Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Thursday, June 01, 2023

How autoimmune disease can attack the brain, cause psychiatric symptoms - The Washington Post

A catatonic woman awakened after 20 years. Her story may change psychiatry.

New research suggests that a subset of patients with psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia may actually have autoimmune disease that attacks the brain

June 1, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

A photo illustration that shows April Burrell before she got sick on the left wearing a red formal dress, and on the right there is a recent photo of April smiling. In the background there are several clock drawings that April drew during her cognitive testing.
Left: April Burrell at 19 as a bridesmaid in a family wedding in 1992. Right: April in 2022 during a family visit after treatment. (Illustration by Chelsea Conrad/The Washington Post; Family Photo; Tim Sorel)

The young woman was catatonic, stuck at the nurses’ station — unmoving, unblinking and unknowing of where or who she was.

Her name was April Burrell.

Before she became a patient, April had been an outgoing, straight-A student majoring in accounting at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. But after a traumatic event when she was 21, April suddenly developed psychosis and became lost in a constant state of visual and auditory hallucinations. The former high school valedictorian could no longer communicate, bathe or take care of herself.

April was diagnosed with a severe form of schizophrenia, an often devastating mental illness that affects approximately 1 percent of the global population and can drastically impair how patients behave and perceive reality.

“She was the first person I ever saw as a patient,” said Sander Markx, director of precision psychiatry at Columbia University, who was still a medical student in 2000 when he first encountered April. “She is, to this day, the sickest patient I’ve ever seen.”

It would be nearly two decades before their paths crossed again. But in 2018, another chance encounter led to several medical discoveries reminiscent of a scene from “Awakenings,” the famous book and movie inspired by the awakening of catatonic patients treated by the late neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks.

Markx and his colleagues discovered that although April’s illness was clinically indistinguishable from schizophrenia, she also had lupus, an underlying and treatable autoimmune condition that was attacking her brain.

After months of targeted treatments — and more than two decades trapped in her mind — April woke up.

The awakening of April — and the successful treatment of other people with similar conditions — now stand to transform care for some of psychiatry’s sickest patients, many of whom are languishing in mental institutions.

Researchers working with the New York state mental health-care system have identified about 200 patients with autoimmune diseases, some institutionalized for years, who may be helped by the discovery.

And scientists around the world, including Germany and Britain, are conducting similar research, finding that underlying autoimmune and inflammatory processes may be more common in patients with a variety of psychiatric syndromes than previously believed.

Although the current research probably will help only a small subset of patients, the impact of the work is already beginning to reshape the practice of psychiatry and the way many cases of mental illness are diagnosed and treated.

“These are the forgotten souls,” said Markx. “We’re not just improving the lives of these people, but we’re bringing them back from a place that I didn’t think they could come back from.”

Losing April

Even as a teenager growing up in Baltimore, April showed signs of the college accounting student she would later become. She balanced her dad’s checkbook and helped collect the rent on his properties.

She lived with her father, who had served in the Army, and her stepmother and is one of seven siblings. She was keenly focused on academics and would be disappointed if she received a B in a class. She played volleyball in high school, and her family remembers her as being profoundly capable in all things. She helped her dad renovate his dozens of rental properties and could even wire outlets and climb on roofs to tar and repair them.

By all accounts, she was thriving, in overall good health and showing no signs of mental distress beyond the normal teenage growing pains.

“April was a high achiever,” said her older half brother, Guy Burrell. “She was very friendly, very outgoing. She just loved life.”

But in 1995, her family received a nightmarish phone call from one of her professors. April was incoherent and had been hospitalized. The details were hazy, but it appeared that April had suffered a traumatic experience, which The Post isn’t describing to protect her privacy.

After April spent a few months at a short-term psychiatric hospital, she was eventually diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Her family tried their best to take care of her, but April required constant attention, and, in 2000, she went to Pilgrim Psychiatric Center for long-term care. Her family visited as often as they could, making the four-hour drive from Maryland to Long Island once or twice a month. But April was locked in her own world of psychosis, often appearing to draw with her fingers what appeared to be calculations and having conversations with herself about financial transactions.

April was unable to recognize, let alone engage with, her family. She did not want to be touched, hugged or kissed. Her family felt they had lost her.

A promising medical student

When April was diagnosed with schizophrenia, Markx was still a promising medical student, an ocean away at the University of Amsterdam. His parents were both psychiatrists and he had grown up around psychiatry and its patients. Markx remembers playing as a child in the long-term psychiatric facilities where his parents worked; he was never afraid of the patients or the stigma associated with their illnesses.

As a visiting Fulbright Scholar to the United States, he made the decision not to head to more well-known institutes, but instead chose Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, a state hospital in Brentwood, N.Y., where many of the state’s most severe psychiatric patients live for months, years or even the rest of their lives.

