March 26, 2025

8 theories why fentanyl deaths are plummeting

The state of Virginia has seen drug overdose deaths plunge by more than 40% in a single year. Many other states are seeing improvements above 30%. Why is this happening? Researchers say it may be a combination of factors, some hopeful and some painful.

The state of Virginia has seen drug overdose deaths plunge by more than 40% in a single year. Many other states are seeing improvements above 30%. Why is this happening? Researchers say it may be a combination of factors, some hopeful and some painful.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Over the past six months, I've been tracking something really cool and mysterious happening on American streets. For the first time in 30 years, drug deaths are plunging at a rate that addiction experts say is hopeful — but also baffling.

In the past, even the most ambitious, well-funded efforts to slow drug deaths only helped a little bit. Reducing fatal overdoses by 8% or 9% was seen as a huge win.

But now, deaths nationwide plunged more than 26% from the peak in June 2023, according to the latest preliminary data gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That means roughly 30,000 fewer people a year are dying. Many states are seeing even bigger improvements of 30% to 50%. In some states, progress has been sustained since 2021 and 2022, which suggests this isn't a temporary blip.

So how did the U.S. finally turn the corner on drug deaths?

What's going on? No one knows for sure, but here are eight leading theories I hear from experts.

1. Naloxone, also known as Narcan, may be the game-changer. The Biden administration raced to make this medication, a nasal spray that quickly reverses opioid and fentanyl overdoses, far more widely available. People can buy it now over the counter without a prescription. It's distributed for free in many high-risk communities, and people using drugs often carry it. It's unclear how many lives naloxone is saving each year, but many front-line public health workers tell me the impact is huge. Learn more here.

Naloxone, also known as Narcan, is much easier and more affordable than ever. People who use fentanyl now regularly revive one-another after experiencing overdoses. Some public health experts and activists think this medication may be a big factor shifting the tide of America's overdose crisis.

Naloxone, also known as Narcan, is much easier and more affordable than ever. People who use fentanyl now regularly revive one another after experiencing overdoses. Some public health experts and activists think this medication may be a big factor shifting the tide of America's overdose crisis.

Brian Mann/NPR

2. Weaker fentanyl. Street fentanyl is incredibly potent. But in many parts of the U.S., organizations that test fentanyl doses sold by drug dealers — often in pill form — have found a significant drop in purity. No one's sure why drug cartels have changed their mixtures. Some researchers believe law enforcement pressure in China, Mexico and the U.S. is disrupting the black market fentanyl supply chain. Learn more here.

3. A dangerous but less lethal street drug supply. In most of the the U.S., gangs are selling complicated "cocktails" of street drugs. The amount of fentanyl appears to be dropping (see above), while the amount of animal tranquilizers, such as medetomidine and xylazine, is rising. These chemicals are highly toxic. They cause skin wounds, severe withdrawal symptoms and other long-term health problems. But doctors and addiction experts generally agree they aren't as immediately lethal as fentanyl. That could mean more chronic illness but fewer fatal overdoses. Learn more here.

When America's opioid crisis began in the 1990s, drug addiction treatment was rare and often came shrouded in stigma. The U.S. addiction treatment system and safety net has seen huge improvements over the last decade. Better medications are available and in many communities more resources are available to help people using highly dangerous drugs like fentanyl.

When America's opioid crisis began in the 1990s, drug addiction treatment was rare and often came shrouded in stigma. The U.S. addiction treatment system and safety net have seen huge improvements over the past decade. Better medications are available, and in many communities, more resources are available to help people using highly dangerous drugs such as fentanyl.

Brian Mann/NPR

4. Better public health. Thirty years after the U.S. opioid crisis began — and a decade after fentanyl spread nationwide — the U.S. has made strides developing better and more affordable services for people experiencing addiction. Medications that reduce opioid cravings, including buprenorphine and methadone, are more widely available, in part because of insurance coverage provided by Medicaid. In many states, roughly $50 billion in opioid settlement money paid out by corporations is also starting to help. Going forward, it's unclear how the Trump administration's deep cuts to public health agencies and grants will affect this new addiction safety net. Learn more here.

