This video examines how political decisions and misinformation spread rapidly in the digital age, featuring three key topics: (1) The Supreme Court's ruling on Louisiana's voting map, which struck down the state's redistricting plan for creating a majority Black district, potentially reducing Black congressional representation and benefiting Republicans by 8-15 seats in the midterms; (2) Dr. Fiona Havers' account of how CDC Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya blocked publication of a study showing COVID vaccines reduced hospitalizations by 50-55%, representing a systematic undermining of scientific infrastructure; and (3) Professor Cliff Lampe's analysis of how conspiracy theories spread faster than ever, with educated people immediately believing staged-event narratives after the White House correspondents dinner shooting, driven by confirmation bias, social media algorithms, and the erosion of investigative journalism.
Breaking News: Supreme Court Ruling Changes Voting As We Know It?Added:
Substack show. We have actually a really interesting lineup. We're starting with David Graham, uh the the Atlantic, author of the Atlantic Daily Newsletter and also author of a book that I interviewed him for on my podcast/videcast called The Project: How Project 2025 is Reshaping America. He won the Toner Prize for Excellence in National Political Reporting in 2021 and his coverage for the 2020 presidential election. After David, we're going to be talking to Dr. Fiona Havers about a pretty disturbing story involving the CDC and why uh the head of the CDC block publication of this report talking about the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine and reducing emergency room visits and hospitalizations.
she left the CDC and she has some things to say about why and and and about, you know, her feelings about how that happened. And then finally, we have Professor Cliff Lamp or Lampy. We're finding out the pronunciation. Um he's going to be talking about why conspiracy theories are all over the internet in a way that I think are it it's happening much faster than previously almost immediately. uh con conspiracy theories abound. For example, after the White House correspondents dinner and um I guess the question I'm going to ask him is why don't why doesn't anyone believe anything anymore? But so that's our lineup and um but we're starting with David Graham of the Atlantic. And there's so much David I want to talk to you about because everyone David's a brainiac. He knows a lot about many things. And the big news this morning, of course, David, which I'm sure you're covering, is the Supreme Court. They struck down Louisiana's voting map, uh, ruling that lawmakers had illegally used race when drawing up a new majority black district. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Leo wrote that Louisiana lawmakers had violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by aiming to create a new majority minority district. The liberal justices said that this decision is dismantling the landmark Voting Rights Act. So, David, of course, my first question to you is how significant is this ruling? Can and can you help us understand why it happened and what it means?
>> Yeah, I mean, I think if you think about the the purpose of the Voting Rights Act, this is almost a kind of inversion.
The goal of the law when it was passed uh in the 1960s was to guarantee black representation at a time when clearly that was a real issue in the country.
And what the Supreme Court what the conservative justices are saying basically is we're past that. Everything is fine. And in fact they're arguing that by creating these uh majority minority districts, the state was in fact doing the discrimination. So it's anti-white discrimination in their words. If you go back to the um you know the landmark the first landmark case dismantling the voting rights act back then Shelby County versus Holder John Roberts said you know the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race and this is the same kind of philosophy. I think what we're going to see is a big drop in black representation in Congress very quickly and uh you know an effective disempowerment of a lot of black voters in southern states in particular. So what what is going to happen to this uh particular district and and what from what you're saying I understand this is kind of a continuation of a pulling back or almost a reversal of the voting rights act suggesting it was no longer needed right in this day and age but what will happen to this uh this specific district that went before the Supreme Court >> so the state will draw new maps and it will it will disappear basically the short There have been two black districts in the state. We'll be down to one basically as soon as one. And what you'll see also in neighboring states is probably similar efforts to get rid of majority black districts. Um you know we Louisiana will be first. We also see Mississippi has already called a special session to draw new maps. Um and I expect to see other states do that in the south as well.
>> And so what what does this mean in terms of a neck gain for Republicans?
uh and for additional Republican seats in the midterm.
>> It's a little hard to know now and we have been watching for this decision now for for weeks or actually months I guess waiting to see when it would come down and how that would affect the midterms.
Some states will draw their maps before the midterms, but in a lot of cases there's just not time to do it. So we'll see a little bit of effect in 2026 and probably more in 2028. Because that's so far out, it's hard to estimate a number.
But we're looking at maybe 10 to 15, maybe 12 seats perhaps, difference, >> additional seats under the R column for for the House of Representatives, >> Republican at least. Yeah. Exactly.
>> Right. Right. So that's a lot of seats.
>> Yeah. This is a big decision.
>> Yeah. And and uh I know this is likely whether everyone is able to redraw the maps in time, but it is likely to have an impact on on the midterms. Florida approved their new map earlier today.
That could bring as many four as four additional seats in the House for Republicans, and Louisiana could likely lose one Democratic district, the one that we're talking about when it finalizes a new map. So, um, are are you including those in the number of seats that you think it will add to the Republicans column in the House of Representatives?
>> Yeah, that's in that estimate.
>> So, it's about 8 to 10. You said >> I think that's probably likely. Um, I I I don't want to be pinned down too hard, but that seems like what what most experts expect at this point.
>> I I don't know if you're keeping track.
I have I I imagine you must be uh David, but you know when all is said and done, right, we're looking at all these redistricting tips tit fortats, if you will, starting with Texas at Donald Trump's request, doing it before the census in an unusual move. Texas uh redrrew its map. California then redrrew its map. Then I believe Missouri and North Carolina. And then my home state of Virginia just did it, but it was ruled unconstitutional, I believe. And now the attorney general is appealing that decision, right? It >> Yeah, it seems like the expectation is that Virginiaians will go forward.
There's still some there is still a court decision to be made, but Republicans and Democrats in Virginia both seem to think that the new maps are likely to be in effect for the midterms.
So when all is said and done, right, I mean you tally up all this all these states making all these different moves and now with the latest Supreme Court decision, what you know, at first I was thinking is it before the Supreme Court decision and the impending changes from other southern states, it was kind of a wash. Um and and so where does it all net out now that the Supreme Court has decided this way? I think it may have been even a little bit of a Democratic advantage going into this decision. And when we look at the Florida decision, you you saw Republicans in Florida warning that the maps that Florida is drawing may actually not be as positive for Republicans as they think because there's only so many voters. You start stretching your voters too thin and you end up creating opportunities for the other party. Um I think with this decision, it will be probably close to washing out even or maybe a couple seats uh advantage for Republicans. Part of that depends just you know how big a blue wave and whether we see a big blue wave in November.
>> So right now just uh after all this it's just a couple of seats advantaging the Republicans in the midterms as far as you >> all of this effort and all of this fighting to end up in basically the same place.
>> Now is this sort of the the the final word the Supreme Court decision? Can anything be done to alter this in any way, shape, or form?
>> We will probably see more litigation.
We'll see pushes on some of these things. And and you know, Justice Kagan says that this effectively gets rid of section two, but the the majority claims it doesn't. So, we'll we'll probably see more litigation there, too. We'll see challenges to state laws. Um, you know, the one thing that Congress could still do is act. And every time the Voting Rights Act came up, uh, Congress reauthorized it. And one of the striking things about these Supreme Court decisions is they're basically saying that Congress doesn't know better.
They're they're going around Congress's lawmaking um pro, you know, prerogative.
So, Congress could could pass a new law, but um the odds of this Congress doing that or any Congress sort of coming to agreement seem low right now.
>> Yeah. What about after the midterms? Do you think there could be possibly action after that?
>> It's possible. I can imagine Democrats, if they take the House, will bring forth some sort of law. Um, but to get something that would pass the House and then also pass the Senate, um, might be very challenging, but I would expect we'll see an attempt.
>> I'm curious to get kind of your big picture, um, uh, perspective on the fact that basically the Supreme Court justices are saying and have said before that racism really no longer exists in this country and that it's all good.
I mean, I think we're going to see the results within a few years. And what we're going to see is even though there are a ton of black v voters in the south, um, you know, high percentages of of black voters in many of these deep south states, there going to be very few black representatives in the house from the south. And I think that will speak for itself. This is a way to squeeze black representation out. Um, and I think that's the intent of of the people who bring these lawsuits. And the Supreme Court justices insist that's not what they're doing. But the the results will speak for themselves.
>> Do you think this will uh in effect suppress the black vote in some ways if black voters are kind of put in all these various districts that are predominantly Republican um and and they feel disempowered?
Do you think that that they might not come out and vote? I mean, obviously it's not a monolithic population, but do you think it will in essence kind of discourage black participation?
>> I think it might. I mean, I think one thing we've seen is when there are laws like this, when we've seen voter ID laws, for example, in the last 10 to 15 years, um, sometimes it has actually increased turnout. You see people really upset that they're, you know, that their rights are being challenged and they're being taken away and and that does bring them out to vote, but they'll be systemically disadvantaged even if they do go to the polls. We talk about cracking and packing in gerrymandering.
You either pack voters into a district or you crack them. What we see likely is a lot of cracking, putting black voters, spreading them among all of these districts so that Republicans likely will win all of these things. And you know, as Justice Alto says in his opinion, at this point, there's a really strong correlation between race and party in the South. And and so by breaking up black voters, they're breaking up Democratic voters. And I think that's a feature, not a bug for many of the people drawing the maps.
>> You know, at one point there was Democratic sponsored legislation that would basically uh consider gerrymandering unconstitutional, I believe. Was it in 2018, David? I can't remember but I know Eric Holder was very involved >> and there was a lot of popular support for it kind of these >> playing these games like every time right there was a switch in leadership and not one Republican voted for that.
>> That's right. We we and you see a lot of outrage about partisan gerrymandering in Virginia and what Democrats have said is hey we wanted to ban this. You guys wouldn't pass the law. I I think that is still, you know, the best solution here given that the Supreme Court has said the courts don't have a role in partisan gerrymandering. What we what we need if we want to avoid this is for a law to pass. Um and perhaps this kind of tit for tat will lead legislators to eventually come to that and and maybe you know have a truce on on this kind of back and forth. And I I think part of the legislation because I interviewed Eric Holder about it was a bipart was a nonpartisan commission on gerrymandering that would help make these decisions based on population and not on political outcome. Right.
>> Right. Exactly. Um you know drawing lines based on compactness, drawing them based on communities and making sure that it isn't you know when we you have elected political elected office holders drawing these maps they're going to draw political maps. It's only natural and the question is kind of how greedy they get. We've seen in many states efforts to put these in the hands of nonpartisan commissions and often those have worked really well. Um but we don't have anything like that at the national level >> since you literally wrote the book on project 2025. I think I have it on one of these bookcases but and we you were nice enough to let me interview you about this. I'm curious like how much of this aligns with the goals stated in that conservative blueprint for the country.
>> I think what connects them is this idea that we need to maintain the existing power structure. It is a Christian white power structure. And so we see in project 2025 whether it's on immigration or any number of things this attempt to sort of keep the country where it is demographically and and to keep the same the right pe the right people in power.
And I think this is the same thing. It's about enshrining this particular kind of conservative white leadership across the south, across the country, in Washington, wherever it is. That that's the goal that I think unites these gerrymandering efforts um challenges to voting rights act and project 2025.
>> And I guess there's a lot of fear about uh by 2044 there being a majority minority population here in this country. So they're trying to preserve uh you know uh America first or whatever it is the the philosophy that that has been perpetuated by Donald Trump. Um >> kind of gross.
>> I think yeah there's this real sense of um impending catast catastrophe for many of them. They they feel like America they're losing America as they know it.
Um and they're you know they're losing they feel like religion is being pushed out. They feel like Marxists are taking over and they feel like minorities are taking over and and they're diluting, you know, white American culture. And so this is this is all part of their attempt to hold on to the vision of America that they believe is right.
>> For all of you who might be joining this in progress, I just want to remind you David Graham is the staff writer at the Atlantic. He's the author of the Atlantic Daily newspap newspaper newsletter and he's also the author of a book called The Project, how Project 2025 is reshaping America. I highly recommend it. I wanted to ask to to pivot to some of these MAGA defections um that we're seeing. David, as you know, uh Tucker Carlson, there was a viral clip of Tucker Carlson and his very tan brother. Um, what was his brother's name?
>> Buckley. Buckley.
>> Buckley. Tucker and Buckley. I mean, are those not very very Tony names or what?
But anyway, Tucker and Buckley, who was a former speech writer for Donald Trump.
Uh, and and Tucker said he was sorry for the role he played in getting President Trump elected. He said, "I'm sorry for misleading people." Uh, people have very divided opinions about this, David, as I'm sure you've you've seen. Some thinking he was sincere, others saying it's too little, too late. I felt like, hey, we've seen this movie before. Uh, what did you think of Tucker Carlson's uh defection? And what impact, if any, do you think it will have on Trump's supporters?
>> Well, for one, to say I I'm not sure whether to say I buy it or don't buy it, it feels irrelevant. I mean, I don't know what the real Tucker Carlson view is. Um uh Jason Zangerly of the New Yorker just wrote a great biography of Carlson and one of the things I took from it is sort of looking for the real Carlson at this point is a fool's errand. There is no real Carlson. But you know for him to say he knows better on Trump. He has said that in the past.
I mean he you know criticized Trump after the 2020 election. Um he we know he wrote in in text messages to his colleagues at Fox that revealed later in a lawsuit. He talked about despising Trump and being very glad for him to be gone. And then once he was fired by Fox and he sort of needed to salvage his career, he cozies up to Trump again. And by the 2024 election was one of his informal advisers and was appearing at campaign rallies with him. So I think, you know, he can't claim that he didn't know better. He knows better now. I think he's trying to distance himself from a presidency that's flailing and from unpopular policies and and I don't think anybody should take it very seriously.
>> So he's kind of just a disgusting opportunist in your view.
>> I think that's fair.
>> Okay. Sorry. Don't mean to put don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I guess the question is so so is he positioning himself for a presidential run perhaps? And I guess back to my original question it, you know, you say he's irrelevant, but he does have a lot of followers, a lot of uh, you know, people who watch his content.
What I guess let me ask you the second question first or the first question second because I already asked this question. But do you think any Trump supporters will be will be affected by this? Do you think they're going to be like, "Oh, Tucker doesn't like Trump anymore. I don't like him either then."
>> I think maybe. It's hard to know whether they're following him or he's following them. I mean, getting the opportunism. I think he is sensing some of these defections um among the the you know the the base and trying to follow that a little bit. There was a really interesting poll that showed his favorability is sinking with Republicans faster than Trump's. So I wonder how much real um influence he has. Uh but I think he does want to position him himself, you know, as Trump's favorability drops, as the war in Iran goes poorly, as we look towards a midterm where Democrats are expected to do well. I think he wants to sort of be able to create some independence and and maybe be able to show, you know, argue that he was out ahead of these things.
He was critical and that people should pay attention to him, whether that's, you know, to keep his his media presence up or potentially for a run for office, which I think is also certainly a possibility.
>> What did Jason write in his book, in his biography of of Tucker? Did he talk about his political aspirations? Would he like to run for president one day?
>> He did. and and it's a little unclear.
You know, Carlson has said at times that he doesn't want to run. Um I think what Jason finds is that Carlson really wants to be influential. He really wants to be able to to power these things and whether he's the one in office or somebody else is is not really he's happy to kind of be behind the scenes if he can be um the person driving things.
And so if that's positioning somebody like JD Vance and then whispering in Vance's ear, if that gets Tucker what he wants, then that's something he's okay with.
>> Yet it's interesting. And I read today that JD Bance is trying to kind of distance himself from Iran. Uh so he is really kind of trying to read the tea leaves too, isn't he? In terms of what may be dragging down the president's popularity.
>> Well, both of these are guys who had real doubts about Trump and voiced them publicly and then seem to have swallowed them in order to for their own advancement and now they're seeing the problem with making those compromises.
So I think they're in a similar boat there. I'm curious how you feel about sort of this chasm which seems to be happening over the past several weeks. I think it sort of started at CPAC. Um I've been trying to get a handle on this, David. You know, the the Megan Kelly's of the world kind of defecting from MAGA. Candace Owens, I I'm I'm happy to say I don't really watch Candace Owens very much. I mean, she anyway, I'm not even go going to go there, but um you know, she's just not part of my media diet, but what do you make of sort of there seems to be this kind of tension or even maybe that's too uh euphemistic uh between Ben Shapiro um and and then like the Megan Kelly's, the Tucker Carlson's, the Candace Owens.
And I'm trying to understand it. It seems like Israel is is very much at the center of it. Can you explain what's happening sort of in the the right-wing conservative MAGA world of Trump's supporters and why this splintering is happening?
>> Yeah. I mean, I think it's very >> Would you write about it? Cuz nobody's really writing about it.
>> It's true. It's so complicated and and the the lines seem to shift all the time. But I think you're right. Israel is a very big part of this. And you have people like Candace Owens and people like Tucker arguing that Israel is driving Trump on this often in pretty anti-semitic tones pushing that. And then on the other hand, you have somebody like Ben Shapiro who is backing Trump using the opportunity to to maybe point himself as more of a a true supporter where he has been a critic of Trump in the past and also he's a a big supporter of the Israeli government. And so, you know, it shifts all the time.
Part of this is is that kind of like internal shadow boxing. Part of it is about the actual policy. Part of it part of it is about I think real biases and and bigotries that exist in the movement. I think the biggest o overlooking all of this is Trump has been able to maintain a lot of different disperate factions together under MAGA.
People who wouldn't normally get together who disagree on a lot of things. He's kept them under the same umbrella. and the war on Iran specifically and also I think you know the fact that he is becoming a lame duck that he is you know reaching the end of his political career that he's about likely to lose the house and maybe the senate you see those fishes starting to come out he can no longer keep them together and maintain that tension um and so now we see people vying for what who's going to be in charge of MAGA later or what MAGA might look like once Trump is off the scene >> so fascinating don't you think you should write about this David >> it's it's so overwhelming to get into the Candace Owens sphere. Um, I probably should I should write I should be on it more. Um, but but like you, I find it a little bit difficult to uh to dig into it too far.
>> Yeah. And I know that you wrote creating space for ordinary Trump voters to reject Trump doesn't require welcoming or absolving the prominent figures who rallied the public to support him. Are you basically saying that that they don't have that much influence? I was trying to kind of understand what you were saying by writing that.
>> Well, I I have been a little bit frustrated seeing people sort of on on the left a kind of, you know, strange new respect for Tucker Carlson. People saying, well, listen to what Tucker is saying about the war. And I think in fact, people like Tucker, we should not take them seriously. We should not welcome them into the fold of respectability. You know, these are people who in the most serious call of their political lives and their most important call as pundits backstrom and now are so quickly, you know, within couple years saying that they got that wrong. They shouldn't, I don't think they deserve to be taken seriously by the mainstream press and they don't deserve to be taken seriously by MAC voters and people who voted for Trump and regret it. And we see lots of this in polls. We saw this in a really interesting focus group uh that the New York Times published yesterday where nine out of 12 Trump voters said they regretted voting for him. These people voted for Trump because they were told by people like Tucker Carlson, people like Joe Rogan that, you know, this Trump was going to do the right thing.
He was going to keep us out of wars. He was going to bring affordability. He hasn't done any of those things. And I think they should stop paying attention to him. And I think that the liberal press should not um welcome them back with open arms either.
>> That's so interesting. I mean, I hope that Substack picks that as a sound bite that I can post. I want I I um wait, I sorry, now I just forgot what I was going to say. Um Oh, I was going to ask you about this focus group because I haven't read about that yet. So, nine out of 12 Trump voters said they regret voting for him. And you mentioned the Iran war and affordability. Were those the major themes that that caused them to kind of uh regret their votes or what? Tell me about some of the thinking that went into their their um uh admission that they're sorry they voted for Trump.
>> Yeah, it's a mix of, you know, things he has done and things he hasn't done. So, they're upset about things like the Iran war. They're upset that he hasn't done more on affordability. They're upset by, for example, the way he has enforced immigration. You know, they say, "We wanted to get the criminals out, but we didn't want these kinds of big drag nets." And these are things that I think they could have known about if they were listening. But they were also being lied to by people like Tucker Carlson about this. Um so >> if they had read your book, if they had read your book, David, they would have known about they're upset about, you know, the the um the way Trump behaves too, which is another thing. I mean, several of them said, "We thought we had he had learned his lesson." And I'm not sure what made them think that, but it's clear he's the same old Trump. And they got tire, you know, American voters got tired of Trump in his first term, and they're getting tired of him in his second term as well.
>> Yeah. I'm curious what you think about sort of gosh I don't know the the craziness lately first before we talk about the White House correspondents dinner but the the memeification I'm going to be talking to my third guest about this today but I'm curious David as you have watched this um sort of the cartoon presidency whether he's using video games to illustrate something uh the war in Iran and sort of the bombing campaign posing you know using AI to you know, as Jesus today, he was like had a big gun and he was basically saying no more Mr. Nice Guy to Iran. Um, you know, needless to say, for many people, it's just not behavior uh becoming of a president and and just so it's so bizarre and out there. Who do you think he's doing it for and who it is who is that working with in in your view? you know, I think he's still in some ways aiming to the same kind of like 4chan uh Reddit audience that he was playing to in his first term, you know, in 2017, 2018. Um, and still trying to to leverage that thing. But, you know, the world has changed and the internet has changed. Uh, my colleague Ali Breland had a great piece about how in the Iran war, you know, Iran may be losing the military war, but they're winning the meme war. You know, they've been much their memes are circulating around the world. They're in English. They seem edgier. and Trump seems like he's sort of flailing. He doesn't seem to have the riz uh to use other internet speak. So I my it feels kind of out of date. Um and I don't know who he thinks it it's winning over. Um but if people are worried about the price of gas, I don't think you know Trump in aviators with a with an assault rifle is going to convince them otherwise.
>> Yeah. Um you know I always also I wanted to ask you about the the um you know the ballroom. you wrote a piece called the shooting is not a reason to speedrun Trump's Ballroom. I mean, were you surprised and that that there was such an almost immediate pivot? Like I mean, I was like, I don't know if I would have thought of that.
Like, you know, you there there's like a gunman outside the ballroom at the Washington Hilton who gets tackled and then you're like, see, this is why we need the ballroom. I mean, to me, it was like a pretty quick pivot to that argument. And tell me a little bit about the piece you wrote and uh sort of the argument you're making that this is not a reason to speedrun Trump's ballroom.
And by the way, like the White House correspondents dinner would, I would imagine, would never be held.
>> No, >> at the ballroom. At the White House, >> right? Yeah. Yeah, I mean I was surprised, too, and maybe I shouldn't have been, but as soon as it happened, I saw people concerned that the administration would use this for some sort of repression. We saw efforts to get people fired after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. And for them to turn to the ballroom so quickly, I thought was a little strange. I don't think it makes a lot of sense. If the ballroom is something that's worth doing, if it's so important, it should be relatively easy for the administration to do that by getting Congress to approve it, by getting the right approvals. I don't understand why uh this failed shooting which seems to have been fairly ineffective and was handled by the Secret Service at the the Hilton really necessitates this ballroom without you know why we still we can't follow the regular process. I don't think the White House correspondent center would be ever held at the ballroom. So I don't think it holds a lot of water but if this is the if this is you know all that comes out of this is them squawking about uh the ballroom I guess that maybe is um about the best we can hope for. and and and like you you've probably been following this more closely, but the National Trust for Historic Preservation, right? They they b he he trashed them or they were being trashed, right? Did Trump trash them?
>> He did.
>> And and did he replace them with sort of his cronies? I mean, again, >> it does seem like this is a runaway train that this ballroom is being built.
$400 million. Now, I guess they're talking about our taxpayer funds, uh, you know, paying for the ballroom, not just from private don donations, right?
That's kind of been another pivot, too.
But is there any way to stop this ballroom? This it honestly, it's such a mon monstrosity. And and then what about the arch? The arc to Trump >> instead of triumph. I mean, it's just so insane to me.
>> I think the ballroom's in trouble. uh you know an appeals court has said that the construction can proceed for now but they keep losing in court because they're you know they have not followed the process um it's fairly straightforward. It's not something the president has the capacity to do. Uh and he keeps just trying to get around the rules and we've seen Judge Richard Leon who's a Bush appointee just having no time for the government's arguments and smacking them down repeatedly. And I think he's going to continue doing that because they just haven't done what they need to do. I bet that the arch will end up in the same boat.
>> Let's hope so. That is so disgusting.
This >> I mean it really is. So I mean I'm from Arlington and lived in Washington DC and the idea where do they want to put the arch? Are they want Memorial Bridge? I can't remember.
>> Yes, exactly. Right by the bridge there where you cross over.
>> Oh, but what where what what is this the status of this ballroom? I mean, they've raised, right? They I mean, where is it?
I haven't seen a picture recently. Are they just going ahead until someone says stop?
>> What they have is a big construction site now sitting right next to the White House. You know, it's big. You got dump trucks and rollers and and a lot it just it's size and girth, if you will.
>> Right.
>> I don't know why a ballroom has girth, but go on.
>> Yeah. I I don't I think they're basically paused. they can do a little bit of work, but you and they keep arguing they need to do this to build a bunker that was underneath. But these are things that again someone who was planning would have thought of that before they started demolishing it without telling anyone.
>> Yeah. And finally, listen, since uh I often whenever I get a chance to talk to you, David, I ask you about the scorecard for project 2025. I don't know if you're ready to answer that today, but where are we in terms of checking off uh the the boxes for project 2025?
>> You know, I think we're probably still in the 50ish% area. It's been a little bit quiet recently. I think it's been a slow period for getting that done. And partly that's because Trump has been so consumed with uh both sort of domestic things like the ballroom and then with the Iran war. And really, this is exactly what I think many of the people involved in project 2025 were most worried about. They were worried about foreign interventions distracting from the the agenda they had to create a Christian America. Um, and in that sense, they were right. That seems to be exactly what's happening now. Um, but they continue. They're still in the administration. They are involved.
They're pushing these things behind the scenes. Um, and with a Democratic Congress, I think the role of these people in the executive branch will be even more. I'd also say when you see Brendan Carr at the FCC once again this week threatening Disney demanding they fire Jimmy Kimmel, um this isn't this is, you know, right out of the Project 2025 playbook from a Project 2025 author. So, it continues to be um it continues to lurk.
>> Well, and yeah, and I think ABC has basically told him to pound sand, right?
>> So far, that's right. Um and I, you know, I don't know what his next move is. He's tried this before. They told him to pound sand. They're not playing ball with him this time. I don't know what other tools he has, but um I I can't imagine that he will stop now.
>> Somebody named Rooted or their their uh their handle. I'm glad that you asked this because I was going to ask David one more question that I thought, oh, he's going to be annoyed, but I'm going to ask you because somebody's watching and wants to know, too. They say Christian America is okay with Trump releasing an ai photo of of him being Jesus and his attacks on the Pope. I was going to ask you about that. You know, uh, the evangelical Christian supporters behind Trump. Uh, I don't know if any of those people in the New York Times focus group fell into that category, but you know, this kind of Christianization in on sort of so many aspects of of American life, but specifically uh government leaders like Pete Hegth and and Trump. Um, you know, has that been affected by the fight that both President Trump and Vice President Vance have uh picked with Pope with uh Pope Leo, you know, and it kills me that JD Vance is like, he really doesn't understand theology. I'm like, what?
What? But how how do uh Trump's Christian supporters um many of whom I'm assuming are Catholics and evangelical Christians who hold their faith very dear has has this affected their support of the president or they are just fine with like oh he's just being funny he's just joking around >> there's a split some of them are really I think quite offended by it um I think I mean the pope is very popular and Catholics don't like these sorts of attacks and you also saw with that meme he posted where he's you know he is depicted did as Jesus. You saw evangelical pastors and evangelical supporters saying it was blasphemous. Uh you know saying that um Trump might be demonically possessed. So there is a lot of criticism. On the other hand, you also have people like Franklin Graham for example who seem willing to forgive anything that Trump is Trump does. And >> I think Billy Graham I think Billy sorry to interrupt but I think Billy Graham who I knew a little bit who I interviewed because I'm that old. I I think he would be so upset with his son Franklin. And I think his granddaughter >> came out uh Franklin Graham's daughter came out and spoke up against President Trump and what he's been doing if I'm not if I'm correct. Right.
>> I believe that's right. Yeah. I mean, I I think there are a lot of people who are upset and a lot of people who are willing to forgive anything if he's giving them the policy wins they want.
But that's another place, you know, just like with Candace Owens and and Ben Shapiro. It's another place where you see these fissurers coming out of the MAGA movement.
>> Really interesting stuff. Well, thank you, David. It's great to see you again.
And please tell Jeff Goldberg, I rely so much on The Atlantic and your great reporting. Everyone, please read The Atlantic. I mean, they have the smartest people uh writing about really important topics, including David Graham right here before me. Um, thanks, David. Great to see you.
>> Thank you. Anytime. It's always a pleasure.
>> Okay, see you later. Okay, everyone. And now we're going to be talking to Fiona Havers about the CDC. How do I get out of here? Hold on. Sorry, David. Julia's helping me. Oh, here she is. Oh, she was right there.
>> Oh, >> here. Hold on. I got it. See?
>> Mhm.
>> Um uh we're going to be talking to Fiona Havers, everybody, because I don't know if you read about the CDC report that was uh basically uh blocked. Hi, Fiona.
Hi, it's Katie. How are you?
>> Hi.
Nice to see you. Thank you so much for doing this. Tell us a little bit about yourself, uh, Fiona.
>> Sure. Um, so my name is Fiona Havers.
I'm an infectious disease physician. Um, I was at the CDC for about 13 years before I resigned last June. And during my time there, I was a respiratory pathogen expert. I studied influenza first and then I worked on COVID and RSV and a lot of vaccine policy work.
>> Wow. So, Dr. Habers, everyone is not that smart. So, anyway. All right.
Fiona, can I call you Fiona?
>> Neighbors. Okay. So, I I wanted this story to get a little more attention because everything is happening so quickly, but last week Dr. Jay uh I want to make sure I pronounce his name right.
Badacheria. Is that right?
>> I've heard Badachuria, but yeah.
>> Okay. Vatria um blocked the publication of this research by the uh the little light magazine known as the morbidity and mortality weekly report which is really fun reading but it's been around for a long time this mm uh >> WR huh >> I just said >> yeah W and um this report which was supposed was supposed to be in this publication showed that the co vaccines reduced hospitalizations I believe by 55% 50% sorry and emergency visits by 55%.
And the big question is why did he block this report? It was well researched, well done, done by really um you know very competent, experienced people looking at all these stats and and and basically crunching the numbers. um why do you think he blocked it? Oh, before you tell before you answer that, Dr. Habers, tell me a little more what the study showed and what you took from it.
>> Yeah, so I mean this study was actually not that landmark of a study. I mean it was sort of a routine study similar to ones that CDC has put out in the past in the MMWR. Um it's using this big platform that um has been used to study vaccine flu vaccine effectiveness for years. So there was nothing particularly new about the methodology or or nothing actually that new about the design or the results. Um so what they basically do is they take large their CDC has partnerships with large health care systems like some of the Kaisers and they look at people who come into the hospital or come into the ED who have respiratory illnesses and then they and then they're tested for COVID and then they look to see if they were vaccinated or not. And so those who you would expect the people who had COVID compared to other people who had other respiratory illnesses, fewer of them would have been vaccinated for COVID.
And then there's a pretty simple mathematical formula that they use then to sort of estimate the vaccine effectiveness. And they're basically found that COVID vaccines roughly cut your your chances of being hospitalized for COVID in half or having or going to the ED. So, it's it's a it's a it's called a test negative design um because you have people that test positive for COVID and people who test negative for COVID, but they're kind of similar groups and they're coming into a similar healthcare setting. Um so, it's been a study design that's been used for, you know, 20 years for flu vaccines. Um this is a big platform that was used for flu vaccine effectiveness. When you hear like there was a good match this year with the flu vaccine, it's often data is coming from this platform, this exact same data source that they use for this study. And then the same platform was used throughout the pandemic and they've published this using this exact same study design in like the New England Journal. It's been in multiple um MNWRs, the morbid eating mortality weekly report and it's kind of a standard way like how well is the the flu or the COVID vaccine working this year. Um so yeah, it wasn't a study that was really like it was pretty surprising. I mean to say it was a methodology concern is interesting. Not to say that, you know, you shouldn't question methodology, like you can always look and see if there's ways to improve on it, but it's pretty well accepted study design and the study platform.
>> I was going to say it sounds very legit to me, Fiona. So, so, so why did the head of the CDC uh this is more or less a rhetorical question, but I'll ask it anyway. Why did the head of the CDC not want this released to the public?
>> I mean, it's been very clear. I mean, I think they killed the study because they didn't like what it showed. That's my opinion about this. I mean, they said it was there were methodologic concerns and again, no study design is perfect, but this wasn't really a revolutionary study design. And I think um this administration has been consistently antivaccine. RFK Junior has been a leader of the antivaccine movement for decades. Um Jada Bacharia is a political appointee. Um and I think that they have been sort of going, you know, trying to do subtle things against vaccines since this administration took over and killing a study that showed that co vaccines work well and keeping people out of the hospital goes against their narrative that they're dangerous, they're not safe, and people shouldn't be receiving them.
>> And what's so strange, I was talking to some friends about this when it first happened and we were all saying, you know, this was one of President Trump's crowning achievements of his first term.
and you know, Operation Warp Speed and the fact that, you know, it was unprecedented how quickly they ca came up with a vaccine, but then slowly but surely he started to kind of pull back from talking about Operation Warp Speed and all that because it was I mean, listen, say what you want about this administration, but that really was quite an accomplishment, wasn't it, in terms of scientific research and progress.
>> No, Operation Warp Speed was amazing.
The fact that there was a pathogen that was discovered and then a new pathogen never seen before by humanity and then within a year there was vaccines that had gone through large-scale randomized placebo control trials and then rolled out to the public and saved millions of lives was amazing and that is something you know it was using mRNA technology which had been like US government had funded it through the NIH to develop that technology so that we could respond quickly to a novel pathogen. It was an amazing example of government and private industry and academic scientists working together to like bring this and make this happen. So I do think I mean it's it's very disheartening to see this administration kind of turn its back on that huge accomplishment from the first Trump administration and really kind of demonized co vaccines, mRNA vaccines and vaccines in general and I think with very dire consequences. Andrew Nixon, who's a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said, quote, "Scientific reports are routinely reviewed at multiple levels to ensure they meet the highest standards before publication and that an assessment quote identified concerns regarding the method methodological approach to estimating vaccine effectiveness and the manuscript was not accepted for publication. I know you said it was kind of strange they questioned the method methodology because this is the methodology that has been used time and time again as you just uh explained. Um so do you think this report will be released ever? Are they um you know what do you expect to happen with it?
>> I hope it's able to come out. I would say that it wasn't it went through the full scientific clearance process. It had been cleared by the MMWR editors.
I've published in the MMWR. It's very very rigorous. A whole a lot of people review it. It's actually really kind of an annoying like very cumbersome process because it's such a sort of high level.
It's CDC's journal. So it's it goes through a lot of review and this manuscript had it completely cleared except Judaria stopped it. So it is unusual where the CDC director would stop in and kill a report at the end if it's been passed through this rest of this clearance. I am hopeful because it's technically gone through CDC scientific clearance that it can be submitted to a scientific journal, go through peerreview there and be published. I mean, there's plenty of journals that would take this. I'm hoping that will happen. Um, it should get out. Again, this is a study design that's been validated. They took, you know, they looked at randomized control trials during the pandemic with COVID, you know, placebo control trials, took the same data, applied the study design to it, and basically came up with the same results. Um, there's been literally hundreds of test negative design studies. So, the methodologic concerns does not seem to really be does not really seem to fly. Like that argument obviously rings false to a lot of people. And I think um I'm hope the study will see the light of day. I think people are getting a message out. They probably got more publicity for the study than it would have gotten if it had just come out. Yeah, that's true.
>> So, >> but even even the act of of refusing to publish the study, I'm afraid contributes to vaccine hesitancy, right?
You know, them saying, "Oh, this isn't true. This is kind of the methodology."
In other words, the information isn't accurate, it's been manipulated, whatever. Sort of suggesting that it's not thorough and and and evidence-based science, right? So, I'm afraid that that will have a chilling effect on people who are already maybe nervous or worried about vaccines.
>> Yeah. I mean, it's pretty in the weeds to explain vaccine vaccine effectiveness methodology to the public and like why I mean it's just it's hard to communicate, but it's not that hard to sew doubts and they're this administration and RFK Jr.
and the antivaccine movement have been extremely effective at sewing doubts about vaccines and it's something they've been doing he's been doing for 20 years and the people that he's put in place have are still doing and I I think the it is it's it's I mean it it's chilling that CDC scientists that are objective and rigorous are being stunted and like but basically RFK Jr. And this administration has hijacked the scientific infrastructure of the US government and are using it to spread false information about vaccines. And I think it's he now has a megaphone for to sew this this false information. And I think, you know, even when people call him on it, they've had a they've had an opportunity to say that how CDC was doing vaccine studies was not rigorous.
I mean, even if it's not true. And he also has an army of uh you know maha in you know social media influencers who are also you know basically perpetrating a lot of unscientific and false information. And by the way, it's not just about vaccines. It's about all kinds of things, right? And as a scientist, I'm sure that galls you to no end. Let's talk about why uh he also overhauled the CDC's advisory committee on immunization practices. That was just before your resignation. He fired all 17 members, replacing them with a number of vaccine skeptics. In March, a federal judge blocked the administration's revised vaccine schedule, ruling that the committee's new member were members were distinct distinctly unqualified.
And then HHS issued a new charter that broadens membership criteria, which is widely seen as an effort to circumvent the court's ruling. As somebody who worked at the CDC, you said for 13 years, right? I mean, as you've watched them dismantle sort of the infrastructure of the CDC and replace, I'm sure many of these incredibly qualified, esteemed scientists such as yourself with these people who really are not qualified and don't really understand science or vaccines.
It must be making you crazy.
>> Yeah, I know. I mean, it's it's it's been horrifying to watch what's happened at CDC and with vaccine policy in general. I mean, I actually quit to protest them when he fired the ACIP, the advisory committee on immunization practices, because I knew what would happen. He was going to put in unqualified people that would then use this structure that had been set up for like very careful review um of vaccine policy. I spent hundreds of hours in like really boring meetings discussing safety data and epidemiology data about vaccine policy to make thoughtful decisions and he just blew the whole thing up and he got called out on it in the courts but then because he'd violated the charter by appointing people that didn't meet the qualifications then he changed the charter so they are I I think that you know we have a raging measles outbreak we had a record number of children dying of influenza last year we are seeing the consequences of this in real life and I don't think it's necessarily playing well with the public, but I think he's still doing things behind the scenes to undermine vaccines, to undermine science, to undermine CDC, and to make America less safe. Frankly, like I'm a physician. I've seen people die of these diseases, and it breaks my heart when I hear stories of, you know, people being hospitalized for measles or children dying of influenza because they weren't vaccinated.
>> How can he be stopped? RFK Jr., I mean, are there any guardrails? I know the scientific community is speaking out. He just what did he just fire uh the the uh National Science Board? The entire National Science Board. I don't quite know what the National Science Board does. Um it's it my producer Julia wrote this. The Independent Board was established in 1950 to guide the governance of the National Science Foundation and to advise the president and Congress on policies about science and engineering. It includes over 20 members appointed for six-year terms.
Um, I mean, when you heard that he basically just fired everybody, it's such an anti-science administration.
It really is. And they've had a lot of rhetoric about gold standard science and transparency, but every step that they've taken has gone to decrease transparency. I mean, stopping a report from coming out, you know, I mean, publish it and then argue about it if you want, but like um but you know, firing these committees, you know, and those committees are, you know, they were designed to have staggered terms so that not one administration appoints the entire committee like you do you know what I mean? Like >> yeah, >> they're supposed to be like people rotate on and off just so you don't have the sort of political influence. We've never had anything like this. Um the fact that RFK Jr. is in charge of of public health of scientific research is is appalling. I mean, I think that it's really it's um it's really been distressing to watch and I think it's going to take a generation to come back from this in terms of restoring credibility to the US government science, but also just undoing the harm that he's done in terms of like undermining confidence in vaccines, undermining people's ability to know who to trust with with good information.
It's really really challenging. Yeah, I know that that uh President Trump nominated Dr. Erica Schwarz to lead the CDC and she's publicly supported immunizations and drawn praise from mainstream public health leaders. Um do you know anything about her and is this a is this a positive sign in a sea of darkness?
>> I hope so. I don't I have never worked with her personally. Um I have heard positive things. I what I do hope is that she is allowed to do her job without interference from above. I mean there's now more political appointees at CDC than there ever have been before. I mean historically there was only the director that was a political appointee and now there's others that have sort of been embedded at CDC and there's obviously been much more interference from HHS secretary in CD um you know in CDC processes. So, I think that he was probably forced to choose someone like her um because of how this is, you know, before the midterms. I think that the raging measles outbreak and other things are not going down well. And so, this looks like these they're giving some stability to CDC. I hope this is actually the case and that good solid public health people are allowed to do their job and protect.
>> But what kind of authority does she have? because at a hearing as you know on Capitol Hill he declined to commit to following the vaccine recommendations that that she had publicly supported. So when push comes to shove is she going to survive?
>> I mean the other director Dr. seminar is that we had appointed was only in office for a couple of weeks before she was fired basically for refusing to commit an advance to approve like rubber stamping the sham committee's recommendation. So I don't know. I mean I think you know a thousand HHS employees called for RFK Junior's resignation. The entire scientific and medical estab mainstream scientific medical and medical establishment have basically done the same as well. He needs to be removed as HHS secretary.
There are plenty of, you know, conservative Republicans that are could be qualified to be HHS secretary and then but with unless he is removed, we're going to have continued interference and what should be sort of apolitical processes that are really governed by science and data. And that's what drives the decisions that help keep Americans safe and healthy. But if he stays in power, like I think it's going to be pretty grim. Even if you get decent people in some leadership roles that you you know, you talked about measles. The number of cases hit a 34y year high in 2025. The country is on track, someone just said uh the cases in South Carolina are back to zero, but the country is on track to s surpass that record this year. And in November, a panel of international experts will consider whether measil can can still be considered eliminated in the United States as it has been for 26 years. Um, how likely is that to happen in your view?
>> I mean, I think we are going to lose our measles elimination status. I mean, it's based on whether or not you have 12 months of continuous circulation of endemic measles. And that clock started ticking if they're all if they can show that they're all related. um in basically in January 2025 when this administration took power and the measles outbreak started in Texas. And it's not a coincidence that we're losing our measles elimination status that coincides exactly when this administration came into power. I think um it is I mean it's it's tragic honestly because like you know if I had measles is the most contagious disease that we have. you go, you take your infant who's too young to be vaccinated to a grocery store and someone who is infectious was there like two hours earlier, your baby could get infected.
Um, and eliminating it was a huge public health success. It took decades of work and it's been officially eliminated in the US since 2000, but that status is almost certainly going to go away in November because we've had pretty much continuously raging measles outbreaks because of the drop in vaccination status in kids. um you know since the start of this administration and the sort of half-hearted attempts you know they haven't you they RFK Jr. made CDC put on their website that you know vaccines were linked to autism like that was he basically hijacked CDC's website to spread false information about vaccines. You can't effectively fight a measles outbreak.
Say you're oh I support the measles vaccine and yet force CDC to put that kind of information on their website.
It's you cannot lead an effective public health response if you're in in that way. So I think it's we are US is almost certainly going to lose its measles elimination status and I think that a lot of the responsibility would be squarely at RFK Juniors in this administration's feet. Before we go, I don't know if this is your area of expertise and if it's not, you you don't have to answer, but I was curious, you know, obviously I'm very interested in cancer research and funding of of uh the you know, uh an NCI, sorry you guys, I'm sorry, National Cancer Institute and obviously various universities that conduct uh cancer research with the assistance of federal funding, which is critically important. Um, you know, I guess that a lot of this funding was reinstated by Congress and yet it really the kind of uncertainty about this funding and now I know they're threatening cutting budget cuts for 2027 as well. I don't think people truly understand how disruptive it is to the cancer research community and really all diseases, right? So, can you talk about that because I think I have friends who are like, "Oh, don't worry. It's all taken care of. Congress basically is funding all the science. But that just simply isn't true, is it?
>> No. I mean to to on a number of levels.
One to like set up any study, you have to have it plan takes years in advance.
You have to have sort of a kind of steady funding and you know setting up clinical trials. You have patients that were enrolled. If you suddenly cut off funding for the clinical trial, even if you reinstate it six months later, that trial gets shut down. And so patients, you know, for perhaps that trial was their last hope like were no longer enrolled. So I think there are, you know, people dying right now because of funding that was yanked. I also think that for people, you know, for people thinking about going into science or industry, thinking about investing in new research and bringing things to market, those are huge, very long-term investments. and what this administration has done both messing with CDC but also with NIH funding and the regulatory structures and pathways at FDA that you need something to get licensed to be able to sell as a new medicine or a new therapy in the US basically undermining all of that infrastructure and pulling the rug out from under the sort of standard procedures and processes and politicizing the whole thing even if you sort of restore funding later doesn't mean those clinical trials weren't stopped the labs weren't shut down people weren't let go you can't just like turn it's not on.
>> You can't turn it on and off. Exactly.
>> And I I know a lot of I mean I personally know people who have moved abroad that are now working you know former colleagues of mine that are now working for like the German government, the New Zealand government, working at labs in Italy. Like we are losing a lot of talent. I mean people used to come from all over the world to come to study in the US because we did have this robust scientific infrastructure. But this administration has completely destabilized all of that. And I think we're going to lose a lot of the edge that the US had in scientific innovation, but I also think it's going to cost lives because a lot of promising therapies won't come to fruition and we won't see those coming forward. So yeah, >> it's really upsetting and I think people need to recognize what a terrible short-sighted decision this was in my view. Even if funds are restored to a certain extent, as you said, you can't turn it on and off. Um, before we go, Fiona, what are you doing now? May I ask?
>> Yeah, I'm still sort of figuring out big picture what I'm doing. I am I was seeing patients at the VA in Atlanta, but that was sort of tied to my CDC job.
So, I'm getting credentials to see patients as an infectious disease doctor at Grady, which is the big safety net hospital. Yeah.
>> Um, as affiliated with Emory. And then I'm I'm still figuring out I'd like to go back to public health, but I'm and I've been doing various things, but um still working on that. So >> So maybe one day you'll return to public health because it's such such an important um important profession and so badly needed, >> really smart people like you. Uh Fiona Havers, Dr. Havers, thank you so much for spending some time with me.
>> Well, thank you very much for having I appreciate you covering this, too. Yeah, absolutely. Cuz I feel like people maybe missed it in the sea of other things that were happening.
>> Anyway, thanks again. Really appreciate it. And our final guest, everyone, is here. Julia is going to help me with this.
>> Our final guest is >> Cliff. Uh this is Professor Cliff Lampy.
And I wanted to talk to Chris Lampy because he was mentioned in a New York Times article following the shooting at the White House correspondents dinner with my question being, "Professor, why doesn't anyone believe anything anymore?" Um, we're digging into the surge of online conspiracy theories that happened almost immediately following the shooting at the White House correspondents dinner that the internet was teeming, absolutely teeming with claims that this was was staged. So, Cliff Lampy is professor and associate dean at the University of M Michigan School of Information. Go Blue.
>> I went to UVA, but hey, for all you Michigan people, go blue. Uh so so first of all what is the school of information at the University of Michigan?
>> Yeah, schools of information are relatively new. We study basically how we can um understand and shape information um to help people hopefully.
But we also study things like dark patterns, those things in social media that cause you to become addicted. We study misinformation, hate groups. So, it's all about how we spread and share information, especially online these days, but across other things as well.
>> Yeah. Well, you've got a lot to study these days, for sure. So, let's talk about this White House correspondents dinner and the incident. You know, really scary incident. I think, you know, everybody watching online and seeing reporters under tables, um, you know, it it seems so surreal and I think we can kind of make light of it, but I'm sure for everyone there it was absolutely terrifying. So, what was your initial reaction to what happened and and the way it kind of really blew up the internet, if you will?
I mean, I was concerned that right when it happened that it was a kind of a perfect storm for something that would generate misinformation, conspiracy theories because it is a heightened emotional event. Um, but at the same time, it involves an administration that, you know, a lot of people feel contributes to lying and to a particular rhetoric. And so, it just seemed like an event right away that I'm like, I bet you we're going to see kind of Sandy Hook like false flag operations. I mean these kinds of narratives are nothing new. We've been seeing them for a long time. Um if anything they are just getting faster and faster. How >> well that's what struck me. That's what struck me because I feel like um you know I covered Sandy Hook and you know it it it it took the country understandably like quite a period of time. It was the most horrific story I think I have ever covered. I mean, and 9/11, but Sandy Hook, horrible. It took the country, I think, quite a while to metabolize the horror of that event.
>> And it seemed to me to be a small really awful group of people >> who turned that into a conspiracy theory. And it was quite it was it it took a while for them to do it. And I think most people were completely disgusted by this. Right.
>> Right.
>> But then this happened and almost immediately like people who I know uh you know people who um you know legitimate people, educated, smart, well-informed people almost immediately jumped to this was a staged event. And I was dumbfounded by how quickly they believed that and then disseminated their feelings about it. So how you said things are happening faster. So tell me what what you think of of the immediate reaction and this accusation that it was staged.
>> Well, then the other part of that that you see there's there's not quite the approbation that you got otherwise with Sandy Hook, right? So nobody even if you're saying that you think this is a false flag operation or fake, nobody's really judging you for that, right? They seem to understand where you're coming from, even if they don't believe that that's true, you don't see that kind of same moral outrage that you saw with Sandy Hook, which is a little bit different in this situation.
>> You know, it's it's a complex media environment right now. There's information coming from all sides. Um, you know, and the way people tend to deal with confusing information sources is they go back to huristics that they can use to make easy sense of a complex situation.
>> What are sorry, what are what is that word?
>> Huristics. So, it can be a lot of things. It can be like a party affiliation. It can be, you know, a national orientation. It can be even an emotional response. But it it cuts through and is often a way that humans think that will um forestall kind of your more rational second stage thinking and lead you to just assume something is true because you want it to be true.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I guess your your sort of immediate visceral response right and instinct it Julia just put a huristic. I just learned a new word. I'm very excited.
>> That's rare.
>> I I mean who else knows this word? H E U R I S T I C is a rule of thumb, mental shortcut or practical method used to solve problems or make decisions quickly when optimal solutions are impractical.
I mean, what does that say about the state of journalism that people are basically filling in the blanks because they don't either that, you know, because responsible responsible reporters are going to take a while, right, to really figure out what happened and who the gunman is and to vet their information and make sure it's accurate and get sources, etc., etc. But people kind of wanted an immediate explanation for what happened. So they basically filled the vacuum that existed, right?
>> They do. And that's that immediate need to make sense of a complex situation. In most complex situations, there's no way you can make immediate sense of it, right? There's a reason why the law is designed to work slow. Why legal proceedings are slow? Um, you know, even journalism comparative to today is a slow process when you do it correctly, right? You collect evidence.
>> I mean slower anyway.
>> Yeah. Right. But people don't want to make sense of things right away now in such a fast-paced environment. And with the lack of trust that we see in all institutions that people have, they want to be able to make up their own minds.
But most people actually aren't trained or equipped to sift through the mountains of information that often are associated with this kind of event. And so they get overwhelmed quickly by that information and turn back again to those heruristics or shortcuts to decide what's true or not. Let's unpack real quickly if we could some of the conspiracy theories that took hold. Uh three main narratives emerged. Claims it was a ploy tied to uh Trump's ballroom plans to kind of convince people that this ballroom was needed. Unfounded allegations linking the shooter to Israel, often backed by manipulated or AI generated imagery and amplified by a Russian state news channel. and the idea that the incident was staged to boost Trump's poll numbers ahead of the midterms and that his, you know, approval rating was going down because of the war in Iraq to Iran to generate some sympathy and support for him. Um, so what did you think of sort of each of those conspiracies as you looked at them?
>> I mean, it's people trying to make sense of a situation, right? And it's also, you see, a couple things can be true at the same time. And people are really out there trying to make sense of the universe. And so it can be true that a bad thing happened to President Trump and he's trying to take advantage of that for his own gain, right? Both those things can be true at the same time without necessarily being associated, right? Um, but people try to look for causal links in the universe where there are none. But also, I would imagine that people take opportunities like that when there's a big event that everyone is paying attention to to take advantage of that focus to promote a specific agenda as in the case of linking linking the shooter to Israel, that conspiracy theory, right? And then it can gain so much traction, right? because there's so many people online trying to understand what happened and then it just kind of gets the ball rolling, right? And spreads like wildfire.
>> It can, right? Rumor there's a official scientific study of rumors. Rumors move very quickly and they're hard to um you know to refute with evidence. It takes a longer time to collect evidence and rumors have already kind of run around the world by the time put its boots on.
Right.
>> Yeah. That's what they say, right? or lies lies uh make it around the world before the truth has a chance to tie its shoes or something like that.
>> And I actually and I actually prefer the term rumors to conspiracy theories. Um there are conspiracy theories in embedded in some of this and that's typically where one sees an oversimple um explanation for why bad things happen and usually it's through some malevolent actor. Right? If you think the state of Israel is behind everything, you're trying to make sense of the world to that malevolent actor. But rumors, you know, are a little bit more simple, but also are there to make sense of the world, right? Why does this thing happen? Oh, because of these factors.
>> I one of the things that stood out to me is how prominent how so many uh left-leaning voices following this this assassination attempt engaged with these theories. The Washington Post reported that about a fifth of liberal influencers and politicians posting about the shooting used conspiratorial language. I'm curious what you made of make of this shift because it seems to me and maybe this is because of my own point of view that right-wing media influence influencers usually were the people who were trafficking in these conspiracy theories like Pizzagate. And I'm I'm curious if you've seen a shift as the Washington Post reports.
>> I mean from my own perspective I've seen a shift. I haven't seen any like scientific data on that shift over time, but it is true that one of the things it tells me is that liberals and Democrats are human as well and have the same human limits to processing and the same uh ways that they shortcut complicated information scenarios. So, you know, there's nothing wrong with being human.
Often these heruristics work very well for us. It's just in a situation like this, they can turn bad. Um, but I do think it's a good reminder that all of us are subject to misinformation. Like I I always tell my students that I'm as vulnerable to being wrong as anybody is, right? That, you know, it's a very human thing to fumble information.
>> Meanwhile, in recent weeks, I don't know if you've seen this, but some right-wing influencers, including former Trump supporters, have suggested that the Butler assassination attempt was staged or part of a cover up. And I'm curious what you think are driving those claims.
Is it related to shifting dynamics within the MAGA base or something else entirely?
>> And again, I think that's a perfect example of where people are taking information and fitting it into a narrative rather than having their narrative shaped by the information that exists, right? So often people will have a point of view, a worldview that they want. And there's a a really strong mental process called confirmation bias where we will take all the information presented to us and we will reshape that into a narrative of something we're predisposed to believe. So no matter what information you're presented with, it just more strongly confirms the bias you already have.
>> Yeah. But, you know, when I think about it, and and I have to do more research on this, it seems to me that there wasn't a great deal uh written about the shooter in Butler, right? I'm not suggesting it was staged or didn't happen. Please don't anyone misinterpret what I'm saying, but you can see sort of like again these vacuums or these information voids >> that are kind of filled by people by questions when there aren't answers, right?
>> Especially compared to what we knew about John Hingley, for instance, or anybody else in previous attempted presidential assassins. It's it used to be we knew they they were almost like anti-seleelebrities. they became so famous. Um, and I don't know if that's a purposeful strategy or not, but it is true that they're often and and conspiracy theories really flourish when there's a lot of information, but there's a conspicuous hole in the middle of that information, right? Like that uh they it rushes to fill in the void with narratives that make sense for people.
>> Yeah. I think cuz a lot of people are like why is there no evidence that there was that you know his ear was shot and you know we can't see any damage there and you know um so I think that somebody needs to really do a a complete investigation and talk to the widow of the man who was killed in Butler um and and really kind of do a tick tock not a tick tock but a timeline of what happened um in Butler to kind of fill in some of the gaps that people seem to be wondering about, right?
>> Yeah. I think, you know, part of the challenge to journalism over the past 20 years, as you know better than anyone, has been these challenges from the internet and a lack of investment in investigative journalism. You know, um that is such an essential piece of our information ecosystem that's been bankrupted over the past 20 years that we're seeing the effects of that in instances like this, right? like it you know I I don't want to show for the press but it is very much so that like you know an active press a local press would have a role to play in an information ecosystem that is you know we see what happens when that's missing now >> oh I I agree with you 8,000% of course somebody is asking what role do social media platforms play in amplifying misinformation given their tendency to prioritize controversial and inflammatory content of course As Cara Swisser always talks about engagement through enragement or you know another friend of mine talks about getting affirmation not information but the person is asking does that create a self-reinforcing cycle that's hard to break. Um you know misinformation or uh rage bait I guess is really promoted by these platforms is it not?
>> I don't know if misinformation is maybe that's not fair. Yeah, it's not I won't even say consciously promoted. So, the way the algorithms work on these social media feeds is it is reinforced by the choices you make. So, when you pause on your feed, when you click on something, um you know, if you're on TikTok on your phone, like that you move past one look slower than another. And then of course all the explicit things you can do like comment or like or any of those things, but there's so much data going into your preferences that the the algorithms and the AI behind them get a really strong impression of what you like and what you don't like.
>> Is that why I keep getting videos of older ladies exercising in their kitchen?
>> It's it's always in a little too self illustrative, right? Like you know, >> I'm like, whoa, why am I getting all of this stuff? I've given some knee brace ones that feel personal. Yeah. Um but you know, it'd be nice to blame that completely on the social media companies, but we're the one feeding that algorithm, right? If we weren't responding to that anger, if we weren't being attracted by the rage, and it feels good to feel angry, right? One of the things that uh great researcher Alice Marwick talks about is morally motivated network harassment where a lot of this is we feel like morally outraged by some of these things we see online >> and you know we we react angrily to that but that also is a bit of a dopamine rush right like >> facing injustice >> makes us feel a little bit better >> I think especially if you feel powerless right >> it it's it's kind of a a way to to vent your frustration and anger and all that jazz. I was going to ask you too, I think people don't realize the roles uh outside countries are playing like Russia and China. Talk about that if you will about how they are kind of um amplifying misinformation or divisive content and why.
>> Yeah, they were especially important in getting us started out, right? like so you know the the to have ragebake content you need content and so who's generating that content for a while there especially groups like the RTA um and others out of Russia were helping to feed that content and basically creating troll farms and things like that but and there's still some of that in there but now it's become such a lucrative business model that you don't even really need foreign actors right like if you look at kind of the manosphere or you look at looks maxing or any of these kind of more what I think of as toxic things that you see in online space.
There's a financial incentive behind all of that. Not necessarily even an adversarial country perspective. Is if people can make money on this and money on your and our rage, they're going to get us mad to be able to do that or make us feel bad about our looks or whatever it happens to be.
>> Or our bodies in my case apparently.
>> I mean, what is there any solution? I mean, is the genie out of the bottle?
You must study this stuff all the all the time, Cliff. And I was on a a commission on disinformation. And you know, section 230 prohibits like a lot of these tech platforms because they say they're basically the pipes. They're the platform. They're not a publisher. They don't decide what's on there. I mean, what do you see? Are there any solutions for um you know all this misinformation or as I said is the genie out of the bottle?
There's three layers of solution that you could have, right? The legal solution, as you mentioned, there's US law. Section 230 is one that protects these um platforms from any kind of indemnification and it's been tested in court so many times that it feels relatively bulletproof to me.
>> Although they did recently have that one case, right, where the where the guy got $6 million for the young woman. Where was that you guys again? that was in >> I can't remember. I interviewed him. I'm sorry. I can't remember anything, you guys. I have too much in my brain right now. But um he he kind of he was able to kind of get around section 230 by talking about the mechanisms uh that these platforms used. Right.
>> That's the first time. Yeah. He used the dark patterns argument um that worked and I was impressed that that worked.
Um, so that you know, maybe the courts will get there, a different Congress than what we currently have, might pass laws that a bridge section 230. Um, but the US has such a strong free speech perspective in all of its lawmaking that I don't know that they're going to seriously curtail any media organization in that way, which is great in a lot of ways. Uh, the other answer is more technical. Um, you know, I think as especially this kind of AI revolution is happening, we could have browsers or agents that help us identify rage bait more quickly, that act as personal agents for ourselves in these systems to help us sort through the media environment more quickly.
>> So, will there be AI that helps us identify AI?
>> There could be, right? That's the thing is it's there's already AI that helps us identify what is AI within certain amounts of you know um >> not enough according to my daughter every time I send her like a Instagram reel she's like mom that's AI.
>> Yeah I am surprised by how many people are fooled by AI in social media. um it it you know it's getting pretty good, right? And deep fakes make it so it's even better. But even outside of like detecting deep fakes and things like that, there are a lot of simple AI tools we can make to help people navigate complex information environments. And then the the third route that I'm most hopeful for is to treat it like a public health problem, right? Like we've solved big public health problems. If we think of rage and of citizens legitimately hating each other and having such different views of reality as a true public health problem, which I think it is, then we should solve this like a public health problem like we did with anti-smoking campaigns, like we did with drunk driving campaigns, like other things that we think are society beneficial to work on.
>> I think that's a I mean I I I think it might be wishful thinking, but I think it's so true. I mean, sometimes I can't get over how much people just hate each other and how corrosive it is uh for society, how >> much how much they're willing to accept misinformation. Right? For a while when I was studying disinformation, you would we did a study where we would show people like, hey, this was disinformation and their rational rationalization immediately became like, well, it's it's what Cobar called truthy, right? Like I know that that's fake, but it speaks to a higher truth that I think is important, right? And I'm like, okay, that's really something.
>> Which I think is all about identity, tribalism, and ultimately a little bit about loneliness, but that's just >> again those turistics, right? Emotion, identity, habit, all of those things.
It's short circuit our more rational thinking processes.
>> Yeah. Well, boy, this has been really a fun conversation. Professor Cliff Lampy, thank you very much. University of Michigan. By the way, the other things that I get fed all the time, these TV shows, they like the Partridge family, they'll show them what they look like when they were on the show and then they'll show what happened to them later. And I always get so sad because they show the dead people in white ropes and wings and like they're in heaven and I wish they would stop sending me.
>> It does. It does start to put a marker on your own mortality, doesn't it? Like I get those as well and I get a lot of Gen X.
>> But I know but you know why we get them?
Because we watch them and we want to see like oh what happened to all these people. Like I wanted to know what happened to Ruben Concaid. I couldn't remember if he died or not and then Tracy died very young of some weird illness and then I Google what did Tracy die of? I mean honestly I need to spend less time on my >> the rabbit holes are are easy to fall down. That's for sure. Anyway, well, so nice meeting you. Thanks again for this conversation. That does it for us today.
Thank you. I'm glad I shared all my weird >> my weird algorith algorithmic tendencies. But anyway, really appreciate it. Um, hey, be a paid subscriber if you feel like it. That includes you, Cliff Lampy.
>> All right, sounds great.
>> Are you on Substack, by the way?
>> I haven't been. My wife is and is a follower. So, >> well, you should you should write about your research because I think people have found this really interesting and they'd appreciate it.
>> Great. That sounds good. I appreciate that.
>> Okay. All right. Nice to meet you. Bye, everybody. Thanks for watching. See you next time. Bye.
Related Videos
VALORANT's Latest 'Exclusive' Tier Bundle is Rough...
KangaValorant
17K views•2026-05-28
Flight Attendant Mocks Poor Looking Black Woman — Mid Air Announcement Exposes Her Real Power
SkyboundStories-b4r
184 views•2026-05-28
I FIXED My Friend’s Blown Turbo RX-8… Then Sold It
Cameron-RX8
134 views•2026-05-28
NewsWatch 12 at 5: Top Stories
NewsWatch12
1K views•2026-05-28
Simon Jordan & Danny Murphy deliver PREDICTIONS for Arsenal's Champions League FINAL with PSG
talkSPORTArsenal
6K views•2026-05-28
Botting is OUT OF CONTROL in Classic WoW (Again)...
SolheimGaming
108 views•2026-05-28
The "AI Job Apocalypse" is CANCELLED!
WesRoth
9K views•2026-05-28
STREET FIGHTER 6 - INGRID Story Walkthrough @ 4K 60ᶠᵖˢ ✔
RajmanGamingHD
12K views•2026-05-28
