{"id":846,"date":"2026-07-30T18:30:15","date_gmt":"2026-07-30T18:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/?p=846"},"modified":"2026-08-04T12:00:41","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T12:00:41","slug":"the-politics-of-grant-cuts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/2026\/07\/30\/the-politics-of-grant-cuts\/","title":{"rendered":"The Politics of Grant Cuts"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>\n\t\tThe Host\t<\/h3>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n\t\t\t<img src=\"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Rovner-Julie2021_1100sq.jpg\" alt=\"Julie Rovner photo\" \/><\/p>\n<div>Julie Rovner<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/jrovner\" title=\"@jrovner\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t@jrovner\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/julierovner.bsky.social\" title=\"@julierovner.bsky.social\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t@julierovner.bsky.social\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/author\/julie-rovner\/\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\tRead Julie&#039;s stories.\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\tJulie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News&#8217; weekly health policy news podcast, &quot;What the Health?&quot; A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book &quot;Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,&quot; now in its third edition.\n\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>The Trump administration has conceded in court documents that it used purely political considerations to cancel grant funding previously approved by Congress. But that has provoked a surprisingly muted response from lawmakers, who under the Constitution control the power of the purse.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate summoned former National Institutes of Health and White House official Anthony Fauci to testify \u2014 again \u2014 about his handling of the covid pandemic. Fauci, however, refused to answer questions, citing the advice of his attorneys.<\/p>\n<p>This week&#8217;s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal.<\/p>\n<h3>\n\t\tPanelists\t<\/h3>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n\t\t\t<img src=\"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/rachel-cohrs-zhang_1024sq.jpg\" alt=\"Rachel Cohrs Zhang photo\" \/><\/p>\n<div>Rachel Cohrs Zhang<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tBloomberg News<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/rachelcohrs\" title=\"@rachelcohrs\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t@rachelcohrs\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/authors\/AXRq_zf-m8I\/rachel-cohrs-zhang\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\tRead Rachel&#039;s stories.\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n\t\t\t<img src=\"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Luthra_757sq.jpg\" alt=\"Shefali Luthra photo\" \/><\/p>\n<div>Shefali Luthra<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tThe 19th<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/shefali.bsky.social\" title=\"@shefali.bsky.social\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t@shefali.bsky.social\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/19thnews.org\/author\/shefali-luthra\/\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\tRead Shefali&#039;s stories.\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n\t\t\t<img src=\"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Whyte_900sq.jpg\" alt=\"Liz Essley Whyte photo\" \/><\/p>\n<div>Liz Essley Whyte<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tThe Wall Street Journal<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/l_e_whyte\" title=\"@l_e_whyte\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t@l_e_whyte\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/news\/author\/liz-essley-whyte\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\tRead Liz&#039;s stories.\t\t\t\t<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>Among the takeaways from this week&#8217;s episode:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Recent court filings shed light on how the Trump administration has used politics to justify its decisions to cancel federal grants. While similar revelations may have been explosive under other presidents, the filings have triggered muted, if any, responses from lawmakers.<\/li>\n<li>The Trump administration announced this week that it would end the temporary Medicare Part D subsidies, introduced under the Biden administration, that help lower the monthly premiums older Americans pay for drug coverage. While next year&#8217;s premiums probably would have increased anyway, the change \u2014 which many will notice when they shop for plans later this year, shortly before the midterm elections \u2014 may not help Republicans in the voting booth.<\/li>\n<li>Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) brought Fauci before the committee he chairs to address accusations related to his role in the nation&#8217;s covid response as a key adviser to Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But little of substance was said, with the hearing quickly devolving into political grandstanding as Fauci asserted his constitutional right not to self-incriminate.<\/li>\n<li>An FDA advisory panel voted to recommend the agency make it easier for Americans to obtain several previously banned compounds known as peptides \u2014 even as FDA staff caution that there&#8217;s no evidence they are safe. The panel included members who stand to profit from expanded access to peptides.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Plus, for &#8220;extra credit&#8221; the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Julie Rovner:<\/strong> The Arkansas Times&#8217; &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/arktimes.com\/arkansas-blog\/2026\/07\/22\/women-dying-after-childbirth-as-state-averts-its-gaze\">Postpartum Women Go Without Care as Arkansas Holds Out as Lone State To Deny Them Medicaid<\/a>,&#8221; by Byron Tate.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rachel Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> KFF Health News&#8217; &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/health-industry\/cpsc-consumer-product-safety-commission-trump-er-injury-data-grab-neiss-konza\/\">Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records<\/a>,&#8221; by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Liz Essley Whyte:<\/strong> Stat&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2026\/07\/27\/e-bikes-scooters-children-teens-safety-orthopedics-research\/\">E-Bikes, E-Scooters Are a Burgeoning Pediatric Public Health Emergency<\/a>,&#8221; by J. Todd R. Lawrence and Madison A. Kesler.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Shefali Luthra:<\/strong> The Washington Post&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/2026\/07\/23\/rfk-jrs-crusade-against-ssri-antidepressants-needs-more-research\/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzg0Nzc5MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzg2MTYxNTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3ODQ3NzkyMDAsImp0aSI6IjQ2M2Q5ZWQ3LTg3MTItNDg2Zi1hMjFkLTM4YTZiY2Y0M2EzNyIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI2LzA3LzIzL3Jmay1qcnMtY3J1c2FkZS1hZ2FpbnN0LXNzcmktYW50aWRlcHJlc3NhbnRzLW5lZWRzLW1vcmUtcmVzZWFyY2gvIn0.8mxEGrX6U9tsUBA0B12a75htMqA1Dsp4DkAPN-puZo0\">The Problem With RFK Jr.&#8217;s Crusade Against Antidepressants<\/a>,&#8221; by Aaron E. Carroll.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;Also mentioned in this week&#8217;s podcast:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The New York Times&#8217; &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/07\/24\/business\/trump-state-grants-canceled.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share\">Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him<\/a>,&#8221; by Tony Romm and Brad Plumer.<\/li>\n<li>CalMatters&#8217; &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/education\/higher-education\/2026\/07\/research-grants-california-2\/\">White House Admits It Used Keywords To Kill Billions Worth of California Research Grants<\/a>,&#8221; by Mikhail Zinshteyn.<\/li>\n<li>The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/trump-rfk-jr-cut-vaccine-children-78582411?mod=author_content_page_1_pos_2\">Trump Turns Up the Heat on RFK Jr. To Cut Back Childhood Vaccines<\/a>,&#8221; by Liz Essley Whyte.<\/li>\n<li>Bloomberg News&#8217; &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/features\/2026-07-26\/at-trump-s-hhs-mehmet-oz-seen-as-heir-apparent-to-rfk-jr-as-health-secretary?utm_source=website&amp;utm_medium=share&amp;utm_campaign=twitter\">From TV Doctor to Power Broker: Dr. Oz Thrives on Trump&#8217;s Team<\/a>,&#8221; by Rachel Cohrs Zhang.<\/li>\n<li>KFF Health News&#8217; &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/ahrq-funding-grants-trump-healthcare-safety-research-agency-hobbled\/\">Trump Has Quietly Throttled an Agency Devoted to the Safety of American Healthcare<\/a>,&#8221; by Arthur Allen.<\/li>\n<li>The Washington Post&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/health\/2026\/07\/24\/peptide-boom-has-states-scrambling-protect-consumers-post-investigation-finds\/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzg0ODY1NjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzg2MjQ3OTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3ODQ4NjU2MDAsImp0aSI6ImFhOGFkYzM3LWI0YjQtNDViMC05M2EzLWRjNTZjNGU5YmRiZSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9oZWFsdGgvMjAyNi8wNy8yNC9wZXB0aWRlLWJvb20taGFzLXN0YXRlcy1zY3JhbWJsaW5nLXByb3RlY3QtY29uc3VtZXJzLXBvc3QtaW52ZXN0aWdhdGlvbi1maW5kcy8ifQ.V-HofLqSFFJq03HToaQU8t0o9ZtjR_xcu8aDIYY5Em4\">Peptide Boom Has States Scrambling To Protect Consumers, Post Investigation Finds<\/a>,&#8221; by Lauren Weber.<\/li>\n<li>Politico&#8217;s &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2026\/07\/26\/abortion-opponents-new-weapon-wastewater-data-01011537\">Activists \u2018Throwing Everything&#8217; They Can Against Abortion Turn to Wastewater Data<\/a>,&#8221; by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Ariel Wittenberg.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<details id=\"transcript\">\n<summary>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"expandable__label \"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\tClick to expand the transcript\t\t\t\t<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class=\"expandable__title\" style=\"font-size:\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTranscript: The Politics of Grant Cuts\t\t\t\t<\/span><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/summary>\n<div>\n<p><em>[<\/em><strong><em>Editor&#8217;s note:<\/em><\/strong><em>&nbsp;This transcript was generated using transcription software. It has been edited for style and clarity.]<\/em>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Julie Rovner:<\/strong>&nbsp;Hello, from KFF Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to&nbsp;<em>What the Health?<\/em>&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And, as always,&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington.&nbsp;We&#8217;re&nbsp;taping this week on Thursday,&nbsp;July&nbsp;30,&nbsp;at 10 a.m. As always, news happens&nbsp;fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today,&nbsp;we are joined via video conference by Rachel&nbsp;Cohrs Zhang&nbsp;of Bloomberg News.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rachel Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Hi, everyone.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong>&nbsp;Liz&nbsp;Essley&nbsp;Whyte&nbsp;of&nbsp;The Wall Street Journal.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Liz Essley Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Hello.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And Shefali Luthra of&nbsp;The&nbsp;19<sup>th<\/sup>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Shefali Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>Hello.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>No interview this week, but more than enough news, so&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;get right to it. I want to start with a story that I feel&nbsp;like&nbsp;is&nbsp;getting a little bit buried because it broke last Friday.&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2026\/07\/24\/business\/trump-state-grants-canceled.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The New York Times reported<\/a>&nbsp;on a federal court filing in which the Trump administration admitted that it canceled&nbsp;$7.5&nbsp;billion&nbsp;in clean-energy grants solely because they&nbsp;were located in&nbsp;states represented by Democrats that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. In other words, the actions were purely political. Now, this is before the administration&nbsp;finalizes&nbsp;proposed rules that would give political appointees still more power over how grant funding is distributed. I heard one pundit say on cable news that in any other administration, this sort of information would lead to an immediate impeachment inquiry. But these days,&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;just another day that&nbsp;ends in&nbsp;&#8220;y.&#8221;&nbsp;Is the lack of public outcry about this because everyone already assumes that everything this administration does is political?&nbsp;Or is this considered just too inside baseball for most&nbsp;voters?&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Well,&nbsp;I was&nbsp;gonna&nbsp;say I think this has long been people&#8217;s suspicions about why certain grants are cut in the way that they are, or some of these Medicare\/Medicaid investigations are the way that they are.&nbsp;And&nbsp;so&nbsp;I think maybe the lack of outcry&nbsp;was just people shrugging their shoulders and saying, I mean,&nbsp;yeah, we guessed&nbsp;that,&nbsp;you know. I&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;know.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>It&nbsp;was&nbsp;really chaotic&nbsp;too, and hard to keep track of all these different things for people whose job it is to do so.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I feel like the fact that this is protracted for so long,&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;like, which&nbsp;DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency]&nbsp;cuts were those?&nbsp;And&nbsp;I think it&nbsp;is important,&nbsp;certainly, and&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;glad&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;been coverage of it, just for the record, and just kind of for history purposes and just understanding the limits of that&nbsp;kind of change to government at that speed.&nbsp;But yeah, I think it is just hard to break&nbsp;through in&nbsp;this news cycle, and it was very chaotic and confusing for everyone.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:<\/strong>&nbsp;One thing I have been thinking about, though, is when you think about these states where grants were canceled, there are a lot of people who live there who did, in fact, vote for Donald Trump.&nbsp;And depending on the size of the state, you&nbsp;probably have&nbsp;members of Congress who are&nbsp;actually in&nbsp;Republican districts.&nbsp;And&nbsp;that,&nbsp;I think,&nbsp;is really interesting.&nbsp;And I just wonder if eventually there&nbsp;is&nbsp;some sort of conversation. Those are&nbsp;probably in&nbsp;some cases members who might be a little bit more on the defensive in other ways,&nbsp;just&nbsp;given the political environment we are in.&nbsp;And is this an issue that Democrats can talk about and highlight and&nbsp;sort of bring&nbsp;to voters and say, you know, your representative is not here defending your interests because of&nbsp;these broader sort of punitive measures&nbsp;being taken by the White House.&nbsp;I think&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;an interesting thing that we&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;know the answer to yet.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>I know I keep saying this, but I&nbsp;can&#8217;t&nbsp;believe that Republicans on the&nbsp;[Senate]&nbsp;Appropriations Committee&nbsp;aren&#8217;t&nbsp;being louder about this. This is the one power that they have.&nbsp;It&#8217;s&nbsp;why you get on the Appropriations&nbsp;Committee,&nbsp;is&nbsp;you get to steer money to your state or your district. That is the great perquisite of being in Congress, and the administration is&nbsp;basically taking&nbsp;it away.&nbsp;And&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;just letting them. I mean, Susan Collins told Politico, quote,&nbsp;&#8220;I obviously think that&#8217;s wrong.&#8221;&nbsp;But she&nbsp;doesn&#8217;t&nbsp;seem willing to do anything about this. I mean,&nbsp;she&#8217;s&nbsp;the&nbsp;chairman&nbsp;of the Senate Appropriations Committee!&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I think&nbsp;we&#8217;re,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;testing the checks-and-balances system to its fullest extent. This administration.&nbsp;They&nbsp;can only pick so many fights, you know.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, Susan Collins, especially,&nbsp;this whole administration has had to choose about when to say something and when to push behind closed doors, push publicly. I mean,&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;been lots of stuff that she&nbsp;hasn&#8217;t&nbsp;liked.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, for sure. Well, this is not the only case where the government has admitted to canceling grants for political reasons. In a case brought by researchers from the University of California, the administration confirmed it canceled some grants because&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/calmatters.org\/education\/higher-education\/2026\/07\/research-grants-california-2\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">they contained keywords<\/a>&nbsp;like&nbsp;&#8220;diversity,&#8221;&nbsp;&#8220;gender,&#8221;&nbsp;and&nbsp;&#8220;vaccine hesitancy&#8221;&nbsp;to cut off funding. The plaintiffs in that case argue that&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;a First Amendment violation. Again,&nbsp;we&#8217;ve&nbsp;known for some time that this has been happening. Are the courts just too slow to be able to deal with it, Rachel?&nbsp;That&#8217;s&nbsp;kind of what&nbsp;you were intimating. This has been dragging out, sort&nbsp;of bit by&nbsp;bit by bit.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, I think&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;hard.&nbsp;And I&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;just like with these grants dragging out too, it has impact for the people who are supposed to be receiving this funding and how their cycles work and hiring and just all the&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;that&nbsp;grant process. But I think&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;hard to make that&nbsp;connection,&nbsp;back to&nbsp;the&nbsp;individual voter. And I think&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;just a tough hill to climb in terms of public&nbsp;communications.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I think,&nbsp;yeah,&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;seeing these similar themes play out.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>And one thing that I think is&nbsp;really relevant&nbsp;that I keep coming back to is we did see a test run of this with the&nbsp;USAID&nbsp;[United States Agency for International Development]&nbsp;cuts at the beginning of the administration. Those happened very quickly. The courts took&nbsp;a very,&nbsp;very long&nbsp;time, and by the time there was any kind of real momentum in any&nbsp;direction,&nbsp;it was too late. People did not have money, firms had downsized, people had left&nbsp;their jobs, left the industry altogether.&nbsp;And,&nbsp;at the time, that seemed to me like a really striking test.&nbsp;If this is able to happen here, and it shows that things just continue, why not happen in other areas as well, where you have these grants being put out there that have maybe ideological tension with where the administration wants to be going?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>So&nbsp;I wanted to talk about some specific impacts on health policy, notably AHRQ, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, which, like USAID, the administration has all but eliminated, despite the fact that it was appropriated nearly&nbsp;$350 million for this year in a bill signed by President Trump.&nbsp;AHRQ, which is down to a fraction of its original staff and&nbsp;hasn&#8217;t&nbsp;funded any grants&nbsp;in more than a year, is&nbsp;actually a&nbsp;completely bipartisan creation from the 1990s. It was&nbsp;established&nbsp;to study healthcare quality and access issues, many of which go neatly hand in hand with the&nbsp;&#8220;Make America Healthy Again&#8221;&nbsp;agenda. Earlier this month, the administration stopped funding more than 100 grants, and an HHS&nbsp;[Department of Health and Human Services]&nbsp;spokeswoman&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/ahrq-funding-grants-trump-healthcare-safety-research-agency-hobbled\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">told my KFF Health News colleague Arthur Allen<\/a>&nbsp;only that the agency plans to establish a new,&nbsp;quote,&nbsp;&#8220;framework,&#8221;&nbsp;which I thought was the job of Congress.&nbsp;Again, too small to attract much notice?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>Probably. I mean, voters&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;know what AHRQ&nbsp;is. Like,&nbsp;we know about it because of our jobs, but this is not something people wake up and think about or talk to their neighbors about. It just feels very divorced from a lot of people&#8217;s realities. Even though, to your point, the consequences are far-reaching. They are long-term, and,&nbsp;also,&nbsp;the significance in terms of, as Rachel pointed out, separation of powers, checks and balances&nbsp;are&nbsp;also very striking.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>I&nbsp;mean, AHRQ&nbsp;studies things like patient safety.&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;old enough to remember when the,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;the big Institute of Medicine&nbsp;[now National Academy of Science]&nbsp;report came out that said how many people were injured by medical errors.&nbsp;It&nbsp;was a&nbsp;<em>huge<\/em>,&nbsp;<em>huge<\/em>&nbsp;issue. I mean, for&nbsp;<em>years<\/em>.&nbsp;And that&#8217;s&nbsp;basically what&nbsp;AHRQ&nbsp;does, and&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;what this administration says that they care about. They care about gold-standard science. They care about fraud. They care about making the health system safer. And yet, you know,&nbsp;AHRQ&nbsp;is just,&nbsp;<em>well, we&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;know what it is, so&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;going to make it go&nbsp;away<\/em>, basically.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Obviously, the HHS has not been as clear on this as you might hope and expect for the&nbsp;&#8220;most transparent administration in history.&#8221;&nbsp;But it is clear that,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;Kennedy is looking for pots of money to do the things that he wants to do.&nbsp;And it seems like this is one of the pots&nbsp;they&#8217;ve&nbsp;landed on as something that can be shifted around.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, so it does. Well, one cut that is likely to be noticed is the administration&#8217;s decision to end the temporary subsidy for Medicare Part D that prevented the addition of an out-of-pocket cap on how much enrollees have to spend each year on prescription drugs from spiking those monthly premiums. This will&nbsp;almost certainly&nbsp;raise premiums for many, if not most, of the 25 million seniors who have stand-alone Part D drug plans.&nbsp;And they will see those increases right before Election Day,&nbsp;because Medicare open enrollment starts Oct.&nbsp;15. And,&nbsp;by the way, seniors&nbsp;vote in disproportionate numbers in midterm elections. If I&nbsp;was&nbsp;a political adviser for this administration, I&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;think I would have&nbsp;advised&nbsp;doing this. Am I missing something here?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I think you&nbsp;are seeing&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;an interesting shift happening in terms of the power of the fiscal conservative wing of the administration.&nbsp;And I think&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;continue to see that play out. I will say&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;unclear, like,&nbsp;how much premiums would have increased anyway without this subsidy program ending, given that the&nbsp;premium increases are capped by statute,&nbsp;in the Inflation Reduction Act through 2029. So, I mean, there is a chance that they might have gone up 6% anyway.&nbsp;We&#8217;re&nbsp;maxing out that increase.&nbsp;But the messaging certainly was not stellar for them.&nbsp;And&nbsp;I think we&nbsp;saw some cleanup efforts on that,&nbsp;for them trying to say that,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;most seniors will see,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;no increase or an increase of&nbsp;less than&nbsp;$10 a month.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Or&nbsp;they&#8217;ll&nbsp;have,&nbsp;I think Dr. [Mehmet] Oz&nbsp;said,&nbsp;they&#8217;ll&nbsp;still have&nbsp;an option&nbsp;for a cheaper plan. Of course, that cheaper plan might not cover all their drugs, but&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yes.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I think&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;just like a&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;this is one,&nbsp;I think,&nbsp;data point in this larger theme&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;thinking about.&nbsp;And how do we see&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;as we move past the midterm&nbsp;elections&nbsp;and affordability may not be top of mind if&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;no electoral accountability for it&nbsp;\u2014 how does that change what&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;seeing out of these agencies?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>I&#8217;m&nbsp;just old enough to remember when,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;you&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;raise costs for Medicare beneficiaries right before a midterm election, which is what this will do. Well, it&nbsp;isn&#8217;t&nbsp;all cuts. The administration this week finally released the&nbsp;$600 million that Congress had appropriated for the&nbsp;global Vaccine Initiative, Gavi. That was money for last year and this year. The funding had been blocked by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.&nbsp;even though it goes through the State Department, not the Department of Health and Human Services.&nbsp;Kennedy had been concerned that Gavi&nbsp;was paying for vaccines&nbsp;containing&nbsp;the preservative thimerosal, which has been accused,&nbsp;and cleared,&nbsp;of causing autism. Do we know&nbsp;what&nbsp;finally sprung this money loose?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I think there&nbsp;was a deadline of Sept.&nbsp;30, and the funding would have expired. And we did see&nbsp;kind of an&nbsp;exchange with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Susan Collins, where he said,&nbsp;&#8220;You know, I&#8217;m going to take ownership of this, and we&#8217;re going to get it done.&#8221;&nbsp;And&nbsp;so&nbsp;I think there&nbsp;was a push by administration officials to get this funding&nbsp;pried&nbsp;loose.&nbsp;And&nbsp;I think there&nbsp;are questions about whether Gavi was&nbsp;kind of heading&nbsp;this way already with some of these vaccines.&nbsp;I think they&nbsp;were starting the transition, but I think there&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;see how the implementation works on it. But I think there might be an argument that&nbsp;maybe this&nbsp;transition might have happened&nbsp;maybe faster&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;or&nbsp;to a&nbsp;broader&nbsp;degree.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>The transition away from using&nbsp;thimerosal.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yes, the states&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;one hexavalent vaccine where countries could already apply to transition to a different formulation without thimerosal starting in 2023. So, but&nbsp;maybe an&nbsp;option would be broader.&nbsp;Just there&#8217;s kind of a lot up in the air as to actually how this gets operationalized in the timeline.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, I was thinking,&nbsp;though,&nbsp;this&nbsp;might have been one of the cases where Congress complaining, both publicly and privately, did actually have some impact. But also, I know a lot of it was Marco Rubio stepping in and saying,&nbsp;&#8220;Hey, this is&nbsp;a&nbsp;State Department thing.&#8221;&nbsp;And finally, you know, I say a year and eight months later, the money gets distributed. All&nbsp;right,&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;going to take a quick break. We will be right back.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Well, speaking of things that may or may not be good politics, Republican Sen.&nbsp;Rand Paul of Kentucky called former NIH&nbsp;[National Institutes of Health]&nbsp;and White House science official Tony Fauci before his Homeland Security Committee Wednesday to rake him over the&nbsp;coals&nbsp;again over his handling of the&nbsp;covid&nbsp;pandemic. Fauci, who received a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden as Biden was walking out of the Oval Office door in 2025,&nbsp;did not take the bait. He pleaded the&nbsp;Fifth, lest anything he said be used for a new prosecution for lying to&nbsp;Congress. Meanwhile, Paul says&nbsp;he&#8217;ll&nbsp;try to find Fauci in contempt of Congress, which, by the way, would&nbsp;take 60 votes, which feels a little unlikely. Separately, several red-state attorneys general say they now want to investigate Fauci since his pardon&nbsp;doesn&#8217;t&nbsp;cover state prosecutions. First, prosecute him for what? And is relitigating&nbsp;covid&nbsp;origins and lockdowns&nbsp;really good&nbsp;politics for Republicans?&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;sure it riles up the base, but&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;hard to see them running on this as their health agenda.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>So&nbsp;Rand Paul actually said on TV last night that he just thinks his committee needs to do the contempt of Congress&nbsp;vote, and then they can refer it to the DOJ&nbsp;[Department of Justice].&nbsp;So&nbsp;they may not need 60 votes. So that will be interesting. Meanwhile,&nbsp;[Sen.]&nbsp;Ron Johnson&nbsp;[R-Wis.]&nbsp;has also threatened to subpoena Fauci.&nbsp;And the Florida&nbsp;attorney&nbsp;general is opening an investigation.&nbsp;And Alabama Sen.&nbsp;Tommy Tuberville says if he becomes governor,&nbsp;he&#8217;s&nbsp;going to try to figure out a way to prosecute Fauci in Alabama.&nbsp;So&nbsp;there&#8217;s definitely a lot of focus on Dr. Fauci.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>I repeat, though, prosecute him for what?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Well, you know, before the hearing, Rand Paul was saying,&nbsp;<em>Yeah, his preemptive pardon&nbsp;covers stuff in the past, but if he lies again at this hearing, then we will, you know, go after him<\/em>&nbsp;or whatever.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Right, and&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;why he&nbsp;didn&#8217;t,&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;why he&nbsp;pleaded the Fifth.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Right, which is&nbsp;why it was viewed as an&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;entrapment situation that he should probably&nbsp;steer clear of, and why he would not even answer,&nbsp;like, what is the color of the carpet.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And what color his tie was, or was it Sen.&nbsp;[Josh]&nbsp;Hawley&#8217;s tie?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, and what day of the week it was,&nbsp;yeah.&nbsp;Whether&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;good politics for Republicans, I think&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;have to see.&nbsp;There&#8217;s&nbsp;an Ohio candidate that&nbsp;they&#8217;ve&nbsp;tried to get for being,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;covid&nbsp;czar or whatever, and that really&nbsp;hasn&#8217;t&nbsp;gone anywhere in Ohio.&nbsp;She&#8217;s&nbsp;polling&nbsp;OK.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I think&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;a good question on whether voters still care about this or not. I think obviously a lot of them do, but,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;the suburban women who are,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;the famous swing voters, what do they think about Dr. Fauci? Will be interesting to see.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, I mean, I guess just for watching the questioning,&nbsp;it seemed that they&#8217;re&nbsp;trying to, you know, that we know that Democrats have more enthusiasm going into this midterm than Republicans.&nbsp;And it looked like the Republicans were trying to, you know, reactivate the angry&nbsp;covid&nbsp;base, if you will, to get them to come out and vote.&nbsp;It&#8217;s&nbsp;just&nbsp;hard&nbsp;to know how many people are angry enough to come out, you know, six years later.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>All right. Well, speaking of buzzy stories, Liz, you&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/politics\/policy\/trump-rfk-jr-cut-vaccine-children-78582411?mod=author_content_page_1_pos_2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">broke the buzzy story of the week<\/a>&nbsp;about how Trump might be pushing RFK Jr. on childhood vaccine policy rather than what we all assumed was the other way around.&nbsp;So&nbsp;tell us about&nbsp;it.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, this is a bit of a counterintuitive news development for two reasons. One, because&nbsp;everybody thinks RFK Jr. is the big vaccine skeptic in the administration.&nbsp;And two,&nbsp;because the White House had,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;is widely reported that they were telling HHS to&nbsp;&#8220;ix-nay on the&nbsp;accines-vay&#8221;&nbsp;ahead of the midterms&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;like,&nbsp;just dial it down a little bit because of polling they had from the winter that showed while food and ag&nbsp;[agricultural]&nbsp;stuff was really popular, the other&nbsp;MAHA&nbsp;stuff, vaccine skepticism,&nbsp;was not, and they kind of wanted to tone it&nbsp;down. But&nbsp;the&nbsp;president does what he wants. He does not always listen to the polling.&nbsp;And he has been telling Kennedy since at least May, w<em>hy aren&#8217;t you doing more to probe the connection,&nbsp;<\/em>in his mind,<em>&nbsp;between vaccines and autism?<\/em>&nbsp;And this took Kennedy aback, actually, at a golf course lunch in May.&nbsp;He was surprised because he was still under the&nbsp;impression&nbsp;they were supposed to be dialing back. And President Trump told him,&nbsp;&#8220;You have the yips,&#8221;&nbsp;which I just think is such a funny&nbsp;word.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>It&#8217;s&nbsp;a golf&nbsp;term.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yes,&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;a golf&nbsp;term.&nbsp;And that has continued to be,&nbsp;actually,&nbsp;a&nbsp;point of tension between the two men, with the president venting his frustration to Kennedy at a mid-June Oval Office meeting.&nbsp;And part of the reason we&#8217;re seeing some of this increased action, even if it&#8217;s not,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;really talked about much, but appeals&nbsp;to the federal appeals court to speed up the decision for the key vaccine advisory panel of the CDC&nbsp;[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and then also there was that EO&nbsp;[executive order]&nbsp;in May that Trump put out on the childhood vaccine schedule, and just kind of general scrambling behind the scenes to figure out,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;what they can deliver for the president, who is, I&#8217;m told, a results guy and wants to see results and thinks, you know, it&#8217;s been a year and a half, and why aren&#8217;t there results? So,&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;see where that leads.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Well, meanwhile, if this puts Kennedy in hot water with the president,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/features\/2026-07-26\/at-trump-s-hhs-mehmet-oz-seen-as-heir-apparent-to-rfk-jr-as-health-secretary?utm_source=website&amp;utm_medium=share&amp;utm_campaign=twitter\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Rachel, you this week write about<\/a>&nbsp;what the newest, who the newest likely candidate is should RFK Jr. leave his post, either voluntarily or not so voluntarily. Tell us about your story.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>So&nbsp;I have been working on this story for&nbsp;a very long&nbsp;time.&nbsp;But I think we&#8217;ve seen kind of this surprise in Washington that Dr. Oz, who&#8217;s leading Medicare and Medicaid, has actually like navigated the Trump administration with great skill, and I think we were finally able to capture the scope of that,&nbsp;him translating that skill into personal relationships with the president, with the secretary, and getting himself a seat at the table on far more policy issues than a CMS&nbsp;[Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services]&nbsp;administrator would normally get.&nbsp;And&nbsp;I think we&nbsp;saw,&nbsp;those of us who remember the first Trump administration,&nbsp;how ugly things got between HHS and CMS&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;was like very adversarial, like&nbsp;a&nbsp;really&nbsp;bad time&nbsp;in there, very toxic. But I think&nbsp;we&#8217;ve&nbsp;seen him take a more,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;cooperative approach. He wields his influence,&nbsp;is more explaining things. He is a medical doctor, his&nbsp;training, unlike the secretary. And I think there is just,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;a general trust and,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;personal friendship between the two of them that has translated into this interesting dynamic,&nbsp;where Dr. Oz kind of serves as a go-between on some of these issues between the White House and the&nbsp;secretary and gets everybody kind of to the place where they need to go.&nbsp;And&nbsp;he&#8217;s&nbsp;just a good communicator and has built a lot of trust and parlayed that into getting&nbsp;himself a seat&nbsp;at the table.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, and Liz&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;your story about Kennedy and Trump also suggested that Oz&#8217;s favor is rising, shall we say?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, the White House staff love Oz because they know they can send him to the Hill. They can put him on&nbsp;TV. Like,&nbsp;he&#8217;s&nbsp;going to do&nbsp;a great job. Rachel had&nbsp;this&nbsp;too. You know, the president calling and texting Oz and saying, you know,&nbsp;<em>what about this issue?<\/em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;it&nbsp;has nothing to do with CMS. He&#8217;s, you know, being called upon to do other stuff that is not in his portfolio. So&nbsp;yeah, every lobbyist is&nbsp;just,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;watching their clock and seeing when Oz takes over. I&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;know&nbsp;that&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;that straightforward.&nbsp;I think the president and secretary&nbsp;have a very warm friendship, and it took a lot for&nbsp;Kristi Noem&nbsp;to get let go, and I&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;think&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;anywhere near that.&nbsp;So&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;have to see if the mood changes after the midterms. But it&nbsp;doesn&#8217;t&nbsp;seem to me that anything would be imminent.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>I would add that I know Oz&nbsp;is&nbsp;the one person practically in the entire administration, not just at HHS, who actually does well when he goes to the Hill.&nbsp;Who,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;is respectful and&nbsp;sort of understands&nbsp;how administration officials are supposed to conduct themselves when they are in front of the people who theoretically&nbsp;are responsible for&nbsp;them having their jobs.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah,&nbsp;you&#8217;ll&nbsp;find&nbsp;the Democrat staffers are like,&nbsp;<em>Oh,&nbsp;we&nbsp;actually like&nbsp;Oz<\/em>, which is funny,&nbsp;I think.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>He&#8217;s&nbsp;a good&nbsp;politician!&nbsp;What can I say?&nbsp;Rachel, do you want to add something?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I will say,&nbsp;though,&nbsp;he did play a role in selling all these Medicaid cuts that are going to be coming down the pike.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong>&nbsp;He did.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong>&nbsp;And&nbsp;so&nbsp;I think he&nbsp;is going to be the face of this when they&nbsp;actually&nbsp;go&nbsp;to&nbsp;implement it.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong>&nbsp;He will.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong>&nbsp;So&nbsp;yeah,&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;see how that goes.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong>&nbsp;We&#8217;ll&nbsp;see how that goes.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong>&nbsp;What&nbsp;time frame&nbsp;they&#8217;ll&nbsp;be doing that in.&nbsp;But&nbsp;yeah, certainly.&nbsp;Yeah,&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;interesting.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>They&#8217;ve kind of given up selling that,&nbsp;too.&nbsp;You know,&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;not something&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;being like,&nbsp;<em>Oh, look at all the great stuff we did with Medicaid&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;One&nbsp;Big Beautiful Bill<\/em>.&nbsp;It&#8217;s&nbsp;very much pivoted to fraud.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, but when&nbsp;it starts,&nbsp;when it takes effect next year, I think&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;going to be,&nbsp;there will be lots of questions to answer. Shefali, do you want to add something before we move on?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>The only thing that really just I keep thinking about is the long history of this relationship between Dr. Oz and the president, and,&nbsp;in particular,&nbsp;when during the 2016 campaign he was the one to talk about the president&#8217;s testosterone levels on TV and how they were excellent.&nbsp;And I just think it&#8217;s really special that we&#8217;ve come full circle in this way.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yes, yes, it is, and we have. All right,&nbsp;moving&nbsp;on. One thing that Secretary RFK Jr. said this week&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;pretty clearly&nbsp;<em>not<\/em>&nbsp;true is that the department has the cyclospora&nbsp;parasite outbreak,&nbsp;quote,&nbsp;&#8220;under control.&#8221;&nbsp;A former deputy commissioner of food at the FDA under both the first Trump administration and President Biden told Politico this week that,&nbsp;quote,&nbsp;&#8220;it is starting to approach a catastrophic level in terms of how mismanaged it&#8217;s been on multiple fronts.&#8221;&nbsp;Rachel,&nbsp;you&#8217;re&nbsp;keeping an eye on this. What is the latest? What do we know about&nbsp;cyclospora and where&nbsp;it&#8217;s coming&nbsp;from? And are the recalls that are in existence enough to stop&nbsp;it?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;think&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;stopping it,&nbsp;by any means, especially with an incubation period of two weeks.&nbsp;I think we&nbsp;are continuing to see more cases reported, and I think, like you mentioned, there&#8217;s,&nbsp;I think,&nbsp;fingers&nbsp;pointing in all directions. Our team and others have done reporting on just how Taylor Farms has handled themselves behind the scenes. The public spat between Taylor Farms and the FDA was not something you usually see in an outbreak of this kind.&nbsp;It&#8217;s&nbsp;just worth&nbsp;probably pointing out&nbsp;that the FDA did&nbsp;DOGE&nbsp;much of its communications&nbsp;staff that has experience with this sort of outbreak. We have,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;officials shifting around, and&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;some key vacancies at the FDA as well in a lot of these leadership positions.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I think&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;been complaints, certainly,&nbsp;at,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;the report you mentioned about the federal response, but also about the company and their speed and their clarity and communication,&nbsp;and&nbsp;whether&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;truly serving the public interest or not. And&nbsp;I think there&nbsp;are, if&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;not mistaken, some ongoing investigations into other potential causes.&nbsp;But&nbsp;we are seeing a lot of these cases tied back to lettuce from a specific part of Mexico.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I think they have gotten the word out now, but just the confusion and the back-and-forth. And&nbsp;I think former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb&nbsp;got on CNBC and said he would have expected more communication from the FDA on this issue.&nbsp;But&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;kind of a&nbsp;tough one when&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;a voluntary recall,&nbsp;and&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;a company,&nbsp;and&nbsp;they&#8217;ve&nbsp;used&nbsp;some restrictions, you know, and what&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;supposed to be talking about publicly. But I think there has just been so much consumer confusion, and&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;not in&nbsp;anyone&#8217;s interest.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And as we said, this is not a simple thing to track.&nbsp;It&#8217;s not like&nbsp;<em>E. coli<\/em>; you&nbsp;can&#8217;t really find it.&nbsp;Liz,&nbsp;you&nbsp;and your colleagues reported, though, on,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;Taylor Farms going straight to the White House to try and&nbsp;sort of go&nbsp;over the heads of the FDA on this.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, Bloomberg and&nbsp;The Wall Street Journal had stories with different pieces of this, and it was, you know, in our story, you could see that they were trying to distance themselves from the outbreak before they got named publicly, which is kind of this new wild&nbsp;West of lobbying that we&#8217;re in, where it makes a lot of sense for companies to go straight to the White House and skip over dealing with career officials. And what was interesting was that the way all that played out with the communications is Taylor was able to say,&nbsp;<em>FDA apologized to us,<\/em>&nbsp;made this like&nbsp;really confusing&nbsp;statement.&nbsp;And&nbsp;the&nbsp;FDA,&nbsp;maybe because it didn&#8217;t have the comms folks with experience,&nbsp;like Rachel was talking about,&nbsp;at the FDA with,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;various&nbsp;layers of people who have done this before,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;it took them till the next day to say:&nbsp;<em>By the way, our epidemiology on this is really good.&nbsp;It&#8217;s definitely still Taylor Farms.&nbsp;We just,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;had that one false positive.<\/em>&nbsp;It was crazy to me how,&nbsp;like,&nbsp;twisted and turned that got.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>It&nbsp;was not well handled from a public communications&nbsp;standpoint, shall we say? All right. Well, one thing that we know that&nbsp;RFK Jr. thinks highly of&nbsp;are&nbsp;peptides; those are the amino acids that wellness influencers say can build muscle, heal injuries, and burn fat, among other things. Last week, an FDA advisory committee voted,&nbsp;over the objections of FDA&#8217;s own scientists&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;who say evidence on the benefits of peptides is either skimpy or&nbsp;nonexistent \u2014&nbsp;to nonetheless&nbsp;make it easier for compounding pharmacies to make and sell&nbsp;products containing several different specific peptides. Now, this is not just a scientific disagreement. Several members of this advisory panel are actual sellers of this product, right?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, the panel was a bunch of members who either worked for companies that sell peptides or had a clinic that offers them. And the HHS said these people went through a conflict process. It&nbsp;doesn&#8217;t&nbsp;seem like it could have been as rigorous as the&nbsp;previous&nbsp;conflict processes that were in place. I&nbsp;haven&#8217;t&nbsp;seen a ton of reporting on that.&nbsp;But,&nbsp;you know, predictably they greenlighted most of the peptides that they looked at over and against the strong recommendations from FDA staff scientists who said we&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;have evidence that these&nbsp;are safe.&nbsp;Like,&nbsp;this&nbsp;is&nbsp;kind of unprecedented. The argument in favor was,&nbsp;<em>well, you know, we do something similar with supplements. You know, Secretary Kennedy has said&nbsp;people should be free to try these out<\/em>, and you know he wants to end the war on peptides.&nbsp;And meanwhile, scientists with a traditional background in looking at risk and benefits are saying the risks are&nbsp;there,&nbsp;the benefits are not proven, and this almost creates a different paradigm for how&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;looking at medical interventions now.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah, and I think&nbsp;we&#8217;ve&nbsp;seen this across the FDA and across&nbsp;HHS. I mean, this is&nbsp;basically what&nbsp;they&#8217;re, you know, calling gold-standard science. That&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;a lot of people&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;go ahead, Rachel.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I was just&nbsp;gonna&nbsp;say, and&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;I think,&nbsp;looking forward, this creates a split decision,&nbsp;right,&nbsp;between the FDA scientists and the&nbsp;ag&nbsp;comm, and that&#8217;s&nbsp;gonna&nbsp;put the FDA in a tough position as to who what they&#8217;re going to choose because former&nbsp;commissioner Marty Makary&nbsp;loved to say he was siding with the career scientists, and now we have this forum to hear what they actually think, like,&nbsp;presented to the public.&nbsp;So&nbsp;I think&nbsp;that&#8217;s&nbsp;going to be a tough decision ahead, and&nbsp;that&#8217;ll&nbsp;tell us how things are working inside.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And of course, we only have an acting commissioner&nbsp;of&nbsp;FDA right now, so&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yes, with instructions to&nbsp;not make news.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Finally, this week, news on reproductive health&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;because there is always news on reproductive health.&nbsp;Shefali, we had a decision in one of the court cases challenging how the FDA regulates the abortion pill mifepristone, but&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;not the case that&nbsp;we&#8217;ve&nbsp;all been watching, right?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>No, this was&nbsp;the Virginia&nbsp;case.&nbsp;And what it reminds&nbsp;us&nbsp;is that&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;actually a&nbsp;million different mifepristone cases because you have people looking for more restrictions on mifepristone,&nbsp;and you also have people looking for fewer restrictions on mifepristone.&nbsp;And a lot of the folks who provide the drug,&nbsp;the doctors&nbsp;and manufacturers,&nbsp;have argued that,&nbsp;in fact,&nbsp;there are more restrictions than are actually appropriate. That this is actually much safer, and it does not need to be so hard to get because, for all of the concerns from conservatives and abortion opponents, it actually is very difficult to prescribe and make mifepristone available without going through a lot of hoops of certification. And&nbsp;so&nbsp;we see,&nbsp;right,&nbsp;in some cases, like here, an effort to try and loosen those restrictions a bit and say this could be more available, especially,&nbsp;I mean,&nbsp;people when they have miscarriages, it is actually very hard to get mifepristone, even though it actually would be very beneficial for management. But I think what this&nbsp;does,&nbsp;practically,&nbsp;is again not much&nbsp;changes&nbsp;for now because we have so much&nbsp;going&nbsp;through so many courts in&nbsp;different ways.&nbsp;Realistically, I mean, access to the drug stays as what it is:&nbsp;available in some places, not available in others.&nbsp;And the big case that&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;all waiting for, the Louisiana one, that could&nbsp;possibly bring&nbsp;restrictions in, that very briefly did bring restrictions in&nbsp;mifepristone earlier this year&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;probably see&nbsp;more on that closer to the election.&nbsp;And that could be very interesting because, as we&#8217;ve talked about so many times, this is not really an issue the White House or a lot of Republicans, frankly, would like to be in the news,&nbsp;because they know that restrictions on abortion just remain so unpopular and continue to be for a long time.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And this is&nbsp;almost certainly&nbsp;heading for the Supreme Court, right? We now have a court, you know, a lower court saying that the Biden administration&#8217;s restrictions were too tight, and one assumes that coming out of Louisiana, we will have a decision that says that&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;not tight enough.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>I would be stunned if the Supreme Court did not&nbsp;hear a&nbsp;mifepristone case in the coming few years. It just seems like&nbsp;we&#8217;ve&nbsp;been building in this direction for&nbsp;a very long&nbsp;time.