House GOP summons five more Biden aides in probe of health coverup
WASHINGTON — House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer broadened his investigation of the alleged coverup of President Biden's mental decline Wednesday with interview requests for five more former White House advisers.
Comer (R-Ky.) is requesting closed-door transcribed interviews with former White House chief of staff Ron Klain, former de facto West Wing communications chief Anita Dunn and longtime Biden advisers Bruce Reed, Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti.
3 House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer is expanding his panel's investigation of the alleged coverup of President Biden's mental decline.
CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Advertisement
'The American people deserve full transparency and the House Oversight Committee is conducting a
thorough investigation to provide answers and accountability,' Comer said.
'The cover-up of President Biden's mental decline is one of the greatest scandals in our nation's history. These five former senior advisors were eyewitnesses to President Biden's condition and operations within the Biden White House. They must appear before the House Oversight Committee and provide truthful answers about President Biden's cognitive state and who was calling the shots.'
The oversight panel already has requested interviews with Biden's presidential physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor, first lady Jill Biden's former chief of staff Anthony Bernal and the president's former West Wing aides Annie Tomasini, Neera Tanden and Ashley Williams.
Advertisement
3 Biden, 82, dropped out of last year's election after Democrats mutinied over his apparent cognitive slip.
REUTERS
3 Former White House chief of staff Ron Klain is among the newly summoned former officials.
EPA
The initial cohort are in the process of setting dates for their sit-downs — under the threat of subpoenas if they balk at the request.
Questioning by Comer's staff is likely to touch on President Trump's allegation that documents auto-penned during Biden's tenure may have been signed without his knowledge — a contention that currently lacks solid evidence despite some former Biden aides finding the theory plausible.
Advertisement
Comer previously led a far-reaching inquiry into Joe Biden's role in his son Hunter Biden and brother James Biden's international consulting work during and after their powerful relative's eight-year vice presidency — with that probe turning up evidence that Biden repeatedly interacted with his family's foreign associates in nations where he steered US policy, such as China and Ukraine, despite his public denials.
The ongoing House probe is likely to expand to even more former Biden officials.
Although former presidents can assert executive privilege over their communications with advisers, the current White House occupant — Trump — is able to override such immunity from questioning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will Tech Tariffs Slow U.S. Growth?
The tariff roller coaster rumbles on, and for American manufacturers, there's no getting off the ride anytime soon. Even with a drastic reduction in duties on China-made goods and a respite from global 'reciprocal' tariffs, the looming threat of taxes on foreign wares will continue to sow confusion. For some footwear, apparel and textile manufacturers based in the United States, tariff turmoil has been a boon to business, and for others, it's resulted in orbiting by brands and retailers that are voicing interest but aren't quite ready to pull the trigger on onshoring. The uncertainty of President Donald Trump's tariff strategy hasn't just paralyzed retail decision-makers, but the supply chain. Without clarity about the future of trade policy, manufacturers are left wondering about when to scale up—and how. More from Sourcing Journal Amazon and FedEx Continue to Up Their Game on AI-Enabled Logistics Robots AGI Denim's Apparel Park: A LEED Platinum Pioneer in Sustainable Denim Manufacturing Tariffs Stall Long Beach Imports, Marking Slowest May Since Pre-Covid Era Much of the U.S. manufacturing landscape, across sectors and applications, relies on advanced, automated technologies that take the place of cobbler's benches and traditional sewing machines. Some next-generation processes, like 3D printing, are on the verge of breaking through as production drivers in the U.S. But all of these activities, new and traditional, rely on machinery, much of which is sourced overseas and, under the current tariff regime, subject to potentially onerous duties. 'There's a combination of issues happening right now. I think uncertainty in the marketplace has stymied some orders from coming to fruition, because people are wondering how the 90-day pause will conclude,' said Kim Glas, president and CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO), regarding the opportunities coming to American producers. According to Glas, the rapid evolution of trade policy may be driving up interest in American manufacturing, but it's not providing any clarity for producers that are trying to understand their place in the puzzle. In the absence of a clear path forward, the textile sector is waiting until July 9—the date that the deferral of reciprocal duties concludes—to see 'what kind of market signals' will materialize. NCTO has long been supportive of holding 'trade predators' like China and Vietnam accountable for non-market activities. 