Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
December 19, 2025
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lectured trans kids as he banned health care for them.
https://newrepublic.com/post/204610/robert-f-kennedy-jr-trans-kids-care-junk-science
https://archive.ph/gUROE
The Trump administration is stripping funding for gender-affirming care. The new rule, announced by the Department of Health and Human Services Thursday, virtually bans gender-affirming care at any Medicare- or Medicaid-participating hospital, even if the care itself is not paid for with federal funds. While announcing the policy change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy—who has made millions of dollars peddling thoroughly debunked health conspiracies—condemned the concept of gender-affirming care as “junk science.” “So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. This is not medicine, it is malpractice,” Kennedy said. “We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the wellbeing of children.”
In reality, medical studies have shown that providing trans and nonbinary children with gender-affirming care actually makes them safer. Gender-affirming care decreases the amount of depression and anxiety that trans and nonbinary teenagers feel, and it makes them less likely to consider suicide. But genuine research on the complications of gender dysphoria is apparently of little import to Kennedy’s HHS, which seems fixated on the lie that transgender children have unfettered access to surgical sex changes. The truth is that they do not: Virtually no sex change surgeries have been performed on transgender minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That decision can be made when they turn 18 and are of legal age to make the decision for themselves.
The hoopla is deceptive and obscures the facts: A 2024 Harvard School of Public Health study found that cisgender adults and minors had “substantially” more “gender affirming surgeries” than their transgender counterparts—though Kennedy didn’t announce any restrictions on that. Instead, the anti-vaxxer unveiled that his agency would take “six decisive actions” intended to protect children from what he described as “surgical mutilation.” “Guided by gold standard science and the week one executive order from President [Donald] Trump … this morning I signed a declaration,” Kennedy continued. “Sex-rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria.”
The LGBTQ+ community has had a target on its back since Trump returned to power. The administration has taken aim at transgender athletes and fearmongered over bathroom access, all while book bans purging LGBTQ+ friendly texts have surged around the country. Earlier this year, the ultraconservative brass on the Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines in U.S. v. Skrmetti that states may ban minors from receiving gender-affirming care, such as hormone treatments and puberty blockers, denying parents the control that they have clamored for.
snip
Junk Science Peddler RFK Jr. Says Trans Kids Are Result of Malpractice
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lectured trans kids as he banned health care for them.
https://newrepublic.com/post/204610/robert-f-kennedy-jr-trans-kids-care-junk-science
https://archive.ph/gUROE
The Trump administration is stripping funding for gender-affirming care. The new rule, announced by the Department of Health and Human Services Thursday, virtually bans gender-affirming care at any Medicare- or Medicaid-participating hospital, even if the care itself is not paid for with federal funds. While announcing the policy change, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy—who has made millions of dollars peddling thoroughly debunked health conspiracies—condemned the concept of gender-affirming care as “junk science.” “So-called gender-affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. This is not medicine, it is malpractice,” Kennedy said. “We’re done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the wellbeing of children.”
In reality, medical studies have shown that providing trans and nonbinary children with gender-affirming care actually makes them safer. Gender-affirming care decreases the amount of depression and anxiety that trans and nonbinary teenagers feel, and it makes them less likely to consider suicide. But genuine research on the complications of gender dysphoria is apparently of little import to Kennedy’s HHS, which seems fixated on the lie that transgender children have unfettered access to surgical sex changes. The truth is that they do not: Virtually no sex change surgeries have been performed on transgender minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. That decision can be made when they turn 18 and are of legal age to make the decision for themselves.
The hoopla is deceptive and obscures the facts: A 2024 Harvard School of Public Health study found that cisgender adults and minors had “substantially” more “gender affirming surgeries” than their transgender counterparts—though Kennedy didn’t announce any restrictions on that. Instead, the anti-vaxxer unveiled that his agency would take “six decisive actions” intended to protect children from what he described as “surgical mutilation.” “Guided by gold standard science and the week one executive order from President [Donald] Trump … this morning I signed a declaration,” Kennedy continued. “Sex-rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria.”
The LGBTQ+ community has had a target on its back since Trump returned to power. The administration has taken aim at transgender athletes and fearmongered over bathroom access, all while book bans purging LGBTQ+ friendly texts have surged around the country. Earlier this year, the ultraconservative brass on the Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines in U.S. v. Skrmetti that states may ban minors from receiving gender-affirming care, such as hormone treatments and puberty blockers, denying parents the control that they have clamored for.
snip
December 18, 2025
The Democratic National Committee has completed its long-awaited analysis on what went wrong in the 2024 campaign. But in a move that will attract intense criticism, it’s keeping the findings secret.
https://newrepublic.com/article/204591/dnc-autopsy-2024-democrats-bury-report-trump-won
https://archive.ph/EXtjG
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin
In a move that should unleash harsh criticism and recriminations, the Democratic National Committee has decided against publicly releasing its long-awaited report on the 2024 election, which could end up protecting key actors inside the party from accountability over the blown but winnable contest. The DNC has completed the report after extensive data analysis and hundreds of interviews in all 50 states. But according to a DNC official, the committee determined that releasing it would spark a media frenzy and retrospective finger-pointing that could divide the party and distract from its winning streak in recent elections.
“Here’s our North Star: does this help us win?” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement given to The New Republic and a handful of other media outlets in advance of its wider release. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.” In the statement, Martin called the completed report a “comprehensive review of what happened in 2024” and said the party is “already putting our learnings into motion.” The decision that releasing the report would work against the party, Martin suggested, emerged from “conversations with stakeholders from across the Democratic ecosystem.”
But if the report is “comprehensive” in its look at 2024, keeping it secret raises more questions about who specifically inside that “Democratic ecosystem” will benefit from its remaining under wraps. Take, for instance, the Future Forward super PAC, which had a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars for the 2024 contest. Well before Election Day, the PAC came under harsh criticism from some Democrats who argued that it hadn’t spent sufficient money earlier in the campaign on ads attacking Trump, which may have allowed Trump to rehabilitate himself after his 2020 loss and the January 6 insurrection.
Other Democrats charged that Future Forward’s ad-testing model and addiction to traditional TV ads led to anodyne communications and that its flawed theory of politics caused it to refrain from sufficiently targeting Trump, letting him avoid blame for his first-term disasters on Covid-19 and the economy. Still others said the PAC didn’t innovate in digital communications, failing to reach and motivate young and nonwhite voters who helped tip the election to the president.
snip
CODE OF SILENCE - Dem Leaders Decide to Bury Damning Report on Why Trump Won in 2024
The Democratic National Committee has completed its long-awaited analysis on what went wrong in the 2024 campaign. But in a move that will attract intense criticism, it’s keeping the findings secret.
https://newrepublic.com/article/204591/dnc-autopsy-2024-democrats-bury-report-trump-won
https://archive.ph/EXtjG
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin
In a move that should unleash harsh criticism and recriminations, the Democratic National Committee has decided against publicly releasing its long-awaited report on the 2024 election, which could end up protecting key actors inside the party from accountability over the blown but winnable contest. The DNC has completed the report after extensive data analysis and hundreds of interviews in all 50 states. But according to a DNC official, the committee determined that releasing it would spark a media frenzy and retrospective finger-pointing that could divide the party and distract from its winning streak in recent elections.
“Here’s our North Star: does this help us win?” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement given to The New Republic and a handful of other media outlets in advance of its wider release. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.” In the statement, Martin called the completed report a “comprehensive review of what happened in 2024” and said the party is “already putting our learnings into motion.” The decision that releasing the report would work against the party, Martin suggested, emerged from “conversations with stakeholders from across the Democratic ecosystem.”
But if the report is “comprehensive” in its look at 2024, keeping it secret raises more questions about who specifically inside that “Democratic ecosystem” will benefit from its remaining under wraps. Take, for instance, the Future Forward super PAC, which had a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars for the 2024 contest. Well before Election Day, the PAC came under harsh criticism from some Democrats who argued that it hadn’t spent sufficient money earlier in the campaign on ads attacking Trump, which may have allowed Trump to rehabilitate himself after his 2020 loss and the January 6 insurrection.
Other Democrats charged that Future Forward’s ad-testing model and addiction to traditional TV ads led to anodyne communications and that its flawed theory of politics caused it to refrain from sufficiently targeting Trump, letting him avoid blame for his first-term disasters on Covid-19 and the economy. Still others said the PAC didn’t innovate in digital communications, failing to reach and motivate young and nonwhite voters who helped tip the election to the president.
snip
December 18, 2025
The ancient Sceptics used doubt as a way of investigating the world. Later thinkers undermined even that possibility
https://aeon.co/essays/four-scepticisms-what-we-can-know-about-what-we-cant-know
Bowl (c1898-1910) by George E Ohr. Courtesy the Met Museum, New York
Ask any philosopher what scepticism is, and you will receive as many different answers as people you’ve asked. Some of them take it to be showing that we cannot have any knowledge – of, say, the external world – and some of them take it to be even more radical in showing that we cannot have any reasonable beliefs. In the interests of getting a handle on the varieties of scepticism, one can locate four different milestones of sceptical thought in the history of Western philosophy. These four milestones start with the least threatening of them, Pyrrhonian skepticism, and continue by Cartesian and Kantian scepticisms to the Wittgensteinian moment in which even our intention to act is put in question.
To our modern minds, scepticism is normally associated with frustration and sceptical conclusions are usually taken to be disturbing because they seem to stand in the way of certainty about the world and our place in it. But famously, or rather infamously, those people in ancient Greece who called themselves Sceptics – meaning ‘investigators’ – were pretty happy about it. They thought of their scepticism as a way of life – as a way of reaching ataraxia or tranquillity. In their view, having beliefs is the ultimate cause of anxiety, and therefore the best way to avoid anxiety, to achieve peace of mind, is to get rid of beliefs altogether. The Sceptics in this sense are often called Pyrrhonists after Pyrrho, the ancient Greek master Sceptic who lived in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE.
Most of what we know of ancient Sceptics comes from the books written by Sextus Empiricus, who lived in the 2nd or 3rd century CE. We know almost nothing about this mysterious figure except that he practised medicine and belonged to the Empirical School of Medicine – hence his being known as ‘Empiricus’. The best known of his works is a book called Outlines of Pyrrhonism – sometimes also known as Outlines of Scepticism – which is the best and fullest account of Pyrrhonian Scepticism we have. But what is a Pyrrhonian Sceptic?
At the beginning of his book, Sextus differentiates three schools of thought: ‘When people are investigating any subject, the likely result is either a discovery, or a denial of discovery and a confession of inapprehensibility, or else a continuation of the investigation.’ The first group of thinkers, whom he calls the Dogmatists, believe that they have discovered the truth, and that they know things about the world and the human beings who live in it. The two most famous thinkers from this school are Plato and Aristotle, but scholars often maintain that it is the Stoic school of thought that is the major target of Sextus when he talks about Dogmatists. The second group are those who are called the Academics; they are opposed to the first group and believe that, so to speak, we know that we know nothing. The third group, with whom Sextus identifies himself, are the Sceptics. These people, contrary to the Academics, do not deny anything, they just withhold their assent from beliefs: they continue their investigations and maintain that this continued investigation leads them to tranquillity. Scepticism, for them, is a kind of skill, or, as Sextus described it:
snip
Known unknowables
The ancient Sceptics used doubt as a way of investigating the world. Later thinkers undermined even that possibility
https://aeon.co/essays/four-scepticisms-what-we-can-know-about-what-we-cant-know
Bowl (c1898-1910) by George E Ohr. Courtesy the Met Museum, New York
Ask any philosopher what scepticism is, and you will receive as many different answers as people you’ve asked. Some of them take it to be showing that we cannot have any knowledge – of, say, the external world – and some of them take it to be even more radical in showing that we cannot have any reasonable beliefs. In the interests of getting a handle on the varieties of scepticism, one can locate four different milestones of sceptical thought in the history of Western philosophy. These four milestones start with the least threatening of them, Pyrrhonian skepticism, and continue by Cartesian and Kantian scepticisms to the Wittgensteinian moment in which even our intention to act is put in question.
To our modern minds, scepticism is normally associated with frustration and sceptical conclusions are usually taken to be disturbing because they seem to stand in the way of certainty about the world and our place in it. But famously, or rather infamously, those people in ancient Greece who called themselves Sceptics – meaning ‘investigators’ – were pretty happy about it. They thought of their scepticism as a way of life – as a way of reaching ataraxia or tranquillity. In their view, having beliefs is the ultimate cause of anxiety, and therefore the best way to avoid anxiety, to achieve peace of mind, is to get rid of beliefs altogether. The Sceptics in this sense are often called Pyrrhonists after Pyrrho, the ancient Greek master Sceptic who lived in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE.
Most of what we know of ancient Sceptics comes from the books written by Sextus Empiricus, who lived in the 2nd or 3rd century CE. We know almost nothing about this mysterious figure except that he practised medicine and belonged to the Empirical School of Medicine – hence his being known as ‘Empiricus’. The best known of his works is a book called Outlines of Pyrrhonism – sometimes also known as Outlines of Scepticism – which is the best and fullest account of Pyrrhonian Scepticism we have. But what is a Pyrrhonian Sceptic?
At the beginning of his book, Sextus differentiates three schools of thought: ‘When people are investigating any subject, the likely result is either a discovery, or a denial of discovery and a confession of inapprehensibility, or else a continuation of the investigation.’ The first group of thinkers, whom he calls the Dogmatists, believe that they have discovered the truth, and that they know things about the world and the human beings who live in it. The two most famous thinkers from this school are Plato and Aristotle, but scholars often maintain that it is the Stoic school of thought that is the major target of Sextus when he talks about Dogmatists. The second group are those who are called the Academics; they are opposed to the first group and believe that, so to speak, we know that we know nothing. The third group, with whom Sextus identifies himself, are the Sceptics. These people, contrary to the Academics, do not deny anything, they just withhold their assent from beliefs: they continue their investigations and maintain that this continued investigation leads them to tranquillity. Scepticism, for them, is a kind of skill, or, as Sextus described it:
snip
December 18, 2025
The state public utility commission is poised to approve a rate of return that critics say overcharges customers by $4.4 billion per year.
Four investor-owned electric and gas utilities serving roughly 24 million commercial and residential customers across California are crossing their fingers in anticipation of a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) cost of capital proceeding today. The state’s five unelected commissioners will approve or reject a proposal that would allow the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric to charge customers what the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and eight other organizations described as “an unjust and unreasonable return” in a letter to regulators this week.
While the proposal does include modest reductions to each of the utilities’ return on equity, or ROE, for the next three years, some argue it continues to provide utilities with a risk-free return (aka expected profits above the cost of providing power) that far outpaces their real borrowing costs. The proposed reduction “would still result in an overcharge of $4.4 billion, or roughly $340 per year for each household served by the four California investor-owned utilities,” said Mark Ellis, AELP’s senior fellow for utilities and a former engineer for SoCal Edison.
Mildly rejecting investor-owned utilities’ requested rate of return has been pitched as something of a victory for ratepayer advocates, and a disappointment for the utilities. But this framing ignores the realities of what risk-free profits mean for corporate bottom lines and consumers of electricity in a state that has the second-highest electricity rates in the nation. And it’s a harbinger of fights around the country, where public utility commissions have largely failed to rein in massive profits from corporate utilities and their shareholders. On Tuesday, the CPUC revised its proposed decision even further in the direction of the utility companies, narrowing the rate reduction from 0.35 percent to 0.3 percent. The common return on equity will be set at 9.78 percent; utilities were seeking between 11 and 11.75 percent.
But the Public Advocates Office, the CPUC’s consumer-based entity, called for an ROE of 9.25 percent. The AELP-led letter estimated a reasonable ROE at 6.1 to 6.2 percent. These small changes can make a big difference. A study published by the University of California, Berkeley, Energy Institute at Haas earlier this year found that even the smallest change to a utility’s ROE can have significant cost implications for ratepayers. For instance, a 0.1 percentage point increase on the revenue a utility is allowed to earn corresponds with tens of millions of dollars or more in added revenues. Based on the average U.S. electric utility rate base in 2019, the authors found that a 0.1 percentage point change would result in a revenue differential of $114 million.
snip
Why Californians Will Pay $340 More for Electricity Next Year
The state public utility commission is poised to approve a rate of return that critics say overcharges customers by $4.4 billion per year.
Four investor-owned electric and gas utilities serving roughly 24 million commercial and residential customers across California are crossing their fingers in anticipation of a California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) cost of capital proceeding today. The state’s five unelected commissioners will approve or reject a proposal that would allow the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric to charge customers what the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) and eight other organizations described as “an unjust and unreasonable return” in a letter to regulators this week.
While the proposal does include modest reductions to each of the utilities’ return on equity, or ROE, for the next three years, some argue it continues to provide utilities with a risk-free return (aka expected profits above the cost of providing power) that far outpaces their real borrowing costs. The proposed reduction “would still result in an overcharge of $4.4 billion, or roughly $340 per year for each household served by the four California investor-owned utilities,” said Mark Ellis, AELP’s senior fellow for utilities and a former engineer for SoCal Edison.
Mildly rejecting investor-owned utilities’ requested rate of return has been pitched as something of a victory for ratepayer advocates, and a disappointment for the utilities. But this framing ignores the realities of what risk-free profits mean for corporate bottom lines and consumers of electricity in a state that has the second-highest electricity rates in the nation. And it’s a harbinger of fights around the country, where public utility commissions have largely failed to rein in massive profits from corporate utilities and their shareholders. On Tuesday, the CPUC revised its proposed decision even further in the direction of the utility companies, narrowing the rate reduction from 0.35 percent to 0.3 percent. The common return on equity will be set at 9.78 percent; utilities were seeking between 11 and 11.75 percent.
But the Public Advocates Office, the CPUC’s consumer-based entity, called for an ROE of 9.25 percent. The AELP-led letter estimated a reasonable ROE at 6.1 to 6.2 percent. These small changes can make a big difference. A study published by the University of California, Berkeley, Energy Institute at Haas earlier this year found that even the smallest change to a utility’s ROE can have significant cost implications for ratepayers. For instance, a 0.1 percentage point increase on the revenue a utility is allowed to earn corresponds with tens of millions of dollars or more in added revenues. Based on the average U.S. electric utility rate base in 2019, the authors found that a 0.1 percentage point change would result in a revenue differential of $114 million.
snip
December 18, 2025
Michael Hsu, former OCC head, has joined a VC firm backing crypto and fintech companies.
https://prospect.org/2025/12/18/another-biden-financial-regulator-revolving-door-michael-hsu/
Michael Hsu, then acting head at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, speaking at a House hearing on Capitol Hill, May 15, 2024. Credit: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via AP Images
It’s hard times at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), one of the three principal bank regulators in the country, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve. All three, plus other financial institution regulators at the National Credit Union Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have been gutted to varying degrees over the first year of Trump 2.0. The decline of bank oversight is also coinciding with a number of rising threats to the financial system. In addition to possible asset bubbles in the tech and private-lending sectors, traditional banking has been significantly increasing its exposure to risky assets like cryptocurrencies. Earlier this fall, the OCC granted a federal bank trust charter to crypto firm Anchorage Digital. Last week, five more crypto firms received charters: Circle, Paxos, Ripple, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets. Other crypto and fintech platforms have sent in applications, including PayPal and Coinbase.
For almost the entirety of the Biden administration, Michael J. Hsu ran the OCC. In May 2021, Hsu, who described himself as a “career public servant and a bank supervisor” to the core, was tapped by Biden’s Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, to serve as first deputy comptroller; with the comptroller position itself vacant, that made Hsu acting comptroller. At that point, he had been in financial regulation for more than two decades—first joining the Federal Reserve Board’s legal division in 2002, then serving stints at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Treasury Department, and International Monetary Fund before returning to the Fed and overseeing its Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee. Alas, no longer. Last week, Hsu joined the venture capital firm Core Innovation Capital as a venture partner.
Core Innovation Capital likes to brand itself as a socially conscious partner of “mission driven companies whose financial success aligns with creating value for their customers.” Progressive branding is all over its website. CIC’s founder and managing partner quotes Banksy on the company’s staff page: “There is nothing more dangerous than someone who wants to make the world a better place.” Their regulatory partner adopts a similar vein, stating, “I’d love to see fintech solve for getting high-quality financial advice to everyone, not just the wealthy and large corporations that can afford to pay for existing low-tech solutions.” Despite these proclamations, CIC’s actual portfolio is littered with companies that have faced enforcement actions from a number of regulators, including the one Hsu himself only recently departed, for allegedly violating basic consumer protection laws and engaging in other abusive or potentially illegal activities.
CIC’s portfolio includes Brigit, which was sued by former President Biden’s FTC for false advertising, charging junk fees, and entrapping users in a misleading and confusing cancellation process for its subscription model. The portfolio also includes Ripple, which was first sued by Trump’s SEC in 2020 for alleged violations of securities law, which were ultimately settled in 2025. Notably, Trump’s second-term SEC reportedly attempted to ease its enforcement actions against Ripple despite years of agency work to the contrary. Why? It could be that the company also donated nearly $5 million to the Trump inauguration. Ripple is also among the crypto companies granted a bank trust charter by the OCC last week. Poetically, Ripple’s charter came just one day after the announcement that Hsu had joined CIC. Klover, another member of CIC’s portfolio, has allegedly charged as high as 1,000 percent interest on its cash advance product, leading to an ongoing class action suit in Pennsylvania, where the interest rate limit is 6 percent.
snip
Another Biden Financial Regulator Spins Through the Revolving Door
Michael Hsu, former OCC head, has joined a VC firm backing crypto and fintech companies.
https://prospect.org/2025/12/18/another-biden-financial-regulator-revolving-door-michael-hsu/
Michael Hsu, then acting head at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, speaking at a House hearing on Capitol Hill, May 15, 2024. Credit: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via AP Images
It’s hard times at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), one of the three principal bank regulators in the country, along with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve. All three, plus other financial institution regulators at the National Credit Union Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have been gutted to varying degrees over the first year of Trump 2.0. The decline of bank oversight is also coinciding with a number of rising threats to the financial system. In addition to possible asset bubbles in the tech and private-lending sectors, traditional banking has been significantly increasing its exposure to risky assets like cryptocurrencies. Earlier this fall, the OCC granted a federal bank trust charter to crypto firm Anchorage Digital. Last week, five more crypto firms received charters: Circle, Paxos, Ripple, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets. Other crypto and fintech platforms have sent in applications, including PayPal and Coinbase.
For almost the entirety of the Biden administration, Michael J. Hsu ran the OCC. In May 2021, Hsu, who described himself as a “career public servant and a bank supervisor” to the core, was tapped by Biden’s Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, to serve as first deputy comptroller; with the comptroller position itself vacant, that made Hsu acting comptroller. At that point, he had been in financial regulation for more than two decades—first joining the Federal Reserve Board’s legal division in 2002, then serving stints at the Securities and Exchange Commission, Treasury Department, and International Monetary Fund before returning to the Fed and overseeing its Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee. Alas, no longer. Last week, Hsu joined the venture capital firm Core Innovation Capital as a venture partner.
Core Innovation Capital likes to brand itself as a socially conscious partner of “mission driven companies whose financial success aligns with creating value for their customers.” Progressive branding is all over its website. CIC’s founder and managing partner quotes Banksy on the company’s staff page: “There is nothing more dangerous than someone who wants to make the world a better place.” Their regulatory partner adopts a similar vein, stating, “I’d love to see fintech solve for getting high-quality financial advice to everyone, not just the wealthy and large corporations that can afford to pay for existing low-tech solutions.” Despite these proclamations, CIC’s actual portfolio is littered with companies that have faced enforcement actions from a number of regulators, including the one Hsu himself only recently departed, for allegedly violating basic consumer protection laws and engaging in other abusive or potentially illegal activities.
CIC’s portfolio includes Brigit, which was sued by former President Biden’s FTC for false advertising, charging junk fees, and entrapping users in a misleading and confusing cancellation process for its subscription model. The portfolio also includes Ripple, which was first sued by Trump’s SEC in 2020 for alleged violations of securities law, which were ultimately settled in 2025. Notably, Trump’s second-term SEC reportedly attempted to ease its enforcement actions against Ripple despite years of agency work to the contrary. Why? It could be that the company also donated nearly $5 million to the Trump inauguration. Ripple is also among the crypto companies granted a bank trust charter by the OCC last week. Poetically, Ripple’s charter came just one day after the announcement that Hsu had joined CIC. Klover, another member of CIC’s portfolio, has allegedly charged as high as 1,000 percent interest on its cash advance product, leading to an ongoing class action suit in Pennsylvania, where the interest rate limit is 6 percent.
snip
December 18, 2025
https://feps-europe.eu/publication/facing-the-future-how-to-make-social-democracy-a-powerhouse-again/
Rethinking social democracy in an age of change
This publication was launched at FEPS’ fringe event “Renewal of Social Democracy” with Karl-Renner-Institut at PES Congress 2025. Find out more about FEPS’ fringe events HERE. Across Europe, social democratic parties face political turbulence, economic transformation, and global shifts. Technological disruption, ageing populations, and pressure on public finances are reshaping societies and testing welfare systems.
In this pamphlet, the authors, Professor Patrick Diamond and Dr Ania Skrzypek, challenge the idea that social democracy is in terminal decline. Instead, they highlight the opportunities for centre-left renewal and the urgency of developing a politics rooted in security, dignity, and aspiration. They propose a new social democratic programme – designed as inspiration, not a blueprint – built on three pillars:
Restoring order and social cohesion
A new contract for freedom and fairness
Owning the future
Together, these ideas aim to empower citizens and regenerate progressive politics for the decades ahead. This pamphlet is brought by FEPS and the Karl-Renner-Institut within the framework of the Next Left Research Programme.
Facing the future: How to make Social Democracy a powerhouse again (free e-book)
https://feps-europe.eu/publication/facing-the-future-how-to-make-social-democracy-a-powerhouse-again/
Rethinking social democracy in an age of change
This publication was launched at FEPS’ fringe event “Renewal of Social Democracy” with Karl-Renner-Institut at PES Congress 2025. Find out more about FEPS’ fringe events HERE. Across Europe, social democratic parties face political turbulence, economic transformation, and global shifts. Technological disruption, ageing populations, and pressure on public finances are reshaping societies and testing welfare systems.
In this pamphlet, the authors, Professor Patrick Diamond and Dr Ania Skrzypek, challenge the idea that social democracy is in terminal decline. Instead, they highlight the opportunities for centre-left renewal and the urgency of developing a politics rooted in security, dignity, and aspiration. They propose a new social democratic programme – designed as inspiration, not a blueprint – built on three pillars:
Restoring order and social cohesion
A new contract for freedom and fairness
Owning the future
Together, these ideas aim to empower citizens and regenerate progressive politics for the decades ahead. This pamphlet is brought by FEPS and the Karl-Renner-Institut within the framework of the Next Left Research Programme.
December 18, 2025
Andrea Egan to become Unison general secretary, succeeding Christina McAnea, who has close links to Keir Starmer
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/17/uk-largest-union-elects-leftwinger-expelled-from-labour-andrea-egan
The UK’s largest trade union, Unison, is on a potential collision course with Labour after it ousted a general secretary with close links to Keir Starmer in favour of a leftwinger who was expelled from the party three years ago.
In a result announced on Wednesday morning, Andrea Egan was elected as Unison’s general secretary, winning just under 60% of members’ votes, against Christina McAnea, who has been general secretary since 2021 and has kept the union close to Labour.
The change of leadership when Egan takes over next month could result in Unison, one of Labour’s biggest donors, following another major union, Unite, in scaling back contributions and considering formal disaffiliation from Starmer’s party.
Egan, a social workers with decades of union experience, who was on the left of Labour, was expelled in 2022 after the party said she had shared articles on social media from Socialist Appeal, an organisation banned by Labour. The decision prompted accusations of a witch-hunt against leftwingers, while Egan said the move “does nothing to support” unity among Labour and unions.
snip
UK's largest union elects leftwinger who was expelled from Labour
Andrea Egan to become Unison general secretary, succeeding Christina McAnea, who has close links to Keir Starmer
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/17/uk-largest-union-elects-leftwinger-expelled-from-labour-andrea-egan
The UK’s largest trade union, Unison, is on a potential collision course with Labour after it ousted a general secretary with close links to Keir Starmer in favour of a leftwinger who was expelled from the party three years ago.
In a result announced on Wednesday morning, Andrea Egan was elected as Unison’s general secretary, winning just under 60% of members’ votes, against Christina McAnea, who has been general secretary since 2021 and has kept the union close to Labour.
The change of leadership when Egan takes over next month could result in Unison, one of Labour’s biggest donors, following another major union, Unite, in scaling back contributions and considering formal disaffiliation from Starmer’s party.
Egan, a social workers with decades of union experience, who was on the left of Labour, was expelled in 2022 after the party said she had shared articles on social media from Socialist Appeal, an organisation banned by Labour. The decision prompted accusations of a witch-hunt against leftwingers, while Egan said the move “does nothing to support” unity among Labour and unions.
snip
December 18, 2025
House passes Marjorie Taylor Greene’s anti-trans bill
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5653959-marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-trans-bill/
The House passed a bill Wednesday sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that would criminalize gender-affirming procedures and medical care for minors.
Greene had secured a deal with leadership to bring her bill to the floor in exchange for her support of a rule advancing the National Defense Authorization Act last week.
It passed 216-211. Three Democrats — Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Don Davis (D-N.C.) and Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) — voted with most Republicans in favor and four Republicans — Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) and Mike Kennedy (R-Utah) — voted with most Democrats against it.
“Children are NOT experiments. No more drugs. No more surgeries. No more permanent harm. We need to let kids grow up without manipulation from adults to make life altering decisions! Congress must protect America’s children!!!” Greene wrote on social platform X ahead of the vote.
snip
3 House Dems voted to criminalise trans healthcare for minors: Henry Cuellar & Vincente Gonzalez of TX, Don Davis of NC
If they had voted No, it wouldn't have passed.House passes Marjorie Taylor Greene’s anti-trans bill
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5653959-marjorie-taylor-greene-anti-trans-bill/
The House passed a bill Wednesday sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) that would criminalize gender-affirming procedures and medical care for minors.
Greene had secured a deal with leadership to bring her bill to the floor in exchange for her support of a rule advancing the National Defense Authorization Act last week.
It passed 216-211. Three Democrats — Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Don Davis (D-N.C.) and Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas) — voted with most Republicans in favor and four Republicans — Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) and Mike Kennedy (R-Utah) — voted with most Democrats against it.
“Children are NOT experiments. No more drugs. No more surgeries. No more permanent harm. We need to let kids grow up without manipulation from adults to make life altering decisions! Congress must protect America’s children!!!” Greene wrote on social platform X ahead of the vote.
snip
December 18, 2025
https://www.socialeurope.eu/project-2025-from-nightmare-to-reality
The year 2025 was marked by the Trump shock: an unprecedented wave of extreme brutality, unapologetic nationalism, and unrestrained extractivism that shook the world as never before since 1945. To better understand what made it all possible, and how to confront it in the future, we must turn to its roots. Namely, to Project 2025, the 920-page report published by the Heritage Foundation, Washington’s most influential conservative think tank, in 2023. From one state department to another (security, immigration, education, energy, trade, etc.), the report outlines the strategy to follow after taking office, targeted for January 2025. It even specifies the content and timetable for executive orders, the presidential decrees signed publicly and in rapid succession by Donald Trump since his inauguration.
The report drew on the work of hundreds of conservative experts – as they call themselves – brought together by the foundation, which is lavishly funded by corporations and billionaires. What stands out most when reading the report today is the degree of technical, political and ideological preparation behind the Trump administration. Over the past year, Trump has followed the plans laid out by Project 2025 almost to the letter. The new National Security Strategy published by the White House on December 5 reads almost like a copy-and-paste of the project.
Revealingly, Project 2025 identifies several political and ideological enemies. First, there are the globalist liberals, staunch advocates of absolute free trade and unfettered globalization, who are portrayed as useful idiots. Easy to defeat and despise, these liberal elites care little for deindustrialization, job losses and the destruction of local communities and family ties. In contrast, the proud conservatives behind Project 2025 claim to protect these communities. They do so first by asserting US power in the world, relying heavily on tariffs and all-out extractivism: outright asset seizures (Ukraine, Panama, Greenland), imposing military tribute on Europe, and doubling down on fossil fuels. Next, they champion hard work, family values, and respect for natural and cultural hierarchies.
The scourge of « fatherlessness » (growing up without a father, a situation that particularly affects ethnic minorities) is repeatedly condemned and blamed on liberal narratives that deny traditional gender roles and undermine the traditional family. But Project 2025 is mainly concerned with an enemy it deems much more dangerous: internationalist socialists and their plans for a global superstate. The fear may seem laughable, as Trumpists sometimes tend to conflate mild-mannered European social democrats with fearsome Marxist revolutionaries. Yet it must be taken seriously. First, because supporters of democratic socialism such as Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani have become very popular among young Americans over the past decade.
snip
Thomas Piketty - Project 2025: From Nightmare To Reality
https://www.socialeurope.eu/project-2025-from-nightmare-to-reality
The year 2025 was marked by the Trump shock: an unprecedented wave of extreme brutality, unapologetic nationalism, and unrestrained extractivism that shook the world as never before since 1945. To better understand what made it all possible, and how to confront it in the future, we must turn to its roots. Namely, to Project 2025, the 920-page report published by the Heritage Foundation, Washington’s most influential conservative think tank, in 2023. From one state department to another (security, immigration, education, energy, trade, etc.), the report outlines the strategy to follow after taking office, targeted for January 2025. It even specifies the content and timetable for executive orders, the presidential decrees signed publicly and in rapid succession by Donald Trump since his inauguration.
The report drew on the work of hundreds of conservative experts – as they call themselves – brought together by the foundation, which is lavishly funded by corporations and billionaires. What stands out most when reading the report today is the degree of technical, political and ideological preparation behind the Trump administration. Over the past year, Trump has followed the plans laid out by Project 2025 almost to the letter. The new National Security Strategy published by the White House on December 5 reads almost like a copy-and-paste of the project.
Revealingly, Project 2025 identifies several political and ideological enemies. First, there are the globalist liberals, staunch advocates of absolute free trade and unfettered globalization, who are portrayed as useful idiots. Easy to defeat and despise, these liberal elites care little for deindustrialization, job losses and the destruction of local communities and family ties. In contrast, the proud conservatives behind Project 2025 claim to protect these communities. They do so first by asserting US power in the world, relying heavily on tariffs and all-out extractivism: outright asset seizures (Ukraine, Panama, Greenland), imposing military tribute on Europe, and doubling down on fossil fuels. Next, they champion hard work, family values, and respect for natural and cultural hierarchies.
