Seniors will pay more for Medicare, and it isn’t necessary.

First, we’ll explain what is projected to happen. Then we’ll discuss the reasons. And finally, we will offer a better solution.

Here are some excerpts from an article in the 10/13/2026 Florida Sun Sentinel:

Seniors will pay more for Medicare in 2027; big changes coming across all plans Big changes coming across all plans in 2027
By Cindy Krischer Goodman, South Florida Sun Sentinel

Florida’s 5.3 million Medicare enrollees face a sweeping financial squeeze in 2027 as rising monthly premiums, higher prescription deductibles, and shrinking Medicare Advantage benefits hit simultaneously.

Medicare experts warn that keeping coverage on “autopilot” during Open Enrollment (through Dec. 7) could take a heavy toll on seniors’ fixed incomes come January.

“It looks like Medicare is going to be more expensive,” said Beatrice Scafidi, SHINE liaison with the Area Agency on Aging of Palm Beach/Treasure Coast. “I think the deductible and premiums are going to go up, and your visits to the doctor will cost you more.

Your co-pays are going to go up, so if you paid $10 bucks to see your primary last year, you may need to pay $20.”

An additional 140,000 Florida seniors enrolled in Medicare for 2027. Federal projections show as many as 700,000 additional Floridians joining Medicare by 2030.

Despite a growing pool of paying members, insurers face severe profit squeezes and operational strains that are reshaping how care is delivered in the Sunshine State. 

Almost all Florida seniors will be affected as Medicare Advantage plans pare benefits and raise deductibles, while traditional Medicare sees higher Part D out-of-pocket spending caps and the elimination of $0-premium standalone drug plans.

Higher Original Medicare costs for 2027
As Florida’s Medicare population swells, upcoming federal cost-sharing adjustments to Medicare Part B will affect seniors whether they choose Original Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

For those on Original Medicare, the monthly Part B premium — which covers physician visits, outpatient services, diagnostic tests, and preventive screenings — is projected to rise to $209.50 in 2027, up $6.60 per month.

Because premiums are deducted directly from Social Security checks, this increase — combined with higher prescription deductibles — will eat into seniors’ annual Cost-of-Living Adjustment before the money arrives.

In addition, the annual Part B deductible is projected to rise about 3% to $292 in 2027, up $9 from $283 the previous year.

Medigap plans get more costly
For most Florida seniors, Medigap (Medicare Supplement) policies will also cost more in 2027. Carriers nationwide are raising monthly rates, driven by seniors seeking more medical care and policyholders growing older.

The above are reasons #1 and #2.

#1 People want more medical care
#2 Policy holders are growing older.

In Florida, supplements have become an increasingly popular way to cover the 20% uncapped coinsurance left by Original Medicare. Adding a Medigap policy generally costs between $150 and $300 or more per month, depending on plan type, location, age, gender, and tobacco status.

“Medicare supplements on average are going up 10 to 15 percent yearly. Even the high deductible Plan G, which usually never has an increase, is getting hit,” said Evan Tunis, president of E&M Global Insurance in Parkland.

Hollywood insurance broker Ricky Rash with Health Options USA sees the same trend. “Anybody who’s on straight Medicare with a supplement is going to be in for sticker shock,” he said.

Medicare Advantage plans shift costs to enrollees
A defining feature of Florida’s Medicare Advantage market is the prevalence of plans charging no monthly premium beyond the beneficiary’s required Part B expense. That trend continues in 2027, with approximately 77% of Broward County’s plan choices and 74% of Palm Beach County’s offering $0 monthly premiums.

Across all plans in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services landscape, the average monthly consolidated premium for Medicare Advantage with Part D is $6.35 in Broward County and $7.81 in Palm Beach County.

However, a $0-premium plan can still require substantial deductibles, specialist copays, and prescription cost-sharing. Provider networks can also differ significantly between plans. As a result, choosing a plan based solely on monthly premiums can be misleading. As Rash points out, two $0-premium options can differ by thousands of dollars in total out-of pocket spending over a year depending on an individual’s health needs.

Heading into 2027, private insurers are responding to rising healthcare usage and tighter federal risk-adjustment rules by raising specialist copays, increasing inpatient hospital charges, and shifting more services from flat copays to percentage-based coinsurance.

Reason #3. Private insurers, facing higher costs, must increase premiums.

“The importance of reviewing coverage is particularly high for people already enrolled in Medicare Advantage,” said Scafidi with SHINE, noting that carriers may remain in a county while quietly modifying copays, benefits or doctor networks.

Florida has long been a leading market for Part B Premium Reduction (“giveback”) plans, in which Medicare Advantage carriers credit money directly back into a beneficiary’s Social Security check. For 2027, several major carriers are scaling down or eliminating these rebate dollars altogether.

Insurers are also raising annual out-of-pocket maximums. If an enrollee faces a major illness or hospital stay, they could pay significantly more before coverage kicks in at 100%.

Drug costs will rise
Whether an enrollee relies on Original Medicare or Medicare Advantage, medication expenses are heading up in 2027.
Nationally, about 25 million people are enrolled in standalone Medicare Part D plans, while another 31 million are in Medicare Advantage plans that include prescription drug coverage, according to a KFF analysis of CMS data.

In Florida, more than 3.1 million seniors are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans with drug coverage, while about 850,000 rely on standalone Part D plans paired with Original Medicare. In 2027, 11 standalone Part D plans will be offered across all Florida counties, up from 10 in 2026.

CMS reports that 52.69% of Floridians in standalone Part D plans have access to a lower-premium option than in 2026. Monthly standalone premiums in Florida range from $5.30 for a Centene/Wellcare plan to $326 for a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida plan.

Seniors should evaluate more than just monthly premiums. Standard Part D prescription deductibles jump nearly 14% to $700 in 2027 (up from $615 in 2026). The annual out-of pocket prescription spending cap rises to $2,400 (up from $2,100 in 2026). Once beneficiaries reach this threshold, covered prescriptions are 100% free for the rest of the
calendar year.

Seniors can also use the Medicare Prescription Payment Plan, a voluntary program launched by CMS that allows Part D enrollees to spread out-of-pocket pharmacy costs into manageable monthly installments throughout the year. “It doesn’t lower the amount, it just spreads costs out,” said Alex Cottrill, a KFF senior policy analyst for Medicare. “That’s an option some people might not be aware of.”

Cottrill also noted that Medicare is expanding coverage for GLP-1 weight-loss medications (such as Wegovy or Zepbound) prescribed for chronic weight management under a federal bridge initiative running through 2027.
“In the past, these medications were only covered when prescribed for diabetes or vascular effects, not obesity. Now under the bridge program, through 2027, those prescribed for weight management can get their script covered. You just need to be enrolled in part D to qualify,” Cottrill said.

Reason #4. More drugs are covered.

Doctor and hospital network changes
When reviewing the 2027 Annual Notice of Change or comparing options on Medicare.gov, beneficiaries should not assume their doctors remain in-network simply because the insurer hasn’t changed, warned Tunis, of E&M Global Insurance.

Healthcare systems and physician practices frequently terminate carrier contracts. For example, UHealth will be out of network for UnitedHealthcare’s Preferred Care Network starting Jan. 1. “You will need to speak to your primary care doctor and specialists and ask, ‘Do you accept Medicare Advantage next year? And if so, what plans are you taking?’” Tunis said.

Reason #5. Networks are changing.

Star Ratings overhaul and new marketing rules
CMS is executing a structural overhaul of its Star Ratings program for 2027, removing 11 administrative metrics to focus on clinical quality, health outcomes, and patient experience. With fewer total measures, remaining clinical scores carry significantly more weight toward a plan’s final 1-to-5 star rating.

Insurance broker Rash believes this rating overhaul is accelerating plan consolidations across Florida. “They’re starting to consolidate because their whole goal is to get these star ratings up, because the higher their star rating, the more money the government gives them,” Rash said. “So, instead of offering 10 plans and getting a three-star rating, they just want two or three plans to get that four, four-and-a-half and five-star rating.”

Cottrill cautions against relying solely on star ratings when selecting coverage: “A plan could have an excellent star rating, and it’s not a good fit if you want to keep your doctor who is not in network. That plan might not fit no matter how high its star ratings.”

Reason #6. Medicare’s private carrier ratings have changed.