'But we have also advocated, including in the first Trump administration, for a few exceptions that we think are critical,' Glas said. Access to state-of-the-art textile manufacturing equipment is necessary to help improve processes at the nation's plants, both in order to drive efficiency and cost-competitiveness. But those upsides come with a hefty price tag. 'It's very expensive,' Glas said. 'When you apply a 10-percent tariff, or another tariff differential, it can make a real difference about whether or not you can afford to reinvest in your operation,' she explained. 'When you do a big capital expenditure like that, you have to amortize those costs over a period of time.' But duty costs are paid upfront. And on a machine that costs tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, even a 10-percent duty could be make-or-break for a small operation. There are significant limitations to such equipment production in the U.S., Glas explained, and the advanced machinery is essential to most modern operations. Devices used for extruding, drawing, texturing or cutting man-made textile materials aren't made stateside. Many of these technologies hail from Europe, and of course, China. Glas stressed the tightness of margins in a price-competitive industry like textiles, where companies are likely to spring for the lowest-cost option. The risk in not having access to advantageous technologies is that foreign operators will gain those capabilities, underscoring their own attractiveness. 'We have to think about this in a holistic way. If the design is to unleash more U.S. investment, we're all for that. We want to see our U.S. textile industry grow and we need the administration's help,' Glas said. 'But there is a recognition across the industry that a lot of the textile machinery is no longer made here, and will not be made here overnight. So we need to have a special dispensation for that.' The NCTO lead said exemptions for production machinery could be written into potential forthcoming trade agreements or tariff regimes, or an exclusion process could be established after tariffs are reinstated (as was the case with Trump 1.0's Section 301 duties on China). Either way, she hopes decisions surrounding solution for American manufacturers are 'expeditious.' 'The tariffs are definitely making the machinery more expensive,' Mitch Cahn, owner of Newark, N.J.-based apparel and gear manufacturer Unionwear, told Sourcing Journal. The producer, which specializes in items like baseball caps and tote bags, imported machinery earlier this year from Canada, before Trump's tariff announcements. 'We didn't make the investment because we expected tariffs, we actually made the investment to ramp up for the U.S.A.'s 250th birthday' in 2026, he said. Cahn anticipates a surge of business surrounding the occasion, along with events like the World Cup and the Olympics. According to the business owner, doubling down on automated machinery (this time, on an apparatus that sews canvas totes) was a matter of necessity. 'We were having a lot of difficulty hiring more sewers; the pool was dry,' he said. 'We had to invest in machinery to make up the gap between what we were doing and what we want to be able to do next year.' The tote bag machinery, when it's operating at full speed, will do the work of 44 people with a single operator. 'We're still ramping up; the goal is to have it probably operating 18 to 20 hours a day by the end of the year,' he said. 'We didn't do it to speed up or save money. We just did it because there was really no way for us to grow linearly—not even exponentially,' he explained. 'There's no way for us to keep adding sewers to our operation, so we need it.' These planned investments in technology aren't a bid to replace human headcount with machines—in fact, Unionwear is holding on tight to the sewers that it employs. One prevailing issue inhibiting the growth of American manufacturing is the lack of a pipeline for skilled, affordable labor. The group has plans to automate other production processes, and is in talks with American manufacturers for those projects. Since the reciprocal duties on more than 60 countries were announced, Unionwear has seen a 'considerable' increase in interest and sales, Cahn said. 'If the tariffs are here to stay, the return is actually going to be much greater than it would have been without the tariffs,' he said of the investment in new technology. 'And the reason for that—and it's something we didn't expect—is the possibility that with automation, we actually can be competitive with import prices that have tariffs on them.' Cahn said that even if the Canadian-made machinery was tariffed at the 25-percent rate that Trump originally threatened, the company still would have made the buy. 'It really opens up a much bigger market for us,' he added. Kuba Graczyk, founder of Los Angeles-based 3D-printed footwear startup Koobz, agreed that investments in automation are key to expansion as a U.S. producer. The group, which prints mono-material, single-piece shoes, currently operates 60 3D printers and is building out a factory in Ventura, Calif. that Graczyk said will house 4,000 printers at the end of the next two years. This will give the startup the ability to churn out 'a couple million pairs of shoes a year,' he estimates. Since April 2—Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day'—business has picked up, he added. 'Customers who were actively working with us decided to substantially accelerate, customers who were just, like, looking at this as something interesting decided to launch projects with us to see where it could go instead of being hesitant,' Graczyk said. 'And those folks who ghosted me suddenly decided, 'Hey, let's get on that again.'' 'Of course, it tapered down' over the course of the ensuing weeks, which saw reductions in duties on China-made goods, deferrals on all reciprocal duties and a trade deal with the United Kingdom, among other trade developments. 'But out of all of this interest, we were able to create an amazing pipeline which is wired long-term, because one of our gauging questions was, 'If the tariffs get back to [what they were previously] would you still work with us?'' Koobz has decided only to take on business with partners that have a long-term plan for onshoring and budget allocated to the effort. But scaling up from 60 to 4,000 3D printers—which Graczyk said ring in at about $600 apiece—will require significant capital expenditure. While the price tag on the devices is modest, a tariff will add to it, and the group is looking to scale aggressively in a short period of time. Koobz looked into 3D printer options made outside of China, and found that the models made stateside as well as in Europe cost more and came equipped with fewer, less-advanced features. 'There are other sources than China. In Europe, there's still a handful companies that can manufacture equipment of that sophistication, at that scale—maybe not as good, maybe a little bit different architecture,' Graczyk said. But beyond price and performance, the factory owner is also looking to develop a smart and resilient supply chain, starting with machinery. One way to foster this could be to diversify sourcing for machines, but there would be differences between the units and the way they operate, as well as possible differences in quality and output. 'We are fortunate enough that we haven't pulled the trigger on any anybody yet, but we are at risk of slowing down because we would rather take more time to de-risk this as much as possible; to slow our progress instead of building while still thinking about where to source,' he said. 'We know we have to build a system which is very flexible.' Koobz is having discussions with 3D printer manufacturers about the potential of nearshoring printer production to free-trade-agreement countries like Mexico, and some are already considering doing so. 'Short-term, I'm not super worried about securing our next year's growth, because the printers that we're using for the current stage of products are already in the U.S., in distributor warehouses,' he said. 'We've already purchased some of them, so there's some frontloading of this equipment. But thinking forward, we need to add multiple colors, multiple materials—those machines are a little bit more sophisticated, and inventory of those doesn't exist.' The already-bought machines and those available onshore will float the company through to the last quarter of 2026, he believes. After that, Koobz will 'have to start solving the puzzle' of where to source the technology that powers its operations. 'Who are we going with for the next stage of building? Are we keeping the same equipment, the same manufacturer, buying higher-tier machines from them—or are we switching to something else because of the tariffs?' To Graczyk, there are bigger concerns than the added financial burden caused by the import taxes. It's the breakdown in the U.S.-China trade relationship—and the inkling that it could get worse, not better—that gives him pause about eating the cost of potential duties and sticking with Chinese suppliers. 'We already figured out how to work it out with the previous tariffs, the 145 percent, because [the printers] generate so much margin and profits that we can absorb [the tariff cost],' he said. But he worries about a 'complete decoupling' of the world's two biggest economies. 'We believe our business model supports the investment in this equipment, even with those outrageous tariffs, but the biggest threat is to business continuity; whether our business needs can be met long-term with companies based in China,' he added. But machines manufactured outside of China, too, will be subject to trade barriers—even those made in nations the U.S. considers allies. Desma, which crafts direct-injection molding machines used by the footwear industry in Germany, has also felt the impacts of tariff talk. While goods from the country face only a 10-percent duty rate (for now), the intense swings in the administration's tariff strategy are not doing anything to propel what was already a sustained and healthy trend toward onshoring, according to regional sales manager Marco Schafer. 'Many people consider options and discuss scenarios, but we have not experienced a rush into investing into manufacturing capabilities, and going at it full-steam,' he said. 'And I think people are right to be cautious, because you just saw what happened with China—you went from next to nothing to over 100 percent. Now they're back to 30 percent, and it's questionable if that has any effect whatsoever, or if the market will eventually just absorb those costs and not much will change.' Schafer said footwear firms have been eager to bring some portion of their manufacturing closer to home for at least three or four years, and those that understand the business case for doing so didn't need tariffs to push them over the finish line. 'It's not so much the Made in USA label; there are some hard economic figures' that underscore the appetite for reshoring. 'You are in the market you're selling in, so your logistics are shortened. The other thing is capital—if you order container loads of goods from Asia, your capital is tied up for quite a long time, whereas if you manufacture here and you have shorter lead times, your cash flow is actually improved.' But it's a decision every company has to make for itself, and much of it has to do with modeling costs versus output. 'A simplified view: you realistically have to make at least 500 pairs of the same or similar product in a day, in a one-shift operation, to even be able to consider an investment into automation,' he believes. Desma's 'bread and butter'—direct injection molding machines—allow footwear manufacturers to produce foam midsoles for performance shoes and sneakers. The largest, most advanced model can churn out 1,500 to 2,000 pairs per day. All told, it's a big investment, with machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ergo, the footwear manufacturers who are intent on scaling operations using these machines aren't doing so on a whim. 'All the major projects we're working on—whether those are already projects we have on order, or projects we hope to have on order soon—they all originated in 2024,' Schafer said. 'Those projects don't happen overnight; the machines and calculations are complex, so you have to really be sure that you believe in your product and in your forecast.' In short, tariffs are generating interest, but they're not turning the tides for makers of advanced machinery. Even if an American footwear firm decided today that the unstable trade environment necessitated a sea change in sourcing strategy, they couldn't fast-track that shift. 'We're dealing with six-to-seven-month lead times after we after we get an order, but to get the right configuration of the equipment, whether it's a machine or automation line, you're easily involved with engineering six to 12 months before a company is ready to place a [purchase order]. These are often two-year projects,' he said. 'People know that if they get into this field, it's a big commitment.' There are myriad other factors in the equation, from availability of raw materials (many of which are still sourced from Asia or Europe), to staffing (workers must be trained on robotics and electronics), and facilities, which must be equipped to support the machinery and its output. 'All that needs to be put into consideration,' Schafer added. 'And therefore, the whole tariff thing—yes, it triggered some discussions, but no active projects as of yet.' That could change with more clarity about the future of America's trade relationships. Of the volatility of the past two months, Schafer said, 'We hope that the worst is behind us, and that after the loud time comes the time of more quiet negotiations behind closed doors.' This article ran in SJ's Tech Report. To download the full report, click here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Compass's Psychedelic Drug to Treat Depression Meets Goal in Trial
(Bloomberg) -- Compass Pathways Plc's shares plummeted after its psychedelic drug to treat a form of depression disappointed investors in a late-stage trial. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports The company said its psilocybin drug reduced depression symptoms by 3.6 points on a rating scale compared to a placebo, meeting its goal but falling short of Wall Street expectations. The study evaluated 258 adults for a change in their symptoms at six weeks, Compass said Monday. Investors had been expecting a five-point difference, RBC Capital Markets analyst Leonid Timashev said in a May note to clients. Compass Pathways' American depositary receipts fell as much as 37% in early trading on Monday. Still, Compass executives said the results would offer new momentum for psychedelic therapy. 'We've always said we were looking for a three-point or greater difference,' said Chief Medical Officer Guy Goodwin. Compass is hoping to give a boost to a nascent field that's seeking to legitimize mind-altering drugs for the treatment of mental health. Psilocybin is now the furthest along in development of any classic psychedelic since the Food and Drug Administration rejected Lykos Therapeutics Inc.'s MDMA for post-traumatic stress disorder last year, saying there wasn't sufficient data to prove it was safe and effective. 