&nbsp;You&#8217;re&nbsp;totally right. The split circuit looming makes that more likely. And I mean, realistically, if I supported abortion rights, if I wanted to make this&nbsp;pill more available, as the folks arguing against the Biden restrictions are, I don&#8217;t know that I would be thrilled about this being something before the Supreme Court because this is known to be a more conservative court. A lot of members who think abortion should be far less available than it is&nbsp;\u2014 this is the same court that overturned&nbsp;<em>Roe v. Wade<\/em>.&nbsp;And&nbsp;so&nbsp;I think there&#8217;s a real possibility that as we see more and more abortion decisions make their way to the Supreme Court, the restrictions we have become even more so, and where we are now becomes a baseline for making this even more difficult for people to obtain.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>We will have to see. Meanwhile, our podcast&nbsp;pal&nbsp;Alice&nbsp;[Miranda]&nbsp;Ollstein&nbsp;has a&nbsp;co-bylined&nbsp;story&nbsp;at&nbsp;Politico this week about how anti-abortion groups&nbsp;are&nbsp;pulling out all the stops&nbsp;to try to&nbsp;show that&nbsp;the increased use of&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2026\/07\/26\/abortion-opponents-new-weapon-wastewater-data-01011537\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">mifepristone is polluting the nation&#8217;s water supply<\/a>. Now they&nbsp;have a&nbsp;study,&nbsp;commissioned by the group Students for Life, claiming that mifepristone is showing up in,&nbsp;quote,&nbsp;&#8220;significant levels&#8221;&nbsp;in waterways in Austin, Texas;&nbsp;Blacksburg, Virginia;&nbsp;and Carbondale, Illinois&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;all major college towns, not coincidentally. And while the science behind this&nbsp;remains&nbsp;questionable, the politics don&#8217;t,&nbsp;right?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>Right. And this is a strategy they&#8217;ve been working on for quite some time, putting bills in state legislatures, talking to anyone who will listen about this, and saying,&nbsp;<em>If&nbsp;we care about the environment, the left cares about the&nbsp;environment,why&nbsp;don&#8217;t we care about what they say is this mifepristone pollution in the water that they say is caused by medication abortions?<\/em>&nbsp;And they want to use this argument as a different prong on the way to stop people from having&nbsp;mifepristone&nbsp;made available, of making medication abortions harder to obtain.&nbsp;We&nbsp;haven&#8217;t&nbsp;really seen this really yield fruit yet. However, this is part of,&nbsp;again,&nbsp;a longer-term strategy to&nbsp;lay&nbsp;groundwork.&nbsp;And studies like this,&nbsp;they create&nbsp;an intellectual&nbsp;groundwork as well. We saw that with the telehealth studies, the mifepristone safety and efficacy studies&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;and I&nbsp;perhaps should&nbsp;do&nbsp;&#8220;studies&#8221;&nbsp;in air quotes because a lot of mainstream researchers call&nbsp;these not very good science. But if you create a large-enough body to point to, then ultimately you can have people in positions of power say,&nbsp;&#8220;Well, we&#8217;ve looked at the evidence from all sides, and we see these real concerns, and we&#8217;re going to use them to inform policy.&#8221;&nbsp;I&nbsp;don&#8217;t&nbsp;know&nbsp;that&nbsp;that will happen anytime soon, but&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;certainly a goal that&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;building toward.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>They&#8217;re&nbsp;talking&nbsp;points, basically.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>Absolutely.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>All right. Well, that is this week&#8217;s news. Now&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;time for our&nbsp;extra-credit&nbsp;segment.&nbsp;That&#8217;s&nbsp;where we each recognize a story we read this&nbsp;week&nbsp;we think you should read, too.&nbsp;Don&#8217;t&nbsp;worry if you miss it. We&nbsp;will&nbsp;post&nbsp;the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.&nbsp;Rachel, why don&#8217;t you go first this week?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Mine is from KFF Health News. The headline is&nbsp;&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/health-industry\/cpsc-consumer-product-safety-commission-trump-er-injury-data-grab-neiss-konza\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records<\/a>,&#8221;&nbsp;by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir.&nbsp;I think this&nbsp;is one installment, and that this broader arc of coverage that they have really owned&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;so&nbsp;diffuse.&nbsp;There&#8217;s&nbsp;like states,&nbsp;and there&#8217;s providers,&nbsp;and there&#8217;s government officials involved, but&nbsp;I think it&nbsp;really illuminates&nbsp;kind of like&nbsp;where is the Trump administration looking for data?&nbsp;I think this&nbsp;is something that started during the DOGE&nbsp;era, where you had DOGE&nbsp;employees trying to get data from different government agencies. But&nbsp;you&#8217;re&nbsp;seeing it as,&nbsp;I&nbsp;think,&nbsp;we&#8217;ve&nbsp;talked about previously, like,&nbsp;there&#8217;s&nbsp;a desire for studies and,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;things to move faster.&nbsp;Like,&nbsp;where&nbsp;are we looking for data? I think this whole arc of coverage has been&nbsp;really valuable&nbsp;in illuminating:&nbsp;Where are they&nbsp;looking.&nbsp;Is this precedented?&nbsp;Kind of how&nbsp;could these datasets be used? What&nbsp;are&nbsp;the patient potential issues? Are there privacy issues? Can this data be protected? That I think&nbsp;are&nbsp;going to be&nbsp;really important&nbsp;as we&nbsp;kind of look&nbsp;into the rest of this administration,&nbsp;because&nbsp;we&#8217;re&nbsp;only a year and a half in. Like,&nbsp;we&nbsp;got&nbsp;a&nbsp;ways&nbsp;to go.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And,&nbsp;oh I mean we say over many,&nbsp;many,&nbsp;many years it&#8217;s always been Republicans who have been,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;very much into the federal government shouldn&#8217;t have&nbsp;its hands&nbsp;in people&#8217;s personal data,&nbsp;and yet here we have an administration that&#8217;s trying to get personal data from every single possible place.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>Right,&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;fascinating.&nbsp;And this just makes it so concrete.&nbsp;And I think it&#8217;s great accountability work, and they&#8217;ve clearly developed great sourcing on&nbsp;this.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Yeah.<strong>&nbsp;<\/strong>Liz.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>Mine&nbsp;is a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2026\/07\/27\/e-bikes-scooters-children-teens-safety-orthopedics-research\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">opinion piece&nbsp;in&nbsp;Stat<\/a>&nbsp;by two doctors who are concerned about the burgeoning pediatric public health emergency, as they call it, about e-bikes and e-scooters.&nbsp;And&nbsp;I&#8217;ve&nbsp;been wondering about this for a long time because I see kids doing two, three kids on these scooters going so fast with no helmets.&nbsp;It&#8217;s&nbsp;always boggling my mind, but&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;apparently gotten&nbsp;really bad. They looked at data from 2020 to 2021 and saw an increase in injuries, up 71% in just one year&nbsp;\u2014 kid injuries with e-scooters and e-bikes.&nbsp;So that was 8,545 of those injuries in 2021. And the doctors discuss how,&nbsp;you know,&nbsp;these injury patterns that these kids get&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;I mean,&nbsp;they&#8217;re&nbsp;going up to like 28&nbsp;mph&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;look&nbsp;very similar&nbsp;to when a child gets hit by a car.&nbsp;And that&#8217;s,&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;just&nbsp;real&nbsp;sad.&nbsp;So&nbsp;TBD on whether anybody does any kind of&nbsp;age-appropriate&nbsp;access standards or something like that that can help dial back these injuries. And then I guess&nbsp;I&#8217;m&nbsp;cheating Julie, but&nbsp;a&nbsp;shoutout to&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/health\/2026\/07\/24\/peptide-boom-has-states-scrambling-protect-consumers-post-investigation-finds\/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzg0ODY1NjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzg2MjQ3OTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3ODQ4NjU2MDAsImp0aSI6ImFhOGFkYzM3LWI0YjQtNDViMC05M2EzLWRjNTZjNGU5YmRiZSIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9oZWFsdGgvMjAyNi8wNy8yNC9wZXB0aWRlLWJvb20taGFzLXN0YXRlcy1zY3JhbWJsaW5nLXByb3RlY3QtY29uc3VtZXJzLXBvc3QtaW52ZXN0aWdhdGlvbi1maW5kcy8ifQ.V-HofLqSFFJq03HToaQU8t0o9ZtjR_xcu8aDIYY5Em4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Lauren Weber&#8217;s great story, also in&nbsp;The Washington Post<\/a>&nbsp;recently,&nbsp;about how peptide med spa clinics have less regulation at the state level than your local restaurant or hair salon.&nbsp;She contacted all 50 states, and I thought it was just a really good supplement to the peptide&nbsp;news&nbsp;that we saw recently.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>It was, and&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;forgive me for not mentioning it, and we will link to that one too. But I&#8217;m so glad you did the e-bike thing because if you hadn&#8217;t done that, I was going to,&nbsp;because the number of kids just in my neighborhood, little kids on motorized vehicles, it&#8217;s like: Shouldn&#8217;t they have to have driver&#8217;s licenses to do this?&nbsp;Anyway.&nbsp;Shefali.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>My&nbsp;piece is by&nbsp;Aaron Carroll. It is an op-ed in&nbsp;The Washington Post.&nbsp;The headline is:&nbsp;&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/2026\/07\/23\/rfk-jrs-crusade-against-ssri-antidepressants-needs-more-research\/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJyZWFzb24iOiJnaWZ0IiwibmJmIjoxNzg0Nzc5MjAwLCJpc3MiOiJzdWJzY3JpcHRpb25zIiwiZXhwIjoxNzg2MTYxNTk5LCJpYXQiOjE3ODQ3NzkyMDAsImp0aSI6IjQ2M2Q5ZWQ3LTg3MTItNDg2Zi1hMjFkLTM4YTZiY2Y0M2EzNyIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lndhc2hpbmd0b25wb3N0LmNvbS9vcGluaW9ucy8yMDI2LzA3LzIzL3Jmay1qcnMtY3J1c2FkZS1hZ2FpbnN0LXNzcmktYW50aWRlcHJlc3NhbnRzLW5lZWRzLW1vcmUtcmVzZWFyY2gvIn0.8mxEGrX6U9tsUBA0B12a75htMqA1Dsp4DkAPN-puZo0\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The Problem With RFK Jr.&#8217;s Crusade Against Antidepressants<\/a>.&#8221;&nbsp;And what he talks about, I think, is just so smart.&nbsp;It&#8217;s about how it actually would be great if we had better and more research on SSRIs.&nbsp;However, the point he makes is that the government is actually not really approaching this from that kind of vantage.&nbsp;And&nbsp;instead&nbsp;the idea is to try and just cut back access to SSRIs, rather than learn more about them, learn how to make them work better,&nbsp;if they are as effective as&nbsp;they&nbsp;want them to be.&nbsp;And the point that he gets at the end as well is that while it is really good and worthwhile to investigate and study how well SSRIs work,&nbsp;one thing that we are actually getting into, which is really problematic, is stigmatizing use of them.&nbsp;And he talks about why that&#8217;s actually not good, and that is not actually helpful when it comes to thinking about how to make treatment for depression better and better and better.&nbsp;And I love this framing because we should try and make medications better for people. We&nbsp;should always be looking at treatments we have and saying,&nbsp;yes, they work. But what if we made them work&nbsp;better and better? What if we had fewer side effects? What if we made them more effective? That would be awesome. And I really love that he is putting those questions out there in a way that is&nbsp;smart and productive&nbsp;and forward-looking.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>And&nbsp;not partisan. This has never been&nbsp;partisan. This is just so&nbsp;\u2026&nbsp;&nbsp;it&#8217;s&nbsp;all so unprecedented. All right. My extra credit this week is from&nbsp;The Arkansas Times.&nbsp;It&#8217;s&nbsp;called&nbsp;&#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/arktimes.com\/arkansas-blog\/2026\/07\/22\/women-dying-after-childbirth-as-state-averts-its-gaze\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Postpartum Women Go Without Care as Arkansas Holds Out as Lone State To Deny Them Medicaid<\/a>,&#8221; by Byron Tate.&nbsp;And&nbsp;it&#8217;s about&nbsp;exactly what the headline says. Since Congress gave states the&nbsp;option&nbsp;to extend Medicaid coverage to postpartum women for a full year after they give birth, 49 states have exercised that&nbsp;option&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;all but Arkansas, where that coverage still ends after&nbsp;60 days. And Arkansas has one of the nation&#8217;s highest maternal mortality rates.&nbsp;So&nbsp;who&#8217;s&nbsp;against it?&nbsp;Apparently, the&nbsp;governor, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders, herself a mom.&nbsp;She says these women should be transitioning to other coverage, except&nbsp;apparently most&nbsp;of them are not. According to one study, 94% of those losing postpartum Medicaid are becoming uninsured instead.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>OK, that is this week&#8217;s show. Thanks to our editor,&nbsp;Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder:&nbsp;<em>What the Health?<\/em>&nbsp;is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts \u2014 as well as, of course,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">kffhealthnews.org<\/a>. Also,&nbsp;as always, you can email&nbsp;us&nbsp;your comments or questions.&nbsp;We&#8217;re&nbsp;at&nbsp;<a href=\"mailto:whatthehealth@kff.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">whatthehealth@kff.org<\/a>.&nbsp;Or you can&nbsp;still&nbsp;find me on X&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/jrovner\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">@jrovner<\/a>,&nbsp;and&nbsp;on Bluesky&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/julierovner.bsky.social\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">@julierovner<\/a>.&nbsp;Where&nbsp;are you&nbsp;folks hanging on&nbsp;socials&nbsp;these days?&nbsp;Rachel?&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cohrs Zhang:&nbsp;<\/strong>I&#8217;m on&nbsp;X&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/rachelcohrs\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">@rachelcohrs<\/a>&nbsp;and also on&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/rachelcohrs\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">LinkedIn<\/a>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Shefali.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Luthra:&nbsp;<\/strong>On Bluesky&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/shefali.bsky.social\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">@shefali<\/a>.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>Liz.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Whyte:&nbsp;<\/strong>I am on X&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/x.com\/l_e_whyte?lang=en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">@l_e_whyte<\/a>&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;with a&nbsp;&#8220;Y,&#8221;&nbsp;W-H-Y-T-E&nbsp;\u2014&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/lizessleywhyte.bsky.social\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">@lizessleywhyte.bsky<\/a>. You can Google me.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:&nbsp;<\/strong>I&#8217;m&nbsp;sure people can find you. All&nbsp;right,&nbsp;we&#8217;ll&nbsp;be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/details>\n<h3>\n\t\tCredits\t<\/h3>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div>Francis Ying<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tAudio producer<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div>Emmarie Huetteman<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tEditor<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hr \/>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/our-podcasts\/\"><u>Click here to find all our podcasts.<\/u><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>And subscribe to &#8220;What the Health? From KFF Health News&#8221; on <a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/what-the-health\/id1253607372?mt=2\"><u>Apple Podcasts<\/u><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/32EdsB662C3oyIrqLMmBXI?si=TQhRjzzLTgWtK3crfbOFtA\"><u>Spotify<\/u><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/app.npr.org\/aggregation\/fis-1269164038\"><u>the NPR app<\/u><\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/playlist?list=PL5Qew-7pSXbAucCUQnyRx6qpLglzrxzFb\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">YouTube<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/play.pocketcasts.com\/web\/podcasts\/a379e280-3f57-0135-9028-63f4b61a9224\"><u>Pocket Casts<\/u><\/a>, or wherever you listen to podcasts.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/about-us\">KFF Health News<\/a> is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF\u2014an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about <a href=\"https:\/\/www.kff.org\/about-us\">KFF<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/podcast\/what-the-health-457-trump-grant-cuts-fauci-hearing-covid-july-30-2026\/\" rel=\"noopener\">article<\/a> first appeared on <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\" rel=\"noopener\">KFF Health News<\/a> and is republished here under a <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><img id=\"republication-tracker-tool-source\" src=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/?republication-pixel=true&amp;post=2266610&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0\" \/><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Host Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner @julierovner.bsky.social Read Julie&#039;s stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News&#8217; weekly health policy news podcast, &quot;What the Health?&quot; A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book &quot;Health Care Politics and Policy A&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":741,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=846"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":851,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/846\/revisions\/851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=846"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=846"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peeksmarket.club\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=846"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}