MAGA declaring war on seniors — and it could be their downfall

Is Trump testing to see how much he can take away from seniors before they rebel?

Alex Henderson

According to data from the Roper Center at Cornell University, 50 percent of U.S. seniors — those who are 65 or older — voted for Donald Trump in 2024 compared to 49 percent for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. 

The senior vote was close in 2024, and seniors, Roper says, played an important role in getting Trump past the finish line. But according to Salon's Heather Digby Parton, seniors could be the ones who doom Republicans in the 2026 midterms.

Parton notes that because so many seniors vote GOP, "it's always been a mystery" to her "why Republicans have always been so bent on destroying the safety net that brought the elderly out of poverty and assured them a baseline level of subsistence and medical care." And she points that crucial safety-net programs used by seniors — Social Security and Medicare — came from liberal Democratic presidents.

"From the moment Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 to the day Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Medicare and Medicaid Act 30 years later," Parton explains, "the right has been trying to destroy them. In the early days, it sprang from their obsession with anti-communism, arguments that the country couldn't afford it, and that individuals and their families are rightfully responsible for their own care in old age.

“In a 1961 radio address — 20 years before he became president — Ronald Reagan said, 'One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine' ... Before Medicare was created, only 54 percent of elderly people had health insurance, and that could be cancelled without cause when they got sick — which, as you know, tends to happen when you get old."

Parton continues, "Three years after it was enacted, 96 percent of people over 65 had hospital insurance. It was literally a life saver. Over the years, Medicaid, created at the same time to assist people living below the poverty line, came to cover many of the health expenses that Medicare didn't for elderly people, most importantly for nursing homes and caregivers. The GOP has been hacking away at these vital programs ever since, and yet, senior citizens have been voting for them in greater numbers than any other age cohort."

More testosterone won’t make a better soldier or a tougher man

Pete Hegseth's 'Roid Rage

Adam Stanaland, University of Richmond

How low is too low when it comes to testosterone levels? 

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in July 2026 that U.S. service members ages 30 and older will have their testosterone tested every year, neither he nor the Pentagon specified what level of the hormone would be considered “low” enough to require treatment – a telling omission, since where “low” begins depends on the lab conducting the test and the guidelines your doctor follows.

The announcement lands amid a national testosterone craze: Prescriptions have climbed to nearly 12 million in 2025, up 154% since 2020, and fastest among men in their late 30s and 40s. Online clinics that sell testosterone as a lifestyle upgrade have largely driven this rise in prescriptions.

As a psychologist who studies masculinity, I’m certain that while the idea that more testosterone makes a man tougher and more fit to fight seems intuitive, it’s also mostly wrong.

Helping MAGA men overcome their fears

This is not a joke, though it seems that way...

Millions take omega-3 fish oil for brain health but a new study found no benefit

But heart health recommendations remain unchanged

University of Southern California - Health Sciences

Americans spend more than $1 billion each year on fish oil supplements, largely because of claims that the omega-3 fatty acids they contain can support brain health. These essential nutrients help build and maintain the connections between brain cells that are important for thinking and memory.

But new research from Keck Medicine of USC suggests that boosting omega-3 levels through supplements may not provide the brain benefits many people expect. The study, published in eBioMedicine, found that although omega-3s from fish oil successfully reached the brain, they did not improve measures of brain health in older adults at increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.

Over the course of a two-year, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial, researchers found that high-dose omega-3 supplements failed to improve memory, cognitive performance, or brain cell loss in regions associated with Alzheimer's.

"We all wish there was a silver bullet for preventing Alzheimer's, but our findings showed that fish oil supplements do not appear to protect brain health," said Hussein Naji Yassine, MD, director of the USC Center for Personalized Brain Health and lead investigator of the study. "While omega-3s play an important role in forming brain cell connections needed for cognition, our results do not support fish oil supplements as a preventive measure against Alzheimer's."

Ivermectin isn’t a cancer miracle drug, but influencers claim otherwise

Another reason why social media is a bad source of medical information

Dannell D. Boatman, West Virginia University

In the meantime, this happened

Though researchers have been studying the animal deworming drug ivermectin for decades, there is no evidence that it’s a safe or effective way to treat cancer in people.

However, a June 2026 study put the topic back in the spotlight. After being downloaded more than 85,000 times before its official publication, the study gained traction on social media – particularly X – and within alternative health communities, where it was shared widely to bolster broader claims about repurposing antiparasitic drugs as cancer treatments. 

While traditional news outlets were covering renewed public interest in ivermectin for cancer following the COVID-19 pandemic, much of the conversation surrounding this particular new study unfolded outside of mainstream media coverage.

Shortly after the study was published, scientists raised serious concerns about how the study arrived at its findings, conflicts of interest and the peer-review process.

For one, the study did not have a comparison group to determine whether patients taking a combination of ivermectin and another antiparasitic truly saw improvements due to these drugs or the conventional cancer therapies they were also taking. Moreover, the study relied on patients’ own self-reports rather than medical record information. Unlike medical records, self-reports cannot be independently verified and are more susceptible to bias, making them less reliable as scientific evidence.

Although the journal issued an Expression of Concern shortly after publication, the study has not yet been retracted.

This case illustrates a recurring challenge in how science reaches the public. Early findings can spread quickly through news coverage, social media and online communities, while the evidence needed to fully evaluate them can take months or years to develop. By the time additional evidence emerges, many people have already shared the original report or made financial and medical decisions based on it.

As a health communication researcher, I study how people interpret new cancer information, how health misinformation spreads and how communication can support good health behaviors.

The renewed attention surrounding ivermectin and other antiparasitic drugs offers an opportunity to understand why some scientific findings become influential before researchers fully understand what they mean.

Tylenol during pregnancy doesn’t increase risk of child’s autism or ADHD

Once again, Trump and Bobby Jr. are proven wrong

Meghan Holohan

There is no association between using acetaminophen (Tylenol) during pregnancy and the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, according to a study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine. It adds to the evidence highlighting acetaminophen’s safety during pregnancy.  

“Paracetamol (acetaminophen) remains a safe and essential analgesic [pain reliever] and antipyretic [fever reducer] during pregnancy, whereas alternatives, such as NSAIDs [non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs] and opioids carry well-documented risks,” wrote the University of Hong Kong–led research team. 

“Unwarranted reluctance to use paracetamol could lead to undertreatment of pain and fever, or the use of more harmful alternatives, both posing risks to the pregnancy and developing fetus,” they added. 

No, your drinking water isn’t contaminated by abortion pills

Viagra, maybe? Condoms, definitely.

Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter

This story was originally reported by Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter of The 19th. Meet Jenae and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.

While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans' water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.

“What if I were to tell you that every time you fill up a glass of water at your kitchen sink from the tap, you were actually *drinking* someone else’s abortion,” influencer Isabel Brown wrote in an Instagram post in May. In the accompanying video, the Gen Z conservative content creator, who has more than 1 million followers on her platform, talks to Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion organization, and contends that anti-abortion medication is “poisoning” the water.

The claim isn’t new. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have argued that abortion medications, primarily mifepristone, pollute the environment and put pregnant people’s health at risk. But the argument has now become part of a widespread and often coordinated effort to create federal and state policy that further suppresses abortion access. 

Melatonin can be a safe and effective sleep aid for all ages – but product inconsistencies and improper dosing lead to real harms

Better Regulation would help

Sally Ibrahim, Case Western Reserve University

Melatonin – a go-to sleep aid for kids and adults alike in many households in America – continues to create media buzz, with conflicting messages that leave people uncertain about its safety.

Some headlines point to melatonin’s supposed immunity boosting power, while others point to unestablished links between melatonin and heart failure.

I’m a pediatrician and sleep medicine doctor specializing in children, adolescents and adults.

In my experience, many families go through difficulties with sleep for several months and even years before they seek out specialty care, and often they come across information online that isn’t tailored to the right age group or sleep condition. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t approved any insomnia medications for children, so pediatricians don’t have many options.

Melatonin is the most widely studied sleep aid in children. Still, I find that many parents feel uncertain about using melatonin, and some even experience guilt if they do, despite some clear benefits with appropriate use.

Adequate, regular and healthy sleep is essential for functioning our best throughout the day, and people deserve to get sleep information that is supported by evidence.

How Melatonin Impacts Heart Health

Separating fact from rumor

Cleveland Clinic

If you’re dealing with insomnia and you’ve taken melatonin as a sleep aid, you’re not alone. It’s a popular over-the-counter supplement that many people swear by. But recent rumblings about its safety for your health might be making you toss and turn.

It’s important to clear up one thing right off the bat: There are currently no proven links between melatonin supplements and heart disease or problems. So, you can rest a little easier if you’ve been worried.

But that doesn’t mean melatonin is risk-free — or even the right solution for your needs.

Cardiologist Michael Hill, MD, walks us through the research.

Does melatonin use cause heart failure?

There’s no clear evidence that melatonin causes heart failure.

So, why the chatter? It’s because researchers found possible links between melatonin and heart failure. They used a health records database to compare two groups of adults with insomnia — those who took melatonin for at least one year, and those who didn’t.

They found that within a five-year period, the melatonin group had higher rates of:

• Heart failure
• Hospitalization for heart failure
• Death from any cause

“These are striking findings, and that’s why they made headlines,” Dr. Hill acknowledges. “But there are some important caveats.”

Dr. Hill explains:

• There’s no proof that melatonin caused heart failure: The research makes associations, but it doesn’t prove causation. That’s a huge distinction. It means there are patterns, but there’s no proof that melatonin is the driving factor.
• The findings aren’t peer-reviewed: “This is a research abstract, meaning a presentation of preliminary data,” Dr. Hill notes. “It must go through rigorous peer review before we accept the findings as fact.”
• Gaps remain: Because these are early findings, we don’t know the factors, like melatonin supplement dosage or treatments given to the non-melatonin group. We also don’t know if some people had sleep apnea or other diagnoses.
• Heart failure can cause sleep issues: It’s possible that some study participants had issues because they were already in the early stages of heart failure and didn’t yet have a diagnosis. That would add more gray area to the findings.

“Based on the information available so far, we can’t say that melatonin causes heart failure,” Dr. Hill clarifies. “But the topic is on our radar, and we’ll continue learning.”

Targeted supplements can support healthy aging in some older adults, but unnecessary or excessive use may do more harm than good

Nutrition experts emphasize food quality and protein intake first

By Miguel G. Borda, Universidad de Navarra, and George E. Barreto, University of Limerick

Give me some of this (but not him)

The use of dietary supplements has risen rapidly in recent years. Vitamins, minerals, and other nutrition products are commonly promoted as easy ways to increase energy, strengthen the immune system, support brain function, and even extend lifespan. For many people, taking supplements seems like a smart step toward maintaining good health.

However, that assumption is not always accurate. People who already get enough nutrients from their diet often see little to no clear benefit from many supplements. In some cases, supplements are simply an added cost with limited value. They can also carry risks. Large amounts of certain vitamins and minerals may cause toxicity, interact with medications, or lead to other unwanted health effects.

For older adults, however, the picture is more complicated. The most useful question is not simply whether supplements are “good” or “bad,” but whether someone is actually deficient, what might be causing that deficiency, and whether a supplement is the safest way to address it.

Scientists Discover Metformin Doesn’t Work the Way We Thought

How wonder drug works

By Kristin Samuelson, Northwestern University

For years, researchers believed metformin, the most widely used medication for type 2 diabetes, worked mainly by reducing glucose production in the liver. 

However, a new study from Northwestern University using mice suggests the drug’s primary target is actually the gut. Researchers found metformin lowers blood sugar by increasing glucose use in cells that line the intestine, helping prevent excess sugar from building up in the bloodstream.

Glucose is an essential source of energy for the body, but chronically high levels can contribute to insulin resistance and damage to blood vessels and organs. The study indicated that metformin reduces mitochondrial energy production in intestinal cells, forcing those cells to burn more glucose.

“Metformin essentially helps the intestine suck the glucose out of the bloodstream, which further highlights that the gut plays a major role in regulating blood sugar levels,” said corresponding author Navdeep Chandel, professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The study was published in Nature Metabolism.

URI studies drugs in the water

URI Professor Studies Effects of Pharmaceutical Pollution on Wastewater Systems

By Ellie Sennhenn / ecoRI News contributor

One University of Rhode Island researcher is studying the health and environmental effects of pharmaceutical pollution from over-the-counter and prescribed medications designed to treat ailments from headaches to infections.

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are a diverse group of chemicals that include all drugs (both prescription and over-the-counter medications) and non-medicinal consumer chemicals, such as the fragrances in lotions and soaps and the ultraviolet filters in sunscreens, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. These compounds are considered contaminants because they are released into water systems through sewage or agricultural runoff.

Finding out what happens when these drugs enter the environment is the premise of Thomas Boving’s recent research into PPCPs. These pollutants occur at low concentrations in soil and groundwater, according to Boving, chair of the University of Rhode Island Department of Geosciences. However, seemingly insignificant measurements can accumulate over time, creating potential adverse health effects, he said.

“These environments become breeding grounds for these bacteria, and if they spread, then we have a real problem,” Boving said.

One possible effect is antimicrobial resistance, according to Boving, which occurs when there is an overuse or misuse of antimicrobial compounds designed to treat or prevent infections, such as antibiotics, antivirals and antiparasitics.

URI research on men, women and alcohol

URI study urges alcohol drinkers to be aware of emotional state

Patrick Luce 

Associate Professor Amy Stamates (right) mentored recent Ph.D. recipient Melissa Rothstein in her study

While, historically, men in the United States have tended to drink more than women, that trend has reversed over the last decade, prompting a University of Rhode Island behavioral science psychology student to study the implications of the shift, and examine how emotion and craving are impacting alcohol use among women.

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) has increased in women by 84% over the past 10 years relative to a 35% increase in men, according to the National Library of Medicine. The increase in female drinking is alarming given that women experience greater alcohol-related health consequences compared to men, according to Melissa Rothstein, who recently defended her doctoral dissertation, earning earned her Ph.D. in behavioral science psychology, part of the URI College of Health Sciences. Women metabolize alcohol faster and can become inebriated quicker. They are at increased risk for both short-term alcohol-related consequences, like memory blackouts and motor impairment, and long-term consequences, like cancer and liver disease.

Trump caves to pressure on surgeon general nomination

Picks an actual doctor though there are new questions

Sarah Boden and Liz Szabo, MA

Donald Trump pulled the nomination of wellness influencer Casey Means, MD, for US surgeon general, and has tapped a physician and Fox News contributor to take her place.

In his announcement on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump called Means “a strong MAHA Warrior," in reference to the Make America Healthy Again movement fueled by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. 

The president also blamed Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana for Means’ failed nomination, calling the senator "a very disloyal person," and accusing him of "intransigence and political games."

Means proved too hard a pill to swallow 

Though a graduate of Stanford University School of Medicine, Means holds no medical license. She dropped out of her surgical residency program, citing disillusionment with traditional medicine, and pivoted to a career as a wellness influencer. 

Her brother, Calley Means, is a top Kennedy aide who has discussed taking psychedelics with his sister.

Means’ lack of clinical experience, coupled with her contested claims on nutrition, vaccines, contraception, and medical practice, raised eyebrows during her nomination hearing, including from Cassidy, a board-certified gastroenterologist who specialized in liver disease.

Cassidy grilled Means during her confirmation hearing, asking her how she wanted to change childhood vaccination recommendations.

Means testified that "vaccines save lives," but also falsely said that the science was not settled on the debunked link between vaccinations and autism, and that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine has been linked to deaths. 

"The measles vaccine has caused some adverse effects that have harmed children. There have been children who have died from the MMR vaccine,” Means said. 

The fact Means wouldn’t endorse the MMR vaccine showed that she was an inappropriate fit to be surgeon general, said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“She would be serving as America's doctor who was unwilling to act like America's doctor,” Offit told CIDRAP News. 

This nasal spray rewinds the aging brain, restoring memory and reversing inflammation in preclinical models

Great if it works

By Texas A&M University

Edited by Gaby Clark, reviewed by Robert Egan

Picture this: your brain is a high-performance engine. Over decades, it doesn't just wear down, it also starts to run hot. Tiny "fires" of inflammation smolder deep within the brain's memory center, creating a persistent brain fog that makes it harder to think, form new memories or even adapt to new environments, all the while increasing the risk to disorders like Alzheimer's disease.

Scientists call this slow burn "neuroinflammaging," and for decades it was thought to be the inevitable price of growing older. Until now.

A landmark study by researchers at Texas A&M University Naresh K. Vashisht College of Medicine suggests the inflammatory tide responsible for brain aging and brain fog might actually be reversible. And the solution doesn't involve brain surgery, but a simple nasal spray.

Led by Dr. Ashok Shetty, university distinguished professor and associate director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine, along with senior research scientists Dr. Madhu Leelavathi Narayana and Dr. Maheedhar Kodali, the team developed a nasal spray that, with just two doses, dramatically reduced brain inflammation, restored the brain's cellular power plants and significantly improved memory.

The most surprising part? It all happened within weeks and lasted for months.

The findings, published in the Journal of Extracellular Vesicles, could reshape the future of neurodegenerative therapies and may even change how scientists think about brain aging itself.

New breakthrough treatment for pancreatic cancer

What You Need to Know

By Erin Post 

A new therapy that targets RAS mutations present in more than 90% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma — the most common type of pancreatic cancer — approximately doubles overall survival according to clinical trial results announced today.

Revolution Medicines shared Phase III clinical trial results for a pill called daraxonrasib in patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer. For decades, RAS was considered “undruggable,” meaning that there was no effective way to target RAS. These results greatly expand the potential benefit of targeted therapies for patients with pancreatic cancer.

“We are standing at the threshold of groundbreaking treatments for patients with pancreatic cancer,” said PanCAN Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Anna Berkenblit, M.D., MMSc. “Today’s announcement represents a real opportunity to bring new hope for people facing this disease: hope for more time with family, hope for better quality of life and hope that ongoing and future research may ultimately lead to a cure.”

Next, Revolution Medicines will need to take their data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If the FDA grants approval for daraxonrasib, it will be made available as a treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who have been previously treated.

Bobby Junior and Donald Trump Junior went out and bought a bunch of sushi

Stanford scientists discover “natural Ozempic” without side effects

A newly discovered peptide could rival Ozempic — but with fewer side effects and a more targeted approach to weight loss.

Stanford Medicine

Scientists at Stanford Medicine have identified a naturally occurring molecule that appears to mimic some of the weight loss effects of semaglutide, the drug widely known as Ozempic. In animal studies, the molecule reduced appetite and body weight while avoiding several common side effects such as nausea, constipation, and muscle loss.

The molecule, called BRP, works through a different but related biological pathway and activates distinct groups of neurons in the brain. This suggests it may offer a more precise way to control appetite and metabolism.

"The receptors targeted by semaglutide are found in the brain but also in the gut, pancreas and other tissues," said assistant professor of pathology Katrin Svensson, PhD. "That's why Ozempic has widespread effects including slowing the movement of food through the digestive tract and lowering blood sugar levels. In contrast, BRP appears to act specifically in the hypothalamus, which controls appetite and metabolism."

Svensson, the senior author of the study published in Nature, has also co-founded a company that plans to begin human clinical trials in the near future. The study's lead author is senior research scientist Laetitia Coassolo, PhD.

Trump regime data shows little evidence that the killing almost 200 people on the high seas has stopped drugs from reaching the US.

Murder at sea and for what?

Julia Conley

As Republicans and several Democrats in the US Senate gave the go-ahead for the US to send more bombs and military equipment to Israel for its attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, the Trump administration was continuing what it claims is an effort to rid Latin American countries of drug traffickers—killing three people aboard a vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean in the US military’s third boat bombing in three days.

The US Southern Command posted a video on social media of the bombing, which it said targeted a boat that was “transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations.”

As with the 50 previous attacks on boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean Sea, the military did not publicize any evidence that the boat was carrying drugs or that its passengers were “narco-terrorists.”

A small number of the at least 177 victims of the Trump administration’s boat bombings have been identified. The Associated Press reported in November that Robert Sánchez, who was killed in the Caribbean, was a 42-year-old fisherman who made $100 per month and had started helping cocaine traffickers navigate the sea due to economic pressures. Juan Carlos Fuentes was an out-of-work bus driver who also worked as a “drug runner” to make ends meet.

The families of at least two victims have filed legal complaints over the killings of their family members, saying they were fishermen.

Adam Isacson of the Washington Office on Latin America has compared the boat bombings, assuming they have targeted people involved in the drug trade at all, to “straight-up massacring 16-year-old drug dealers on US street corners.”

Wow! Trump’s Justice Department Dropped 23,000 Criminal Cases in Shift to Immigration

To pander to Trump's obsession with immigrants, thousands of real criminals go free

by Ken B. Morales and David Armstrong for ProPublica

• ICE Detention Statistics: As of early 2026, about 73.6% of people in ICE detention had no criminal convictions.
• Conviction Types: Among those detained, only about 5% have convictions for violent crimes, while the majority of those with convictions have nonviolent, minor offenses like traffic violations.

In the first days after Pam Bondi was appointed attorney general last year, the Department of Justice began shutting down pending criminal cases at a record pace.

The cases included an investigation into a Virginia nursing home with a recent record of patient abuse; probes of fraud involving several New Jersey labor unions, including one opened after a top official of a national union was accused of embezzlement; and an investigation into a cryptocurrency company suspected of cheating investors.

In total, the DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of President Donald Trump’s administration, abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white-collar crime, drugs and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases, according to an analysis by ProPublica.

The bulk of these cases, which were closed without prosecution and known as declinations, had been referred to the DOJ by law enforcement agencies under prior administrations that believed a federal crime may have been committed. The DOJ routinely declines to prosecute cases for any number of reasons, including insufficient evidence or because a case is not a priority for enforcement.

But the number of declinations under Bondi marks a striking departure not only from the Biden administration but also the first Trump term, according to the ProPublica analysis, which examined two decades of DOJ data, including the first six months of Trump’s second term. ProPublica determined the increase is not the result of inheriting a larger caseload or more referrals from law enforcement.

In February 2025 alone, which included the first weeks of Bondi’s tenure, nearly 11,000 cases were declined, the most in a month since at least 2004. The previous high was just over 6,500 cases in September 2019, during Trump’s first administration.

Some of the cases shut down were the result of yearslong investigations by federal agencies such as the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. For complex cases, the DOJ can take years before deciding whether to bring charges.

The shift comes as the DOJ has undergone an extraordinary overhaul under the Trump administration, with entire units shuttered, directives to abandon pursuit of certain crimes and thousands of lawyers quitting or, in some cases, being forced out of the agency.

In doing so, the DOJ is retreating from its mission to impartially uphold the rule of law, keep the country safe and protect civil rights, according to interviews with a dozen prosecutors and an open letter from nearly 300 DOJ employees who have left the department under Trump. The Trump DOJ, the employees wrote, is “taking a sledgehammer” to long-standing work to “protect communities and the rule of law.”

The change in priorities was outlined in a series of memos sent to attorneys early last year. Trump’s DOJ has said it is “turning a new page on white-collar and corporate enforcement” and emphasizing the pursuit of drug cartels, illegal immigrants and institutions that promote “divisive DEI policies.” Trump, in an address last March at the department, said the changes were necessary after a “surrender to violent criminals” during the past administration and would result in a restoration of “fair, equal and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law.”

The department prosecuted 32,000 new immigration cases in the first six months of the administration, which was nearly triple the number under the Biden administration and a 15% increase from the first Trump term. It has pursued fewer prosecutions of nearly every other type of crime — from drug offenses to corruption — than new administrations in their first six months dating back to 2009.