'Seeing this kind of meaningful improvement from a single dose is incredibly important — for patients, for caregivers, and for the entire field,' said Compass Chief Patient Officer Steve Levine. Compass's study looked at patients suffering from depression who hadn't been helped by at least two other treatments. About 21 million US adults have major depressive disorder, and about 30% of them have this form of depression, known as treatment-resistant depression. Chief Commercial Officer Lori Engelbert said it was notable that patients saw sustained improvements six weeks after just one dose of medication. 'I don't think psychiatry has seen anything like this,' she said, 'with one administration lasting this long.' In psychedelic trials, patients often know whether they've received the real drug, which can make placebo comparisons tricky. 'If we'd come out with a massive difference between active and placebo, then people would have said 'Oh, well, you can't trust placebo,'' Goodwin said, because experts worry trial participants might know whether they're on the drug or not. An independent board reviewed safety data for Compass's trial and found no clinically meaningful imbalance in suicidal thinking between the treatment and placebo, the company said. One concern with psilocybin is it could worsen suicidal thoughts of people with depression. This is the first of two late-stage trials for the drug, which is a synthesized version of an active ingredient in mushrooms. The second trial evaluated patients who got two doses of psilocybin. The company expects to release data from that trial next year. The company is also studying the drug in adults with PTSD. In recent years, magic mushrooms, MDMA and other psychedelics have been pitched as a panacea for several disorders including depression, PTSD, anxiety, nicotine addiction and anorexia. But Lykos's failure at the FDA has been viewed as a setback for the field. Recently, psychedelics supporters have found new hope from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now the Health and Human Services secretary. Last year, Kennedy said that his mind 'is open to the idea of psychedelics for treatment,' adding that 'people ought to have the freedom and the liberty to experiment with these hallucinogens to overcome debilitating disorders.' If approved, Compass's drug would compete with Johnson & Johnson's Spravato, which is related to ketamine and generated over $1 billion in sales last year. Other biotechs developing psychedelics include GH Research PLC and Atai Life Sciences NV. (Updates with shares in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The United States Bombed Iran. What Comes Next?
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. President Donald Trump has done what he swore he would not do: involve the United States in a war in the Middle East. His supporters will tie themselves in knots (as Vice President J. D. Vance did last week) trying to jam the square peg of Trump's promises into the round hole of his actions. And many of them may avoid calling this 'war' at all, even though that's what Trump himself called it tonight. They will want to see it as a quick win against an obstinate regime that will eventually declare bygones and come to the table. But whether bombing Iran was a good idea or a bad idea—and it could turn out to be either, or both—it is war by any definition of the term, and something Trump had vowed he would avoid. So what's next? Before considering the range of possibilities, it's important to recognize how much we cannot know at this moment. The president's statement tonight was a farrago of contradictions: He said, for example, that the main Iranian nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated'—but it will take time to assess the damage, and he has no way of knowing this. He claimed that the Iranian program has been destroyed—but added that there are still 'many targets' left. He said that Iran could suffer even more in the coming days—but the White House has reportedly assured Iran through back channels that these strikes were, basically, a one-and-done, and that no further U.S. action is forthcoming. (In a strange moment, Trump added: 'I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.' Presidents regularly ask God to bless the American nation and its military forces—as Trump did in his next utterance—but it was a bit unnerving to see a commander in chief order a major military action and then declare how much 'we' love the Creator.) Only one outcome is certain: Hypocrisy in the region and around the world will reach galactic levels as nations wring their hands and silently pray that the B-2s carrying the bunker-buster bombs did their job. Beyond that, the most optimistic view is that the introduction of American muscle into this war will produce a humiliating end to Iran's long-standing nuclear ambitions, enable more political disorder in Iran, and finally create the conditions for the fall of the mullahs. This may have been the Israeli plan from the start: Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's warnings about the imminence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability and the need to engage in preemption, this was a preventive war. The Israelis could not destroy sites such as Fordow without the Americans. Israeli military actions suggest that Netanyahu was trying to increase the chances of regime change in Tehran while making a side bet on dragging Trump into the fray and outsourcing the tougher nuclear targets to the United States. The very worst outcome is the polar opposite of the optimistic case. In this bleak alternative, the Air Force either didn't find, or couldn't destroy, all of the key parts of the Iranian program; the Iranians then try to sprint across the finish line to a bomb. In the meantime, Tehran lashes out against U.S. targets in the region and closes the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian opposition fades in importance as angry Iranian citizens take their government's part. One dangerous possibility in this pessimistic scenario is that the Iranians do real damage to American assets or kill a number of U.S. servicepeople, and Trump, confused and enraged, tries to widen his war against a country more than twice the size of Iraq. Perhaps the most likely outcome, however, is more mixed. The Iranian program may not be completely destroyed, but if the intelligence was accurate and the bombers hit their targets, Tehran's nuclear clock has likely been set back years. (This in itself is a good thing; whether it is worth the risks Trump has taken is another question.) The Iranian people will likely rally around the flag and the regime, but the real question is whether that effect will last. The Iranian regime will be wounded but will likely survive; the nuclear program will be delayed but will likely continue; the region will become more unstable but is unlikely to erupt into a full-blown war involving the United States. But plenty of wild cards are in the deck. First, as strategists and military planners always warn, the 'enemy gets a vote.' The Iranians may respond in ways the U.S. does not expect. The classic war-gaming mistake is to assume that your opponent will respond in ways that fit nicely with your own plans and capabilities. But the Iranians have had a long time to think about this eventuality; they may have schemes ready that the U.S. has not foreseen. (Why not spread around radiological debris, for example, and then blame the Americans for a near-disaster?) Trump has issued a warning to Iran not to react, but what might count as 'reacting'? Second, we cannot know the subsequent effects of an American attack. For now, other Middle Eastern regimes may be relieved to see Iran's nuclear clock turned back. But if the Iranian regime survives and continues even a limited nuclear program, those same nations may sour on what they will see as an unsuccessful plan hatched in Jerusalem and carried out by Washington. Diplomacy elsewhere will likely suffer. The Russians have been pounding Ukraine with even greater viciousness than usual all week and now may wave away the last of Trump's feckless attempts to end the war. Other nations might see American planes flying over Iran and think that the North Koreans had the right idea all along: assemble a few crude nuclear weapons as fast as you can to deter further attempts to end your regime. Finally, the chances for misperception and accidents are now higher than they were yesterday. In 1965, the United States widened the war in Southeast Asia after two purported attacks from North Vietnam; the Americans were not sure at the time whether both of these attacks had actually happened, and as it turns out, one of them probably had not. The Middle East, moreover, is full of opportunities for screwups and mistakes: If Trump continues action against Iran, he will need excellent intelligence and tight organization at the Pentagon. And this is where the American strikes were really a gamble: They were undertaken by a White House national-security team staffed by unqualified appointees, some of whom—including the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense himself—Trump has reportedly frozen out of his inner circle. (Given that those positions are held by Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth, respectively, it is both terrifying and a relief to know that they may have little real influence.) The American defense and intelligence communities are excellent, but they can function for only so long without competent leadership. Trump has had preternatural luck as president: He has survived scandals, major policy failures, and even impeachment, events that would have ended other American planes dropped their payloads and returned home safely. So he might skate past this war, even if it will be hard to explain to the MAGA faithful who believed him, as they always do, when he told them that he was the peace candidate. But perhaps the biggest and most unpredictable gamble Trump took in bombing Iran was sending American forces into harm's way in the Middle East with a team that was never supposed to be in charge of an actual war. Article originally published at The Atlantic