It was during his early days at Pilgrim that he met April, an encounter that “changed everything,” he said.

“She would just stare and just stand there,” Markx said. “She wouldn’t shower, she wouldn’t go outside, she wouldn’t smile, she wouldn’t laugh. And the nursing staff had to physically maneuver her.”

As a student, Markx was not in a position to help her. He moved on with his career, but always remembered the young woman frozen at the nurses’ station.

Almost two decades later, Markx had a lab of his own. He encouraged one of his research fellows to work in the trenches and suggested he spend time with patients at Pilgrim, just as he had done years earlier.

In an extraordinary coincidence, the trainee, Anthony Zoghbi, encountered a catatonic patient, standing at the nurse’s desk. The fellow returned to Markx, shaken up, and told him what he had seen.

“It was like déjà vu because he starts telling the story,” said Markx. “And I’m like, ‘Is her name April?’”

Markx was stunned to hear that little had changed for the patient he had seen nearly two decades earlier. In the years since they had first met, April had undergone many courses of treatment — antipsychotics, mood stabilizers and electroconvulsive therapy — all to no avail.

Markx was able to get family consent for a full medical work-up. He convened a multidisciplinary team of more than 70 experts from Columbia and around the world — neuropsychiatrists, neurologists, neuroimmunologists, rheumatologists, medical ethicists — to figure out what was going on.

The first conclusive evidence was in her bloodwork: It showed that her immune system was producing copious amounts and types of antibodies that were attacking her body. Brain scans showed evidence that these antibodies were damaging her brain’s temporal lobes, brain areas that are implicated in schizophrenia and psychosis.

The team hypothesized that these antibodies may have altered the receptors that bind glutamate, an important neurotransmitter, disrupting how neurons can send signals to one another.

Even though April had all the clinical signs of schizophrenia, the team believed that the underlying cause was lupus, a complex autoimmune disorder where the immune system turns on its own body, producing many antibodies that attack the skin, joints, kidneys or other organs. But April’s symptoms weren’t typical, and there were no obvious external signs of the disease; the lupus appeared to only be affecting her brain.

The autoimmune disease, it seemed, was a specific biological cause — and potential treatment target — for the neuropsychiatric problems April faced. (Whether her earlier trauma had triggered the disease or was unrelated to her condition wasn’t clear.)

The diagnosis made Markx wonder how many other patients like April had been missed and written off as untreatable.

“We don’t know how many of these people are out there,” Markx said. “But we have one person sitting in front of us, and we have to help her.”

Waking up after two decades

The medical team set to work counteracting April’s rampaging immune system and started April on an intensive immunotherapy treatment for neuropsychiatric lupus. Every month for six months, April would receive short, but powerful “pulses” of intravenous steroids for five days, plus a single dose of cyclophosphamide, a heavy-duty immunosuppressive drug typically used in chemotherapy and borrowed from the field of oncology. She was also treated with rituximab, a drug initially developed for lymphoma.

The regimen is grueling, requiring a month-long break between each of the six rounds to allow the immune system to recover. But April started showing signs of improvement almost immediately.

As part of a standard cognitive test known as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), she was asked to draw a clock — a common way to assess cognitive impairment. Before the treatment, she tested at the level of a dementia patient, drawing indecipherable scribbles.

But within the first two rounds of treatment, she was able to draw half a clock — as if one half of her brain was coming back online, Markx said.

Following the third round of treatment a month later, the clock looked almost perfect.

Despite this improvement, her psychosis remained. As a result, some members of the team wanted to transfer April back to Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, Markx said. At the time, Markx had to travel home to the Netherlands, and feared that in his absence, April would be returned to Pilgrim.

On the day Markx was scheduled to fly out, he entered the hospital one last time to check on his patient, who he typically found sitting in the dining room in her catatonic state.

But when Markx walked in, April didn’t seem to be there. Instead, he saw another woman sitting in the room.

“It didn’t look like the person I had known for 20 years and had seen so impaired,” Markx said. “And then I look a little closer, and I’m like, ‘Holy s---. It’s her.’”

It was as if April had awakened after more than 20 years.

“I’ve always wanted my sister to get back to who she was,” Guy Burrell said.

In 2020, April was deemed mentally competent to discharge herself from the psychiatric hospital where she had lived for nearly two decades, and she moved to a rehabilitation center.

Because of visiting restrictions related to covid, the family’s face-to-face reunion with April was delayed until last year. April’s brother, sister-in-law and their kids were finally able to visit her at a rehabilitation center, and the occasion was tearful and joyous.

“When she came in there, you would’ve thought she was a brand new person,” Guy Burrell said. “She knew all of us, remembered different stuff from back when she was a child.”

A video of the reunion shows that April was still tentative and fragile. But her family said she remembered her childhood home in Baltimore, the grades she got in school, being a bridesmaid in her brother’s wedding — seemingly everything up until when the autoimmune inflammatory processes began affecting her brain. She even recognized her niece, whom April had only seen as a small child, now a grown young woman. When her father hopped on a video call, April remarked “Oh, you lost your hair,” and burst out laughing, Guy Burrell recalled.

The family felt as if they’d witnessed a miracle.

“She was hugging me, she was holding my hand,” Guy Burrell said. “You might as well have thrown a parade because we were so happy, because we hadn’t seen her like that in, like, forever.”

“It was like she came home,” Markx said. “We never thought that was possible.”

Finding more forgotten patients

Markx talked about how, as a teenager, he saw the movie adaptation of Oliver Sacks’s “Awakenings,” featuring Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro, and how it had haunted him. “The notion that people are gone in these mental institutes and that they come back still, that has always stuck with me,” he said.

Before his death in 2015, Sacks had spoken to Markx about the discoveries involving patients like April. Sacks, also a professor at Columbia University, had a personal interest in the work. He had a brother with schizophrenia.

“Your work gives me hope about the outcomes we can achieve with our patients that I never before would have dreamed possible, as these are true cases of ‘Awakenings’ where people get to go back home to their families to live out their lives,” Sacks said, according to contemporaneous notes kept by Markx. (The statement was confirmed by Kate Edgar, Sacks’s long-term personal editor and executive director of the Oliver Sacks Foundation.)

After April’s unexpected recovery, the medical team put out an alert to the hospital system to identify any patients with antibody markers for autoimmune disease. A few months later Anca Askanase, a Columbia rheumatologist who had been on April’s treatment team, approached Markx. “I think we found our girl,” she said.

When Devine Cruz was 9, she began to hear voices. At first, the voices fought with one another. But as she grew older, the voices would talk about her. One night, the voices urged her to kill herself.

For more than a decade, the young woman moved in and out of hospitals for treatment. Her symptoms included visual and auditory hallucinations, as well as delusions that prevented her from living a normal life.

Devine was eventually diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, which can result in symptoms of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. She also was diagnosed with intellectual disability.

She was on a laundry list of drugs — two antipsychotic medications, lithium, clonazepam, Ativan and benztropine — that came with a litany of side effects but didn’t resolve all her symptoms. She was often unaware of what was going on; her hair was disheveled, and her medications caused her to shake and drool, her doctors said.

She also had lupus, which she had been diagnosed with when she was about 14, although doctors had never made a connection between the disease and her mental health.

When Markx and his team found Devine, she was 20 and held the adamant delusion that she was pregnant despite multiple negative pregnancy tests.

“That’s when she was probably at her worst,” said Sophia Chaudry, a precision psychiatry fellow at Columbia University Medical Center and physician who was closely involved in Devine’s care.

Last August, the medical team prescribed monthly immunosuppressive infusions of corticosteroids and chemotherapy drugs, a regime similar to what April had been given a few years prior. By October, there were already dramatic signs of improvement.

“She was like ‘Yeah, I gotta go,’” Markx said. “‘Like, I’ve been missing out.’”

After several treatments, Devine began developing awareness that the voices in her head were different from real voices, a sign that she was reconnecting with reality. She finished her sixth and final round of infusions in January.

In March, she was well enough to meet with a reporter. “I feel like I’m already better,” Devine said during a conversation in Markx’s office at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where she was treated. “I feel myself being a person that I was supposed to be my whole entire life.”

Her presence during the interview was at first timid and childlike. She said her excitement and anxiety about discussing her story reminded her of how she felt in school the day before a big field trip.

Although she had lost about 10 years of her life to her illness, she remembers many details. As a child, she did not know how to explain what she was going through to her family and often isolated herself in her room.

“Because the crisis was so bad, it felt like I was being mute,” Devine said. “I was talking without making any sense, so they wouldn’t understand what I was saying.”

Devine still remembers what the voices sounded like and the often disturbing images she hallucinated: a hand reaching down from the ceiling as she lay in bed, the creepy nurse with the crooked head and black teeth who approached her in the hospital.

She remembers the paranoia she felt at times. “I thought that the world was ending, I thought that the police were out to get me.”

But she also remembers that fateful first phone call with Markx when she learned that her lupus could be affecting her brain. She remembers asking, “If it affects my brain, what does this have to do with my mental illness?”

Her recovery is remarkable for several reasons, her doctors said. The voices and visions have stopped. And she no longer meets the diagnostic criteria for either schizoaffective disorder or intellectual disability, Markx said.

In a recent neuropsychiatric evaluation, Devine not only drew a perfect clock, but also asked how the physician was doing, a level of engagement that the doctor found so surprising that she noted it in the patient report.

But more importantly, Devine now recognizes that her previous delusions weren’t real. Such awareness is profound because many severely sick mental health patients never reach that understanding, Chaudry said.

Today, Devine lives with her mother and is leading a more active and engaged life. She helps her mother cook, goes to the grocery store and navigates public transportation to keep her appointments. She is even babysitting her siblings’ young children — listening to music, taking them to the park or watching “Frozen 2” — responsibilities her family never would have entrusted her with before her recovery.

She is grateful for her treatment and the team that made it possible. “Without their help, I wouldn’t be here,” Devine said.

“I feel more excited,” she said. “Like a new chapter is beginning.”

Expanding the search for more patients

While it is likely that only a subset of people diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychotic disorders have an underlying autoimmune condition, Markx and other doctors believe there are likely many more patients whose psychiatric conditions are caused or exacerbated by autoimmune issues.

The cases of April and Devine also helped inspire the development of the SNF Center for Precision Psychiatry and Mental Health at Columbia, which was named for the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, which awarded it a $75 million grant in April. The goal of the center is to develop new treatments based on specific genetic and autoimmune causes of psychiatric illness, said Joseph Gogos, co-director of the SNF Center.

Markx said he has begun care and treatment on about 40 patients since the SNF Center opened. The SNF Center is working with the New York State Office of Mental Health, which oversees one of the largest public mental health systems in America, to conduct whole genome sequencing and autoimmunity screening on inpatients at long-term facilities.

For “the most disabled, the sickest of the sick, even if we can help just a small fraction of them, by doing these detailed analyses, that’s worth something,” said Thomas Smith, chief medical officer for the New York State Office of Mental Health. “You’re helping save someone’s life, get them out of the hospital, have them live in the community, go home.”

Discussions are underway to extend the search to the 20,000 outpatients in the New York state system as well. Serious psychiatric disorders, like schizophrenia, are more likely to be undertreated in underprivileged groups. And autoimmune disorders like lupus disproportionately affect women and people of color with more severity.

Changing psychiatric care

How many people ultimately will be helped by the research remains a subject of debate in the scientific community. But the research has spurred excitement about the potential to better understand what is going on in the brain during serious mental illness.

“I think we, as basic neuroscientists, are now in a position, both conceptually and technologically, to contribute, and it’s our responsibility to do so,” said Richard Axel, Nobel laureate and co-director of Columbia’s Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute.

Emerging research has implicated inflammation and immunological dysfunction as potential players in a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions, including schizophrenia, depression and autism.

“It opens new treatment possibilities to patients that used to be treated very differently,” said Ludger Tebartz van Elst, a professor of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Medical Clinic Freiburg in Germany.

In one study, published last year in Molecular Psychiatry, Tebartz van Elst and his colleagues identified 91 psychiatric patients with suspected autoimmune diseases, and reported that immunotherapies benefited the majority of them.

Belinda Lennox, head of the psychiatry department at the University of Oxford, is enrolling patients in clinical trials to test the effectiveness of immunotherapy for autoimmune psychosis patients.

In addition to more common autoimmune conditions, researchers also have identified 17 diseases, many with different neurological and psychiatric symptoms, in which antibodies specifically target neurons, said Josep Dalmau, a neurologist at the University of Barcelona Hospital Clinic. Dalmau first identified one of the most common of these diseases, called anti-NMDA receptor autoimmune encephalitis.

As a result of the research, screenings for immunological markers in psychotic patients are already routine in Germany, where psychiatrists regularly collect samples from cerebrospinal fluid.

Markx is also doing similar screening with his patients. He believes highly sensitive and inexpensive blood tests to detect different antibodies should become part of the standard screening protocol for psychosis.

Also on the horizon: more targeted immunotherapy rather than current “sledgehammer approaches” that suppress the immune system on a broad level, said George Yancopoulos, the co-founder and president of the pharmaceutical company Regeneron.

“I think we’re at the dawn of a new era. This is just the beginning,” said Yancopoulos.

In June, Markx will present the findings at a conference organized by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation.

And Devine will be there to share her story in her own words.

“The message I want to give people is that there is time to heal,” Devine said. “There’s time to heal yourself from many obstacles you’ve been facing in life.”

The future for patients like April and Devine

April, who is turning 50 this year, has lived in a rehabilitation center for the past three years. Her family continues to visit, but she has recently regressed because she was not receiving adequate maintenance care, Markx said. Markx and April’s family remain optimistic that she will improve after resuming treatment.

“She would not want society to give up on her or people like her,” Guy Burrell said.

Devine, now 21, is still living with her family, writing poetry and hopes for a future helping others, possibly as an art therapist. She still needs support after losing more than a decade of her childhood.

Her experience is akin psychologically to being in a coma for 10 years, and then waking up “and the world’s moved on,” said Steven Kushner, co-director of the SNF Center. The treatment team is working to help Devine and other patients to catch up on lost time and navigate life after recovery.

Devine said she wants to help motivate others in their struggles. When asked to share a piece of her poetry, she picked “The Healing,” which reads, in part:

“Hello Dear,

I know you’re struggling, struggling to find out what’s wrong from right.

Figuring out is it even too late to start anything.

Going off based on fear

Is it even real.

Take your time dear one there’s no need to rush in a hurry.

You are precious to those around you…

You are not alone for the world has beautiful creations made just for you.”

— Devine Cruznone"

How autoimmune disease can attack the brain, cause psychiatric symptoms - The Washington Post

Wednesday, May 31, 2023

New SNAP work requirements, explained

New SNAP work requirements, explained

“Four ways the debt deal could affect who’s eligible for benefits such as SNAP and TANF

Larrilou Carumba, a furloughed housekeeper, pays for groceries using food stamps in Union City, Calif., in May 2020. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, which would raise the debt ceiling for the next two years and cut federal spending, is making its way through the House and Senate. If enacted, it will put an end to months of heated debate and political tension over the country’s economic and fiscal future.

A central issue in the standoff has been nutrition assistance programs for many low-income Americans, with Republicans seeking to insert work requirements that the Biden administration opposed.

The agreement, which must be voted on by Congress in the next few days, ultimately would institute new requirements for families who get benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

“If it passes, this plan would be the first major deficit-reducing budget agreement in almost a dozen years and would signal Washington is serious about making progress in addressing our mounting national debt,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the conservative-leaning Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

But in a twist, these changes could actually make these programs more expensive for the government in the long run, because more people would end up qualifying for aid, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Federal spending for SNAP and TANF is expected to rise by about $2.1 billion in the next 10 years, the analysis found.

Here are four things to know about the requirements in the proposed debt deal.

1. Older Americans on SNAP would face new work requirements

Current rules for SNAP benefits, which used to be called food stamps, require that adults up to age 49 work or participate in a training program for at least 80 hours a month. There are certain exceptions, though, including for people who are pregnant, have mental or physical limitations, or live with children.

If the deal is passed, the work requirements would apply to a new group: adults without dependents between 50 and 52 starting in October, and adults as old as 54 beginning next fall.

The new requirements could put hundreds of thousands of additional adults at risk of losing food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

Many older adults work part-time jobs — as crossing guards, store greeters or seasonal workers, for example — with hours that may not add up to 80 per month, said Ty Jones Cox, vice president of food assistance at CBPP.

“When we look at that older group, especially those with no children in the home and who aren’t eligible for other programs … they may be in jobs where they have had to work with their hands and bodies for years,” making it harder to work into their 50s, Jones Cox said. “These individuals may have a hard time finding another job, retraining or engaging in a new opportunity.”

2. Veterans, the homeless and young adults who recently left foster care will be exempt from SNAP work requirements

But the new legislation would also create new exceptions on exactly who is required to work. Veterans, people experiencing homelessness and adults ages 18 to 24 who were previously in foster care will all be newly exempt from the work requirement.

For the first time ever, Americans who are homeless would not need to meet work requirements to qualify for SNAP benefits, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia L. Fudge said on Twitter. This includes people who are unsheltered, living in shelters or temporarily living in someone else’s home, she said.

As a result, the Congressional Budget Office expects that more people — an additional 78,000 per month, on average — will qualify for SNAP benefits between 2025 and 2030, resulting in $1.8 billion in extra spending.

The extra funding and new exemptions will help some families, who have had to make do after pandemic-era boosts to food stamps ended in March. In Centerville, Va., Heather Thomas has been struggling to make ends meet after her family’s SNAP benefits were cut in half a couple of months ago.

Now, though, the provision for veterans may ward off additional cuts for her family.

Thomas’s husband, Andre, an honorably discharged combat veteran, has been struggling to find work since their small computer business failed in 2016. Thomas, 48, has four kids under 13 in the house, as well as two adult children. She said when her youngest, 6-year-old twins, were babies, she had complications from the pregnancy that rendered her permanently disabled and with ongoing health challenges.

“My husband has been trying to find a job, that’s his only goal,” she said earlier this month, when she worried that more stringent work requirements could put her family in an even more dire position. If the deal passes, Thomas’s family could be among those around the country who benefit.

3. States can still waive work requirements, though there are new wrinkles

States, which can waive work requirements in areas with insufficient jobs, would still be able to do so under the new rules. (An earlier Republican proposal had sought to restrict states’ ability to issue waivers.)

However, there could be some changes to how states dole out exemptions. Under current rules, states are allowed to waive work requirements for a limited number of people. Unused exemptions can be carried over indefinitely by states, which can stockpile them for future years.

Under the bill, though, states would receive fewer monthly exemptions and would be able to carry over unused exemptions for only one year.

4. Enhanced work requirements for TANF benefits in most states

TANF, a program that provides temporary cash for families in need, is also facing potential changes, though the actual impact on recipients will vary by state.

States design their own programs but are required to make sure that at least 50 percent of recipients are working. States can effectively reduce that 50 percent threshold based on how much their caseloads have fallen since 2005. For example, if the number of families receiving benefits has fallen by 20 percent since 2005, then only 30 percent of families would be required to meet work standards.

The new proposal overhauls that framework and sets the comparison year to 2015, instead of 2005. This means more states would have to boost their work requirements accordingly. States would have two years to implement the new rules. They can also lower their work participation requirements by contributing more state funding toward TANF benefits.

As a result, the CBO expects that the federal government would end up paying slightly less to states, because some states would not meet the work requirements. Those changes are expected to shave off $5 million in federal spending over the next decade.

Advocates for low-income families with children say the proposed changes could prompt some states to reduce cash aid to families, in part because “the work participation standards are impossible to meet,” according to LaDonna Pavetti, a senior fellow at CBPP.

“For many people who are homeless or face domestic violence or have a mental health issue, states can exempt them from work requirements,” she said. “But for everyone who is exempted, you need another person who is meeting the work requirements, and because benefits are so low in most states, few working families qualify for assistance.”

Supreme Court Guts Clean Water Act as Conservative Justices Side with Polluters and Developers

Supreme Court Guts Clean Water Act as Conservative Justices Side with Polluters and Developers

“We look at how a new Supreme Court ruling awards a major victory to polluters and land developers. In a 5-4 decision last week, the justices sharply limited the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect and preserve wetlands under the Clean Water Act. The ruling ends protections for about half of all the wetlands in the contiguous United States, jeopardizing access to safe drinking water for millions. “That just defies science, physics, commonsense,” says Earthjustice’s Sam Sankar, who urges Congress to take action to once again protect the country’s critical water resources.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

We turn now to look at another environmental story. In a major decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court sharply limited the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect and preserve wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was a 5-to-4 ruling. The justices wrote that the Clean Water Act only applies to wetlands with a, quote, “continuous surface connection” to larger bodies of water, excluding wetlands that are near other bodies of water. The ruling ends protections for about half of all the wetlands in the contiguous United States.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by fellow right-wing Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. However, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberal justices in opposing the weakening of the Clean Water Act. Kavanaugh wrote the decision will have, quote, “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States,” unquote.

The court’s decision is seen as a major victory for polluters and developers. At the White House, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre criticized the ruling.

PRESS SECRETARY KARINE JEAN-PIERRE: It will jeopardize the sources of clean drinking water for farmers, businesses and millions of Americans. Look, the Clean Water Act is the reason why America’s lakes today are swimmable, why we can fish in our streams and rivers, and why safe drinking water comes out of our taps. So, it was passed, as we all know, by a bipartisan majority in Congress back in 1972. It has since been used by Republican and Democratic administrations alike to protect our nation’s land and water.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the Sackett v. EPA ruling, we’re joined now by Sam Sankar, the senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, which filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the case on behalf of Native tribes seeking to defend existing water protections.

Can you summarize what the court ruled and the effect it will have on the environment in this country, Sam?

SAM SANKAR: Sure. Thank you for having me.

So, to step back for a moment, the Clean Water Act is one of the most successful environmental laws that we have. Congress passed this law in 1972 because it recognized that the nation’s waterways were deeply in peril. Rivers were on fire. Fish were dying by the millions. And the nation recognized that we had a major problem. So, cast against that backdrop, the Clean Water Act has been a major success. While there’s more to be done, our nation’s waterways are broadly cleaner, our water is safer to drink, and things are better. And wetlands are protected.

So, we are now in a situation where the Supreme Court’s new ruling takes away protections from over half of the nation’s 100 million acres of remaining wetlands. So, the Supreme Court’s ruling says that those wetlands are no longer covered by the federal protections of the Clean Water Act. And that’s going to have tremendous implications for everyone. And that’s because wetlands are a critical source of water for all of us, and they also serve to filter and protect and be part of the ecological fabric of our nation’s waterways.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Sam, could you be more specific about how the court determines the definition of wetlands versus what the Biden administration was saying, this whole issue of the surface connections of wetlands to waters of the United States?

SAM SANKAR: Sure. Several years ago, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, the court — in a minority opinion by Justice Scalia, a group, a small group, of conservatives attempted to argue that the Clean Water Act only protects the wetlands that are connected by surface water to nearby waters. That opinion did not gather a majority of votes of the Supreme Court. Instead, for over 45 years, we’ve had a system in which every presidential administration and Supreme Court opinions have said that it’s not just the waters and the wetlands that are touching the waters; it’s the wetlands that are nearby; it’s the wetlands that are adjacent.

So, the opinion says the adjacent wetlands are really only those that are actually touching the waters. And as Justice Kavanaugh himself recognized, that just defies science, common sense, physics and everyone’s understandings of how wetlands are related to waters.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what do you see as the next steps for those who want to protect the complete wetlands of the United States?

SAM SANKAR: What we need now is action from Congress, because the court’s opinion, while it expresses significant hostility to our nation’s environmental laws, can be addressed through legislation. Interestingly, when the Supreme Court ruled originally and Congress said originally that adjacent wetlands were protected, there’s been a massive lobbying effort over the last 45 years to weaken those protections. And, in fact, it has entirely failed. Now we can go back to Congress and say, “Do what you need to do to clarify to the Supreme Court that the Clean Water Act protects all our nation’s waters, including the wetlands that our waters depend on for their health.”

AMY GOODMAN: The conservative Supreme Court justices, their records, and what overall the court is going to see in the coming months, the cases you’re most concerned about, Sam?

SAM SANKAR: Well, it’s important to recognize that this Sackett decision is part of a thread of decisions from the Supreme Court. In last year’s —

AMY GOODMAN: And can you explain who Sackett is?

SAM SANKAR: Sure. The Sacketts are a family in Idaho that decided to develop on their property without a permit. They owned an excavation company and were aware of what the law said, but they called in that excavation company to dump an enormous amount of fill on their land. Their neighbors complained and asked the EPA to take a look at the property. And the EPA said, “You know, you a permit for this.” The Sacketts, rather than getting a permit, decided to fight and to go to the Supreme Court.

AMY GOODMAN: Sam Sankar, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Earthjustice’s senior vice president for programs. He’s speaking to us from Santa Fe, New Mexico.“

New Oral History Peers Back at Obama, His Era and the Tradeoffs He Made

New Oral History Peers Back at Obama, His Era and the Tradeoffs He Made

“The first of 470 interviews of Obama administration officials and others involved in the debates of the time offer a fresh inside look at a consequential presidency.

Then-president Barack Obama in 2013. A first set of interviews for a new oral history project on the Obama administration is set to be released on Wednesday.
Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Peter Baker

Peter Baker, who covered the Obama presidency and wrote The New York Times book “Obama: The Call of History,” reported this story from Washington.

WASHINGTON — On a day of high drama at an international climate change conference early in his administration, President Barack Obama confronted a senior Chinese official who offered what the American delegation considered a weak commitment. Mr. Obama dismissed the offer. Not good enough.

The Chinese official erupted. “What do you mean that’s not good enough? Why isn’t that good enough?” he demanded. He referred to a past conversation with John Kerry, then a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. “I talked to Senator Kerry and Senator Kerry said that was good enough.”

Mr. Obama looked at him evenly. “Well,” he replied, “Senator Kerry is not president of the United States.”

That moment of sharp relief, a clash with an intransigent foreign apparatchik by a young American president feeling his own way, comes to life in a new oral history project on the Obama administration released on Wednesday. Six years after Mr. Obama left office, the project by Incite, a social science research institute at Columbia University, has assembled perhaps the most extensive collection of interviews from the era to date.

Researchers interviewed 470 Obama administration veterans, critics, activists and others who were in the thick of major events back then, including Mr. Obama and the first lady, Michelle Obama, amassing a total of 1,100 hours of recordings. Transcripts of the interviews are being released in batches over the next three years, starting with a first set of 17 made public on Wednesday focused on climate change, a central issue then that continues to shape the national debate today.

“There will be hundreds of new insights that come from this study, many of which will change our understanding of the Obama presidency and the period from 2008 to 2016 more generally,” said Peter Bearman, founding director of Incite and the principal investigator for the Obama oral history project.

Mr. Obama shakes hands as he moves through a crowded arena.
Mr. Obama at campaign rally in Jacksonville, Fla., in November 2008. The election of America’s first Black president was a moment of great hope and expectation.Damon Winter/The New York Times

What makes Mr. Obama’s presidency distinctive is the way it resonated around the world in the “Obama moment,” as Evan McCormick, who led the foreign policy part of the project, put it. “One thing that becomes clear in our interviews is that the moment of great hope and expectation ushered in by the election of the first Black president was a global one,” he said.

Oral histories of past presidencies have become valuable resources for historians and researchers in recent decades. The Miller Center at the University of Virginia has conducted such projects going back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. The Columbia project was organized with the support of the Obama Foundation.

