Ending the January 6 commission and the probe into former President Trump’s tax returns, as well as opening an investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings, are all on the table if the GOP takes the House.
Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.
Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.
The VA in March said it intended to cut its workforce by at least 70,000 people. The news sparked alarm that the cuts would hurt patient care, prompting public reassurances from VA Secretary Doug Collins that front-line health care staff would be immune from the proposed layoffs.
Last month, department officials updated their plans and said they would reduce the workforce by 30,000 by the end of the fiscal year, which is Sept. 30. So many staffers had left voluntarily, the agency said in a press release, that mass layoffs would not be necessary.
“VA is headed in the right direction,” Collins said in a statement.
But a review of hundreds of internal staffing records, along with interviews with veterans and employees, reveal a far less rosy picture of how staffing is affecting veterans’ care.
After six years of adding medical staff, the VA this year is down more than 600 doctors and about 1,900 nurses. The number of doctors on staff has declined each month since President Donald Trump took office. The agency also lost twice as many nurses as it hired between January and June, records viewed by ProPublica show.
In response to questions, a VA spokesperson did not dispute numbers about staff losses at centers across the country but accused ProPublica of bias and of “cherry-picking issues that are mostly routine.”
Agency spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz said that the department is “working to address” the number of doctors declining job offers by speeding up the hiring process and that the agency “has several strategies to navigate shortages,” including referring veterans to private providers and telehealth appointments. A nationwide shortage of health care workers has made hiring and retention difficult, he said.
Kasperowicz said that the recent changes at the agency have not compromised care and that wait times are getting better after worsening under President Joe Biden.
While wait times for primary, mental health and specialty care for existing patients did increase during Biden’s presidency, the VA’s statistics show only slight reductions since Trump took office in January.
However, appointment wait times for new patients seeking primary and specialty care have slightly increased, according to a report obtained by ProPublica.
As of early July, the average wait time nationally to schedule outpatient surgery appointments for new patients was 41 days, which is 13 days higher than the goal set by the VA and nearly two days longer than a year ago.
In some locations, the waits for appointments are even longer.
At the Togus VA Medical Center in Augusta, Maine, internal records show that there is a two-month wait for primary care appointments, which is triple the VA’s goal and 38 days longer than it was at this time last year. The wife of a disabled Marine veteran who receives care at the facility told ProPublica that it has become harder in recent months to schedule appointments and to get timely care.
Her husband, she said, served in Somalia and is completely disabled. He has not had a primary care doctor assigned to him for months after his previous doctor left over the winter, she said.
“He has no person who is in charge of his health care,” said the woman, who did not want to be named because of fears her comments might affect benefits for her husband. “It was never like this before. There’s a lack of staff, empty rooms, locked doors. It feels like something that’s not healthy.”
Kasperowicz said the VA is taking “aggressive action” to recruit primary care doctors in Maine and anticipates hiring two new doctors by the end of the year.
Nationwide, records reviewed by ProPublica show, the vacancy rate for doctors at the VA was 13.7% in May, up from 12% in May of 2024. Kasperowicz said those rates are in line with historical averages for the agency. But while the vacancy rate decreased over the first five months of 2024, it has risen in 2025.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who has been critical of Collins’ stewardship, has argued that the VA is heading in a dangerous new direction. He said that ProPublica’s findings reinforce his concerns about “damaging and dangerous impacts” from cuts and staffing reductions.
“Dedicated professionals are fleeing — and recruitment is flagging — because of toxic work conditions and draconian funding cuts and firings,” he told ProPublica. “We’ve warned repeatedly about these results — shocking, but not surprising.”
In the VA’s Texas region, which covers most of the state, officials reported in an internal presentation in June that approximately 90 people had turned down job offers “due to the uncertainty of reorganization” and noted that low morale was causing existing employees to not recommend working at the medical centers.
Anthony Martinez, a retired Army captain who did tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, said he has witnessed a downgrade in care at the Temple, Texas, VA facility. He said that the hospital has lost records of his recent allergy shots, which he now has to repeat, and he has to wait longer for appointments.
“Problems have always existed but not to this degree,” Martinez said.
Martinez, who runs a local nonprofit for veterans, said he’s heard similar frustrations from many of them. “It’s not just me. Many vets are having bad experiences,” he said.
