Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Monday, June 08, 2026

Opinion | Why Everyone Wants Jon Ossoff to Run for President - The New York Times

Why Everyone Wants Jon Ossoff to Run for President

Opinion Michelle Goldberg

José Ibarra Rizo for The New York Times

"Kicking off his re-election campaign at a rally in Atlanta last week, Senator Jon Ossoff barely mentioned the two Republicans who are in a runoff to oppose him. Instead, speaking to a crowd of more than 1,500 at a downtown concert venue, he blasted the self-dealing of Donald Trump and his “Mar-a-Lago mafia.”

“He’s trying to put his face on the money,” Ossoff said. “Did you see that? He’s building a monument to himself. But see, Atlanta, he’s doing these things now because no one will honor him when he’s gone, because he’s a failed president and a national disgrace.”

The scale and reach of the Trump family’s self-enrichment is so astonishing it can test the limits of human cognition, so when Ossoff talks about it, he usually picks one example to zero in on. In that kickoff speech, he focused on tungsten mining rights in Kazakhstan. Ossoff described how the president of Kazakhstan granted a U.S.-backed company the right to mine the world’s largest known undeveloped deposit of tungsten, an element used in semiconductors, lightbulbs and warheads. Six days after a company backed by Trump’s sons Eric and Don Jr. took a 20 percent stake in an American mining group, that group’s parent company received $1.6 billion in federal financing. “One-point-six billion of your tax dollars to fund and finance their mining project in Kazakhstan, all the while you pay more for gas, for groceries, for health care,” said Ossoff.

As often happens with Ossoff’s speeches, clips from the one last week went viral online, where people from across the Democratic ideological spectrum have been buzzing about a possible Ossoff presidential candidacy. If Ossoff wins re-election, wrote the progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan, “he immediately becomes one of the favorites for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination.” Sarah Longwell, a former Republican strategist who now publishes the anti-Trump Bulwark, posted a photo of Ossoff with the words, “President-maxxing so hard.”

If you were cooking up an ideal 2028 candidate in a lab, he — and let’s face it, it’s probably a he — would look a lot like Ossoff. He’s young and handsome, with a picture-perfect family: a beautiful wife who works as an obstetrician-gynecologist and two small daughters. He’s a Southerner from a reddish state with a history of wooing Black voters. And he’s a Jewish critic of Israel who, as much as anyone in politics today, has the potential to bridge the Democratic Party’s agonizing divide over Zionism.

But the excitement Ossoff is generating is about more than demographics. It stems from his skill in eviscerating Trump’s gluttonous profiteering, his brazen attempts to turn this country into the most squalid sort of kleptocracy. In his bid for re-election in a state Trump won in 2024, some expected Ossoff to tack to the center; last year JD Vance predicted that he’d start praising Trump’s agenda. Instead, Ossoff is excoriating Trump and his systemic corruption in a way that transcends the Democratic Party’s progressive-moderate divide.

He couples that attack with an achingly earnest sort of patriotism. Ossoff’s recent speeches, which he says he writes himself, have two parts. First, he dissects the rot in America’s governing institutions, a rot that, he always notes, predates Trump and helped give rise to him. Then he lays out a liberal, pluralist version of American identity to challenge the Trump administration’s white nationalism.

“We’re bound together by the same great national spirit that passed civil rights laws, defeated fascism, and landed men on the moon,” Ossoff said in his kickoff speech. A bit later, he added, “This is what small men like Donald Trump and JD Vance and Stephen Miller will never understand. That our national greatness flows not through our blood or our genes, but through our ideas.”

Movements that have defeated authoritarianism, most recently in Hungary, usually use precisely this formula: a sweeping denunciation of corruption with a reclamation of national mythology. “Across decades and continents, corruption has been the fatal weakness of authoritarian regimes,” the Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica wrote in an essay last year. Widespread outrage over corruption helped topple Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, Otto Pérez Molina in Guatemala and Najib Razak in Malaysia. “As democratic norms erode and elections become increasingly tilted, anti-corruption movements offer what partisan politics cannot: the moral authority to unite society against a rigged system,” wrote Bonica.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. 

Though he’s working within the strictures of partisan politics, Ossoff is trying to build that kind of movement. He helped popularize the phrase “the Epstein class” to describe the network of wealthy people — Democrats and Republicans alike — who enabled the sex-trafficking financier Jeffrey Epstein. When he talks about Trump’s shameless looting, he radiates righteous indignation, like a millennial Atticus Finch. I was in Hungary in April when Peter Magyar dislodged the strongman Viktor Orban with a deeply patriotic campaign centered on the regime’s gargantuan corruption. Ossoff’s indictment of Trump’s “Mar-a-Lago mafia” echoes Magyar’s condemnation of Viktor Orban’s “mafia state.”

More than any other politician in America, Bonica told me, Ossoff is following the playbook that’s worked against autocrats in other countries. Whether or not he runs for president, the party can learn something from his approach.

I first met Ossoff in 2017, when he was running for Congress in a special election in Georgia’s Sixth District, in the Atlanta suburbs, attempting to flip what had been a solidly Republican seat. It was the first major race of Trump’s first term, and Democrats were desperate to rebuke him. The contest became the most expensive special election in history, prefiguring Ossoff’s later Senate race, which also set spending records. Ossoff lost narrowly, but his race helped catalyze the creation of a new Democratic infrastructure in the district, which the Democrat Lucy McBath won the next year.