The first tranche of interviews does not include those of the former president, first lady or other major recognizable figures from the Obama era. Instead, it is tightly focused on one issue that the researchers deemed vital to his presidency, a wonk’s feast of policy discussion rather than a broader look at Mr. Obama himself or his overall eight years in power.

Climate Forward  There’s an ongoing crisis — and tons of news. Our newsletter keeps you up to date.

Still, some flavor of his management behind the scenes comes through even in these limited initial interviews. As he sucked down his favorite Fiji water, Mr. Obama would tease scientists and engineers. “I stayed away from you all in school,” he would say. “I’m a lawyer. I don’t like math. I don’t do math.” And when Steven Chu, his Nobel Prize-winning physicist-turned-energy secretary, showed up with 30 slides when five would have sufficed, an exasperated president would say, “Steve, we’ve got it. We’ve got it. We don’t need to look at any more of those.”

The focus on climate change in the first set of interviews also highlighted the larger trade-offs Mr. Obama made between competing priorities. The transcripts make clear, for instance, how he put off major legislative action on climate change in favor of health care at the start of his tenure in 2009, perhaps dooming chances for the sweeping measure he would eventually advocate.

At one point as he was expending all of his influence to pass the Affordable Care Act, he ruefully explained his priorities to Mr. Chu. “Look, I know I said energy and health care, but next year,” he said. “Energy is next.”

Mr. Obama, surrounded by a group of men and women, signs a document on a small wooden desk.
Mr. Obama signing the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. Interviews reveal how he put off major legislative action on climate change in favor of health care at the start of his tenure in 2009.Doug Mills/The New York Times

By the time he turned his attention to a clean energy plan in the form of a cap-and-trade system that would create market incentives to reduce greenhouse emissions, Mr. Obama’s political capital had been drained. The bill he pushed made it through the House but not the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“With Obama, I was just so absolutely hopeful,” recalled Carol M. Browner, his White House coordinator for energy and climate change policy. “I just felt like, we’re finally here on climate change. And we were. Then the Senate would never take up the bill.”

Mr. Chu, who considered Mr. Obama “an extraordinary president” for putting aside personal politics, nonetheless gave voice to the disappointment of many of his allies that he did not try harder to pressure Congress. In his oral history interview, Mr. Chu compared Mr. Obama with President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was famous for strong-arming lawmakers into passing landmark civil rights laws and the Great Society anti-poverty program.

“He was less connected with Congress than I would have hoped,” Mr. Chu said. At one point in 2012, he recalled asking Mr. Obama if he had seen Steven Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln,” which recounted the moral compromises made to pass the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. “Now I’m not asking President Obama to do immoral things,” Mr. Chu said. “But to shake down and use the power of the presidency to really garner votes was something I wish he had done more of. He was too much of a gentleman, too standoffish about that.”

After his re-election in 2012, Mr. Obama recommitted to saving the planet from ecological ruin. “Obama came into the second term clearly ready to rock and roll on climate change,” said Todd Stern, his special envoy for climate change at the State Department, who recounted for the Columbia interviewers the painstaking path to the Paris climate accord sealed in 2015, including the scene with the Chinese official. “Obama comes in like gangbusters.”

Mr. Obama looks out into swamp lands next to three park rangers.
Mr. Obama during a tour of Everglades National Park in 2015. After his re-election in 2012, he recommitted to saving the planet from ecological jeopardy.Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Mr. Obama’s successor, President Donald J. Trump, subsequently pulled the United States out of the Paris accord, but President Biden has rejoined the agreement.

The oral history organizers made a point of interviewing those dissatisfied with Mr. Obama as well, such as Bill McKibben, a longtime environmental activist and writer who helped found 350.org, a global grass-roots organization.

“My impatience with Mr. Obama and many others on this front is that I think they tended to group it,” meaning climate change, “with other problems that they faced and think about it in the same way that they thought about other things, as one item on a checklist,” he said.

“No matter how much I liked him,” Mr. McKibben added, “it was very clear he could care less about any of this stuff at some deep level and wasn’t willing to sacrifice — suffer any political pain in order to raise the issue.”

But his advisers insisted that Mr. Obama did care and said he regretted his early failures. Just before going out to the East Room of the White House in 2015 to announce his Clean Power Plan imposing caps on power plant carbon emissions, he told Gina McCarthy, his Environmental Protection Agency chief and later Mr. Biden’s climate adviser, that he was determined to take action for the sake of his two daughters.

“I promised to do something on climate,” he told her. “I didn’t get it delivered in my first term. And this is so meaningful.”

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent and has covered the last five presidents for The Times and The Washington Post. He is the author of seven books, most recently “The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021,” with Susan Glasser.“