- A bombshell report from The Atlantic claims that President Donald Trump has made numerous derogatory remarks about U.S. veterans and military service members, including calling soldiers who died in the World War I battle at Belleau Wood “suckers” for getting killed.
- The report also claimed that he called the late senator John McCain a “loser” after his death. He also allegedly said that he did not want wounded veterans to participate in a 2018 military parade because “nobody wants to see that.”
- The report caught a lot of attention and resulted in many, including Trump’s Democratic opponent Joe Biden, condemning the president for these remarks.
- However, Trump claims the report is a lie. He tweeted that while he was “never a big fan of John McCain,” he never called him a loser. “I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES,” the president added.
Trump Denies Report From The Atlantic
President Donald Trump denied allegations laid out in a Thursday report from The Atlantic which claimed he made insulting comments about veterans and members of the U.S. military.
The report alleges that Trump, among many other things, called servicemen who died in the World War I battle at Belleau Wood “suckers” for getting killed. In 2018 he was set to visit the cemetery in France where they were buried but canceled the trip. At the time, Trump cited that travel to the area was made impossible by rainy weather conditions. However, The Atlantic claims that the president did not go because he was concerned the rain would ruin his hair.
“Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers,” the magazine claims he asked about the excursion. Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote the piece, says he learned about these remarks from four anonymous sources with firsthand knowledge of these discussions.
The report also claimed that he called the late senator John McCain a “loser” after he died.
Trump and McCain were known to have publicly sparred with each other before. McCain was a prisoner of war for five years and many have praised him as a war hero. During Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, however, he said he likes “people who weren’t captured” when referring to McCain.
On Thursday evening, Trump took to Twitter to deny the accusations in the article. In a Twitter thread, he said he was “never a big fan of John McCain” but “never called John a loser.”
“[I] swear on whatever, or whoever, I was asked to swear on, that I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES,” he added. “This is more made up Fake News given by disgusting & jealous failures in a disgraceful attempt to influence the 2020 Election!”
He also spoke to reporters late on Thursday and claimed that no one has done what he has for the military in terms of budgets and pay raises. He also insisted that the Secret Service told him he could not go to the cemetery in France because of the weather.
“To think that I would make statements negative to our military and our fallen heroes, when nobody’s done what I’ve done,” Trump said.
“It is a disgraceful situation by a magazine that’s a terrible magazine. I don’t read it,” he added.
The president continued his attacks against the report Friday morning by saying The Atlantic only published it to gain relevance because it was dying.
What Did the Report Say?
The Atlantic’s bombshell report paints the president as a man incapable of seeing why people, specifically military members, would make a sacrifice and put their life on the line for nothing in return. The piece goes so far as to claim he does not understand why anyone would do anything that gives them no monetary gain.
Trump himself received a medical deferment from the draft during the Vietnam War for alleged bone spurs. Accounts from Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, as well as from the daughters of the doctor who allegedly gave him this diagnosis, have since claimed that Trump did not have bone spurs and lied to get out of the war. White House officials have dismissed these claims.
The Atlantic told the story of one visit Trump made to Arlington National Cemetery with John Kelly, who was the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time. Kelly’s son Robert, who died in Afghanistan in 2010, is buried there. During the visit Trump allegedly asked Kelly, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
“He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself,” one of Kelly’s friends, a retired four-star general, told The Atlantic. “He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation.”
The report also claims that Trump made several other derogatory remarks about military members, including calling former President George H.W. Bush a “loser” because he was shot down by the Japanese while serving as a navy pilot in World War II. When planning a military parade in 2018, he allegedly asked that wounded veterans not participate because “nobody wants to see that.”
Corroborations From Other Reports
While both Trump and the White House have denied this repellant portrait, other stories seemed to support the idea that Trump does not think well of members of the U.S. military. The Associated Press said a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer confirmed some of the remarks reported in The Atlantic to them, including those about the 2018 trip to the cemetery.
A former senior administration official who spoke to The Washington Post also claimed Trump called soldiers missing in action “losers.” He allegedly asked why the U.S. spends so much time looking for them because they deserved what they got for performing poorly. The Post also claimed that Trump called those who served in Vietnam “losers” because they were unable to get out of it.
Michael Cohen also tweeted that The Atlantic’s piece was “accurate.” He again maintained that there are no medical records related to Trump’s bone spurs.
The Atlantic’s article elicited numerous reactions after catching the nation’s attention. His Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, shared a video compilation of Trump’s derogatory remarks.
“Mr. President, if you don’t respect our troops, you can’t lead them,” Biden wrote.
“This is shocking, even for Trump,” Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote. “The men and women who lost their lives defending our country are patriots.”
Former CIA Director John O. Brennan called Trump’s attitude towards service members repugnant and asked for the president to be voted out of office.
His comments also received backlash from veterans, service members, and their families. Jordan Canedy, a 14-year-old Gold Star son condemned these remarks in an interview with MSNBC.
“He should be appreciative and not criticizing them,” he said. “He doesn’t know what it’s like to go to war.”
Army veteran David Weissman, who used to be an ardent supporter of Trump, started a social media campaign against the president over these remarks. He encouraged veterans to make pictures of themselves in the military their profile photos so they could show Trump how many people he offended.
In Trump’s camp though, many defended the president, insisting that The Atlantic’s report was false. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Trump treats military members with admiration and respect.
“The anonymous allegations contained in the Atlantic story are offensive, false, and utterly devoid of merit,” he said.
See what others are saying: (The Atlantic) (NPR) (Al Jazeera)
Republican Congressman Proposes Bill to Ban Anyone Under 16 From Social Media
The proposal comes amid a growing push for social media companies to be stringently regulated for child and adolescent use.
The Social Media Child Protection Act
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Ut.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban all Americans under the age of 16 from accessing social media.
The proposal, dubbed the Social Media Child Protection Act, would require social media companies to verify users’ ages and give parents and states the ability to bring legal actions against those platforms if they fail, according to a press release.
The legislation would also mandate that social media platforms implement “reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from users and perspective users.”
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be given the authority to enforce these regulations and implement fines for violations.
Stewart has argued that the move is necessary to protect children from the negative mental health impacts of social media.
“There has never been a generation this depressed, anxious, and suicidal – it’s our responsibility to protect them from the root cause: social media,” he said in a statement announcing the bill.
“We have countless protections for our children in the physical world – we require car seats and seat belts; we have fences around pools; we have a minimum drinking age of 21; and we have a minimum driving age of 16,” the Congressman continued.
“The damage to Generation Z from social media is undeniable – so why are there no protections in the digital world?”
While Stewart’s arguments are nothing new in the ongoing battle around children and regulating social media, his legislation has been described as one of the most severe proposals on this front.
The plan would represent a huge shift in verification systems that critics have long said fall short. Many social media sites like TikTok and Twitter technically ban users under 13 from joining, but there is no formal verification process or mechanisms for enforcement. Companies often just ask users to provide their birthdays, so those under 13 could easily just lie.
Backlash and Support
Stewart — who spent the weeks before the rollout of his bill discussing the matter with the media — has already gotten pushback from many who say the idea is too extreme and a bad approach.
Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of the social media trade group NetChoice, told The Washington Post that such a decision should be left to parents.
“Rather than doomsaying or trying to get between parents and their families, the government should provide tools and education on how best to use this new technology, not demonize it,” he said.
Others have also argued that the move could cut off access to powerful and positive online resources for kids.
“For many kids, especially LGBTQ young people who may have unsupportive parents or live in a conservative area, the internet and social media are a lifeline,” Evan Greer, the director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future, told The Post. “We need better solutions than just cutting kids off from online community and educational resources.”
Lawmakers have also echoed that point, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.), who represents Silicon Valley. However, there also seems to be support for this measure. At least one Democratic Congressmember has told reporters they are open to the idea, and Stewart says he thinks the proposal will have broad bipartisan backing.
“This is bipartisan… There’s Democratic leaders who are actually maneuvering to be the lead co-sponsor on this,” he told KSL News Radio, adding that President Joe Biden recently wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that referenced similar ideas.
A Growing Movement
Stewart is just one among the growing number of lawmakers and federal officials who have voiced support for keeping kids and younger teens off social media altogether.
In an interview with CNN Sunday, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy expressed concern regarding “the right age for a child to start using social media.”
“I worry that right now, if you look at the guidelines from the platforms, that age 13 is when kids are technically allowed to use social media,” he said. “But there are two concerns I have about that. One is: I, personally, based on the data I’ve seen, believe that 13 is too early.”
Murthy went on to say that adolescents at that age are developing their identity and sense of self, arguing that social media can be a “skewed and often distorted environment,” adding that he is also worried about the fact that the rules around age are “inconsistently implemented.”
His comments gained widespread backing. At least one Senator posted a tweet agreeing, and an FTC Commissioner also shared the remarks on the platform. Stewart, for his part, explicitly cited Murthy’s remarks in the press release announcing his bill.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (KSL News Radio) (CNN)
Feds Investigate Classified Files Found in Biden’s Former Office
The documents reportedly include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom
What Was in the Files?
President Biden’s legal team discovered about 10 classified files in his former office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington D.C., the White House revealed Monday.
The Department of Justice has concluded an initial inquiry into the matter and will determine whether to open a criminal investigation.
According to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, they include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom.
A source also told CBS News the batch did not contain nuclear secrets and had been contained in a folder in a box with other unclassified papers.
The documents are reportedly from Biden’s time as vice president, but it remains unclear what level of classification they are and how they ended up in his office.
Biden kept an office in the. Penn Biden Center, a think tank about a mile from the White House, between 2017 and 2020, when he was elected president.
On Nov. 2, his lawyers claim, they discovered the documents as they were clearing out the space to vacate it.
They immediately notified the National Archives, which retrieved the files the next morning, according to the White House.
What Happens Next?
Attorney General Merrick Garland must decide whether to open a criminal investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of the documents. To that end, he appointed John Lausch Jr., the U.S. attorney in Chicago and a Trump appointee, to conduct an initial inquiry.
Garland reportedly picked him for the role despite him being in a different jurisdiction to avoid appearing partial.
Lausch has reportedly finished the initial part of his inquiry and provided a preliminary report to Garland.
If a criminal investigation is opened, Garland will likely appoint an independent special counsel to lead it.
The case mirrors a similar DoJ special counsel investigation into former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials and obstruction of efforts to properly retrieve them.
On Nov. 18, Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate over 300 classified documents found at Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.
Trump resisted multiple National Archives requests for the documents for months leading up to the FBI’s raid on his property, then handed over 15 boxes of files only for even more to be found still at Mar-a-Lago.
“When is the FBI going to raid the many houses of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. “These documents were definitely not declassified.”
Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters he will investigate the Biden files.
Republicans have been quick to pounce on the news and compare it to Trump’s classified files, but Democrats have pointed out differences in the small number of documents and Biden’s willingness to cooperate with the National Archives.
The White House has yet to explain why, if the files were first discovered six days before the midterm elections, the White House waited two months to reveal the news to the public.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (The New York Times) (BBC)
Lawmakers Propose Bill to Protect Fertility Treatments Amid Post-Roe Threats
The move comes as a number of states are considering anti-abortion bills that could threaten or ban fertility treatments by redefining embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for IVF.
The Right To Build Families Act of 2022
A group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would codify the right to use assisted reproductive technologies like in-vitro fertility (IVF) treatments into federal law.
The legislation, dubbed the Right To Build Families Act of 2022, was brought forward by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) and Patty Murray (D-Wa.) alongside Rep. Susan Wild (D- Pa.). The measure would bar any limits on seeking or receiving IVF treatments and prohibit regulations on a person’s ability to retain their “reproductive genetic materials.”
The bill would also protect physicians who provide these reproductive services and allow the Justice Department to take civil action against any states that try to limit access to fertility treatments.
The lawmakers argue it is necessary to protect IVF because a number of states have been discussing and proposing legislation that could jeopardize or even ban access to the treatments in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal.
“IVF advocates in this country today are publicly telling us, ‘We need this kind of legislation to be able to protect this,’” Murray told HuffPost. “And here we are after the Dobbs decision where states are enacting laws and we have [anti-abortion] advocates who are now starting to talk, especially behind closed doors, about stopping the right for women and men to have IVF procedures done.”
Fertility Treatments Under Treat
The state-level efforts in question are being proposed by Republican lawmakers who wish to further limit abortions by redefining when life begins. Some of the proposals would define embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for those that are created through IVF, where an egg is fertilized by a sperm outside the body and then implanted in a uterus.
For example, a bill has already been pre-filed in Virginia for the 2023 legislative session that explicitly says life begins at fertilization and does not have any specific language that exempts embryos made through IVF.
Experts say these kinds of laws are concerning for a number of reasons. In the IVF process, it is typical to fertilize multiple eggs, but some are discarded. If a person becomes pregnant and does not want to keep the rest of their eggs. It is also normal that not all fertilized eggs will be viable, so physicians will get rid of those.
Sometimes doctors will also implant multiple fertilized eggs to increase the likelihood of pregnancy, but that can result in multiple eggs being fertilized. In order to prevent having multiple babies at once and improve the chance of a healthy pregnancy, people can get a fetal reduction and lower the number of fetuses.
All of those actions could become illegal under proposals that do not provide exemptions.
“In my case, I had five fertilized eggs, and we discarded three because they were not viable. That is now potentially manslaughter in some of these states,” said Duckworth, who had both of her daughters using IVF.
“I also have a fertilized egg that’s frozen. My husband and I haven’t decided what we will do with it, but the head of the Texas Right to Life organization that wrote the bounty law for Texas has come out and specifically said he’s going after IVF next, and he wants control of the embryos,” Duckworth added.
In a hearing after Roe was overturned, Murray also raised concerns about “whether parents and providers could be punished if an embryo doesn’t survive being thawed for implantation, or for disposing unused embryos.”
Experts have said that even if anti-abortion laws defining when life begins do provide exceptions, it would be contradictory and confusing, so providers would likely err on the side of caution and not provide services out of fear of prosecution.
“[Abortion bans] are forcing women to stay pregnant against their will and are, at the very same time, threatening Americans’ ability to build a family through services like IVF,” Murray said in a statement to Axios. “It’s hard to comprehend, and it’s just plain wrong.”
The federal legislation to combat these efforts faces an uphill battle. It is unlikely it will be passed in the last few days of lame duck session, and with control of Congress being handed to Republicans come January, movement in the lower chamber will be hard fought.
Duckworth, however, told Axios that she will keep introducing the legislation “until we can get it passed.”