Kasperowicz said the agency couldn’t discuss Martinez’s case without a patient privacy waiver, which Martinez declined to sign. He said wait times for primary care appointments for existing patients at Temple are unchanged over the past fiscal year. But internal records show an increase in wait times for new patients in specialties such as cardiology, gastroenterology and oncology.
Administrators there have expressed concern about the impact of staff losses, warning in their June internal presentation about “institutional knowledge leaving the Agency due to the increase of supervisors departing.”
It is not just the loss of doctors and nurses impacting care. Shortages in support staff, who have not been protected from cuts, are also adding to delays.
In Dayton, Ohio, vacant positions for purchasing agents resulted in delays in acquiring hundreds of prosthetics, according to an internal VA report from May. Kasperowicz said the hospital has recently cut processing time for such orders by more than half.
Some facilities are experiencing trouble hiring and keeping mental health staff.
In February, a human resources official in the VA region covering much of Florida reported in an internal warning system that the area was having trouble hiring mental health professionals to treat patients in rural areas. The jobs had previously been entirely remote but now require providers to be on site at a clinic.
When the region offered jobs to three mental health providers, all of them declined. The expected impact, according to the warning document, was longer delays for appointments. Kasperowicz said the VA is working to address the shortages.
Yet even as the agency faces these challenges, the Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the use of a key tool designed to help the VA attract applicants and plug gaps in critical front-line care.
The VA in recent years has used incentive payments to help recruit and keep doctors and other health care workers. In fiscal 2024, the agency paid nearly 20,000 staffers retention bonuses and over 6,000 new hires got signing bonuses. In the first nine months of this fiscal year, which started Oct. 1, only about 8,000 VA employees got retention bonuses and just over 1,000 received recruitment incentives. The VA has told lawmakers it has been able to fill jobs without using the incentive programs.
Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., said during a congressional oversight hearing in July that the Trump administration is withholding the bonuses because it “wants them to leave” as part of a plan to privatize services.
“It’s not that VA employees are less meritorious than they were under Biden,” she said. “They want every employee to be pushed out so they can decimate the VA’s workforce.”
David Armstrong investigates healthcare at ProPublica.
Eric Umansky is an editor-at-large at ProPublica.
Vernal Coleman is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter based in Chicago.
Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals was originally published by ProPublica and is republished with permission.
President Trump’s military interventions in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., foretell his plan for other cities.
The Washington Post recently reported on the Pentagon’s plans for a “quick reaction force” to deploy amid civil unrest. And, broad mobilization of the military on U.S. soil could happen under the Insurrection Act, which Trump has flirted with invoking. That rarely used Act allows troops to arrest and use force against civilians, which is otherwise prohibited by longstanding law and tradition.
These developments should sound alarms for all Americans. It is time to oppose such misuse of the military and emergency powers.
When an insurrectionist mob violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, then President Trump did not take emergency action to protect officials or federal property. The attack was a consequence of his call for protesters to march on the Capitol and “stop the steal”—part of the ongoing Big Lie campaign, denying his legitimate loss of the 2020 election. He is deviating from the truth again, this time to declare states of emergency where none exist in order to deploy the National Guard, first in Los Angeles and now in Washington, D.C.
On August 11, 2025, President Trump “federalized” the D.C. police department and ordered the National Guard to send 800 troops to the city. That’s in addition to some 500 federal law enforcement officers directed to D.C. the week before.
D.C. authorities did not request federal intervention. Trump justified the occupation with the false claim that city authorities lost control of violent crime. The facts show otherwise. Yes, D.C. has a serious crime problem. However, violent crime in Washington, D.C., is down 26% compared with this time a year ago. Last year, with a 35% drop from 2023, the city recorded a 30-year low.
In Los Angeles’ case, Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and active duty military troops in June was done under the false premise that protests there constituted “a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”
While there had been peaceful demonstrations against ICE raids in L.A., fireworks, bottles, and other projectiles were thrown at ICE and L.A. police officers, and serious property damage occurred. However, there was not a rebellion. Local authorities were taking seemingly effective law enforcement actions and did not request federal assistance. In fact, they opposed the federal intervention.
Make no mistake, mobilizing the National Guard in L.A. and D.C. is a threat to other cities.
