Trump is angry at banks but for the wrong reasons

Debunking Debanking

By Philip Mattera, director of the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First for the Dirt Diggers Digest

With his track record of failing to pay his debts, six
bankruptcies, and $354 million banking and tax fraud
judgment against him by the state of New York,
maybe banks have good reasons for not wanting
to do business with Trump. Shown here with
convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the big banks. They hit customers with illegitimate fees. They misuse personal information. They pay meager interest on savings accounts. They do too little to help struggling mortgage holders. Some such as Wells Fargo have a history of creating bogus accounts to generate revenue. Many have been accused of manipulating foreign exchange markets, enabling tax evasion by the wealthy, and helping bring the U.S. economy to the brink of collapse in the late 2000s.

In Violation Tracker, Bank of America has by far the largest cumulative penalty total: $87 billion. JPMorgan Chase is second with $40 billion; Wells Fargo and Citigroup are also among the ten most penalized corporations.

Apparently oblivious to all this, Donald Trump recently launched a tirade against the banks that focused on a bizarre accusation: that they refuse to do business with people with right-wing political views, especially Trump himself.

His sons say Russia bailed him out

In an interview with CNBC, Trump claimed that JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America had refused to accept deposits from his company after his first term as president. “The Banks discriminated against me very badly,” he moaned.

Trump’s account may very well have been fictional. If not, it conveniently ignores the idea that the banks may have shunned him because he was a bad credit risk, and for a period of time after January 6 there was a chance he would end up in prison.

Aside from his personal grievances, Trump’s comments appear to be connected to a move by his administration to address what right-wingers claim is a practice of “debanking” – denying banking services to people based on their political views. There is, of course, no evidence that banks apply an ideological litmus test to potential customers.

Instead, the debanking assault seems to be an effort to undermine rules governing transactions with individuals who might be connected to illegal activities such as money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. As part of their due diligence, banks are supposed to consult lists of people who may be tied to such activities.

Couldn't be better

It's all right there in front of us

Is There a Norovirus Vaccine on the Horizon?

Looking for prevention for this intestinal scourge

Kate Schweitzer¹, JAMA Medical News

This past winter, cases of norovirus, a highly contagious stomach bug characterized by sudden vomiting and diarrhea, surged in the US. Nicknamed the “Ferrari of viruses” for how fast it spreads, it’s also known for racing through cruise ships, long-term care facilities, and school cafeterias. But, according to those who study it, the virus hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

The virus is a leading cause of acute gastroenteritis worldwide. In the US, it causes more than 50% of all foodborne illnesses. And each year it accounts for nearly half a million emergency department visits, mostly for young children, and roughly 900 deaths, predominantly in older adults, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In well-resourced regions, norovirus symptoms commonly pass after a few extremely unpleasant days, but “there are other places on the planet where diarrhea really does threaten the health of populations, especially those already suffering from malnutrition, chronic starvation, or dehydration,” said C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “It’s a significant driver of mortality around the globe.”

Norovirus contributes to nearly 1 in 5 episodes of diarrheal disease worldwide and causes about 200 000 deaths annually. The most vulnerable populations include children younger than 5 years, older adults, and people who are immunocompromised. In developing countries, deaths from norovirus are common among children—who make up more than a third of the global death toll.

Preventive measures like improved water, sanitation, and hygiene have not proved effective enough to control the notably transmissible virus, which incurs a $60 billion cost to society—including $4.2 billion in health care costs—globally every year. 

Here is a good example of what all health and science research will look like under Donald Trump

“Surprising” Study – funded by the meat industry - finds meat may protect against cancer

By McMaster University

EDITOR’S NOTE: Since taking office in January, Donald Trump has made it clear that “facts” will now be molded to fit his view of reality. Whether it’s the economy, climate science, vaccinations, health, American history, foreign policy, etc., Trump’s opinions, not data or fact or science, will determine the outcome of research.

This week, we saw Trump go after the Smithsonian Institute for portraying the horrors of slavery and fire the Defense Intelligence Agency official who contradicted Trump’s claim that US air strikes completely destroyed Iran’s bomb-making capacity.

Trump fired the head of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics because he didn’t like their job numbers. He is threatening to “fire” the Mayor of Washington DC because he doesn’t believe DC’s crime statistics. He issued a stop-work order against the wind farm being built off the coast of Rhode Island because he believes “windmills” cause cancer. Hundreds more researchers have lost their jobs or their funding because their works doesn't fit with Trump's looney views.

In the future, expect research to look more like this study from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association that in this case makes the “surprise” claim that beef can actually fight cancer. This is as believable as Trump’s belief that you should drink bleach to fight COVID.  – Will Collette

Eating foods that contain animal protein is not connected to a higher chance of death and may even provide some protection against cancer-related mortality, according to new research.

The findings, published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, are based on an analysis of data from nearly 16,000 adults aged 19 and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHAMES III).

Researchers looked at how much animal and plant protein participants consumed and compared those patterns with their risk of dying from cancer, heart disease, or any cause. The results revealed no elevated risk of death linked to greater animal protein intake. Instead, the data pointed to a small but meaningful decrease in cancer-related deaths among people who consumed more animal protein.

“There’s a lot of confusion around protein – how much to eat, what kind and what it means for long-term health. This study adds clarity, which is important for anyone trying to make informed, evidence-based decisions about what they eat,” explains Stuart Phillips, Professor and Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University, who supervised the research.

Ensuring Reliable Results

To ensure reliable results, the team employed advanced statistical methods, including the National Cancer Institute (NCI) method and multivariate Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) modelling, to estimate long-term dietary intake and minimize measurement error.

“It was imperative that our analysis used the most rigorous, gold standard methods to assess usual intake and mortality risk. These methods allowed us to account for fluctuations in daily protein intake and provide a more accurate picture of long-term eating habits,” says Phillips.

The researchers found no associations between total protein, animal protein, or plant protein and risk of death from any cause, cardiovascular disease, or cancer. When both plant and animal protein were included in the analysis, the results remained consistent, suggesting that plant protein has a minimal impact on cancer mortality, while animal protein may offer a small protective effect.

Broader Implications

Observational studies like this one cannot prove cause and effect; however, they are valuable for identifying patterns and associations in large populations. Combined with decades of clinical trial evidence, the findings support the inclusion of animal proteins as part of a healthy dietary pattern.

“When both observational data like this and clinical research are considered, it’s clear both animal and plant protein foods promote health and longevity,” says lead researcher Yanni Papanikolaou, MPH, president, Nutritional Strategies.

Reference: “Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease–, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis” by Yanni Papanikolaou, Stuart M. Phillips and Victor L. Fulgoni III, 16 July 2025, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism.
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2023-0594

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.

Now Christian Nationalists within the Trump regime are questioning women's right to vote

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth leads the pack

By Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta, Mel Leonor Barclay

“In my ideal society, we would vote as households,” a pastor tells CNN. “And I would ordinarily be the one that would cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household.”

Another agrees, saying he’d back an end to a woman’s right to vote: “I would support that, and I’d support it on the basis that the atomization that comes with our current system is not good for humans.” 

The discussion of 19th Amendment rights was part of a news segment focused on Doug Wilson — a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist pastor based in Idaho — that was reposted to X by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The secretary is among Wilson’s supporters, and his involvement with Wilson’s denomination highlights how a fringe conservative evangelical Christian belief system that questions women’s right to vote is gaining more traction in the Republican Party. 

Kristin Du Mez, a professor of history at Calvin University and author of “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation,” said Wilson’s broader vision of Christian nationalism has gotten more attention over the past several years, alongside President Donald Trump’s rise to power.

“He was a fairly fringe figure, but this moment was really his moment,” she said. “And then as part of that, also, I think he signaled and gave permission to others that they didn't need to hide some of their more controversial views, such as, should women have the vote? And that's something that you didn't hear proudly promoted from very many spaces, even just a handful of years ago.”

In the CNN interview, Wilson said he’d like to see the United States become a Christian and patriarchal country. He advocates for a society where sodomy is criminalized and women submit to their husbands and shouldn’t serve in combat roles in the military — a belief Hegseth has also publicly shared in the past though walked back during his confirmation hearings. 

Hegseth appeared to support the nearly seven-minute interview with the caption, “All of Christ for All of Life.” Wilson has built an evangelical empire over the past 50 years that is centered in Moscow, Idaho, and now spans more than 150 congregations across four continents — including a new church in Washington, D.C. 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on Democrats’ Failures—and Opportunities for a Climate Comeback

To do list: name fossil fuel corruption, localize the impacts and use cost-of-living pain to rally voters.

By Aidan Hughes

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Seven months into President Donald Trump’s second term in office, the environmental movement has suffered a rolling wave of defeats.

From the proposed repeal of the EPA’s key “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases to the Big Beautiful Bill’s accelerated phaseout of wind and solar tax credits, the current administration has sided with the fossil fuel industry in its quest for “energy dominance” and sought to undo many of the movement’s most prominent accomplishments.

Shut out of power in both chambers of Congress and the White House, Democrats have been unable to stem that tide of environmental setbacks.

Amid those losses, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) delivered his 300th “Time to Wake Up” speech in mid-July. It was the latest in a series of climate speeches dating back to 2012, the topics of which ranged from the need to regulate methane emissions to the environmental impacts of “court capture” by dark money groups.

From the Senate floor, he again implored his colleagues last month to take steps to mitigate the looming climate crisis.

Whitehouse, considered a climate hawk and a firm progressive, joined the Senate in 2007 and has watched firsthand as the climate movement—and crisis—has evolved over nearly two decades.

As the U.S. enters what he describes as the “era of consequences” for the climate, Whitehouse spoke to Inside Climate News about the fallout from regulatory rollbacks—and what’s next for Democrats and environmental advocates. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

REALLY bad

Priorities again

 

Russia celebrates its partnership with Trump to conquer Ukraine

Westerly School Committee weighs whether to follow Trump or the RI Education Department

Westerly School Committeemember advocates defying RIDE guidance of transgender student athletes

Steve Ahlquist

Yeah, follow Trump's orders

“At the last meeting,” said Westerly School Committee Attorney William Nardone on Wednesday, “there was a suggestion that I give a ‘presentation’ on executive orders. I’ve decided not to do that. I’m going to give you a general overview of what executive orders are and what they’re not, what the process is, and what the effect is.”

Attorney Nardone then launched into a simplified explanation of executive orders. What Attorney Nardone did not say, but was on the minds of the six school committee members in the room, was that the question he was answering in general terms was particularly about Donald Trump’s executive order banning trans children and young people from participating in sports in alignment with their gender identity.

Attorney Nardone’s presentation was extremely basic. For example:

“The first presidential executive order was issued by George Washington, so it’s been around a long time,” said Attorney Nardone. “Typically, executive orders are issued by the head of the executive branch of the government, whether that government is the United States, the State of Rhode Island, or the Town of Westerly… An executive order is a way for the [chief executive] to sidestep the legislative branch of the government. You’ve got three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial…”

Because it is important to the following discussion, I will note that Attorney Nardone also said, “Executive orders cannot create new law or amend or repeal current laws.”

I’m placing the rest of Attorney Nardone’s presentation in this footnote.¹

The school committee had a brief discussion after Attorney Nardon’s presentation:

URI pharmacy prof discusses the importance of vaccination for school kids

Get your shots, kids

Patrick Luce 

URI College of Pharmacy Clinical Professor Jeffrey Bratberg breaks
down the science of vaccines, their effectiveness in preventing
disease, and the dangers of under-vaccination among young students.

While vaccines have been shown to be safe and highly effective in protecting against communicable disease, rates of vaccinations among the youngest students have steadily inched down in recent years as parents increasingly seek exemptions from school district vaccine requirements.

Exemption requests hit their highest levels last year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as a record 3.6 percent of kindergarten students were exempted from vaccine requirements, up from 3.3 percent the previous year. 

Just 92.5 percent of kindergarteners were vaccinated against such highly contagious diseases as measles, rubella and mumps in the 2024-25 school year, the CDC reports. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination rates among kindergartners were higher than 95 percent—the level needed to make an outbreak unlikely.

What is driving the surge of vaccine exemption requests, and what risk may it pose to children, both vaccinated and unvaccinated? As school districts field more exemption requests ahead of the school year, University of Rhode Island College of Pharmacy Clinical Professor Jeffrey Bratberg breaks down the science of vaccines, their effectiveness in preventing disease, and the dangers of under-vaccination among young students.

Round-up of new Rhode Island legislation and how it will affect us

2025 General Assembly session passed 826 new laws. Here are some highlights

By Uprise RI Staff

Uprise RI - Rhode Island's Advocate | RI News & Opinion

This is an ongoing series breaking down the new laws coming out of the General Assembly this summer. The ink is dry on a number of bills that will reshape pieces of daily life here in the Ocean State. Here are the first three installments combined.

No cell phones in school, access to the beach and getting more doctors

First, let’s talk about the classroom. A new law, H5598, will require every public school in the state to implement a policy prohibiting students from physically accessing their personal electronic devices during the school day. Before you panic, there are a few key points here. The law makes clear exceptions for students who need devices for medical reasons, for an IEP or 504 plan, or to assist with language learning. So, a student monitoring their glucose on a smartwatch is fine. The goal is to reduce distractions and get kids focused on learning, not TikTok. School districts have some time to figure this out, as the law doesn’t take effect until August 1, 2026.

Next, for anyone who has ever stared at a stretch of coastline and wondered, “Can I actually walk there?”, bill H5686 offers a bit of clarity. This law amends the duties of the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) by requiring municipalities to officially identify, list, and display all CRMC-designated public rights-of-way on their official maps. We believe this puts the responsibility squarely on towns to make public access points clear to the public, preventing these paths from becoming forgotten or obscured over time. If a town fails to do so, it doesn’t change the legal status of the right-of-way. This is a small but meaningful step in the continuing effort to protect public access to the shore.

Finally, in a move to address the state’s physician shortage, S0347 creates a new, tiered licensing system for internationally-trained physicians. The program allows doctors trained abroad to obtain a limited, supervised license to work in a designated shortage area. After a period of assessment and after passing all required U.S. medical exams, they can progress to a restricted license for independent practice in that shortage area, and eventually, to a full, unrestricted license. It’s a pragmatic approach that could connect underserved communities with qualified doctors who are currently sidelined by licensing hurdles.

Wrecking education

How the Trump Administration wields federal power over public education

By Jeff Bryant

The U.S. Supreme Court’s July 14 decision to allow Donald Trump and his secretary of education, Linda McMahon, to proceed with dismantling the U.S. Department of Education came with no explanation from the conservative majority that issued the ruling. It didn’t need to.

Indeed, if the court’s conservative majority had provided an explanation, it would likely have been the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand that Justice Elena Kagan described in her dissent to the court’s Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton ruling, which radically shifted legal precedent for free speech rules. 

In her dissent to that ruling, Kagan argued that the conservative majority’s explanations for its decisions were not based on legal precedent nor the U.S. Constitution, but on “these special-for-the-occasion, difficult-to-decipher rules. … needed to get to what it considers the right result.” 

And the “right result” regarding the fate of the Department of Education appears to be whatever Trump and the conservative majority want.

This case was, meanwhile, decided “using the ‘shadow docket’—usually reserved for emergency cases, but more and more used to quietly rule on controversial questions with brief, often unsigned opinions,” according to a newsletter by Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice.

The court’s ruling came on the heels of the Trump administration’s announcement to withhold nearly $6.8 billion in funding that was to be distributed to schools and districts across the country. The money allocated by Congress was supposed to be distributed to states on July 1, 2025. 

It was, by and large, funding that schools and districts were counting on to pay for programs and personnel, some of which, according to Education Week, are required by law. Many schools felt hard-pressed to find alternative sources of funding or cut services and lay off staff.

Twenty-four states sued Trump over this “illegal” action. “The withheld money includes about 14 percent of all federal funding for elementary and secondary education across the country. It helps pay for free or low-cost after-school programs that give students a place to go while their parents work,” according to a July 2025 New York Times article.

Stay Calm