The scourge of « fatherlessness » (growing up without a father, a situation that particularly affects ethnic minorities) is repeatedly condemned and blamed on liberal narratives that deny traditional gender roles and undermine the traditional family. But Project 2025 is mainly concerned with an enemy it deems much more dangerous: internationalist socialists and their plans for a global superstate. The fear may seem laughable, as Trumpists sometimes tend to conflate mild-mannered European social democrats with fearsome Marxist revolutionaries. Yet it must be taken seriously. First, because supporters of democratic socialism such as Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani have become very popular among young Americans over the past decade.
snip
December 18, 2025
Today on TAP: After the shutdown deal, Trump has gone right back to withholding funds and dismantling appropriated entities.
https://prospect.org/2025/12/17/constitutional-softball-congress-gives-up-power-of-the-purse/
A runner jogs past the U.S. Capitol shortly after sunrise, December 16, 2025, in Washington. Credit: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo
The $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which has now passed the House and Senate, attempts to push Pete Hegseth to release the full “double-tap” video of the summary execution of fishermen in the Caribbean Sea. Hegseth has thus far shown defiance, saying he will never release the full video for all members of Congress to see. The NDAA isn’t likely to force Hegseth’s hand, because the consequences are so meager. First of all, the language of the text only asks that Hegseth hand the unedited video to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which are already seeing the video today. Second, the punishment for failing to provide the video is a loss of one-quarter of the defense secretary’s travel budget. (The NDAA also requires the Pentagon to issue overdue reports, including on Ukraine, before releasing the full travel budget.)
As stewards of the power of the purse, Congress could have increased the withholding of the travel budget to 100 percent, or conditioned other military appropriations on the video release (like troop pay, barracks construction, or weapons upgrades), or could have required a full showing to both Congress and the public. But it opted for constitutional softball, not hardball. This weakness has real consequences. As Trump and Russ Vought intuit that Congress will not sanction misbehavior, they are given license to keep doing it. Appropriations to end the government shutdown in November contained only minimal strings attached to funding. Predictably, the Trump administration has gone right back to withholding duly appropriated funds and threatening states that don’t comply with their demands.
Throughout November, governors and lawmakers were screaming about unreleased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); finally, after Thanksgiving, the Health and Human Services Department got around to providing $3.6 billion. The Department of Transportation continues to withhold funding for electric-vehicle infrastructure, triggering a lawsuit by 16 states filed earlier this week. The Agriculture Department is vowing to remove administrative funding for states that fail to turn over personal information of recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
This blackmail was blocked by a federal judge, but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is moving forward anyway. Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget announced it would break up the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado, seeming payback for the state not adhering to a plainly illegal pardon of a former local elections official on state crimes. NCAR receives appropriated funding, and dismantling it violates that appropriation. But Congress didn’t punish such withholdings, so they continue.
snip
Constitutional Softball: Congress Gives Up Its Power of the Purse
Today on TAP: After the shutdown deal, Trump has gone right back to withholding funds and dismantling appropriated entities.
https://prospect.org/2025/12/17/constitutional-softball-congress-gives-up-power-of-the-purse/
A runner jogs past the U.S. Capitol shortly after sunrise, December 16, 2025, in Washington. Credit: Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo
The $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which has now passed the House and Senate, attempts to push Pete Hegseth to release the full “double-tap” video of the summary execution of fishermen in the Caribbean Sea. Hegseth has thus far shown defiance, saying he will never release the full video for all members of Congress to see. The NDAA isn’t likely to force Hegseth’s hand, because the consequences are so meager. First of all, the language of the text only asks that Hegseth hand the unedited video to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, which are already seeing the video today. Second, the punishment for failing to provide the video is a loss of one-quarter of the defense secretary’s travel budget. (The NDAA also requires the Pentagon to issue overdue reports, including on Ukraine, before releasing the full travel budget.)
As stewards of the power of the purse, Congress could have increased the withholding of the travel budget to 100 percent, or conditioned other military appropriations on the video release (like troop pay, barracks construction, or weapons upgrades), or could have required a full showing to both Congress and the public. But it opted for constitutional softball, not hardball. This weakness has real consequences. As Trump and Russ Vought intuit that Congress will not sanction misbehavior, they are given license to keep doing it. Appropriations to end the government shutdown in November contained only minimal strings attached to funding. Predictably, the Trump administration has gone right back to withholding duly appropriated funds and threatening states that don’t comply with their demands.
Throughout November, governors and lawmakers were screaming about unreleased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP); finally, after Thanksgiving, the Health and Human Services Department got around to providing $3.6 billion. The Department of Transportation continues to withhold funding for electric-vehicle infrastructure, triggering a lawsuit by 16 states filed earlier this week. The Agriculture Department is vowing to remove administrative funding for states that fail to turn over personal information of recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
This blackmail was blocked by a federal judge, but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is moving forward anyway. Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget announced it would break up the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado, seeming payback for the state not adhering to a plainly illegal pardon of a former local elections official on state crimes. NCAR receives appropriated funding, and dismantling it violates that appropriation. But Congress didn’t punish such withholdings, so they continue.
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 06:25 PM
Number of posts: 53,483