Other key updates for 2027 include changes in marketing rules. Brokers no longer face a mandatory 12-hour wait period between educational seminars and sales presentations. “Now that marketing can occur closer to educational spaces, beneficiaries should remain cautious and evaluate claims critically,” Cottrill advised.< br/>

Reason #7. Changes in marketing rules

In addition, Original Medicare is expanding home-based technology coverage for managing chronic conditions such as heart failure, COPD, substance use disorders, and nicotine dependence. “Once you’re on Medicare, you have to adapt because it’s never going to be the same from year to year,” Rash said.

Reason #8. Coverages are changing.

Here summarized, are the 8 reasons given for why you are told to pay more for health care insurance: 

#1. People want more medical care
#2. Policy holders are growing older.
#3. Private insurers, facing higher costs, must increase premiums.
#4. More drugs are covered.
#5. Networks are changing.
#6. Medicare’s private carrier ratings have changed.
#7. Changes in marketing rules
#8. Coverages are changing.

Now here are the facts you are not being told:

The federal government is “Monetarily Sovereign,” which means it can spend forever. It does not need or use your tax dollars. The sole purposes of federal taxes are to:

• control the economy by taxing what it want to discorage and giving tax breaks to what it wants to reward and
• ensure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring taxes be paid in dollars.

That’s it. Unlike state and local taxes which do fund state and local spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending. All federal spending is funded by new money creation, ad hoc.

Further, federal deficit spending does not cause inflation. All inflations are caused by shortages of crucial goods and services — usually energy and food. Inflations are cured, not by federal spending cuts, but rather by federal spending increases to foster the availability of the scarce items.

And contrary to popular rumor, federal spending does not “crowd out” private borrowing or investment. The false story goes like this:

• The federal government runs a larger deficit and issues more Treasury securities.
• The government supposedly competes with private borrowers for a limited pool of savings.
• This competition pushes interest rates upward.
• Higher interest rates discourage businesses from borrowing to build factories, buy equipment, or expand production.
• Consequently, government borrowing supposedly crowds out private investment

The facts are:

• The federal government does not need to issue Treasury securities. Their only purpose is to provide a safe storage place for unused dollars and to help control interest rates. They do not fund federal spending.
• The government never borrows dollars, and the pool of savings is not limited by federal spending, which actually increases the pool of private savings.
• It’s true that higher rates would be economically recessive, but federal spending does not cause higher rates. The Fed does that, arbitrarily, in a misguided effort to fight inflation.
• Inflation is prevented and cured by additional federal spending to prevent and cure shortages of crucial goods and services.

A Better Way

Instead of asking, “How can we increase Medicare’s revenues or reduce its benefits enough to balance its accounts?” we should ask: “How can we provide comprehensive medical care to every American while maintaining adequate medical capacity and preventing excessive inflation?”

I propose a federally financed Medicare for All system, accompanied by a national program to expand the supply of medical services. Its design would have several essential features:

1. Universal coverage. Cover necessary medical care for Americans of every age, without employment-based eligibility.
2. No premiums, deductibles, or copayments for covered care. Remove financial barriers that cause patients to postpone treatment.
3. Federal payment. Eliminate the need to match Medicare expenditures to dedicated FICA collections. Congress would authorize the spending needed to operate the program.
4. Eliminate the Medicare payroll tax. Replace its dedicated financing role rather than continuing to collect it merely to maintain the existing accounting structure.
5. Expand medical capacity. Finance additional medical education, residency positions, nursing programs, hospitals, clinics, equipment, and research. Otherwise, broader coverage could increase demand faster than supply

All eight of the “Reasons given for why you are told to pay more for health care insurance” could be avoided by a federally paid Medicare for All program, with no premiums, deductibles, copayments, or dedicated tax requirement, accompanied by federal investment to expand medical education, staffing, facilities, equipment, and pharmaceutical production.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

 

 

Consciousness: A Definition Science Can Use

In October 2026, New Scientist magazine published the article,  “Do AIs already process information in a way that gives rise to consciousness?“

For more than two thousand years, philosophers have debated the nature of consciousness. More recently, neuroscientists and artificial intelligence researchers have joined the search. Yet much of that effort remains entangled in a fundamental problem: Consciousness often is defined in terms that resist scientific observation, measurement, or verification.

The New Scientist article, “Do AIs already process information in a way that gives rise to consciousness?“, illustrates this difficulty. It explores whether artificial intelligence systems might possess consciousness because their information-processing mechanisms resemble certain processes in the human brain.

The investigation is worthwhile. The difficulty isn’t in studying information processing, but in assuming that information processing must somehow produce an additional phenomenon called “subjective experience.”

Science has spent centuries trying to explain consciousness while defining it in terms that resist scientific investigation. Rather than search for a physical explanation of an undefined subjective essence, we should define consciousness as a physical process and investigate its manifestations.

The Article’s Central Claims

The article examines whether artificial intelligence systems may process information in ways that give rise to consciousness. It draws on distinctions between kinds of consciousness and theories of how the brain makes information available for thought and action.

The following three claims summarize the conceptual approach discussed in its accessible material. They are interpretations, not direct quotations from the author.

Claim A: Consciousness involves subjective experience.
The article discusses what philosophers call phenomenal consciousness: the supposedly private, subjective character of an experience.

For example, a person sees a red apple. Scientists can investigate the light entering the eye, the neural signals traveling to the brain, the recognition of the apple, and the person’s responses. But philosophers ask an additional question: What is it like to see red?

That question introduces the notion of qualia—the supposedly distinctive subjective qualities of experiences. But what, exactly, are they proposing?

QUALIA: The individual, subjective, phenomenal instances of conscious experience, essentially, “what it is like” to feel, taste, see, or hear something. 

Key Characteristics:

If qualia are physical processes, we can investigate them as such. If they aren’t physical, what evidence establishes their existence, and how could science investigate them? Merely naming an unexplained phenomenon doesn’t explain it.

Claim B: Certain information-processing mechanisms may produce consciousness
The article discusses theories in which information becomes widely available across a system, enabling memory, reasoning, decision-making, and coordinated action.

Global workspace theory is one example. These mechanisms are legitimate subjects of scientific investigation. Researchers can study how information travels, how memories affect decisions, and how different system components interact.

The difficulty arises when researchers ask whether these processes give rise to consciousness, understood as an additional subjective phenomenon. Why assume that the observable processes must produce something beyond themselves?

This is like studying the chemical reactions involved in life and then asking whether those reactions produce an invisible vital force. Before investigating its production, we must first define the additional phenomenon.

Claim C: Artificial intelligence may or may not be conscious, depending on whether it possesses the necessary mechanisms
The article considers whether artificial systems possess information-processing architectures sufficiently similar to those associated with human consciousness. That is a legitimate engineering and scientific question.

But why should an AI system need to resemble a human brain to be conscious? A bird flies by flapping its wings. An airplane flies without flapping wings. Both fly. Likewise, a human responds to stimuli through biological neurons. A computer responds through electronic circuits. A thermostat responds through temperature-sensitive mechanisms.

Their capabilities differ enormously. Their structures differ. Their histories differ. But why should those differences determine whether they qualify as conscious?

That question becomes particularly troublesome when consciousness is defined by something that nobody has established how to identify independently.

An alternative scientific approach
Rather than begin with subjective experience and search for its physical causes, we can begin with an observable physical process.

Proposition D: Define consciousness physically
Consciousness is the process by which an entity’s history shapes its responses to internal and external stimuli.

This definition requires no supernatural substance, mysterious inner observer, or unmeasurable subjective ingredient.
It identifies three essential elements:

• History: The entity’s accumulated physical state, including its structure and the effects of previous interactions.
• Stimulus: Any internal or external influence that produces a response.
• Response: The resulting physical activity or change. Each response becomes part of the entity’s history, shaping its responses to future stimuli.
  The process can be expressed as: History + Stimulus —> Response —> New History.

This is a recursive physical process. No qualia are required.

Proposition E: Consciousness is universal, but its manifestations differ
Under this definition, consciousness isn’t a special possession of humans or a privilege granted to sufficiently sophisticated organisms. It is a process occurring throughout the physical universe.

An atom responds according to its physical properties and history. A cell responds through biochemical processes. A human responds through extraordinarily complex biological systems. A computer responds through electronic processes and its programmed and accumulated states. The differences are in the structures, histories, stimuli, and responses.

Consider a two-year-old child and an adult mathematician. The mathematician can solve equations that the child can’t. But this doesn’t establish that the mathematician is conscious while the child isn’t.

Similarly, a dog detects odors humans can’t. This shows a difference in sensory capabilities, not the presence of some mysterious ingredient.

One entity may exhibit more elaborate forms of consciousness than another, but complexity isn’t a prerequisite for the fundamental process.

Nor must all parts of an entity respond identically or communicate continuously. We can examine a human heart, its individual cells, and the human body as a whole as entities at different organizational levels. Each has its own history-dependent responses.

A crowd provides another example. When hundreds of people witness a frightening event, their individual responses may combine into a collective response. They don’t need a mysterious shared mind. Researchers can investigate their collective behavior through the histories, connections, stimuli, and responses of the participating individuals.

In this formulation, consciousness can be examined at whatever organizational level is scientifically useful.

Proposition F: Study the processes, not an assumed invisible product
This approach changes the questions scientists ask. Instead of asking, “Does this computer really experience anything?” we can ask: How does its history influence its responses? How does it retain information? How do internal processes affect its behavior? How do its responses modify its future behavior?

Instead of asking, “Does an anesthetized patient still possess qualia?” we can investigate which neurological processes continue, which are suppressed, and which responses become possible when anesthesia ends.

Instead of asking, “Does a thermostat have subjective awareness?” we can investigate how its physical structure and previous states determine its responses to temperature.

These are scientifically answerable questions. They don’t require us to pretend that all entities have identical capabilities. Nor do they require us to establish an arbitrary threshold beyond which consciousness supposedly appears. They require us to investigate observable physical processes.

A predictable objection is that the proposed definition is too broad. If consciousness is history-dependent responsiveness, does that include virtually every physical interaction? Yes, but broadness alone doesn’t invalidate a definition.

Gravity operates throughout the universe. Its universality doesn’t make it scientifically useless. Similarly, chemistry describes processes occurring in living and nonliving matter. Biology investigates particular organizations of those processes.
A universal definition of consciousness doesn’t eliminate specialized investigations of memory, perception, learning, intelligence, emotion, or self-recognition.

It can provide a common framework for studying them.

Yes, this proposed definition departs significantly from how philosophers and neuroscientists traditionally use the term. It doesn’t aim to invalidate existing philosophical discourse. Rather, it suggests replacing an elusive, non-operational concept with a physically testable framework, ultimately clarifying the scope of scientific inquiry into consciousness.

The lesson from vitalism
For centuries, some philosophers and scientists believed living organisms possessed a special vital force that distinguished them from nonliving matter. Life supposedly required something beyond ordinary chemistry and physics.

Modern biology advanced by investigating the physical processes of living systems without invoking an additional force.
Scientists discovered increasingly detailed mechanisms of metabolism, reproduction, heredity, and cellular organization.
Those explanations made the concept of a vital force unnecessary.

Perhaps consciousness research faces a comparable conceptual obstacle.

We investigate neural activity, perception, memory, emotions, and responses. Yet we continue asking whether these processes somehow generate an additional, privately experienced phenomenon. But what evidence requires that additional phenomenon?

The fact that humans describe their experiences doesn’t establish a separate, nonphysical ingredient. Those descriptions themselves are physical responses, produced by physical systems with particular histories. The scientifically useful question is how those responses arise.

We can study every aspect of love without postulating a nonphysical essence of love. It should likewise be possible to study consciousness without postulating a nonphysical essence of consciousness.

What this means for artificial intelligence
The article’s question—whether artificial intelligence already processes information in ways that give rise to consciousness—can be reformulated. Rather than asking whether AI produces an additional phenomenon called consciousness, ask how its history shapes its responses to stimuli.

An AI system’s history may include its hardware design, training, learned parameters, current inputs, and information retained during operation. These influence its responses. Under the proposed definition, that is consciousness.

Scientifically interesting questions then concern the characteristics of that consciousness:

• How does it differ from human consciousness?
• What kinds of information can it retain?
• How does it modify its responses?
• What limitations arise from its structure?
• How does it interact with other systems?

We can study these questions without first determining whether an AI has a metaphysical, magical, undefined, inner feeling.

Importantly, calling an AI conscious under this definition doesn’t establish that it feels pain, experiences love, possesses humanlike awareness, or deserves any particular moral status. Those are separate questions requiring their own definitions and evidence.

If, for instance, feeling pain is a criterion for consciousness, then virtually all animals would qualify, and we don’t know whether plants would. We also know that we could  program a computer to physically respond in ways that mimic human pain, and by the definition of “inner feelings,” we would have no way to determine whether the feeling is “real.” 

The same goes for love, awareness, and morals. In each case, an arbitrary definition might determine inclusion, yet we still would lack evidence.

Conclusion: We should stop searching for an undefined “subjective essence” and instead ground our research in observable reality. The New Scientist article highlights both the potential and the pitfalls of current consciousness studies. While its investigation into the physical mechanisms of information processing is promising, its lingering tendency to frame consciousness as a mysterious, untestable byproduct of those mechanisms remains a significant obstacle to scientific progress.

The alternative proposed here is simpler and testable: Consciousness is a physical process: the interaction of history and stimuli. The definition establishes a physical subject for scientific investigation:

History + Stimulus —> Response —> New History

Science contains many examples of progress achieved by abandoning unnecessary assumptions. The rejection of vitalism is one. Replacing supernatural explanations with physical mechanisms is another.

We don’t deny the reality of pain, love, perception, thought, or emotion. We only need to investigate them as physical processes rather than treating them as evidence of an additional, undefined substance or property.

Science has spent centuries trying to explain consciousness while defining it in terms that resist scientific investigation. The proposal is that scientists investigate consciousness without first assuming something that can’t be defined or measured. 

Researchers sometimes investigate measurable physical processes while retaining an additional, poorly specified criterion for deciding whether those processes constitute consciousness. Instead, we challenge the necessity of that criterion. We have replaced an argument about an inaccessible property with an investigation of observable processes.

Some might claim that a computer isn’t conscious because it lacks subjective experience, or qualia. The response: “How do you know?” No one can observe an AI’s supposed subjective experience directly. Nor can they inspect a human’s. They can investigate physical structures, processes, and responses, but those observations don’t independently establish whether qualia are present.

Some might argue that an AI lacks the necessary biological mechanisms. But that assumes biology is necessary for consciousness—the very proposition they would need to demonstrate.

Others assume biology alone isn’t enough, and that many biological entities aren’t conscious.

Under the suggested definition, consciousness is observable. Under the qualia-based definition, we can’t conclusively demonstrate either AI consciousness or its lack.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Trump pauses new Russia sanctions passed by Congress amid deepening row with Ukraine

President signed the legislation championed by late senator Lindsey Graham last month but has waived the restrictions as they were due to come into effect.

Donald Trump has put on hold a sweeping new sanctions package targeting the Russian economy, telling Congress the pause on the legislation passed by both chambers was in the national interest.

No, it wasn’t in the national interest. It was in Trump’s personal interest, which always has come before national interest.

In an executive order on Friday, the US president said he was waiving many ⁠sanctions, restrictions and duties ⁠on Russia, in a move that comes as he has been publicly criticising ⁠Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, including suggesting that Ukraine needs a ​new leader.

The move was greeted by Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who wrote on social media: “The Trump administration’s suspension of the Graham Act is an important and truly historic moment.”

This is a low point for America. Big Russia attacks little Ukraine, and America sides with Russia. What a disgrace.

No American can be proud of what this president is doing for his own financial gain.

We now will see whether the Republican Party will continue to go along with this dishonor for Ameria. 

The president has face widespread criticism after making the announcement, with a dozen US senators – including six Republicans – calling on Trump ⁠to rescind his diesel deal.

A letter from the bipartisan group of lawmakers sent on Tuesday urged Trump to execute the sanctions authorities included in the legislation passed last month, called the “Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026”.

Zelenskyy said on Friday the diesel deal would mean cash “will start flowing back into Russia”, as he met European leaders in Brussels.

Trump ⁠blindsided Zelenskyy last weekend by announcing that Ukraine and Russia had agreed not to target each other’s energy facilities. Facing midterm elections next month, Trump has blamed Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries for ​pushing up energy prices that could cost his Republican party its thin majorities in the US ‌Senate and House of Representatives.

Trump blames Ukraine for defending themselves against the aggressor. What nation would trust America, now?

Who could even admire America, now?

I am so ashamed of us. I cannot imagine any patriotic American voting Republican at this stage. It is an absolute humiliation.

Trump is in bed with Putin because:

1. Putin has something on him — damning videos of Trump with women — something in that vein, and
2. Putin has promised to make Trump richer with Trump Tower Moscow, Trump casinos, and other Trump enrichments. That is why Putin backed Trump in every election.

This is the most blatant in a long list of Trump’s traitorous grifting. The Republican Party has sunk to a new low. It now officially is the Communist Party of Russia.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

They all were attractive women, depending on your taste. But were any of them the most fit for the job? What were their main qualifications?

Second Trump administration (2025–2026)

Woman	Position	Departure
Kristi Noem	Secretary of Homeland Security	Fired, March 2026; reassigned to another role
Pam Bondi	Attorney General	Fired, April 2026
Lori Chavez-DeRemer	Secretary of Labor	Resigned, April 2026
Tulsi Gabbard	Director of National Intelligence	Resigned, June 2026
Kimberly Guilfoyle	Ambassador to Greece	Asked to resign, October 2026
Karoline Leavitt	White House press secretary	Resigned, August 2026, citing family reasons
Katie Zacharia	White House press secretary	Dismissed, October 16, 2026, after approximately five days

The Most Qualified in America?

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the already obsolete article about Zacharia:

Trump casts doubt on press secretary Zacharia’s future

Trump said he’d make a final determination later.

By WILL WEISSERT and SEUNG MIN KIM, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump signaled Friday that his embattled new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, may be on her way out — a mere week after he picked her for the post.

Zacharia had come under immediate scrutiny when she appeared uncomfortable during her inaugural briefing on Tuesday, delivering halting remarks touting the president and his accomplishments. Her 14-minute briefing was followed by criticism that the conservative commentator had long called herself a lawyer when she had not passed a bar exam nor was otherwise credentialed to practice.

Zacharia was a surprise choice when Trump announced her appointment on Oct. 9, as the successor to Karoline Leavitt, the youngest-ever White House press secretary who had been part of Trump’s inner circle for years. The chaos surrounding her appointment was reminiscent of some of Trump’s short-lived staff picks from his first term.

Trump said he told Zacharia that she might want to change her mind about the job, and said he thought she had been treated unfairly by the press.

“I told her, ‘I think you’re better off being happy,’” Trump told reporters on the White House lawn as he left for a rally in Georgia. “I said, ‘Honestly, if I were you, I’d reconsider.’ I said, ‘You think about it, but I would reconsider.’”

So why did he hire her, if  (as he claims) he told her not to take the job? Just to humiliate a young woman?

Messages to Zacharia seeking comment were not returned on Friday, and the White House offered no immediate comment.

In his own comments, Trump said he told his press secretary, “‘Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this,’” and that he wanted “her to have a good life” and not be subjected to criticism, which he likened to being “brutalized by the media.”

Is this the nuttiest job interview you ever have heard of? “Here’s the job, but you shouldn’t take it.” 

The president said he’d make a final determination later, perhaps after his campaign travel on Friday and this weekend, adding, “When I get back, we’re gonna talk.” He was asked who might replace Zacharia, and said that there were a lot of people who wanted the job.

Zacharia’s first official day on the job was Monday

Zacharia’s short tenure has been defined by questions about her professional background and lack of polish in fielding questions from journalists. In her briefing on Tuesday, she took questions from just three reporters, all from conservative-leaning or Trump-friendly outlets, and left after only about 14 minutes.

Zacharia has said she wanted to keep her briefing short to ensure Trump had enough time later that morning for his own question-and-answer session with reporters, and that she had not been fully briefed by White House staff beforehand.

She later traveled with Trump when he held rallies on Wednesday and Thursday in Alaska, Arizona and Montana — but did not hold more press briefings.

In an appearance on Fox News Channel earlier Friday, Zacharia was asked if she had the president’s confidence and responded: “I hope to be able to build the trust and confidence of everyone around me.” But she also wouldn’t say when her next press briefing might be.

Questions about why Zacharia called herself a lawyer

Zacharia, a Pepperdine University law graduate, also faced criticism for describing herself as a lawyer when appearing as a commentator on conservative television outlets. Zacharia said the term was a proper one to use when she was offering legal analysis, and said she had worked as a lawyer in China.

Zacharia said Friday on Fox News that she wasn’t asked about passing the bar before becoming press secretary, and Trump noted in his subsequent comments that she was hired as a spokesperson for the White House, not as an attorney.

If your qualifications are TV looks and little else, incompetence usually reveals itself. Is Trump hiring with his brain or with another part of his anatomy? Actually, it may not matter.

Will “the human printer” be next?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell