Search This Blog

Monday, March 17, 2025

'Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them to Scrub mRNA References on Grants'

 National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials have urged scientists to remove all references to mRNA vaccine technology from their grant applications, two researchers said, in a move that signaled the agency might abandon a promising field of medical research.

The mRNA technology is under study at the NIH for prevention and treatment of infectious diseases, including flu and AIDS, and also canceropens in a new tab or window. It was deployed in the development of COVID-19 vaccines credited with saving 3 million livesopens in a new tab or window in the U.S. alone 

A scientist at a biomedical research center in Philadelphia wrote to a colleague, in an email reviewed by KFF Health News, that a project officer at NIH had "flagged our pending grant as having an mRNA vaccine component."

"It's still unclear whether mRNA vaccine grants will be canceled," the scientist added.

NIH officials also told a senior NIH-funded vaccine scientist in New York state, who does not conduct mRNA vaccine research but described its efficacy in previous grant applications, that all references to mRNA vaccines should be scrubbed from future applications.

Scientists relayed their experiences on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional retaliation by the Trump administration.

A senior official at the National Cancer Institute confirmed that NIH acting Director Matthew Memoli, MD, sent an email across the NIH instructing that any grants, contracts, or collaborations involving mRNA vaccines be reported up the chain to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s office and the White House.

Memoli sent a similar message ahead of the agency canceling other research, such as studies of vaccine hesitancyopens in a new tab or window.

Memoli's email on that topic bluntly stated that NIH was not interested in learning why people shun vaccines or in exploring ways to "improve vaccine interest and commitment."

The National Cancer Institute official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said that "it is reasonable to assume mRNA vaccine work is next."

The official said a similar memo also went out regarding NIH-funded work in South Africa, which the White House has targeted over claims that the country's government is persecuting white people. More recently, another one went out regarding all global research collaborations, the official said.

Spokespeople for the White House, HHS, and the NIH did not respond to requests for comment.

The NIH, whose latest annual budget was $47 billion, is one of the world's most critical sources of funding for basic biomedical research. Its mission and programs are under unprecedented scrutinyopens in a new tab or window from Trump's White House and the Department of Government Efficiency, the Elon Musk-led agency created by a Trump executive order that has directed federal agencies to prepare for widespread layoffs.

The NIH is funding at least 130 studies involving the mRNA technology in COVID vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna that have been administered to billions of people worldwide.

A former government official familiar with internal discussions said that the Trump administration intends to cut some grants for mRNA vaccine research but that the timing is unclear. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect relationships with the administration.

Political conservatives in the U.S. have promulgated conspiracy theoriesopens in a new tab or window, unsupported by scientific evidence, that the shots and their relatively new technology are dangerousopens in a new tab or window. This has undermined public support for COVID vaccinations and mRNA research.

"There will not be any research funded by NIH on mRNA vaccines," the scientist in New York said in an interview. "MAGA people are convinced that these vaccines have killed and maimedopens in a new tab or window tens of thousands of people. It's not true, but they believe that."

Meanwhile, hundreds of other vaccine-related studies are in limbo. Kawsar Talaat, MD, a vaccine researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, has been waiting since the fall for money needed to recruit subjects for a study of an antidiarrheal vaccine.

"NIH approved our funding," she said, "and now we're waiting, and we don't know if it's going forward or going to be killed."

The scientist in Philadelphia signaled that he believes Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activistopens in a new tab or window, is responsible for the NIH's turn against mRNA research.

"Kennedy's war on vaccines has started," the scientist told his colleague.

The scientist in New York said that it was "ridiculous" to remove mRNA language from the grant applications. But "if my grant is rejected for any reason," the scientist said, "people in my lab will lose their jobs."

"I've worked with some of them for 20 years," the scientist added. "They have children and families. There is a real climate of fear in academia about this now, especially among vaccine scientists."

"My grant does not involve a request for funds to conduct mRNA vaccine experiments," the scientist said, "so my principal concern was to avoid word-search flags that, at minimum, would lead to delays in any funding."

While tenured research professors at universities generally receive a salary from their institution, the staffers who work in their labs and offices are often paid through NIH grants. The 2023 Nobel Prizeopens in a new tab or window in physiology or medicine was given to two scientists for developing mRNA vaccines, through work that relied on pharmaceutical companies and on NIH scientists working under infectious disease specialist Anthony Fauci, MD.

According to Sen. Bill Cassidy, MD (R-La.), who chairs the chamber's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Kennedy promised during his Senate confirmation process that he would protect "the public health benefit of vaccination" and "work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems."

Cassidy, a physician, had expressed reservations about confirming Kennedy to the HHS post and challenged his anti-vaccine views during a confirmation hearing. He ended up voting for him, he said, because Kennedy had agreedopens in a new tab or window to work closely with Cassidy and his committee.

However, Kennedy has faced scrutiny in his first weeksopens in a new tab or window in office for his handling of a large measles outbreak among mostly unvaccinated people in Texas that has led to the death of a childopens in a new tab or window, the first U.S. measles death in more than a decade. A patient who tested positive for measles died in New Mexico, but the cause hasn't been confirmedopens in a new tab or window. Instead of urging vaccination against the disease, an almost surefire way to prevent infection, Kennedy has blamed malnourishment for the outbreakopens in a new tab or window, promoted unproven treatments for measlesopens in a new tab or window, and falsely claimed in one Fox News interviewopens in a new tab or window that the vaccine is ineffective and even dangerous.

Cassidy did not respond to a request for comment on the NIH's potential abandonment of mRNA vaccine research.

As part of the Trump administration's push to examine spending on mRNA vaccines, health officials are reviewing a $590 million contract for bird flu shots that the Biden administration awarded to Moderna, Bloomberg News has reportedopens in a new tab or window. Legislation introduced by GOP lawmakers in at least seven states is aimed at banning or limiting mRNA vaccinesopens in a new tab or window. In some cases, the measures would hit doctors who give the injections with criminal penalties, fines, and the possible revocation of their licenses.

KFF Health Newsopens in a new tab or window is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/vaccines/114684

Protalix plans Phase 2 for PRX-115 in H2 2025, projects higher royalty revenues by 2030

 

Management View

  • CEO Dror Bashan highlighted the company's record revenue performance for 2024, driven by increased sales to key partners and the completion of all cohorts in the first-in-human Phase 1 trial of PRX-115, a recombinant PEGylated uricase candidate for uncontrolled gout. The Phase 2 trial for PRX-115 is planned for the second half of 2025, with ongoing dialogues with regulatory authorities.
  • Protalix's partner, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases, submitted a variation application to the EMA for a less frequent dosing regimen of Pegunigalsidase alfa for Fabry disease. The company anticipates continued growth in royalty revenues from Chiesi, projecting revenues north of $100 million by 2030.
  • CFO Eyal Rubin reported total revenues from selling goods reached $53 million for 2024, driven by a significant increase in sales to Chiesi. Revenues from license and R&D services decreased due to the completion of the Fabry clinical program and related regulatory processes.

Outlook

  • Management confirmed that the Phase 2 clinical trial for PRX-115 is expected to commence in the second half of 2025, with a projected cost exceeding $20 million for third-party expenses. Results are anticipated approximately two years after the trial begins.
  • Protalix is focusing on advancing its early-stage pipeline, particularly in renal rare diseases, leveraging its ProCellEx platform and pegylation expertise.

Financial Results

  • The company reported a 31% increase in revenues from selling goods to $53 million for 2024, primarily due to higher sales to Chiesi and modest increases in sales to Brazil and Pfizer. Revenues from license and R&D services dropped to $0.4 million, reflecting the completion of regulatory milestones.
  • Cost of goods sold increased by 6% to $24.3 million, aligning with the rise in sales. Research and development expenses fell by 24% to $13 million, attributed to the completion of the Fabry clinical program. Selling, general, and administrative expenses decreased by 19% to $12.2 million.
  • Protalix reported net income of $2.9 million for 2024, compared to $8.3 million in 2023. Cash, cash equivalents, and short-term deposits totaled $34.8 million as of December 31, 2024.

Q&A

  • Ram Selvaraju, H.C. Wainwright: Asked about revenue guidance based on royalties from Elfabrio. CEO Dror Bashan responded that while Chiesi's weekly patient additions indicate strong performance, Protalix cannot disclose specific revenue figures due to Chiesi's private company status. He reiterated the projection of over $100 million in revenues by 2030 from Chiesi.
  • John Vandermosten, Zacks SCR: Inquired about the mechanism of PRX-115 and its impact on urate crystals. CEO Bashan explained that PRX-115 employs a pegylated uricase enzyme to effectively lower uric acid levels over extended periods, with further studies required to confirm its impact on refractory gout.

Sentiment Analysis

  • Analysts expressed optimism regarding the company's progress, particularly with PRX-115 and its potential in the gout market. However, there were concerns about lack of revenue guidance and specifics on Elfabrio performance.
  • Management conveyed confidence in their strategic direction, emphasizing the robustness of their balance sheet and the promising prospects for their pipeline. During Q&A, they occasionally exhibited defensiveness when pressed for specific financial or operational details, particularly regarding Chiesi's performance.

Quarter-over-Quarter Comparison

  • Revenues from selling goods increased from Q3 to Q4, indicating strong demand. However, revenues from license and R&D services remained minimal, consistent with the prior quarter's report on the completion of Fabry-related regulatory milestones.
  • Management's tone remained consistent, with continued emphasis on pipeline development and strategic partnerships. Analysts' focus shifted slightly toward understanding PRX-115’s market potential and Protalix's financial outlook.

Risks and Concerns

  • Management acknowledged the reliance on Chiesi for Elfabrio commercialization and royalties, with uncertainties around patient uptake trends and inventory sales dynamics.
  • Development timelines for PRX-115 and PRX-119 were highlighted as critical, with potential delays or high costs impacting future performance.
  • Analysts raised concerns over the competitive landscape for refractory gout and Protalix’s ability to secure partnerships for late-stage pipeline assets.

Final Takeaway

Protalix BioTherapeutics reported strong financial performance for 2024, supported by expanding partnerships and pipeline advancements. The launch of a Phase 2 trial for PRX-115 in 2025 and projected growth in Elfabrio royalties signal long-term growth potential. However, reliance on key partners and competitive pressures in targeted markets remain critical areas to watch.

Read the full Earnings Call Transcript

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/protalix-plans-phase-2-for-prx-115-in-h2-2025-projects-higher-royalty-revenues-by-2030/ar-AA1B5spj?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds

MBX Biosciences results, highlights

 Enrollment complete in Phase 2 Avail™ trial of canvuparatide in hypoparathyroidism; topline results on track for Q3 2025

MBX 1416 Phase 2 trial in patients with post-bariatric hypoglycemia expected to begin in 2H 2025

Investigational New Drug submission anticipated in Q2 2025 for MBX 4291 in obesity

$262.1 million in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of December 31, 2024; expected to support operations into mid-2027

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/03/17/3043631/0/en/MBX-Biosciences-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2024-Financial-Results-and-Recent-Corporate-Highlights.html

3 Ways Trump Plans To Root Out Rampant Obamacare Fraud

 When it comes to targeting wasteful, ineffective, and questionable government spending, the Trump administration is not just focused on personnel costs and expensive subscriptions to Politico. It has also shown a desire to tackle the mandatory government spending that comprises the majority (and a growing share) of the federal budget.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a proposed rule relating to the Obamacare Exchanges. (A summary is available here.) In some cases, the rule, which needs to go through a formal notice-and-comment period before taking effect, restores policies from the first Trump administration that the Biden interregnum undid. Other policies in the rule attempt to tackle new issues that have cropped up more recently. But most of the rule’s provisions focus on combatting waste and fraud within the Obamacare program.

End to Coverage for DACA 

Among its many provisions, the proposed rule would end Exchange coverage for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) participants, months after changes pushed through by the Biden administration. As I previously noted, the Biden administration proposed and then finalized a policy allowing DACA participants not only to apply for Exchange coverage but also to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies. Biden’s actions went further than the Obama administration, which concluded that it lacked the authority to make DACA participants eligible for Exchange coverage.

Shortly after the Biden administration finalized the proposal last summer, a group of Republican attorneys general challenged the action in court. In December, they won a court ruling blocking DACA recipients from applying for coverage in their states. If the Trump proposal is finalized, it will end the legal wrangling over taxpayer-subsidized coverage for illegal immigrants and restore the pre-Biden status quo.

Emphasis on Verification

Another theme running through the proposed rule is an increased emphasis on verification. That applies to verifying income to establish eligibility for federal subsidies, as studies have suggested that some Exchange enrollees may be lying about their income to qualify for the richest possible subsidies. Policies designed to combat this problem include stricter verification of enrollees’ income level when applying, and requiring that enrollees who receive subsidies file income taxes at the end of the year to reconcile the payments they did receive (based on projected income) with the payments they should have received (based on actual income) and repay the difference.

Verification will also apply to special enrollment periods — instances when “life events,” such as the birth of a child, marriage, divorce, etc., allow people to buy Exchange plans outside the annual open enrollment period. Whereas the Biden administration generally allowed for self-attestation of special enrollments, the Trump administration will require verification in most instances. 

This policy seeks to ensure that applicants don’t try to “game the system” and only apply for insurance coverage after, for instance, they receive a cancer diagnosis. Of course, people who lie about qualifying for a special enrollment period because they know they are about to incur significant medical expenses raise insurance costs for individuals who have been paying premiums into the system all along. The Trump proposal would also shorten the open enrollment period by one month for much the same reason.

Tackling ‘Free’ Plans

The proposed rule also addresses a related topic: the Biden-era increase in Obamacare subsidies that created zero-dollar premiums for “benchmark” plans. This “free” coverage has led to reports of increased fraud and “zombie” enrollees, who are constantly renewed in taxpayer-subsidized plans because they pay nothing for those plans out-of-pocket.

The Trump rule attempts to tackle this problem by eliminating the automatic special enrollment period for people who qualify for “free” plans because right now such individuals can sign up for coverage any day of the year. The Trump rule would also require those who do not bother to reverify their subsidy eligibility every year to pay a $5-per-month premium (which can be refunded if the individual confirms his eligibility) and permit insurers to require individuals to pay past-due premiums before their new coverage takes effect. All of these policies attempt to give enrollees some stake in their health coverage rather than relying solely upon federal taxpayers’ largesse.

Cracking Down on Fraud

Lest anyone buy into the argument that no fraud exists in government, the Biden administration itself admitted the opposite. Between January 2024 and August 2024, CMS fielded 90,863 “complaints that consumers had their [Exchange] plan changed without their consent,” and another 183,553 “complaints that consumers were enrolled in [Exchange] coverage without their consent.” That’s nearly 300,000 reports of fraudulent enrollment in eight months — and that’s just among the states using the federal Exchange.

The Biden administration took some steps to crack down on the conditions that led to this type of fraud, such as by making the Exchanges’ IT infrastructure more secure. But the Trump administration’s proposals will do more to remedy the underlying policies that encouraged the fraud in the first place.

Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group and author of the book "The Case Against Single Payer." 

The China Covid Narrative: What We Missed in 2020

 Five years ago, in March 2020, Yale sociologist and physician Nicholas Christakis MD, PhD, MPH took to Twitter to marvel at China’s response to SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind Covid-19. In a detailed thread, he described China’s “social nuclear weapon” (of the people-clearing ‘neutron bomb’ -variety?): unprecedented lockdowns, movement restrictions on 930 million people, and a collectivist culture harnessed by an authoritarian regime. He framed it as a Newtonian feat: the sheer force required to stop the virus revealed its power. Contrast this with Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, MA (economics): equally credentialed, but clear-eyed (the French term is “clairvoyant”), who early on delineated Covi’s stratified risk and urged an adaptive model over authoritarian mimicry.

For Christakis, China’s drop in cases from hundreds daily to a mere 46 in a nation of 1.4 billion was “astonishing.” But beneath the awe, a question lingers for us today: What was the real “virus” China was fighting—and why didn’t we, in the supposedly free West, push back harder on the narrative?

Christakis’ thread, preserved in its 35-tweet glory, reads like a love letter to China’s public health machinery. He details “closed-off management” (which China later disavowed)—permits for one person per household to leave,

temperature checks, and disinfected elevators with taped-off occupancy limits.

He chuckles at gallows humor about kids’ taking online PE classes while parents plead for quiet. He cites a study showing the virus’s reproductive rate (Re) plummeting from 3.8 to 0.32, proof that the epidemic was being snuffed out. China’s success (sic) leaned on “China’s government being authoritarian…but COVID-19 control was dramatic,” Christakis sighs, wistfully.

Yet, he never questions the cost or the context (or the underlying validity, purpose, and reproducibility of data from an authoritarian regime – at the very least, at “cold” war with us; or with Trump ’45). He nods to Dr. Li Wenliang’s death—a whistleblower silenced by the state—but moves on, as if it’s a footnote in a grand triumph.

Let’s rewind to 2003, to “Classic Coke”—the original SARS outbreak. China faced a similar respiratory virus, and its response foreshadowed 2020. Back then, no vaccine emerged despite frantic efforts. Why? Respiratory viruses like SARS and its sequel, SARS-CoV-2, mutate fast and pose risks like antibody-dependent enhancement, where vaccines might worsen illness in some cases. 

China’s 2003 playbook wasn’t just about health—it was about control. Protests erupted, notably in cities like Chagugang (April 29, 2003), when infected patients were shuttled between regions, sparking riots over perceived negligence. Tiananmen Square’s shadow loomed large; political unrest was the real contagion Beijing feared. Susan Shirk in China: Fragile Superpower (2007) noted that (original) SARS exposed governance weaknesses, amplifying public discontent. Fast forward to 2020, and Xi Jinping’s “severe, prophylactic clamp” looks less like a health strategy and more like a preemptive strike against social upheaval.

Between 2003 and 2020—an interregnum worth dissecting—China chased a potential SARS vaccine. Labs used ferrets as vaccine subjects. One can ferret out that they did not fare well. 

The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), established in 1956 but revamped post-SARS with French collaboration, became a hub for coronavirus research, partly driven by 2003’s lessons.

Billions were poured in, yet by the mid-2010s, efforts stalled. Why? Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), where vaccines trigger worse disease outcomes, loomed as a brick wall. SARS-CoV’s mutability didn’t help. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself later mused that respiratory viruses resist systemic vaccines

“Attempting to control mucosal respiratory viruses with systemically administered non-replicating vaccines has thus far been largely unsuccessful…The importance of mucosal secretory IgA (sIgA) in pathogen-specific responses against respiratory viral infections has long been appreciated for influenza viruses.”

Despite this hard-earned skepticism and knowledge, by 2020, China projected an image of triumph through control, sidelining the caution such science demanded.

Now, consider the Diamond Princess cruise ship—a floating lab that docked in our laps in February 2020. By March 9, when Christakis tweeted, data was clear: 3,711 passengers and crew, a confined petri dish, yielded 712 infections. Yet, among the young and healthy, symptoms were often absent. Illness skewed heavily toward the elderly, and by that date, zero deaths had been recorded (seven later occurred, all older patients). This serendipity of effectively a “$1 trillion experiment” (if priorly designed) screamed a truth: Covid-19 wasn’t an equal-opportunity killer. Fauci knew this. Why didn’t he shout it from the rooftops? Why didn’t Christakis mention it? Instead, the narrative fixated on China’s draconian model, as if we had no choice but to follow.

And follow we did. Stateside, we adopted lockdowns, school closures, and social distancing—echoes of China’s “closed-off management”—despite our supposed allergy to authoritarianism. Christakis laments that the US lacks China’s tools, but he doesn’t dwell on whether we should’ve wanted them. He doesn’t ask what China’s real “virus” was. Was it SARS-CoV-2, or the specter of unrest at home? Or, as some speculate, a geopolitical jab—anti-Trump agitprop to destabilize his economy and ascendancy amid trade wars and tariffs? Our own “useful idiots,” as Lenin might’ve called them, lapped it up, amplifying China’s narrative without a skeptical squint. Why?

The SARS 2003 parallel offers a clue. Post-outbreak, China faced no global applause for its heavy hand—just criticism and internal grumbling. In 2020, China doubled down, projecting competence to the world while quashing dissent. Li Wenliang’s death wasn’t just a tragedy; it was a warning. Thousands still mourn him daily on Weibo, a quiet rebellion against the state’s grip. Christakis notes this but doesn’t connect the dots: China’s “astonishing” control came at a human cost we in the West ignored, then mimicked.

So, why the blind spot? Groupthink, perhaps. Christakis, like many in 2020’s expert class, rode the wave of panic, dazzled by China’s numbers without questioning the why or the what-next. The Diamond Princess begged us to stratify risk—protect the old, let the young live—but we didn’t. SARS 2003 begged us to doubt vaccine dreams and fear political overreach, but we didn’t. Instead, we bought the story that only a “social nuclear weapon” could save us, never asking if the cure was worse than the disease.

Five years later, the “cool kids” (like you: smart, curious, skeptical) can see through the haze. China’s response wasn’t just about a virus; it was about power. The US didn’t lack tools; its public health leaders lacked the nerve to chart a different course (or were complicit or compromised). The real lesson? Question the narrative. Dig into the data. And when someone hands you a “Classic Coke” story, check the ingredients.

Dems' Approval Collapses 20 Points In 4 Years As Trump Posts Career-High

 Despite all the leftist and mainstream media wailing and gnashing of teeth about the new administration, fresh polling from two major mainstream news outlets paints a truly bleak picture for Democrats and a relatively rosy one for President Trump

In the most striking read on the pulse of America, the Democratic Party's favorability rating has collapsed by a whopping 20 percentage points in just four years, and now stands at just 29%, according to CNN. That's the lowest in the history of CNN's poll, which goes back to 1992.  NBC News had a similar reading: 27% positive against 55% negative. "In more than 30 years of this poll, we've never seen either party hit a number this low, in terms of negatives," said NBC's Steve Kornacki.    

NBC News

While it's different in degree, the dissatisfaction extends to Democrats themselves. Only 63% of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents view their own party favorably, and 52% say leaders are taking the party in the wrong direction. That compares to 79% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who give a thumbs-up to the GOP. 

The sense that the Democratic Party is adrift is further reinforced by Democrats' lack of any consensus whatsoever about who "best reflects the core values" of the party. More than 30% drew a complete blank, while the top three people named by respondents were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (10%), failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris (9%) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (8%). 

Readings for Republicans are much better. With the GOP now in control of the White House, Senate and House of Represntatives, NBC News found 44% of registered voters think America is heading in the right direction -- the highest it's been since early 2004.  

As Democrats hit a record-low in approval rating, Trump his tied his career-high approval rating, with 47% of registered voters content with his performance. That still leaves him with a net-negative, as 51% disapprove. That's lower than any of his four predecessors at this point in their terms, but higher than the 40% approval rating Trump posted in 2017. Then, only 50% of Republicans viewed Trump "very positively." That number has soared to 74% in this month's NBC poll. 

Trump is at a career-high approval rating, but he's still at a net-negative, and confidence in his handling of the economy is waning (Evelyn Hockstein/ Reuters via PBS)

Americans are coming around to Trump's approach to handling border security and immigration, with 55% approving and 43% disapproving. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has a net-positive approval rating, with 46% saying it's a "good idea" compared to 40% who say it's a "bad idea." There's a major split about the future of DOGE: 33% say there's "much more to be done" while 33% say it's "reckless and should stop now." Elon Musk has a 51% negative-feelings rate, compared to 39% who feel positive about him.  

In a major departure from all of his previous readings, Trump is in the red on his handling of the economy (54% disapprove, 44% approve) and the cost of living (55% disapprove, 42% approve). An overwhelming 82% of voters say the state of the economy is fair or poor, with just 18% calling it excellent. Trump is likewise underwater on foreign policy and the Russia/Ukraine war.  

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dems-approval-collapses-20-points-4-years-while-trump-posts-career-high

Guess Who The Woman That Hit Trump In The Face With A Mic Works For...

 by Steve Watson via modernity.news,

The woman who knocked President Trump directly in the face with a microphone Friday has finally been identified, and you won’t be surprised to find out that she’s a rabid leftist.

As we highlighted, Trump supporters are concerned that such a lapse of security could occur, with many noting that anything could have been placed on the microphone as a way of harming Trump.

The woman’s identity remained unknown for two days before she was identified by Laura Loomer as NPR reporter Danielle Kurtzleben.

Loomer noted that Kurtzleben “is the newly appointed White House reporter for NPR and a massive Trump hater and LGBTQ advocate who once suggested during the 2024 campaign that Trump only spoke in Howell, Michigan because it has ties to the KKK.”

Kurtzleben has been obsessively covering trangender issues.

“Did she hit President Trump in the face on purpose?” Loomer wondered.

How is someone who clearly hates Trump allowed to get this close to him?

Is NPR going to issue any kind of statement of apology?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/guess-who-woman-hit-trump-face-mic-works