5. Many of the most vulnerable people have already died. This theory is discounted by some researchers I talk to, but many addiction experts think it's a factor. Over the past five years, the U.S. has been losing roughly 110,000 people to fatal drug overdoses every year. It's possible drug deaths are declining in part because a heartbreaking number of people using fentanyl and other high-risk street drugs simply didn't survive. Learn more here.

6. Waning effect of the COVID pandemic. The isolation, trauma and disruption of addiction treatment programs that followed the onset of COVID in 2020 overlap with the most devastating years of drug overdose deaths. Many public health experts believe the pandemic deepened the catastrophic impacts of fentanyl. According to this theory, as the impacts of COVID continue to fade, deadly overdoses are also declining to a more "normal" level. Learn more here.

7. People are using fentanyl (and other high risk street drugs) more skillfully. This is a common theory among people who use street drugs. They often tell me they've adapted to the risks of fentanyl by smoking rather than injecting the drug, which many addiction experts believe is safer (though still incredibly dangerous). People try to never use fentanyl alone and often carry naloxone or Narcan to reverse overdoses. Many people use test strips to identify unwanted contaminants in their drugs and use smaller fentanyl doses. Learn more here.

8. A decline in young people using drugs. Street fentanyl has emerged as a leading cause of death among young people in the U.S., age 18 to 45. But research suggests far fewer young people and teenagers are using drugs (other than cannabis). This trend matters because new users have low physical tolerance for opioids such as fentanyl, which means they're more likely to overdose and potentially die. Fewer young users means fewer people taking that risk. Learn more here.

It's important to emphasize all of these theories are just that — theories. Most researchers, doctors and front-line care providers say they need more data and more time to understand a shift this large.

But there is a growing, tentative consensus that the answer may well be "all of the above."

March 25, 2025

Cuomo maintains dominant Democratic primary lead in new poll

By 

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo entering NYC Mayor's race
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
Photo By Dean Moses

Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo remains far ahead of the rest of the Democratic primary field after nearly a month as a declared candidate in the 2025 NYC mayor’s race, according to a new poll released on Tuesday.

The same poll also found that 80% of Democratic voters said they would not support Mayor Eric Adams no matter what he says or does. 

Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 following 11 allegations of sexual misconduct that he denies, led the Honan Strategy Group poll with 41% of first-round Democratic primary votes. The former governor would then win in the fifth round of ranked-choice counting with 51% of the vote.

The survey further cements Cuomo’s current status as the frontrunner in the race to replace Mayor Adams, and follows a series of other polls before he jumped into the contest that also showed him coming out on top. In the weeks since his March 1 campaign launch, Cuomo has raised $1.5 million and swept up endorsements from several pols, labor unions, and political organizations — many of whom had previously backed Adams.

“We generally don’t comment on polls, but this shows what we all know, the city is in crisis and New Yorkers believe that Andrew Cuomo is the candidate with the experience and the record of results needed to tackle the issues at hand and make New York City a safer and more affordable place for all,” said Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi in a statement.

The group’s survey of 909 city Democratic voters was conducted between March 18-20 and commissioned by Tusk Strategies. The firm’s CEO Chris Coffey supports Cuomo and has reportedly made calls on the former governor’s behalf, but says Tusk commissioned a series of polls with Honan before Cuomo was in the race, and he had nothing to do with conducting them.

Anybody but Adams, poll respondents say

Mayor Eric Adams.
Mayor Eric Adams.Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office

Mayor Adams, who came in 4th in the poll with (6%) of the vote, is underwater with most Democratic primary voters, the survey found. Only 15% of Democrats contacted by pollsters indicated they would still consider voting for the embattled mayor in the June 24 primary, which comes as his fundraising has slowed to a trickle and he has hardly campaigned for re-election.

Adams’ campaign spokesperson Todd Shapiro did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Furthermore, just 10% said they would be open to a prospective independent run in the general election. Adams has not denied rumors that he is considering running as an independent if he loses the primary, when asked by reporters.

Socialist Mamdani near 20% 

Queens Assembly member and Democratic socialist candidate for mayor Zohran MamdaniPhoto by Gabriele Holtermann

Coming behind Cuomo in the poll at 18%, is Democratic socialist Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani (Queens), whose upstart campaign has been gaining momentum over the past couple of months.

Mamdani said the poll shows that he is the candidate best position to defeat Cuomo, given that he is still unknown to 56% of voters and he raised millions of dollars in campaign cash.

“While Cuomo sold out New Yorkers for a book deal, slashed funding for our schools and subways, and curried favor from real estate moguls like Donald Trump, Zohran is laser-focused on the needs of working New Yorkers—and will continue to make that known until Election Day,” the Mamdani campaign said in a statement attacking Cuomo’s $5 million COVID-19 book deal, funding cuts as governor, and close ties to the real estate industry.

Following Mamdani are City Comptroller Brad Lander (8%), Mayor Adams (6%), former Comptroller Scott Stringer and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams (4%), and state Sens. Jessica Ramos (Queens) and Zellnor Myrie (Brooklyn) (2%).

Top U.S. Officials Discussed Plans For War in Unclassified Group Chat

Today the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, dropped the story that senior members of the Trump administration planned the March 15 U.S. attack on the Houthis in Yemen over Signal, a widely available encrypted app that is most decidedly not part of the United States national security system. The decision to steer around government systems was possibly an attempt to hide conversations, since the app was set to erase some messages after a week and others after four weeks. By law, government communications must be archived.

According to Goldberg, the use of Signal may also have violated the Espionage Act, which establishes how officials must handle information about the national defense. The app is not approved for national security use, and officials are supposed either to discuss military activity in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, or to use approved government equipment.

The use of Signal to plan a military attack on Yemen was itself an astonishingly dangerous breach, but what comes next is simply mind-boggling: the reason Goldberg could report on the conversation is that the person setting it up included Goldberg—a reporter without security clearance—in it.

Goldberg reports that on March 11 he received a connection request from someone named Michael Waltz, although he did not believe the actual Michael Waltz, who is Trump’s national security advisor, would be writing to him. He thought it was likely someone trying to entrap him, although he thought perhaps it could be the real Waltz with some information. Two days later, he was included in the “Houthi PC small group,” along with a message that the chat would be for “a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis.”

As Goldberg reports, a “principals committee generally refers to a group of the senior-most national-security officials, including the secretaries of defense, state, and the treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. It should go without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that I have never been invited to a White House principals-committee meeting, and that, in my many years of reporting on national-security matters, I had never heard of one being convened over a commercial messaging app.”

The other names on the app were those of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Brian McCormack from the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe, Trump’s Middle East and Ukraine negotiator Steve Witkoff, White House chief of staff Suzy Wiles, perhaps White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, and Trump’s nominee for head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent.

Goldberg assumed the chat was fake, some sort of disinformation campaign, although he was concerned when Ratcliffe provided the full name of a CIA operative in this unsecure channel. But on March 14, as Vance, for example, took a strong stand against Europe—“I just hate bailing Europe out again”—and as Hegseth emphasized that their messaging must be that “Biden failed,” Goldberg started to think the chat might be real. Those in the chat talked of finding a way to make Europe pay the costs for the U.S. attack, and of “minimiz[ing] risk to Saudi oil facilities.”

And then, on March 15, the messages told of the forthcoming attack. “I will not quote from this update, or from certain other subsequent texts,” Goldberg writes. “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

On the chat, reactions to the military strikes were emojis of a fist, an American flag, fire, praying hands, a flexed bicep, and “Good Job Pete and your team!!,” “Kudos to all…. Really great. God Bless,” and “Great work and effects!”

In the messages, with a reporter on the line, Hegseth promised his colleagues he would “do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC,” or operations security. In a message to the team outlining the forthcoming attack, Hegseth wrote: “We are currently clean on OPSEC.”

Two hours after Goldberg wrote to the officials on the chat and alerted them to his presence on it by asking questions about it, National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes responded: “The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials.”

When asked about the breach, Trump responded: “I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it’s not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?” There is nothing that the administration could say to make the situation better, but this made it worse. As national security specialist Tom Nichols noted: “If the President is telling the truth and no one’s briefed him about this yet, that’s another story in itself. In any other administration, [the chief of staff] would have been in the Oval [Office] within nanoseconds of learning about something like this.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is evidently going to try to bully his way out of this disaster. When asked about it, he began to yell at a reporter that Goldberg is a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again.” Hegseth looked directly at the camera and said: “Nobody was texting war plans.” But Goldberg has receipts. The chat had “the specific time of a future attack. Specific targets, including human targets…weapons systems…precise detail…a long section on sequencing…. He can say that it wasn’t a war plan, but it was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen.”

Zachary B. Wolf of CNN noted that “Trump intentionally hired amateurs for top jobs. This is their most dramatic blunder.” Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) told Brian Tyler Cohen: “My first reaction... was 'what absolute clowns.' Total amateur hour, reckless, dangerous…. [T]his is what happens when you have basically Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials.” Foreign policy scholar Timothy Snyder posted: “These guys inherited one of the most functional state apparatus in the history of the world and they are inhabiting it like a crack house.”

Many observers have noted that all of these national security officials knew that using Signal in this way was against the law, and their comfort with jumping onto the commercial app to plan a military strike suggests they are using Signal more generally. “How many Signal chats with sensitive information about military operations are ongoing within the Pentagon right now?” Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) posted. “Where else are war plans being shared with such abject disregard for our national security? We need answers. Right now.”

National security journalists and officials are aghast. Former commanding general of United States Army Europe and the Seventh Army Mark Hertling called the story “staggering.” Former CIA officer Matt Castelli posted: “This is more than ‘loose lips sink ships’, this is a criminally negligent breach of classified information and war planning involving VP, SecDef, D[irector of the] CIA, National Security Advisor—all putting troops at risk. America is not safe.” Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, who spent seven years as an intelligence officer in the Navy Reserve, posted: “From an operational security perspective, this is the highest level of f**kup imaginable. These people cannot keep America safe.”

Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said: "If true, this story represents one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen. The carelessness shown by President Trump's cabinet is stunning and dangerous. I will be seeking answers from the Administration immediately." Armed Services Committee member Don Bacon (R-NE), a former Air Force brigadier general, told Axios that “sending this info over non-secure networks” was “unconscionable.” “Russia and China are surely monitoring his unclassified phone.”

That the most senior members of Trump’s administration were sharing national security secrets on unsecure channels is especially galling since the people on the call have used alleged breaches of national security to hammer Democrats. Sarah Longwell and J.V. Last of The Bulwark compiled a series of video clips of Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller, Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe, and especially Pete Hegseth talking about the seriousness of handling secret information and the need for accountability for those who mishandle it. When they were accusing then–secretary of state Hillary Clinton of such a breach, they called for firings, accountability, and perhaps criminal charges. Indeed, Trump rose to power in 2016 with the charge that Clinton should be sent to prison for using a private email server. “Lock her up!” became the chant at his rallies.

Today, for her part, Clinton posted a link to the story along with an eyes emoji and wrote: “You have got to be kidding me.”

  China’s armed forces are more ready than ever to surround Taiwan, cut it off from the rest of the world and try to squeeze it into submission.

 A frail-looking Pope Francis was discharged from the hospital after largely recovering from a life-threatening respiratory infection. A8 

 The U.S. and China stepped up diplomatic efforts as a senator visiting Beijing said he was preparing for a summit between Trump and Xi. A18 


Dealing With Social Security Is Heading From Bad to Worse


The agency that administers benefits is cutting staff and restricting services as part of a Department of Government Efficiency review
By Anne Tergesen
Follow
and Ken Thomas
Follow
Updated March 24, 2025 6:18 pm ET

The federal agency that administers Social Security benefits is facing a customer-service mess.

The Social Security Administration is cutting staff, restricting what recipients can do over the phone and closing some local field offices that help people in person. The number of retirees claiming benefits has risen in recent years as baby boomers age.


Few federal agencies reach as far into Americans’ lives as the Social Security Administration, which delivers a monthly check to some 70 million people. Many fear that the changes, part of President Trump’s push to overhaul the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency, are eroding confidence in the nearly 90-year-old program.

Agency officials have acknowledged that because of a planned reduction in services over the phone, there will be longer wait and processing times. An estimated 75,000 to 85,000 additional visitors a week could show up at local field offices, according to an internal memo sent by Doris Diaz, the acting deputy commissioner for operations. (Details of the memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, were reported earlier by the Washington Post.)

That is likely to tax the agency’s 800 number, where people typically make appointments for office visits. Already, Social Security recipients have long complained about customer service.
Holly Lawrence made several unsuccessful attempts to reach a human before she filed her Social Security claim online. PHOTO: HOLLY LAWRENCE

Holly Lawrence, 64 years old, made several unsuccessful attempts to reach a human before she filed her Social Security claim online. The Washington, D.C.-based freelance journalist said she called the agency’s 800 number several times starting in February. Each time, she got an automated voice that warned of a two-hour wait. Her calls were disconnected before she could leave a message or request a callback.

She gave up trying to reach a customer-service agent and created an online account on the agency’s website on March 3. She had to wait two weeks for an account activation code to arrive in the mail before she could submit her claim. She is now waiting for that claim to be reviewed and processed.

Lawrence said she has virtually no retirement savings. “I’m financially strapped and cannot afford to get a financial adviser. It was important to me to be able to talk to someone at Social Security,” she said, adding that she is concerned the customer-service delays she encountered could negatively affect others “who don’t have the strength to be persistent.”

Social Security has a reputation as the “third rail“ of American politics, a benefit to which elected officials make cuts at the risk of their own re-election. President Trump has vowed not to cut benefits. But he and DOGE’s leader, Elon Musk, have made unfounded claims of widespread fraud in the program.





Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a recent podcast interview that if Social Security checks were hypothetically delayed, it might catch those guilty of fraud because they would make “the loudest noise screaming, yelling and complaining.”

Critics say turmoil at the agency is undermining trust in the safety-net programs.

“They’re killing these programs from the inside,” said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat. “The result of which is, we don’t know what they are doing to tear down the scaffolding that holds Social Security together.”

DOGE has gained access to systems containing personal information but a federal judge has temporarily blocked those efforts. On Friday, Leland Dudek, acting Social Security commissioner, threatened to shut down the agency because of the order, but later reversed course.

Many are already nervous about shortfalls in the program’s finances. Unless Congress acts to shore up the retirement program, it is projected to deplete its reserves in 2033, triggering a 21% reduction in benefits.

“Everybody worries about what they are doing and whether they’re trying to break the system,” said Sue Gentry. The 65-year-old Floridian said she is concerned that her benefits, which started two years ago, might be disrupted.

Dudek, the acting commissioner, said the changes “are designed to make sure the right payment is to the right person at the right time. It’s a common-sense measure.”

Even before DOGE’s plans went into motion, the agency’s customer-service operation had been showing signs of strain.

Roughly 47% of the quarter million people who call Social Security’s 800-number on an average day have gotten through to a representative this year. That is down from nearly 60% in 2024. The average time to wait for a callback is over two hours.

There has been a steady decline in the agency’s staff, and DOGE plans to cut employment by another 12% this year. That would bring the total number of employees to about 50,000, from about 57,000 today and nearly 68,000 in 2010.

“Customer service has been going downhill for years,” said Bill Sweeney, senior vice president at AARP. “It’s going to get worse.”

Some of the Social Security Administration’s changes amount to cuts in services.

Starting March 31, people who want to file for retirement, survivor or disability benefits or change their direct deposit information can no longer complete the process by phone, the agency said Tuesday. Instead they must do so online or at a field office.

The agency said it is stopping phone claims as part of an effort to reduce fraud and strengthen identity-proofing procedures. The Social Security agency has estimated that improper payments represent 0.3% of total benefits.

Dudek acknowledged that recent changes, including the shift away from claiming on the phone, are likely to drive up the numbers making appointments at field offices over the next 60 days. He said field employees would be trained over the next two weeks to respond to the changes.

“We’re going to adjust our policy and our procedures to adapt to that volume,” he said in a recent call with reporters. “These changes are not intended to hurt our customers.”

Dudek said Monday in a call with advocates that the phone service policy change and quick timeline were directed by the White House, according to people familiar with the call.

Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says it isn’t clear why the agency chose to discontinue identity verification over the phone, while allowing it online and in person. She and other advocates say that by discontinuing the phone option, the agency is creating hurdles for those who lack internet service or live far from a field office.

The agency has also largely stopped serving walk-in customers in field offices, said Maria Freese, senior legislative representative at the nonprofit National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare. Most wanting in-person service must book appointments on the 800-number. (The Biden administration approved the change.)

In February, 45% of people who scheduled a phone or in-person appointment to file a claim got one within 28 days.

DOGE plans to close nearly 50 of the agency’s approximately 1,200 field offices, according to Social Security Works, although a spokeswoman for the nonprofit said some of the offices on the list “don’t seem to exist.”

Frank Bisignano, chairman and CEO of Fiserv Inc., has been picked by Trump to serve as SSA’s commissioner and will appear before the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday to discuss his nomination.
S


March 24, 2025

Top Trump Campaign Aide Sues The Daily Beast for Defamation

The lawsuit accuses the news site of knowingly publishing false information about how much Chris LaCivita, a Trump campaign manager, was paid by the campaign.Chris LaCivita, a former campaign manager for President Trump, at the joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill this month.
Credit..Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

By Katie Robertson and David Enrich
March 24, 2025, 5:59 p.m. ET

One of President Trump’s former campaign managers, Chris LaCivita, on Monday filed a defamation lawsuit against The Daily Beast over its reporting on how much he was paid by the campaign.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, accuses The Daily Beast of creating “the false impression that Mr. LaCivita was personally profiting excessively from his work on the campaign and that he was prioritizing personal gain over the campaign’s success.”

It centers on an article published Oct. 15, 2024, with the headline: “Trump In Cash Crisis-As Campaign Chief’s $22m Pay Revealed.” The article was written by Michael Isikoff, a freelance journalist, who was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The article stated that Mr. LaCivita, a manager of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign, had negotiated a series of contracts and was paid millions of dollars over two years from the campaign. The allegations were repeated in several follow-up articles and discussed on a Daily Beast podcast.



According to the complaint, Mr. LaCivita’s lawyers on Nov. 5 demanded a correction and a retraction, saying public records from the Federal Election Commission conflicted with statements in the article.

The Daily Beast corrected its article a few days after the demand by changing the amount to $19.2 million from $22 million and clarified that the funds went to Mr. LaCivita’s consulting firm rather than to him personally. The headline was modified, and an editor’s note was appended to the article.After Mr. LaCivita’s lawyers demanded further retractions in January, The Daily Beast removed a podcast episode titled “How Has Trump’s Campaign Manager Made $22 MILLION?” from its platforms.

Mark Geragos, a lawyer for Mr. LaCivita, said The Daily Beast “should have investigated and followed the money before publishing lies in order to get clicks and push their political agenda.”

The Daily Beast said in a statement that the outlet stood by its reporting on Mr. LaCivita.

The lawsuit is the latest recent instance of defamation and other legal actions that Mr. Trump and his allies have filed against news outlets and journalists whose coverage they claim was misleading or inaccurate.

Mr. Trump, for example, has outstanding lawsuits against CBS News, The Des Moines Register, CNN and the group that awards the Pulitzer Prizes. Mr. Trump’s advisers have also repeatedly threatened or filed such lawsuits. As recently as Friday, Elon Musk warned that one was “inbound” after a former congressman criticized him on television.

The legal actions and threats have coincided with efforts by the Trump administration to constrain mainstream news organizations. The White House has restricted The Associated Press’s access to the president. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating broadcasters. And Mr. Trump and allies like Mr. Musk have railed against news outlets and individual journalists, including by falsely claiming that they are government propaganda outfits.

To win defamation lawsuits, public figures like Mr. Trump and Mr. LaCivita must prove that defendants knew that what they were writing was false or acted with reckless disregard for its accuracy. That high bar was erected in a series of Supreme Court precedents that Mr. Trump and his allies are pushing to overturn.

Picking tax cuts





House Speaker Mike Johnson Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times



By Andrew Duehren

Republicans have a math problem.

There’s a long list of taxes they want to cut. But they can’t cut them all, because House Republicans have set a $4.5 trillion limit on the amount of money the federal budget can lose over the next 10 years to tax cuts.

Even such a huge figure is not enough to encompass all of Republicans’ ambitions, which include ending taxes on tips, trimming corporate payments and extending other treasured tax breaks. So members of Congress are negotiating over what they can actually squeeze into their bill — and what they’ll have to leave out.

In today’s newsletter, I’ll walk through the Republican wish list. I’ll also explain how Senate Republicans want to use what is essentially a budgetary cheat code to make the math problem much easier.
The old tax cuts

Much of the $4.5 trillion plan will be eaten up just by keeping the last round of tax cuts in place.

In 2017, during President Trump’s first term, Republicans passed a bill that lowered taxes for individuals and corporations. Then, too, they were trying to cram their ambitions below a ceiling. So they scheduled many of the cuts, including a larger standard deduction and an expanded child tax credit, to expire at the end of 2025. They were betting that Congress would not let taxes go up on many Americans.

They were right. But keeping taxes where they are now will cost roughly $4 trillion over 10 years. And a few business tax breaks are already phasing out. Restoring those would cost an additional $200 billion. That would leave just $300 billion for other ideas.

There’s another problem: Republicans said their target was contingent on $2 trillion in spending cuts. If they slash less than that, the tax cut will have to shrink, too. Suddenly, the House plan does not seem so sweeping.

The new tax cuts

Source: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget | Not all proposed tax cuts are shown. | By The New York Times


But Trump wants to do more than just extend the tax cuts from his first term. During the presidential campaign, he outlined several new ideas, many of which call for exempting different types of income from taxation. These will be expensive. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group, has estimated their costs over 10 years:

At least $100 billion not to tax tips
At least $250 billion not to tax overtime
At least $550 billion to lower taxes on Social Security benefits
At least $200 billion to increase the deduction for state and local taxes


Including all of these ideas in the bill would exceed the G.O.P. limit by hundreds of billions of dollars. So House Republicans are looking to raise other taxes — by ending subsidies for electric vehicles, for example — to compensate.

They almost certainly can’t balance the scales, but they have a few options. They could abandon some of Trump’s pledges, continue the 2017 tax cuts for less than 10 years or do some combination of the two. Lawmakers are crunching the numbers to figure out what they can stomach.
The Senate solution

Republicans in the Senate believe they have an easy answer to this conundrum. They want to change the way tax cuts are counted. According to their proposal, keeping the old Trump tax cuts in place would cost nothing.

How is that possible? Right now, scorekeepers in Washington evaluate future costs based on what the law says. Because much of the 2017 tax law ends this year, extending it would count as a new tax cut — and tax cuts cost money.

Republicans in the Senate see it differently. They argue that the cost of legislation should be compared to the price of policies that are in place right now. The old Trump tax cuts are currently in effect, they say, so maintaining the status quo should appear to cost $0, not $4 trillion. (My colleagues collected some of the most colorful comparisons for this maneuver. One budget expert said, “It’s like taking an expensive weeklong vacation and then assuming you can spend an extra $1,000 per day forever since you are no longer staying at the Plaza.”)

Adopting this standard would make it a lot easier to craft a tax bill that, on paper, costs less than $4.5 trillion. Then only new measures, like not taxing tips, would add to the cost. But some Republicans in Congress warn that changing the score-keeping rules could destroy the last shreds of fiscal discipline in Washington, potentially expanding a deficit that most economists already believe is too large.
The bottom line

It’s unclear if Republicans will solve their arithmetic problem. Reaching a consensus could take months. With the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, they face an unforgiving deadline. Failure would mean that Republicans would either oversee a tax increase on many Americans or turn to Democrats for a bipartisan fix. Republicans are hoping to avoid both of those outcomes.