Back then, Ossoff was one of several young politicians — others included Josh Shapiro, then running for Pennsylvania attorney general, and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey — whose speaking style mimicked Barack Obama’s distinct preacherly cadence. “It almost seemed like he was doing Obama on a ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch,” the linguist John McWhorter said of Ossoff’s 2017 concession speech. These days Ossoff sounds less like an Obama imitator, but he still has something of the former president’s vibe, a cerebral cool inflected with the uplift of Southern Black churches.

When Ossoff was 17, he interned for Representative John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement whom he considers a mentor. He’s thought a lot about the way that movement grounded itself in American ideals.

“We have to be reconnecting ourselves and the public with the pluralist tradition in American politics and its roots in our founding documents,” he told me after his speech last week. “I have found that the tradition of civil rights politics rooted here in Georgia and the South — the lessons that I learned from Congressman Lewis — have helped me keep true north in sight in a time when the cynicism is so deep that trying to call us back to our better angels is sometimes dismissed as naïve.”

This high-minded sincerity can feel almost countercultural at a moment of such profound national debasement, when Democrats like Gavin Newsom are leaning into Trump-style trolling. “Obviously, he’s trying to win an election, but he also is trying to make a statement about what this country needs to be,” said Tré Easton, vice president of public affairs at Searchlight, a heterodox Democratic think tank. “And you know, I got to be really honest with you: I’m not seeing that from really any other political leader at that caliber right now.”

Ossoff vehemently insists that he’s not going to run for president in 2028. He’s called all the chatter about it a “curse” that distracts from the only contest he cares about: the midterms. “If we do not restore checks and balances in these midterm elections, I don’t know that we have a free and fair presidential election in 2028,” he told MS NOW’s Jen Psaki in April. “So, let’s keep our eyes on the ball, folks.”

Until recently, Ossoff was considered one of the more vulnerable Democrats, but he’s ahead in the polls. After a vicious primary, two Republican candidates remain locked in a runoff, and many of their voters are demoralized. In focus groups, Longwell told me, Georgia Republicans despair of their chances. Still, it would be malpractice for Ossoff to take anything for granted.

It is standard, of course, for politicians running for Congress or governorships to disavow any interest in the presidency. Obama, remember, brushed off the idea of a presidential bid when he was campaigning for Senate in 2004. Still, there are reasons to believe Ossoff means it.

He appears to be a bit of an introvert, and though he’s often been in the national spotlight, he doesn’t seem to relish it. Since his election in 2020, he’s mostly kept his head down, focusing much more on building his office’s constituent services operation than on his national profile. Though he’s usually happy to appear on local TV in Georgia, his staff has to push him to do cable news.

It’s become conventional wisdom among many Democratic operatives that a successful candidate must dominate the information ecosystem, mastering quick, vertical video updates and long, meandering podcasts. Ossoff shows little interest in either. Though he was only 33 when he took office — the youngest senator since Joe Biden was elected in 1972 — he’s not very online. His TikTok feed mostly consists of excerpts from speeches and snippets of him grilling witnesses in the Senate. On the relatively rare occasions that he appears on podcasts, he avoids talking about himself. In April, Tim Miller of The Bulwark tried to draw him out about his workout routine — Ossoff has noticeably bulked up since his first congressional campaign — but didn’t make much headway. At a time when many politicians are trying to be influencers, Ossoff has an old-fashioned reserve.

When he speaks, he’s slow and deliberative, sometimes pausing in the middle of a sentence to gather his thoughts. “Words matter and have power and are treated too cheaply,” he told me.

Obama, of course, was also an introvert. As David Axelrod, his former chief strategist, told me, Obama meant it back in 2004 when he said he wasn’t planning to run for president. After his blockbuster speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama was the subject of public fascination, and feared his new Senate colleagues wouldn’t take him seriously if they thought he was using the office as a launching pad. “We made a big effort to stay out of the national spotlight,” said Axelrod. “We stayed off the Sunday shows.”

But Democrats, including Harry Reid, then leader of the Senate Democratic caucus, kept urging Obama into the race. “That thing was as close to a draft as I have ever witnessed,” Axelrod said. Obama was in demand because of his biography, but also because, unlike most Democrats, he’d had the courage and foresight to oppose the Iraq war.

Here, too, there’s a parallel with Ossoff. In 2024, Ossoff was one of only 19 senators to sign on to Bernie Sanders’s resolution calling for an embargo on certain arms to Israel, bucking pressure from Biden’s White House. In a sober floor speech, he said, “The American people are rightly horrified by the lack of sufficient concern for innocent Palestinian life that has left so many children unnecessarily dead in Gaza, without limbs or riddled with shrapnel.” A few moments later, he added, “We seem to have forgotten that we have the power to influence our ally’s conduct.”

At the time, Ossoff’s stance seemed politically risky. “His chances of getting re-elected in 2026 just became that much harder,” said the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. But today, much of the Democratic Party’s mainstream is where Ossoff was two years ago, with even the ur-centrist Rahm Emanuel, who once volunteered with the Israeli Defense Forces, calling for a cutoff of military aid. The moral position, in retrospect, was also the savvy one. Voters “want to believe that there are leaders out there who are willing to draw lines and who aren’t so obsessed with their own perpetuation in office that they’re willing to sacrifice all principles to get there,” said Axelrod.

Ossoff, who was sworn into office on the Hebrew Bible of Rabbi Jacob Rothschild, an ally of Martin Luther King Jr., is not an anti-Zionist. “I want the Israeli people to be safe and secure,” he told me. “I make no apology for opposing the reckless killing of noncombatants.” This position will not satisfy either AIPAC or the Democratic Socialists of America. But it would be hard for Ossoff’s opponents to tar him as either an antisemite or as someone who was complicit in the atrocities that occurred while Biden was president.

By the time Ossoff arrived in Washington, he’d been thinking about the ugliness of unaccountable power for years. Before he was a politician, Ossoff ran a company called Insight TWI that produced documentaries about international corruption and human rights abuses, several of which aired on the BBC. He oversaw an award-winning program about the mass rape of Yazidi women by ISIS and an investigation into an alleged Kenyan death squad. In one of his most high-profile projects, he worked with Ghanaian journalists exposing corruption in international soccer. A slew of officials, including the former president of the Ghana Football Association, were caught on camera taking bribes.

The exposé ran on the BBC in 2018, a few months after Ossoff’s failed congressional campaign. After its release, Ahmed Hussein-Suale, one of the Ghanaian journalists who worked on it, was threatened by some of the men who were implicated, and in 2019, he was assassinated. The police reportedly believed he was killed in retaliation for his work. Speaking at Hussein-Suale’s memorial service in Accra, Ossoff said it wasn’t enough to just arrest the killers. “Those who hold high positions, who threaten journalists, who call for violence against journalists, should also face accountability,” he said.

It’s easy to see the through line between Ossoff’s message then and now. “My belief that corruption is at the core of oppression predates my public life,” he said. Running investigations of “war crimes and human rights abuses in hostile environments, it was so clear how kleptocracy, corruption and authoritarianism so often go hand in hand.”

Today, Ossoff brings elements of his documentary background into his attempts at political persuasion. The first video released by his new campaign is a nearly four-and-a-half-minute spot that dives into Big Pharma lobbying to explain the corporate capture of American lawmaking and the high price of prescription drugs. Almost a mini documentary, it breaks most of the rules of traditional political advertising, getting into the weeds of a fairly wonky subject. “Drawing on my background in journalism, to make something comprehensible, it cannot be discussed merely in the abstract,” he told me. “You’ve got to break down how it really works.”

As much as he lambastes Trump, Ossoff always emphasizes that he’s more a symptom of a broken system than a cause. “Donald Trump is a demagogue who has exploited the underlying rot of systemic corruption, and the widespread disillusionment and cynicism that flows from the experience of life in a society where politics is so corrupted,” he said. “He has exploited that rot with a promise to unrig the system and then proceeded simply to re-rig the system for himself.”

Ossoff attributes much of what’s gone wrong in American politics to Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision striking down restrictions on corporate and union spending in American elections. Unlike many liberal Democrats, he’s not calling for expanding the Supreme Court. Instead, he wants to see a national campaign to amend the Constitution to get dark money out of politics, which he thinks could bring people together rather than further polarize them. “We have to be capable of imagining ambitious change,” he said. “Our politics is in such a bad place that I think an effort like that could energize people, inspire people, unify people who otherwise are at odds, and reshuffle the deck.”

He’s right that Americans broadly hate Citizens United, but changing the Constitution is a grueling process with almost endless choke points, and I suspect his position will seem, to many progressives, like a punt. Still, his approach could play well with those parts of the electorate that yearn for an end to American divisions and don’t trust either party to fix things. As Bonica notes, in many polls, Democrats are seen, unfairly, as being as corrupt as Republicans. It might be good politics, then, for Ossoff to champion reforms that aren’t seen as purely partisan.

“In polarized societies, the most effective opposition doesn’t fight on the traditional left-right battlefield where positions are entrenched,” wrote Bonica. “Instead, it creates an entirely new axis of conflict.”

That’s essentially what Ossoff is aiming to do, and it’s why so many are looking to him to lead. If he wins re-election, especially by a comfortable margin, “I’m sure people will come to him and say, you know, dude, we need you,” said Axelrod. Maybe Ossoff will say no. But it can only help him to look like someone who needs to be persuaded.

Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women’s rights and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment."

Opinion | Why Everyone Wants Jon Ossoff to Run for President - The New York Times

Live Updates: Iran and Israel Move to Wind Down Strikes After Cease-Fire Breaks Down - The New York Times

Live Updates: Iran and Israel Pull Back After Exchange of Attacks

"Iran signaled that it had concluded its latest strikes against Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refrained from another attack under pressure from President Trump, a U.S. and two Israeli officials said."Iran and Israel signaled on Monday that they were ready to wind down an overnight military escalation that briefly shattered a fragile two-month cease-fire and brought the Middle East back to the precipice of full-blown war.

President Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday morning and asked him to back off on new strikes on Iran, according to a senior U.S. and two Israeli officials, who were granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the call publicly. In a recorded message issued on Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel’s “fire is on hold” against Iran.

In remarks carried by Iranian state television on Monday afternoon, Iran’s military said that it was ceasing its attacks for now. But it warned that if Israel resumed its own strikes, including in southern Lebanon which Israel has been militarily occupying for weeks, “much harsher and more forceful actions than before will follow.”

The rapid escalation in fighting began with Israeli strikes just outside of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, on Sunday, which the Israeli military said targeted the Iran-backed militia Hezbollah. Iran retaliated by sending waves of ballistic missiles toward Israel. The Israeli military said on Monday morning that it had launched two waves of airstrikes across Iran, including against the country’s largest petrochemical complex, prompting further Iranian missile attacks on central Israel.

In his recorded statement, his first public comment in the 20 hours since Iran began firing missiles at Israel, Mr. Netanyahu said that Iran had tried to “force a new equation” by attacking Israel in retaliation for its attacks in Lebanon. “This equation is unbearable, and unacceptable to me,” he said.

Mr. Trump on Monday publicly called on both countries to “immediately stop” the attacks. He also promised that a final deal to end the war in the Middle East was on the way, although the president’s predictions of an agreement with Iran have frequently failed to materialize.

Here’s what else to know:

  • Energy markets: The price of oil jumped after Israel and Iran exchanged strikes, but pared back much of those gains. Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, was almost 2 percent higher to about $95 a barrel, and West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. marker, was up around 2 percent to around $92 a barrel. Read more ›

  • Yemen: The Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen fired a ballistic missile at central Israel on Monday and announced a naval blockade against Israel in the Red Sea, although it was unclear what that threat would mean in practice. Earlier Houthi attacks in the Red Sea snarled global shipping and prompted a U.S.-led bombing campaign.

  • Casualties: The attacks caused no casualties in Israel, according to the local authorities. Iran’s emergency services said that the strikes had injured 15 people, one of whom remained hospitalized, without providing details, according to a statement carried by state media.

  • Israeli politics: For Mr. Netanyahu, a resumption of fighting with Iran may offer some short-term advantages at home, though it could also further inflame regional tensions.""

Live Updates: Iran and Israel Move to Wind Down Strikes After Cease-Fire Breaks Down - The New York Times

Sunday, June 07, 2026

Pete Hegseth’s D-day speech on immigration condemned as ‘grotesque stupidity’

 

Pete Hegseth’s D-day speech on immigration condemned as ‘grotesque stupidity’

“US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was criticized for linking immigration to the D-day anniversary during a speech in France. Historians and rights campaigners condemned his remarks as “grotesque stupidity” and a desecration of the memory of soldiers who fought in Normandy. Critics argued that Hegseth’s comments were particularly inappropriate given his recent actions and the US’s own immigration policies.

Historians and campaigners accuse US defence secretary of desecrating memory of soldiers who fell in Normandy

Hegseth speaks outdoors with trees and a building behind him
Pete Hegseth speaking at the American military cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer on Saturday.Photograph: Jeremías González/AP

The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been accused by historians and rights campaigners of “grotesque stupidity” and desecrating the memory of the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy after he sought to link immigration to the D-day anniversary, saying Europe was facing a different “invasion” of its shores.

Speaking in north-west France on Saturday to mark the 82nd anniversary of the D-day landings, Hegseth seized on the moment marking the wartime liberation of Europe to reiterate the US administration’s longstanding attack on European immigration policies.

“Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different, dangerous ideologies,” Hegseth told those gathered at the American military cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer.

“Beaches in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion, or is it too late? I pray not, and I believe not,” he said.

“The men who fought and died here restored freedom to Europe,” added Hegseth, a former Fox News host. “That freedom must be maintained by this generation of leaders and war fighters, or what they fought for was merely temporary.”

The remarks were swiftly condemned on social media. The English historian, author and television presenter Simon Schama described them as a “special kind of loathsomeness: a blend of historical deafness, grotesque stupidity and comically ludicrous self-importance”.

Schama added: “As if the little people’s rage against immigration somehow is superior to the war against the 3rd Reich and entitles this comic book nobody to lecture the actual heroes.”

From Jerusalem, the Israeli human rights lawyer Daniel Seidemann also weighed in. “This is an obscene desecration of the memories of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and especially of those who fell,” he wrote.

Anders Åslund, a Swedish economist and former senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, contrasted the comments with Hegseth’s later remarks on the US standing alongside its allies. “So much nonsense,” he wrote on social media. “‘We stand by our allies!’ No you don’t. You just attacked them. Immigration policies are internal matters.”

Åslund said Hegseth’s comments were particularly “clueless” given his recent decision to skip a key Nato meeting and Donald Trump’s vows to cut the number of troops in Europe. “Doesn’t Hegseth know that the most unreliable ‘ally’ by far is the US?” he said.

Hegseth’s outsized focus on EU migration echoes comments made by other American officials, including Trump, who have consistently sought to criticise the impact of migration on the continent, despite the US having a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than the EU.

Hours before Hegseth’s speech, the US vice-president, JD Vance, also waded into the matter with a social media post that blamed immigration for the killing of Henry Nowak, an 18-year-old British student stabbed in the UK. Nowak’s killer, a British-born Sikh, was convicted of murder and jailed for life with a minimum of 21 years.

On Sunday, the UK justice secretary and deputy prime minister, David Lammy, said he had had an “agreeable” conversation in which he had sought to set the record straight with Vance. “This has got nothing to do with mass migration. This young man was a Brit,” Lammy told Sky News. “Let’s be clear about that. And I said: ‘Look, Mr Vice-president, you’re wrong about this.’”

In the days before Hegseth’s visit to France, the plans had stirred up controversy, with one residents’ association calling for the trip to be cancelled. “This individual promotes values that go against democracy, human rights and peace,” the Langrune en Commun association, which advocates for environmentalism and solidarity among the village’s residents, said in a press release last week.

Speaking to the broadcaster BFMTV, one member of the association cautioned against acting as though everything was normal. “What’s happening with the Trump administration isn’t business as usual. The fact that Pete Hegseth is challenging all the international organisations that emerged from the second world war isn’t business as usual,” said Chantal Richard.

“The words must be spoken, he must be called out for who he is, for the values he represents: colonial, warmongering, racist, far-right values,” she added. “Silence seems to us to be the worst thing we can do on these issues.”

RFK Jr. Appears Disengaged on Many Health Department Matters Beyond Vaccines

RFK Jr. Appears Disengaged on Many Health Department Matters Beyond Vaccines

“Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reportedly disengaged from managing the Department of Health and Human Services, focusing instead on food and vaccine policies. Critics argue his lack of engagement, coupled with staffing vacancies and a focus on political appointees, could hinder the department’s ability to respond to public health crises. While Kennedy’s allies defend his leadership style, concerns persist about the department’s effectiveness under his tenure.

Mr. Kennedy sits in front of a microphone.
Mr. Kennedy, who is isolated from much of his top staff, leans on a small number of key advisers.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

Kennedy Shows Minimal Engagement With Vast Health Portfolio

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has demonstrated little interest in managing his sprawling department as he focuses on food and vaccine policies, according to colleagues.

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

Sheryl Gay Stolberg covers Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again movement.

Shortly after the World Health Organization declared the Ebola outbreak in Africa a public health emergency, a reporter asked Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. if he was worried about the virus. Six Americans had already been exposed. His response was brief: “Yeah, we’re working on it.”

In the nearly three weeks since, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed travel restrictions to keep the virus from coming to the United States, Mr. Kennedy has made no public comments about the spreading outbreak. He has received very few briefings about the virus from C.D.C. scientists, although he speaks daily to the acting director, according to people familiar with his response.

Mr. Kennedy’s approach to the crisis reflects his broader management of the Department of Health and Human Services, which affects the health of 340 million Americans and provides health care to 40 percent of the population through Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Kennedy has shown little interest in managing the details of work in his department, according to multiple colleagues. Instead, they say, he is single-mindedly focused on his top priorities, including food recommendations and pesticide exposures, and hunting for evidence to support his long-held beliefs that vaccines are harmful.

Deeply mistrustful of career civil officials, the secretary has surrounded himself with a close circle of handpicked advisers and stacked agencies with political appointees aligned with his views. While major posts have sat vacant and a wave of veteran health experts and scientists have departed, Mr. Kennedy has remained isolated from much of the department’s top staff.

He rarely engages with members of Congress, colleagues said, unless he is asked to testify. He has made just one known visit to the C.D.C., after a gunman opened fire on its headquarters and killed a police officer last August.

Two health workers wearing protective gear walk on a dirt ground next to a building.
The World Health Organization has declared the Ebola outbreak in Africa a public health emergency. Mr. Kennedy has made little comment on the outbreak.Arlette Bashizi for The New York Times

This examination of Mr. Kennedy’s leadership style is based on the accounts of a dozen people who have had direct contact with him as secretary, as well as other health department employees, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.

Mr. Kennedy and the department did not directly address questions about his leadership style.

The secretary’s detachment from much of the work of the agency, along with the administration’s deep staff cuts and his attacks on career staff, have driven down morale, they say. It’s a dynamic that could threaten the department’s ability to protect Americans in a crisis, according to public health experts and former secretaries.

Critics say one of the most urgent problems is Mr. Kennedy’s failure to act more swiftly to address a leadership vacuum. There is no surgeon general. Around half of the 27 institutes and centers at N.I.H. are run by acting directors. The acting chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases was recently fired, as was the nation’s top drug regulator.

The leader of the Food and Drug Administration quit last month under pressure over tobacco policy. Mr. Kennedy fired the C.D.C. director last August; it is now run on an acting basis by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who already has another huge job as director of the National Institutes of Health.

“You would never accept a major corporation operating this way,” said Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, who has advised health secretaries of both parties.

“If the C.E.O. lacked deep expertise in the company’s business and the leaders of its most important divisions were missing, investors would revolt,” Dr. Osterholm said. “Here, the stakes are much higher. The mission is protecting the health and safety of the American people, and we’re confronting serious disease threats without permanent leadership in some of our most important public health agencies.”

To address the management gaps, the White House and Mr. Kennedy initiated a shake-up in February, elevating Christopher Klomp, a department official and former health care executive, to serve as the secretary’s chief counselor and smooth out operations. In a statement, Courtney Spencer, who left the Labor Department two weeks ago to become Mr. Kennedy’s top spokeswoman, said the health department was “aggressively recruiting top talent to fill every remaining vacancy,” adding, “Nothing has slowed our ability to execute.”

Mr. Kennedy’s allies say that while his management style may be different from that of his predecessors, he is leading in other ways by taking stands on matters of importance to Americans, including healthy eating and tackling chronic disease.

“You do not come to Washington to challenge powerful interests, disrupt decades of business as usual, and demand accountability to make friends,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a close ally of Mr. Kennedy’s, said in a statement provided by the health department. “You do it to deliver results.”

Other advisers say Mr. Kennedy is also running into the realities of Washington, including a Congress that has refused to confirm some of President Trump’s nominees.

“Very predictably, you get into governing, you get into a toxic political environment, and a situation where there’s trillions of dollars of interest and you have the burden of having to do policy,” Calley Means, a close adviser to Mr. Kennedy, said at a recent forum hosted by Harvard University. “Nobody executes perfectly.”

A Remote Presence

Mr. Kennedy keeps a low profile at the health department’s headquarters, a hulking building that faces the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol.

When he is in town, he exercises at his gym before work, then usually arrives at about 10 a.m. and leaves by 4 p.m., his colleagues say. He spends much of his day in closed-door meetings, according to those who work with him, and has little direct engagement with his staff.

Every Tuesday at 10:30 a.m., the chiefs of the department’s 13 operating divisions gather in the secretary’s suite to update leadership on their activities. At the outset of his tenure, Mr. Kennedy was rarely there, either virtually or in person, according to three people familiar with his schedule. Since Mr. Klomp’s elevation, he now shows up once a month. But when he does attend, he often appears disengaged and spends the time scrolling on his phone, according to people in attendance. Several described him as “checked out.”

Once, when he arrived to the meeting 15 minutes late, Mr. Kennedy offered a self-deprecating apology, according to one person in the room: “Thank you for putting up with my dysfunctional self.”

Health department officials did not respond to a request for comment about the meeting or Mr. Kennedy’s remark.

His disinterest in matters that are not high on his priority list has meant that he has not engaged at critical moments, colleagues said.

Are you a federal worker? We want to hear from you.

The Times would like to hear about your experience as a federal worker under the second Trump administration. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first.

When measles killed two children in Texas early last year, Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who led the response but has since left the agency, asked repeatedly to brief Mr. Kennedy but was rebuffed, he said.

Susan Monarez, who briefly served as Mr. Kennedy’s C.D.C. director before she was fired, had little direct interaction with the health secretary until she ran afoul of him on vaccine policy. She later told senators that during a series of tense meetings with the secretary, she was “directed to only work with the political appointees that he had put in place at C.D.C., and not to speak or work with the career scientists.”

In the current Ebola crisis, Mr. Kennedy has left the department’s response to Dr. Bhattacharya, a health economist with no prior experience in public health even though he is leading the C.D.C. Dr. Bhattacharya, who also led the response to a recent outbreak of hantavirus, wrote an opinion essay published in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday saying that while the “risk to the American public remains low, Ebola is dangerous.”

A White House spokesman, Kush Desai, said the agency’s “rapid and comprehensive response” to the Ebola outbreak proved that “under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, H.H.S. continues to safeguard the health and wellness of the American people.”

Ms. Spencer, the H.H.S. spokeswoman, said the health department had “executed an immediate and coordinated response” under Mr. Kennedy’s leadership.

But key vacancies inside the health department have made the response more challenging, people familiar with situation said.

The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, responsible for pandemic preparedness and for standing up field hospitals and quarantine facilities in Kenya, is currently run on an acting basis by John Knox, a former Los Angeles firefighter who founded the group Firefighters4Freedom during the pandemic to fight vaccine mandates.

As the outbreak has spread, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a tacit rebuke of Mr. Kennedy’s move last year to withhold funding from an international vaccine alliance, suggesting the State Department was taking back management of the U.S. relationship with the alliance.

“We are going to re-engage,” Mr. Rubio told lawmakers last week. “We need to drive this to an outcome.”

A Daunting Portfolio

Under any circumstances, the Department of Health and Human Services is difficult to run. It has 13 operating divisions covering a vast array of issues, such as child welfare and pandemic preparedness. Past secretaries from both political parties say there are three main ingredients for success: understanding the work of the divisions, strong crisis communication and muscular coordination with state, local and international health leaders.

Tommy G. Thompson, who as health secretary to President George W. Bush faced complaints about his management of the 2001 anthrax crisis, spent a week at each one of the operating divisions at the outset of his tenure, and made frequent trips to Capitol Hill to advocate for the department. In an interview last year, he said he “would strongly suggest” Mr. Kennedy do the same.

“The department is so vast and so complex,” Mr. Thompson said, “and you have to be prepared.” 

Kathleen Sebelius, a former Kansas governor who resigned as President Barack Obama’s health secretary after the flawed rollout of the healthcare.gov website, said she met with the division chiefs regularly, likening them to her cabinet.

“My goal was to really be informed by the scientists, to make sure that N.I.H. was at the table, that F.D.A. was at the table, that our global health people were at the table,” Ms. Sebelius said in an interview, adding, “I was really schooled by the people who had been there before and who knew what the hell they were doing.”

Mr. Kennedy, by contrast, has delegated broad authority to Stefanie Spear, a longtime adviser who has been with him since his days as an environmental lawyer and functions as his protector and defender, according to people who know them.

Ms. Spear runs meetings for the secretary, accompanies him on official trips and keeps a list of the secretary’s policy projects on a private spreadsheet to which his policy team has no access; there are more than 50 items on the list, one person who has seen it said.

All of the requests for the secretary’s decisions and meetings go through Ms. Spear. When Mr. Kennedy is asked a question, his frequent response is “just run that by Stefanie.”

Colleagues say that her tight control has slowed down department operations.

After Mr. Kennedy promised Congress that the F.D.A. would investigate the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, the agency proposed updating a set of sophisticated databases of electronic records it needed for the research. But the project was delayed for months by Mr. Kennedy’s office, according to two people with detailed knowledge.

When a gunman opened fire on the C.D.C. last August, Mr. Kennedy was fishing with Native American leaders in Alaska. Health department officials wanted to get a statement out to the news media. But it was held up for hours, several said, while Ms. Spear sought approval from the White House.

Frustration with Ms. Spear, who served as Mr. Kennedy’s communications director during his campaign and oversees his public comments, has fueled some key departures.

Mr. Kennedy is on his third top spokesman; the first two quit in frustration, according to people familiar with their decisions. The secretary has also run through two chiefs of staff; he fired the first one, and the second was pushed aside in favor of Mr. Klomp.

In a statement, Mr. Kennedy praised Mr. Klomp and Ms. Spear as “two of the most effective leaders in government.” He said Mr. Klomp had ”been instrumental in driving operational excellence, strengthening accountability, and ensuring H.H.S. delivers results for the American people,” and that Ms. Spear “keeps our team focused on results and ensures the president’s and my priorities get across the finish line.”

Mr. Klomp has moved quickly in the search for a new C.D.C. director, with a nominee now awaiting Senate confirmation, as well as for other top leaders for the agency. He also brought in a new team of policy advisers to the secretary and instituted daily meetings between Mr. Kennedy and the leaders of the “Big Four” agencies: F.D.A., C.D.C., N.I.H. and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to three people familiar with the department’s operations.

He has also sought to address low morale by starting a regular newsletter in which Mr. Kennedy addresses employees as “the dedicated professionals of H.H.S.”

The secretary, however, has been out of the loop on some key decisions. When Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the F.D.A.’s top drug regulator, was fired by F.D.A. leaders in May, the secretary did not learn of it until after it happened, according to three people familiar with the events.

There is no question that Mr. Kennedy is changing the national conversation around health in America, especially healthy eating. While his vaccine agenda has so far been stymied by court decisions, he has scored “wins,” as he likes to call them, notably by flipping the food pyramid, persuading medical schools to revamp nutrition education and convincing some food makers to abandon artificial dyes.

He travels often and makes aggressive use of his platform to promote his priorities, including on social media and “The Secretary Kennedy Podcast,”which began in April. Last week, he made stops in Wisconsin to spotlight the work of dairy farmers and faith-based groups working in addiction recovery, and New Hampshire to announce an effort to combat Lyme disease.

Colleagues say he also makes visits to Scottsdale, Ariz., where his son and daughter-in-law live, and Florida, where he stays at the Palm Beach mansion owned by Dr. Oz.

After Memorial Day, the public got a glimpse of him there. Mr. Kennedy posted video of himself, in a suit and tie, capturing two black racer snakes on Dr. Oz’s patio. One of them bit him.

Apoorva Mandavilli contributed reporting.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg is a correspondent based in Washington for The Times, covering Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Trump’s health agenda. “

Saturday, June 06, 2026

Opinion | Escape From Trumpism - The New York Times

Escape From Trumpism

The Capitol building at night.
Christopher Lee for The New York Times

"You’re reading the Jamelle Bouie newsletter.  Historical context for present-day events.

I wrote this past week about the need for Democrats to construct a Project 2029 that takes the revolutionary nature of the Trump regime seriously and seeks not to restore what was, but to build something new in the wake of this conjuncture.

In it I refer, as I often do, to the Reconstruction period of American history — the roughly 10 to 15 years following the end of the Civil War — as inspiration for how Democrats might approach that task.

In particular, the Radical Republicans who spearheaded the most far-reaching attempts to reconstruct the South embraced a constitutional vision rooted in the broad authority of Article I of the Constitution. Part of this was by necessity. After Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, they had to contend with President Andrew Johnson, a vicious white supremacist who opposed Black civil rights and sought a speedy end to Reconstruction so that he might build a new political party on a Jacksonian vision of white supremacy. They also had to contend with a Supreme Court that saw itself as a bulwark for a narrow and restrictive vision of the Constitution.

The leading congressmen of the period had their own conception of the relationship between Congress, the presidency, and the courts — shaped in large part by their battles with the slave power. But Reconstruction Republicans were also determined to secure and consolidate the political settlement of the Civil War against their foes in government. Congressional supremacy then was as much about the moment as it was about a deeper political perspective.

Here I want to highlight two things about the way congressional supremacy worked.

The first is that the Reconstruction Congress rejected the Supreme Court’s authority to invalidate its legislation. It was Congress — representing the entire people — that had the right and authority to say what the Constitution meant and it was the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce that meaning on the states. To stymie the court, this Congress took steps to limit the court’s jurisdiction, to directly repudiate court rulings with its own laws, and to reshape the Supreme Court itself — including preventing President Johnson from appointing new members when old ones died or left the bench.

The second is that the Reconstruction Congress leveraged a long-dormant part of the Constitution, the Guarantee Clause, which says that all states shall be guaranteed a republican form of government. It was under the Guarantee Clause that Republicans pursued their most far-reaching efforts to reconstruct the South.

As I wrote, should Democrats have control of the White House and both branches of Congress in 2029, they will be faced with a project of reconstruction, not restoration. You could do worse in those circumstances than to ask: What would Charles Sumner do? What would Thaddeus Stevens do? What would John Bingham do?

They wouldn’t stand by and allow their project to be destroyed by the hostile forces arrayed against them. They would look to the Constitution which, for all of its flaws, gives Congress the power and authority to make its vision reality.


What I Wrote

My column this week was on the prospect of a Project 2029, and why any effort worthy of the name must have a vision for reconstruction, not restoration.

If this is all true, and it is, then any plausible response to Project 2025 must include a larger vision for the future of the American Republic. A Project 2029 cannot be a collection of Democratic Party agenda items. It must articulate a broad new conception of the nation’s political order — one that will guide the way a future Democratic-led government might wield power. Above all, Democrats must have a plan for reconstruction — for building something new on the wreckage of what President Trump, MAGA and the Republican Party have wrought — not for restoration of what was.

I also joined my colleagues David French and Michelle Cottle on an episode of The Opinions.


Now Reading

Robin D.G. Kelley on the war on Black Studies for The New York Review of Books.

Ned Resnikoff on “hyperfascism” for his personal newsletter.

Vittoria Elliott on the retribution campaign against a DOGE whistle-blower for Wired.

Harsha Walia on immigration enforcement for Boston Review.

Nancy Fraser on Israel’s war on Gaza for New Left Review.


Photo of the Week

A Greyhound bus station in San Antonio.


Now Eating: Palak Paneer

I have a few different recipes for palak paneer in my repertoire and of the bunch, this one from NYT Cooking is my favorite. It takes a bit of time, but it is absolutely worth it. If you are watching out for saturated fat, you can substitute extra- or super-firm tofu for the paneer. Either way, you should pan-fry or air fry the tofu or paneer before you add it to the sauce — it makes for a better final product.

Ingredients

  • 2 garlic cloves, peeled

  • 2 green chiles or 1 serrano chile, stemmed

  • 1 (1-inch) piece fresh ginger, peeled and roughly chopped

  • 2 medium plum tomatoes

  • Ice, as needed

  • 6 packed cups/8 ounces fresh baby spinach leaves

  • 2 tablespoons ghee

  • ½ teaspoon cumin seeds

  • 1 small Indian bay leaf

  • 1 small yellow onion, diced

  • ½ teaspoon garam masala

  • ½ teaspoon Kashmiri chile powder

  • 1 teaspoon dried fenugreek leaves

  • 8 ounces paneer, diced into 1-inch cubes

  • 1 tablespoon heavy cream, plus more for serving

  • Salt

Directions

Place the garlic, chiles and ginger in a food processor with 3 tablespoons of water. Purée until a paste forms, scraping down the sides of the bowl as needed. Set paste aside until ready to use.

Coarsely grate the tomatoes on a box grater set directly on your cutting board. Discard the skins and set the grated tomatoes aside until ready to use.

Fill a medium bowl with ice and cold water. Bring a medium saucepan of water to a boil. Add the spinach and cook until wilted, 1 to 2 minutes. Drain, then transfer the spinach to the bowl of ice water until cold, about 5 minutes. Drain, discarding the water and ice cubes.

Transfer the spinach to a food processor or blender along with ½ cup of water and purée until smooth. Set aside until ready to use.

Heat the ghee in a medium saucepan over medium-high. Add the cumin seeds and cook until they start to pop, about 30 seconds, then add the bay leaf and onion and cook until the onion is soft and golden, 3 to 4 minutes. Stir in the reserved garlic-ginger paste and cook until fragrant, 1 to 2 minutes. Add the grated tomatoes and cook until soft, 4 to 5 minutes, then stir in the garam masala and chile powder. Cook until fragrant, about 1 minute.

Stir in the reserved spinach purée, the fenugreek leaves and 1 cup water. Decrease the heat so the mixture is at slow simmer and cook for 5 minutes, stirring occasionally.

Add the paneer and 1 tablespoon cream and stir until the paneer has warmed through, about 3 minutes. (Take care not to heat the paneer too long in the sauce or it will become chewy.) Season with salt and remove the bay leaf. Transfer to a serving dish and drizzle with more cream. Serve with naan and rice.

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va."

Opinion | Escape From Trumpism - The New York Times