At his rambling August 11 press conference, Trump implied that New York, Chicago, Baltimore, and Oakland are among the cities on his list. The mayors of those cities are already opposing such federal military interventions. On August 12, Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller made clear on “X” that the attacks on “big blue cities” are part of an agenda, justified by the preposterous charge that “Democrats are trying to unravel civilization,” while “President Trump will save it.”
The issued presidential memoranda regarding L.A. and D.C. demonstrates both broad intent and overreach as local and state officials were bypassed and no clear “emergency” existed to justify their issuance.
The June 7, 2025, presidential memorandum used to send troops to Los Angeles is so vague that it could be invoked practically any time for deployments anywhere. Neither L.A. nor California is specifically mentioned. It allows the activation of other states’ National Guard for “military protective activities” that the secretary of defense determines “are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property.”
The August 11 presidential memorandum on D.C. parallels the June 7 document, stating:
“...I direct the Secretary of Defense to mobilize the District of Columbia National Guard and order members to active service, in such numbers as he deems necessary, to address the epidemic of crime in our Nation’s capital. The mobilization and duration of duty shall remain in effect until I determine that conditions of law and order have been restored in the District of Columbia. Further, I direct the Secretary of Defense to coordinate with State Governors and authorize the orders of any additional members of the National Guard to active service, as he deems necessary and appropriate, to augment this mission.”
As of August 16, it was announced that West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio were deploying hundreds of additional National Guard troops to D.C. In a further provocative escalation, the National Guard troops are to begin carrying weapons, even though no serious confrontations with them have taken place.
A president has broad discretion in deciding to declare a state of emergency, and once done, a president can employ more than 130 statutory emergency powers. The recent presidential memoranda set a precedent for unbridled interventions, sending National Guard and active military troops wherever the President claims an emergency exists. That applies even when governors object and to even use troops from other states.
To protect democratic governance, abuse of presidential emergency powers must be constrained by Congress and the courts and opposed by the public.
California is challenging the legality of the ongoing military intervention in L.A. In June, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer issued an order restraining the deployment, but it was reversed on appeal. Judge Breyer conducted further hearings on August 13-15 on whether the troops’ activities have violated the 147-year old Posse Comitatus Act that blocks the military from civilian law enforcement. The outcome of the case will have national implications.
In D.C., the police are a focal point. Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act allows a president, when “special conditions of an emergency nature exist,” to direct the mayor to order the D.C. police to provide federal “services.” Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrongly attempted to place the police under direct federal command. D.C. challenged her order before District Judge Ana C. Reyes, and the order was rescinded under the judge’s watchful eye.
Under Section 740, the president’s initial D.C. police order may only last 30 days unless the U.S. House and Senate “enact into law a joint resolution” extending the time. Trump has stated that he will seek a long-term extension, which puts the onus on Congress to constrain that abuse.
More than 125 civil rights organizations are jointly calling on Congress to oppose federalizing D.C.’s police and deploying military forces for policing purposes in the U.S. Democrats have introduced a joint resolution to end the D.C. intervention because special emergency conditions do not exist.
The Limiting Emergency Powers Act of 2025, similarly to the ARTICLE ONE Act introduced in 2023, would place limits on presidential emergency powers, including requiring congressional approval for an emergency if it is to extend beyond 30 days. There is noteworthy bipartisan support for such measures. And groups like the Brennan Center for Justice and numerous other democracy advocacy organizations are working for related reforms, though reforms alone may be insufficient to constrain a president who acts beyond the law.
Members of the House and Senate need to hear forceful demands for the immediate enactment of effective limitations. Calling and texting them is in order. Related advocacy group reform efforts also deserve support. And, more than that is needed.
We may be headed to a circumstance where the military is deployed to one or more additional cities over local objections. L.A.’s mayor, police, and public managed to curtail violence without deadly confrontations between protesters and National Guard troops. That may not be the case in the future, and we cannot afford to play Russian roulette with military deployments.
That’s why the public should make clear that presidential deployment of troops to cities over the objections of state and local officials cannot be “normalized” and cannot stand.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally. He is a long-time resident of Washington, D.C.
National Black Business Month is about correcting an imbalance and recognizing that supporting Black-owned businesses is suitable for everyone.
Every August, National Black Business Month rolls around, and for a few weeks, social media lights up with hashtags and well-meaning posts about supporting Black-owned businesses. You'll see lists pop up—restaurants, bookstores, clothing lines—all run by Black entrepreneurs. Maybe your favorite coffee shop puts up a sign, or a big brand launches a campaign. But once the month ends, the noise fades, and for many, it's back to business as usual.
This cycle is familiar. It's easy to mistake visibility for progress or to think that a single purchase is enough. But National Black Business Month is meant to be more than a fleeting moment of recognition. It's a moment to interrogate the systems that got us here and to put our money—and our intent—where our mouths are. In a better world, Black business success would be a given, not a cause for annual celebration.
Understand it is impossible to talk about Black entrepreneurship in America without acknowledging the weight of history. For generations, discriminatory practices—from redlining and restricted access to capital to exclusion from professional networks—stunted the growth of Black businesses. Even now, Black entrepreneurs face higher loan rejection rates, higher interest rates, and less venture capital funding than their white counterparts. According to a 2022 Federal Reserve report, only about 1% of U.S. venture capital-backed founders are Black. The numbers aren't just statistics; they represent dreams deferred, ambitions underfunded, and talent overlooked.
National Black Business Month isn't about charity. It's about correcting an imbalance and recognizing that supporting Black-owned businesses is suitable for everyone. When Black businesses thrive, whole communities thrive. They create jobs, fill unmet needs, and serve as cultural anchors. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Black-owned companies employ over a million people and contribute billions to the economy. It's not a side story—it's a central one.
However, for all the progress, there's a reason why this month still matters. Far too many Black entrepreneurs are still fighting uphill battles. The pandemic took a heavy toll—between February and April 2020, nearly half of all Black-owned businesses closed, compared to 17% of white-owned companies. While some have bounced back, recovery has been uneven. The old barriers—access to capital, mentorship, and networks—are still in place, even if the language around them has softened.
What does it mean to "raise consciousness" during National Black Business Month? It means moving beyond token gestures. It means asking hard questions: Are we supporting Black businesses only when it's convenient, or are we making it part of our everyday lives? Are corporations using this month as a branding opportunity, or are they committing real dollars to Black founders? Are local governments ensuring that Black entrepreneurs have equal access to city contracts and resources, or are old patterns simply repeating themselves?
The easiest place to start is with our wallets. Conscious consumerism isn't about guilt or obligation; it's about making choices that reflect our values. If you're willing to wait in line for a new iPhone or drive across town for a trendy brunch spot, you can as easily seek out a Black-owned bookstore, bakery, or clothing store. With apps and directories now making it easier than ever to find Black-owned businesses in your area, there's no excuse not to.
Moreover, it means becoming a regular, not just a one-time customer. It means leaving positive reviews online, recommending businesses to friends, and engaging with brands on social media. For those with platforms—whether that's a classroom, a boardroom, or a news feed—it means using your influence to amplify Black voices and businesses. And for those with capital, it means investing, not just spending.
Individual action matters, but it's not enough. Transformational change requires institutions—banks, venture capital firms, government agencies, and corporations—to step up. That means rethinking lending standards, breaking down barriers to procurement, and building pipelines for Black talent. It means mentorship programs that are more than just window dressing, and grant funding that doesn't disappear after August.
Initiatives like the NAACP's Black-Owned Business Resource Center and the National Black Chamber of Commerce are pushing for structural change. Major banks have pledged billions to support Black-owned businesses. But promises need to be matched by outcomes. Are these dollars reaching Black entrepreneurs, or are they getting lost in bureaucracy? Are new policies changing who gets hired, funded, and promoted, or is it just more of the same?
It's easy to lament our challenges, but National Black Business Month is also a time to celebrate. Black entrepreneurs are reshaping industries, creating brands with global reach, and setting new standards for excellence. Think of Tristan Walker, who built Bevel and then sold it to Procter & Gamble. Or Pinky Cole, whose Slutty Vegan empire is turning plant-based food into a cultural phenomenon. Or the thousands of small business owners who keep their doors open against all odds, offering spaces for connection and creativity. These stories aren't just inspiring—they're instructive. Thus, highlighting what is possible given when talented people have room to grow, when consumers show up, and when institutions do their part. They remind us that Black business success is not a miracle—it's the outcome of hard work, innovative strategy, and community support.
So this August, celebrate loudly. Share your favorite Black-owned brands. Eat, shop, and invest with intention. But don't let it stop there. The fight for economic justice, for equity, and opportunity is year-round. Black businesses have always been at the heart of American innovation and culture. It's time our support matched their impact—not just for a month, but for good.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
While artificial intelligence offers undeniable benefits in organizing information and streamlining learning, its growing role in journalism—especially in coverage of government—raises urgent questions about media literacy and democratic accountability.
Fulcrum Fellow, Jared Tucker, explores how efficiency often comes at the cost of critical thinking,
Sitting in the back row of a lecture hall can provide a window into current college life.
With rows and rows of computer screens all pointed towards you, you can see students online shopping, diligently taking notes, and of course, using AI.
AI use amongst college students has become widespread, with the Global Education Council finding that 86% of students are using AI regularly in a global survey. While language learning models (LLMs) can help students organize notes or learn content efficiently, their negative effects on critical thinking have left educators scrambling to find ways to curb their use while still acknowledging their effectiveness.
“All new technology, no matter what it is, has a panic cycle, but this is a big, futuristic view of what learning and life will look like,” said Caley Cook, the Journalism and Public Interest Communication Coordinator at the University of Washington. “This is having and will continue to have impacts on decision-making and critical thinking for everybody. It is really detrimental for students to outsource critical thinking at a university where they are learning to learn.”
A 2025 study from Phys.org found a significant correlation between poor critical thinking scores and the use of AI tools. As students increasingly rely on AI to complete work, they risk missing out on the intended benefits of the tools in their education.
“To get a degree is to practice as a thinker, and that’s a muscle,” Cook said. “You have to use it over and over again and fail and try again to make that muscle stronger.”
But if AI can potentially rob students of their education, why do they keep using it?
Well, college is hard. Students have to juggle their classwork, homework, social life, and work life. With LLM’s ability to spurt out immediate answers, it can offer relief to the backbreaking college workload.
“[AI is] so quick and easy that nowadays many students don’t have the time to sit and study for hours every day,” Tzuriel Jennings, a rising junior at the University of Washington, said. “Many people use it to just hurry and rush through an assignment that they don’t have a lot of time or willpower to get through.”
But even beyond its ability to lighten the load, LLMs have been revolutionary in bridging the language barrier, aiding in student research, and in organizing information.
“AI can definitely help with studying, especially when figuring out how/what to study when trying to cram,” Jennings said. “I use it to help me create flash cards or study guides to save me hours of planning before actually studying.”
And this is where the complex problems in AI lie. It’s a tool that can help students progress their learning but can also fry their critical thinking skills. How can a professor ban something that helps students, but allow something that damages their ability to learn?
“If the work can be done by AI in a positive, useful, and timesaving way, then AI is a good use for that,” Cook said. “The piece you miss when you don’t struggle … is that you mistakenly think that the learning is easy — that there is a right and wrong answer and that you can quickly get to the right answer.”
This problem has also manifested itself in journalism, whose very existence is threatened by AI. Long-reliable outlets such as the Associated Press have already begun experimenting with AI to draft articles and report news. Is the escape from tediousness worth the risk to the United States' only constitutionally protected industry?
Unfortunately, AI is relatively new and constantly evolving, making solutions to curb its use more difficult. Students can easily work around tricks hidden in prompts, and pen-and-paper is not always the most accessible option, forcing many professors to embrace this new age of education.
“Those of us who are taking this seriously have moved to more group work, oral assessment, in-class work, and thinking about how students are using assessments and using the learning inside and outside of the class,” Cook said. “I change my classes every year to adapt to the moment.”
Students would agree. Transparency is the answer.
“I think [professors] should be honest with their students about their expectations of AI,” Jennings said. “Some students will always use it regardless, but creating an open and honest environment surrounding AI can be helpful.”
But as LLMs continue to scour new data, evolve, and change their style, their ability to damage students’ educational experience only grows. In this incredibly unique issue, today’s solutions won’t be able to solve tomorrow’s problems.Jared Tucker is a sophomore at the University of Washington — Seattle studying Journalism and Public Interest Communication with a minor in History.
Jared Tucker, a student at the University of Washington is a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship.
