and has taken a hatchet to science funding across the board. He’s teed up the shift Kratsios proposes here, and since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem inclined to stop him from doing whatever he wants with taxpayer money, it isn’t doomering or hyperbole to say we are staring down the barrel of a world where the only “science” the government intends to support is for-profit tech and defense advancements. Science for dummies Part of how you can tell this isn’t a document about science is that you are immediately faced with an absolute wall of business-speak of the worst sort. Did you know we must “tightly couple our science and technology enterprises to ensure that groundbreaking ideas invented in the United States are rapidly prototyped, tested, manufactured, and scaled domestically”? You do now! That tone isn’t surprising, because Kratsios has no background in science or research. He has a bachelor’s in political science and spent most of his career working for Peter Thiel at Thiel Capital. After a stint in the first Trump administration as Chief Technology Officer, where he also did not do any science, Kratsios was tasked in 2020 with overseeing the Pentagon’s research budget for a brief time, a position that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “carries a great deal of power in terms of dictating investment allocations.” He spent the Biden years at Scale AI as “head of strategy,” which you will also note is neither a science nor a research job. But Scale AI has contracts with the Department of Defense and, as the Washington Post wrote in 2023, “has been aggressively pitching itself as the company that will help the US military in its existential battle with China.” And now you have the necessary background for our new golden age, which is going to be a golden age of taking money away from scientists and universities and giving it to companies like Scale AI. A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Lisa takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please become one to support our work. 👇 Subscribe In a genuinely galling move, Katsios spends a lot of time slamming universities because of “administrative burdens on researchers” and the “well-documented inefficiencies” in academia, the message being that those damn universities waste the time of amazing researchers with paperwork. Except it’s the administration that is attempting to impose inefficient, unnecessary burdens on those researchers with a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would require senior political appointees to approve every science grant and ensure it aligns with Trump’s personal priorities. Researchers would also have to seek prior government approval to attend conferences or publicize their research. And political appointees could terminate any grant at any time if they feel like it. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) [ The murder of expertise ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) Lisa Needham · Jun 11 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) But when it comes to AI, we’re going to “restore permissionless innovation.” The report proposes to give lucky ducky innovators a pile of cash up front for grants lasting five years or longer, saying “awards should be fully-funded in year one, with all resources earmarked upfront, to minimize administrative burdens and reduce pressure for researchers to generate intermediate results to secure continued funding.” Yeah, wouldn’t want to have to make the Very Special Tech Bros show results or get money parceled out year by year like the plebes at universities. The report also proposes that we should have “fast grants” with “simplified applications requiring just a few pages of writing” because that is definitely how science works, just writing a bit off the dome and getting some cash. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) [ Tech elites are turning AI into ChatGPTrump ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Paul Waldman · July 29, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Oh, and we should have prizes and challenges, where multiple teams compete. The proposed prizes include incentives like “advance procurement commitments,” which means the federal government agrees to buy whatever is being developed. There’s also “regulatory fast-tracking,” making sure all those great AI thingies don’t have to wait too long to be unleashed on a market. These aren’t incentives to do science. These are incentives to develop things with tax dollars that you can then sell to the government for more tax dollars. In the suggestion that might be the most unhinged, the most very opposite of how both government and research work, our new age will include “golden tickets.” That’s where an individual reviewer in an agency — yes, just one person — can “recommend unconventional proposals that may not pass consensus-driven review panels” because somehow this will “surface valuable ideas too divisive for committees and attract higher quality reviewers by empowering them to exercise independent scientific judgment.” Yes, that’s saying that a random person in an agency should be able to shovel money at some idea even if it can’t pass a review panel, and that the opportunity to do so will attract better employees because apparently all the best minds in science are chomping at the bit to be allowed to unilaterally fund AI research based on their personal vibes. But that isn’t at all how actual science works, and actual scientists aren’t unhappy about review panels. They work collaboratively, not siloed in some secret race to create the next AI chatbot. A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined whether peer review panels succeed in helping agencies predict which research ideas will best advance science. Peer review was better at finding “diamond in the rough” applicants than a single government program official. How about that. Trump always wants a taste It’s painfully clear that what Katsios is trying to do here is turn the whole of government science research and funding into the sort of “move fast and break things” paradigm that is the hallmark of big tech. That method works to line the pockets of tech executives, but it isn’t science. There’s a reason the government funds different kinds of research than private tech companies do. What Katsios either fails to understand or deliberately ignores is that the federal government is the main funder of basic research precisely because it can take a long time for it to bear fruit and is not intended to be profitable as such. “Basic” here does not mean rudimentary or simple, but rather research that is designed to advance scientific knowledge instead of achieving a specific outcome or product. Big tech companies don’t widely fund that sort of research, because it doesn’t make them money. Industry dollars account for only about 20 percent of basic research funding, while the government contributes around 60 percent. Big tech companies and startups do, however, rely on and benefit from that basic research. A 2019 study found that 35 percent of all patents obtained by venture-backed startups from 1976 to 2016 cited federally supported research. Basic research funded by the NIH contributed to every single drug the FDA approved from 2010 to 2016. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) [ The Saudi nuclear farce and governance by whim and meme ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Noah Berlatsky · Jul 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Unlike inventing the next ChatGPT, actual science is slow and iterative. Government funding of research that, on its face, would not appear to lead to any big new invention is actually what underpins those big new inventions. If the government hadn’t funded research into desert lizard venom, we wouldn’t know about semaglutide, and we wouldn’t have Ozempic. If research scientists hadn’t studied how bees optimize nectar foraging within a colony, we wouldn’t have the algorithm that assigns internet traffic across computer servers. The report assiduously ignores that a symbiotic, profitable relationship between the federal government, universities, and private companies already exists. Each federal research dollar generates about $1.50 to $3.00 in long-term economic benefits. The $36 billion the government awarded in NIH research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated $94 billion in new economic activity. Trump’s proposed new golden age is intended to strip those billions from universities, resulting in the dismantling of departments and the shuttering of labs. But Katsios has a plan for that: Universities should just become trade schools to churn out no-show STEM degrees! “Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula. Let hands-on experience and industry credentials count toward degrees.” It’s quite the feat to, on the one hand, strip schools of funding for scientific research while simultaneously demanding to control what is taught and, oh, also, colleges need to give degrees to employees at big tech companies just for being employees at big tech companies. The new golden age would also exacerbate the brain drain Trump’s policies have already caused. Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, US scientists submitted 32 percent more job applications abroad than in 2024. A March 2025 poll by Nature of roughly 1,600 scientists found that over 1,200 said they were considering leaving the country. Europe is investing $565 million to make it a “magnet for researchers” and provide funding for scientists who relocate. The new golden age is also about embedding Trump’s xenophobia into the fabric of American science. The report complains of an “over-reliance on foreign students” that “creates a security challenge our institutions are ill-equipped to address” and that a “reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students.” This is, to put it mildly, nonsense. International students pay far higher tuition and often receive no financial aid. Their tuition dollars are what make it possible for American students to get financial aid. In the 2023-2024 school year alone, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. Those 1.1 million international students accounted for only six percent of the total number of students in higher education that year, but were such an economic engine that for every three international students, one job was created or supported. It’s impossible not to wonder whether part of Trump’s loathing for universities and their leading role in scientific research is that there is no way for him to corrupt the process and make money off it in the same way he can by giving millions and billions to Silicon Valley types who, in turn, give him millions in cash. There’s no way for his children to invest in universities that the government then gives no-bid contracts to, fattening the family’s bottom line, which is pretty much the Trump sons’ current venture capital practice. Trump and Katsios’s view of science is narrow, cramped, and wrong. We’re not in a crisis, we’re not a failed state. We’ve been a science superpower for decades, and the only thing that threatens that is Donald Trump. Tech bros are already living high off the hog in this administration. They don’t need any more of our tax dollars. Hopefully this new golden age never comes to pass. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 Thanks for reading, and for your support.
As voters turn on data centers, Husted pushes new ratepayer protections
After taking a leading role in trying to attract data centers to Ohio, Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, has introduced legislation to protect ratepayers from the higher electric rates the data centers can cause.
Exclusive | Immigrant-led business group votes to sue NYC over Mamdani's taxpayer-funded grocery stores, alleging unfair competition
The board of an immigrant led business group is preparing to sue New York City over its plan to open five subsidized grocery stores that will undercut existing food stores in the neighborhood, The...
Wu-backed state Sen. candidate is Beacon Hill lobbyist, secured millions for nonprofit
A Democratic state Sen. candidate backed by Boston Mayor Michelle Wu is a registered lobbyist who has secured tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for the nonprofit organization she works for.
‘CoCo’ would take taxpayers for a ride
Colorado wants taxpayers to spend another $4.73 billion on passenger rail. Don’t worry. They have a plan. Which is a little like your brother-in-law announcing he’s launching another exciting restaurant venture after his last three restaurants ended in bankruptcy. Please. Tell me where to send the check. This week the Front Range Passenger Rail District […]
Understanding The Fraught Politics Of Powering AI
Growing anxiety over electricity bills, on the rise in part because of the AI-driven infrastructure buildout, has quickly become a liability for industry and politicians alike
Trump administration admits grants for clean energy were canceled based on politics
The statement contradicts officials' claims that the projects were canceled due to energy needs and taxpayer cost concerns.