Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: House Republicans would rather demonize Anthony Fauci than help Americans survive the next pandemic

Published

on

Opinion: House Republicans would rather demonize Anthony Fauci than help Americans survive the next pandemic

It has become as tiresome as it is predictable: When Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia turns on her microphone during a hearing, it’s time to say goodbye to decorum and hello to vulgar personal attacks.

The House’s clown princess had quite the forum on Monday, when, as a member of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, she got to grill and insult Dr. Anthony Fauci, 83, one of the world’s leading public health physicians, who headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until 2022 and steered the country through the pandemic.

Opinion Columnist

Robin Abcarian

Advertisement

Ostensibly, the grilling, which was billed simply as “A Hearing with Anthony Fauci,” was the culmination of the committee’s 15-month inquiry into the origins of the virus and the public health response.

In reality, it was a forum for Republicans to continue their attacks on Fauci. As the committee’s ranking Democratic member, Rep. Raul Ruiz of Indio, put it in a news conference before the hearing, Republicans have used the committee to advance the “dangerous narrative that Dr. Fauci somehow funded research that started the COVID-19 pandemic, lied about it and orchestrated a campaign to cover it up.”

The truth, as we know, is that then-President Trump dithered, blathered and showboated as Americans were dying. Who will ever forget the pained look on the face of Dr. Deborah Birx, Trump’s coronavirus response coordinator, as she watched Trump suggest we “hit the body” with a powerful light or disinfectant to kill the virus? Or the way Fauci face-palmed when Trump went off on a tangent about the “deep State Department” during one of his inane daily briefings?

Monday’s hearing was a colossal waste of time and energy. We are no closer to learning conclusively about the origin of COVID-19, nor steps the government can take to strengthen data collection, improve future testing and contact tracing, or address the racial and wealth disparities that were laid bare in that terrible time.

Advertisement

Instead, Republicans, desperate to tarnish Fauci, went to town. Greene took things to absurd lengths.

“You’re not a doctor,” she fumed. “You’re Mr. Fauci,” she said, her voice dripping with disdain.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland called for a point of order. “In terms of the rules of decorum, are we allowed to deny that a doctor is a doctor just because we don’t want him to be a doctor?”

Without waiting for a reply from committee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Greene thundered on, “Yes, because … that man does not deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be revoked and he belongs in prison.”

Greene took a kitchen-sink approach to her hectoring. Holding up a photo of two beagles lying on the ground with their heads tented in mesh, Greene sneered, “As a dog lover, I want to tell you this is disgusting and evil, what you signed off on. The type of science that you are representing, Mr. Fauci, is abhorrent and it needs to stop.”

Advertisement

(The National Institutes of Health, which has funded research using beagles and has rigorous rules about their treatment, was not involved in the study that Greene was exercised about. The journal that initially promulgated that claim later retracted it.)

“What do dogs have to do with anything we’re talking about today?” asked Fauci in frustration.

Amid the blustering, it’s important to remember that during the pandemic, as President Trump and his sycophants were suggesting that Americans do dumb things like inject bleach or ingest anti-parasitics to rid themselves of COVID-19, Fauci was working to understand the novel virus and to promote social rules designed to help prevent transmission.

Did he make mistakes or contradict himself? He did. In the early stages of the pandemic, Fauci suggested that people didn’t need to wear masks before reversing himself. As he testified, the six-feet-apart rule for social distancing was not based on scientific studies but seemed to make sense.

The editor of the nonpartisan journal the New Atlantis pointed out in a 2022 New York Times essay that a little humility would have served Fauci and the country better. “There was ‌nothing stopping Dr. Fauci in those chaotic early weeks from saying ‘Masks might help, but doctors and nurses need them more now,’ or even just ‘We’re not sure yet,’ ” wrote Ari Schulman. “This would have been far closer to accurately representing scientific understanding and would have done wonders in case the answer later changed, as many elements of guidance were bound to.”

Advertisement

Most of us are willing to cut Fauci some slack for the imperfections, but his embrace of masks, social distancing and, of course, vaccines when they became available made him a figure of hatred for those Americans who do not like being told what to do, especially by scientists. “Don’t Fauci my Florida” became Gov. Ron DeSantis’ ludicrous motto, even as hospitalizations, new infections and deaths per capita soared in his state.

On Monday, Fauci testified that he and his family have been inundated with death threats, two of which were credible enough to have resulted in arrests. “‘Credible death threats’ means someone who clearly was on his way to kill me,” Fauci said at one point, his voice breaking.

You have to wonder why Fauci even volunteered to appear at Monday’s hearing knowing what was in store for him from committee Republicans, who had promised to blow the lid off his mismanagement of the pandemic, but came up with nothing.

“You are an American hero,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, a Long Beach Democrat who lost his mother and stepfather to COVID-19, “and your team has done more to save lives than all 435 members of this body.”

Amen to that.

Advertisement

@robinkabcarian

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending