The Common Ills: 2025

Monday, November 10, 2025

Monday, November 10, 2025. Chuck Schumer leads a betrayal that demonstrates he is not fit to be the party's leader in the Senate, what the betrayal means for the party and the voters, the one possible bright spot of the betrayal, Chump's insanity's on full display as he continues attempting to con the American people, and much more.

It is time for Senator Chuck Schumer to step aside as the Democratic Party's leader in the US Senate. He needs to do so immediately.

Why?

Senate Dems have caved on healthcare. Yesterday, Catie Edmondson and Michael Gold (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

The Senate on Sunday night took the first step toward ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history, after a group of Democrats broke their party’s blockade and voted with Republicans to advance legislation to reopen the government.

The 60-to-40 vote paved the way for the spending agreement to begin making its way through Congress, where it would still need to be debated and passed by the Senate, win approval in the House and be signed by President Trump to bring the shutdown to a close.

Eight senators in the Democratic caucus voted to advance the measure, which would fund most federal agencies through January. That indicated there were enough votes to end weeks of gridlock that has shuttered the government for 40 days, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, millions of Americans at risk of losing food assistance and millions more facing air travel disruptions.

But the deal prompted a quick and fierce backlash among Democrats, many of whom were livid that their colleagues had backed down from the party’s central demand in the shutdown fight: the extension of health insurance subsidies that are slated to expire at the end of the year, sending premiums soaring for millions of Americans.

It should prompt a huge backlash. Saturday, at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, Robert Kuttner explained what was going on:

Most commentators, including me, concluded that the Tuesday election victory saved Democrats from capitulating to Republican demands to pass a simple continuing resolution to reopen the government, in exchange for vague assurances of a vote on Affordable Care Act subsidies that amount to nothing. But my reporting finds that at the Thursday meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus, two days after the election, Democrats very nearly capitulated once again.

Here’s what occurred. It has been widely assumed that the group of eight mostly centrist Senate Democrats, who have been looking to broker a hollow deal on Republican terms, were freelancing. In fact, they were acting with the express approval of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and were reporting to him daily.

At Thursday’s meeting, they told their caucus colleagues that they now had ten votes to reopen the government in exchange for no real Republican concessions. At that, much of the rest of the caucus went ballistic, and some of the supposed ten said that, in fact, they were not willing to vote for any such deal.

The leaders of the proposed Democratic cave-in, Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, both of New Hampshire, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, then backed down. Only after that did Schumer go public with his proposal to reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies, along with a bipartisan commission to figure out a long-term solution.

Chuck is not a leader and needs to give up his title. Emine Yücel (TPM) notes:

After 40 days of the government shutdown, a small — but large enough — group of Democrats has caved. For more than a month, the party incessantly demanded Republicans get on board with its effort to protect expiring Obamacare subsidies, preventing significant premium hikes for millions of Americans. But on Sunday, several Senate Democrats broke ranks with their caucus, setting in motion an end to the shutdown without a promise of extending said tax credits.

Sens. Angus King (I-ME), John Fetterman (D-PA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) voted in favor of the continuing resolution (CR) following the bipartisan deal.

[. . .]

The House Democratic leader almost immediately expressed his frustration with the deal after it became public, saying he will not be supporting the bill the Senate is expected to pass in the coming days.

“House Democrats have consistently maintained that bipartisan legislation that funds the government must also decisively address the Republican health care crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in a Sunday statement. “It now appears that Senate Republicans will send the House of Representatives a spending bill that fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits … We will fight the GOP bill in the House of Representatives.”

What a list of losers. John Fetterman who was Bernie's man and the dream of Justice "Democrats" (Socialists too scared to cop to it). Then there's corporatist Jeanne Shaheen. I will never forget being at the DNC 2008 convention and people in the party structure laughing at Amy Goodman who sat down with Shaheen and promoted her as this great leftist. She was nothing of the sort and party big whigs laughed at Amy Goodman and her stupidity. Laugh or cry? Senator Dick Durbin will be remembered for one thing only during his overly long time in the US Senate. Crying.

That's all he ever did: Cry like baby.

What a bunch of losers one and all.

And the biggest loser? Chuck Schumer.

I haven't trashed Chuck or even called him out much over the years. That's in part because Senator Harry Reid refused, following the 2006 mid-terms, to rally the Senate to end the Iraq War. Because Reid was a man, the leftians of the internet back then protected him. I was at the conference/mass interview, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, provided to THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE. And I covered it here. We delivered both house of Congress to the Democratic Party. So why was the Iraq War continuing? Nancy explained she did her part. The House lined up to end it. She suggested that the reporters assembled ask then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid why he didn't do the same in the Senate? Harry Reid was trash and mixed up with the mob. That goes back to the days when there were hearings on Frank Sinatra. Harry repeatedly popped up in all of that. He was corrupt as hell and he destroyed the Democratic Party's efforts to end the Iraq War.

So after Harry thankfully stepped down (a little after that incident with the hustler that left Harry injured), anything would have been an improvement. And I honestly beliee that Chuck accomplished a number of things as Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader.

But this has not been a good year fr him and we can't afford him.

From the March 18th snapshot:

Another disappointment is the Senate Minority Leader and that call is probably one that those of us who are Democrats can all agree on. Last week, Robert Kuttner (TAP) explained:

For three days, Senate Democrats privately debated whether to support a House-passed continuing resolution (CR) keeping the government funded through September 30, or to block it with a filibuster, thus letting the government temporarily shut down.

At midweek, it looked as if Chuck Schumer had devised a deft plan: Propose an alternative resolution to keep the government open for 30 days and send that back to the Republican House. That way, if the House did not go along, the shutdown would be on the Republicans.

On Wednesday, Schumer emerged from two days of meetings to declare that the caucus was unified against the Republican six-month resolution and supporting the 30-day plan instead.

But it turned out that he was simply floating the idea to keep Senate progressives happy. He was confident that the more centrist Democrats would reject the idea and vote cloture to end a filibuster and send the six-month continuing resolution to President Trump. In a more sinister maneuver, he would allow Republicans to end debate on their CR in exchange for a vote on the 30-day resolution—a vote that would fail, leaving Republicans able to pass their bill by majority vote.

[/ / /]

Marin Scotten (THE NEW REPUBLIC) reports:

Democrats are turning on Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi is leading the charge.

Schumer announced Thursday he would vote to pass Trump’s disastrous budget bill to avert a government shutdown, flipping on his own party just 24 hours after he signaled he would vote against the bill. Pelosi issued a statement the next day urging Senate Democrats not to follow his lead.

“Donald Trump and Elon Musk offered the Congress a false choice between a government shutdown or a blank check that makes a devastating assault on the well-being of working families across American,” Pelosi said in a statement.

“Let’s be clear: neither is a good option for the American people. But this false choice some are buying instead of fighting is unacceptable,” Pelosi continued, referencing Schumer’s betrayal. “I salute Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his courageous rejection of this false choice, and I am proud of my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus for their overwhelming vote against this bill.”

The GOP bill would gut funding for health care, increase military spending, and fund mass deportation. It narrowly passed the Republican-led House, with just one Democrat voting to pass. Schumer argued that a government shutdown would give Trump and Elon Musk a “carte blanche” to gut federal services. Pelosi disagreed.

There is no excuse for caving. Not in these times. Every day, Democrats get up and fight for this country -- that's every day actions by everyday Democrats. And they need to see their officials doing the same damn thing.

Prior to her uncommitted nonsense, I liked Rashida Tlaib and I defended her here and we reposted anything her office sent. I don't care for her now, you don't stab a party in the back. She is responsible for Donald Chump getting back in the White House.

And THE DAILY SHOW made fun of her recently.

It didn't go up here. Would have loved for it to but it didn't.

They made fun of her and others for using the auction paddles during Chump's speech.

I was not a fan of the auction paddles. But that 'joke' or 'commentary' didn't go up here because it was a few Democrats trying to do something. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't.

But they tried it and I will applaud them for that -- even Rashida.

Americans need evidence that there's a point, a reason, to keep fighting.

I can sit outside all day by the pool. Someone else can lose themselves in books or watching television or just tuning out. If we're on our own, if our officials aren't going to do a damn thing, that's probably what we should do for our own sanity.

And the minute we do that right now, the republic has ended.

So we don't need Democratic officials selling us out or doing nothing.

Try something and make a mistake? Fine. We all learn that didn't work and then try something else.

But if you're actually trying something, I'm not going to throw eggs and rotten fruit at you.

Chuck did nothing, he tried nothing. He just collapsed and he does need to go.

[. . .]

But Chuck Schumer isn't just any elected official. He is a US senator. In terms of prestige, that's only below the president -- and, in the past, a Supreme Court justice.

And he's not just any senator, he's the Minority Leader.

He is the face of Democratic leadership and he failed and he demoralized.

This is not a minor issue. You inspire the troops, not enrage them.

Chuck has not spent the last months rallying Democrats across the country. That's what you've done, that's what I've done. Chuck hasn't done it.

In fact, he hasn't done s**t.

But you worked your butt off as did I. And last week, on Tuesday, we saw our work pay off.

Those huge victories.

All Chuck Schumer has done is betray the party and feed anger towards the party.

If you were part of the effort to turn out the vote, you know how hard it was. You met the voters who said that the Democrats weren't doing anything and they weren't going to do anything.

Schumer's cave over the weekend means it's going to be that much harder to turn out voters in 2026.

He should have built on the energy from Tuesday, tht's what a leader does. Instead, his actions tell us that Tuesday didn't matter to him -- those victories don't mean anything to him.

He's lost the ability to lead, if he ever had it. He needs to step down. His betrayal hurts the party.

He's also become a lousy communicator. During the shutdown, where was he? He couldn't even manage to issue press releases (plural) on the shutdown. He didn't even try to shape the message. One press release on the longest shutdown ever?

That's all he offered.

And he failed here as well because if he was going to cave, he needed to be out front explaining to the party why that was, explaining to the voters, why that was.

He doesn't feel he owes us loyalty or even an explanation. He's the perfect mate for Donald Chump, but he's the worst leader our party could have right now. He needs to be eased out of leadership immediately. They can go with someone older or younger or the same age, but he needs to leave. The party needs to make sure that happens because only his departure at this point will give any hope to voters going into the 20026 election.

What is the point of a voter fighting and giving everything they have to give when the response is Chuck Schumer sells them out?

The betrayal has taken place and it's not going to be walked back. So there need to be consequences.

We also need to grasp that there's a positive to this sell out.

That's not an excuse for it. This was a betrayal, absolutely.

But stream the video below.

I believe it's 48 days. That's how long ago Adelita Grijalva was elected to the US Congress. And Speaker of the Closet Mike Johnson refuses to seat her still.

The cave means the House will have to go into session. That means Johnson has to swear Adelita Grijalva in. Which means she becomes the needed signature on the petition to force a floor vote in the House on releasing the Epstein files.

That's not why the betrayers sold us out over the weekend. Don't let them after-the-fact try to pretend that it is. But if one good thing comes of their betrayal, it will be that.

There was talk that Johnson was going to wait until the first week of December to bring the House back in session to protect Chump from the Epstein scandal. December 2nd, the 7th district in Tennessee holds a special election to fill a Congressional seat. The GOP thinks Matt Van Epps is going to beat Democrat Aftyn Behn. If that happens, Epps would cancel out Grijalva's signature.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on the betrayal being a good thing. But I am trying to point out one bright -- and unintended by the betrayers -- spot in this.

Fat and crazy Donald Chump's had another embarrassing moment. Will Neal (DAILY BEAST) notes:

President Donald Trump, 79, enthusiastically shared a screenshot on Sunday from a website that has clearly labeled its content as complete and utter fiction. “WOW!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, accompanied by a screenshot of a post that read: “DOGE halts yearly payment of $2.5 million to Barack Obama for “royalties linked to Obamacare.’ Obama has collected this payment since 2010, for a total of $40 million in taxpayer dollars’.” This is indeed completely false—something the current president did not disclose when he posted it. The source of the story, the Dunning-Kruger Times, has a pretty clear explanation on its site. “Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real,” a disclaimer from the outlet reads. “If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this site’s pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical.”

Big fatty combing the internet to find something to rage over, anything, and immediately believing it. He's they typical over-75 y.o. FOX "NEWS" viewer. All the more reason that the idiot shouldn't be president. And he's fat, he's morbidly obese, his efforts at creating rage are just going to march him off to a massive stroke all the faster. Chump wasn't the only one spreading lies. Peter Wade (ROLLING STONE) observes, "Meanwhile, Trump administration officials took to the Sunday news shows to spread the message of good economic cheer. But actual economic indicators, such as the 3 percent inflation the U.S. saw in September, point to rising prices, although it wasn't as bad as the 3.1 percent economists had predicted. When Trump first announced his tariffs in April, inflation was at 2.3 percent. In September alone, consumer prices rose .3 percent, and prices increased for four of the six major grocery store food groups. We won't know the October numbers until Nov. 13."

Reality is very clear about Chump's failing economy. Mary Walrath-Holdridge (USA TODAY) reports:

Fast food chain Wendy's is planning to close hundreds more stores just a year after shuttering 140 locations.

Interim CEO Ken Cook told investors in a Friday, Nov. 7, quarterly earnings call that the company would be closing a "mid single-digit percentage" of locations. With around 6,000 locations still operating nationwide, this would amount to roughly 240 to 360 stores. One investor estimated the number at about 300 locations during the call. "When we look at the system today, we have some restaurants that do not elevate the brand and are a drag from a franchisee financial performance perspective," said Cook. "The goal is to address and fix those restaurants."

Shay Johnson (PENNY GEM) notes, "Kroger, the largest supermarket chain in the United States, is planning to close about 60 stores over the next year and a half. These locations, which represent around 2% of the company’s total stores, are mostly ones that have been performing poorly. The decision highlights how the grocery business is changing as people shop differently, costs rise, and competition grows tougher." BUZZ60 notes, "Winn-Dixie, a staple of Southern grocery shopping for generations, is facing its most dramatic shift in decades. In October, parent company Southeastern Grocers (SEG) announced plans to close or sell 40 stores—32 Winn-Dixie and 8 Harveys Supermarkets—across Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi by year’s end."

So that's eateries and grocery stores, what about retail? Dominick Reuter, Sarah Jackson, Sarah Perkel, Brent D. Griffiths and Jordan Hart (BUSINESS INSIDER) report:

A Business Insider tally of disclosures from 16 retail chains found that more than 3,700 stores have closed or are set to close across the US so far in 2025.

The current number is up from last year's total and 2023, when the collapse of Bed Bath & Beyond contributed to the shuttering of more than 2,800 locations, by Business Insider's count.

UBS analysts estimated last year that US retail closures could reach 45,000 stores by 2029, primarily due to smaller stores going out of business.

As this more evidence piles up, Chump lies to the people. And some let him et away with it. There's one area where his lies don't work. Groceries. As SV Date (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

President Donald Trump’s relentless lying finally appears to have encountered a problem it cannot overcome: grocery prices, which, in large part because of his tariffs, have been rising nearly twice as quickly as they had under predecessor Joe Biden.

“Grocery prices are way down,” the president has been saying, time after time after time after time, for months, including twice on Thursday and once again on Friday.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the following statement on a deal to fund the government without lowering health care costs.

“I will not support a deal that does nothing to make health care more affordable. The fight to lower costs is a righteous fight, and we must not give it up.

“Republicans in Congress extended tax breaks for billionaires and billionaire corporations, but they refused to extend tax credits to lower health insurance premiums for millions of working people. A simple one-year extension of these tax credits would cost less than Donald Trump’s $40 billion bailout for Argentina.

“Donald Trump has made clear that he is willing to hurt people—hungry children, federal employees, working families—in order to get his way. The wannabe king may declare victory today, but Americans will remember his actions.

“While Trump and Republicans inflict more pain on people, Democrats’ most important job is to fight back. We will keep fighting to fix our broken health care system and lower costs for working people, but a vote for this legislation is a mistake.”

###

The following sites updated:

Trump SPIRALS as BOMBS GO OFF and HE IS BOOED

Felony Murder: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

MUST-WATCH: NFL stadium BOOS, FLIPS OFF Trump

GOP Leaders deliver FATAL BLOW to ENTIRE PARTY as PANIC Sets In

Telma Hopkins discusses Tony Orlando and Dawn and her singing and acting...

Trump HAS CATASTROPHIC SUNDAY and SPIRALS IN PUBLIC

MAGA Mike WALKS Himself INTO TRAP over DELAYING Epstein VOTE

Isaac Hayes III and Mandii B. Talk: Who Gets Silenced

BREAKING: Democrats CAVE and Near Deal to Reopen Government Without Tax ...

MANY OF THE RACISTS ARE EMBOLDENED BY TRUMP’S RACISM!

Sunday, November 09, 2025

Trump gets RUDE AWAKENING as Fox host SLAMS him on ELECTION DISASTER

I’m From Appalachia, JD Vance BETRAYED Us

Donald Chump's dementia spreads to Schumer and a few other Senate Democrats

Fat and crazy Donald Chump's had another embarrassing moment. Will Neal (DAILY BEAST) notes:

In other news, Catie Edmondson and Michael Gold (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

Saturday, at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, Robert Kuttner explained what was going on:

Emine Yücel (TPM) notes:

[. . .]

Tomorrow's snapshot will address why Chuck Schumer needs to be relieved of leadership immediately. For those who missed it, I refused to call for that earlier this year. When the shutdown started, it made it into the snapshot that Schumer needed to go. I dictate the snapshot and do so quickly often with a lot of asides. I said something to the effect of, as an aside, that when the shutdown was over, I'd explain why Schumer needed to go. The aside made it into the snapshot and a few days later, I explained one reason: Schumer was doing nothing to inform the public. That was only one reason.

I'd go into it tonight but I'm not Donald Chump. I'm not wanting to go into a rage. I just want to get some sleep, to be honest. And I'm not going to get it tonight if I rage. As Anne Sexton observed, "It is a small thing/ To rage in our own bowl" ("For John, Who Begs Me Not To Enquire Further"). Or maybe I should brown shoe it?

We'll figure it out tomorrow.

For the many bothered by Chump's destruction of the White House, Minho Kim (NEW YORK TIMES) reports:

Michelle Obama criticized President Trump for destroying the East Wing of the White House to make room for a $300 million ballroom, calling the project a denigration of a space that traditionally has been the first lady’s domain.

“When we talk about the East Wing, it is the heart of the work” of a first lady, Mrs. Obama said during a live taping of her podcast in Brooklyn last week, according to Vanity Fair. “And to denigrate it, to tear it down, to pretend like it doesn’t matter — it’s a reflection of how you think of that role.”

The East Wing of the White House came crumbling down last month for Mr. Trump’s 90,000-square-foot ballroom, a project that will transform one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and could nearly double its size.

Mrs. Obama said that she had told President Barack Obama’s staff at the West Wing that she and members of her staff brought him “five extra approval points” for his job approval rating by presenting a balanced image of the first family, according to Vanity Fair.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Murray and all Senate Democrats: “We are seriously alarmed by this administration’s obvious attempts to interfere with the science and politicize the drug review process in order to restrict abortion access.”

Murray has led Senate Democrats in fighting back against Republican attacks on mifepristone—leading amicus briefs, holding events, and repeatedly pressing FDA Commissioner Makary on mifepristone access

NEW FROM GUTTMACHER: The War on Mifepristone: How Junk Science and False Narratives Threaten US Abortion Access

***LETTER HERE***

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member and former chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, led the entire Senate Democratic caucus in a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kennedy and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Makary expressing alarm over the Trump administration’s plans to conduct “its own review of the evidence” on the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone.

Mifepristone was approved by the FDA in 2000 and is used in the overwhelming majority of abortions in the United States. Access to medication abortion is more critical than ever in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Dobbs decision that overturned the Constitutional right to abortion and allowed dozens of states to enact extreme abortion bans that threaten women’s health and lives. According to data from Guttmacher, medication abortion accounted for nearly two-thirds of abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the first year after the Dobbs decision.

“Decades of evidence and hundreds of studies prove the safety and efficacy of mifepristone, which is not only the most common method of abortion in the U.S., but is also frequently prescribed to women to help manage early pregnancy loss or miscarriage. We are alarmed by the Department’s obvious attempts to politicize the review, regulation, and approval of mifepristone at the FDA, and we write to request more information,” Murray and the entire Senate Democratic caucus wrote in their letter to HHS and FDA.

The letter lays into a recent junk science “report” put out by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), an avowedly anti-abortion think tank, that appears to be the basis for the Trump administration’s announced review of mifepristone. The EPPC report parrots anti-abortion disinformation, was not peer-reviewed or published in any medical journal, and has been widely criticized by reputable health organizations since its release. “By elevating the sham EPPC report as rationale for restricting access to mifepristone, HHS is blatantly undermining well-established science and weaponizing disinformation to fit the Trump administration’s clear agenda to cut off abortion access in any way possible,” the senators wrote. “FDA relying on a partisan, sham report as part of the evidence review for any drug is deeply concerning—and in this case, it’s clear that the Trump administration is downright eager to do away with established science if it helps further their extreme anti-abortion agenda.”

Mifepristone is already subject to burdensome Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requirements that must be followed for prescribing and dispensing mifepristone—in fact, FDA already restricts mifepristone more heavily than 99.5% of the over 20,000 prescription drugs it regulates. On October 30^th, a federal court ruled that the FDA’s explanation for its current restrictions on mifepristone is unreasoned, unsupported, and illogical. In their letter, the senators ask how the administration plans to comply with this ruling and ensure any review of mifepristone is consistent with the court order. “That court order reinforces that, in conducting this new review, FDA may not cherry-pick junk science serving an anti-abortion agenda, but must instead look at the full body of evidence both confirming mifepristone’s safety and underscoring the harms of the FDA’s onerous restrictions,” the senators wrote.

“The bottom line is that access to mifepristone allows patients to receive time-sensitive, essential health care, including abortion care and miscarriage management,” the senators continued. “If HHS insists on rejecting the science that clearly proves mifepristone is safe and effective, and instead decides to impose additional restrictions on its use, this will force countless women to carry pregnancies to term against their will—regardless of the consequences for their health or lives.”

Murray and Senate Democrats concluded by demanding answers to a number of detailed questions, including what exactly prompted the administration to initiate the review, what process will be used to conduct it, whether there is any unreported data on adverse events it is considering, and how FDA will ensure compliance with the court order in Purcell v. Kennedy. “The American people need to be able to trust that any reviews, regulations, and approvals of medication by HHS and FDA are based on science and evidence—not on partisan attempts to attack abortion access,” the senators concluded. “It is critical that scientific experts and evidence are central to any FDA review or REMS initiative. Mifepristone has long been shown to be safe and effective, and there is no new evidence to justify burdensome restrictions that block women from getting the health care they need.”

Senator Murray leads the Democratic caucus on reproductive health care issues, and she has led the fight in Congress to protect and expand access to mifepristone. Senator Murray led the Congressional response to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a lawsuit brought by Republican anti-abortion extremists trying to rip away access to mifepristone—Murray led multiple amicus briefs, organized her colleagues, and raised the alarm at every turn. In June 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the case on standing, but Murray made clear that “the nationwide threat to medication abortion has not gone away—far from it. If Donald Trump and his anti-abortion allies return to power, they will do everything they can to rip away access to mifepristone and ban abortion nationwide.” Senator Murray has grilled Trump’s FDA Commissioner, Marty Makary, on access to mifepristone at every opportunity she’s had—including at a HELP Committee hearing on his nomination in March, and an Appropriations Agriculture-FDA subcommittee hearing in May. In 2023, Senator Murray pressed national pharmacies including Costco to ensure access to mifepristone, and in August, when Costco announced it would no longer sell mifepristone at its stores, Murray spoke out to demand they reverse course.

Throughout her career, Murray has beat back countless Republican attacks on reproductive care and other family planning services—and she is widely credited with successfully pushing the Bush administration’s FDA to follow the science and make Plan B available over the counter.

The full letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary,

We write today with serious concerns about the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS or the Department) announcement that it will conduct, through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “its own review of the evidence” on the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone, which has been approved by the FDA since 2000 for the medical termination of pregnancy. Decades of evidence and hundreds of studies prove the safety and efficacy of mifepristone, which is not only the most common method of abortion in the U.S., but is also frequently prescribed to women to help manage early pregnancy loss or miscarriage. We are alarmed by the Department’s obvious attempts to politicize the review, regulation, and approval of mifepristone at the FDA, and we write to request more information on the details of the review of mifepristone. We are especially troubled by this administration’s clear intent to tee up further restrictions on medication abortion, in light of a recent federal court order holding that the agency has failed to justify its current extreme restrictions on mifepristone and must consider lifting them.

In an April 28, 2025 letter, Senator Hawley called on the FDA to revisit its existing restrictions on mifepristone, alleging the “research showing the safety risks” of medication abortion are “far greater than the FDA currently acknowledges.” The same day, the avowedly anti-abortion think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) published a junk science “report” that parrots anti-abortion disinformation, was not peer-reviewed or published in any medical journal, and has been widely criticized by reputable health organizations. Based on apparently nothing but the nakedly partisan and easily debunked EPPC report, Commissioner Makary committed to conducting a new review of mifepristone in a June 2, 2025 letter. Secretary Kennedy and Commissioner Makary similarly sent a September 19, 2025 letter to Republican attorneys general, highlighting the EPPC report as alleged evidence of the “potential dangers that may attend offering mifepristone without sufficient medical support or supervision.” By elevating the sham EPPC report as rationale for restricting access to mifepristone, HHS is blatantly undermining well-established science and weaponizing disinformation to fit the Trump administration’s clear agenda to cut off abortion access in any way possible.

Mifepristone has been proven to be safe and effective in hundreds of studies over more than two decades, and this has been backed up by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—which represents more than 90% of the nation’s OBGYNs, the American Medical Association (AMA), the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the Society of Family Planning. While the EPPC report makes unsubstantiated claims about the rate of adverse events following medication abortion, the safety label for mifepristone clearly states that “serious adverse reactions were reported in <0.5% of women” in accordance with the data from 10 clinical trials of more than 30,000 women in settings in the U.S. and abroad. And, the FDA’s own website states that “the FDA’s periodic reviews of the postmarketing data for Mifeprex and its approved generic have not identified any new safety concerns with the use of mifepristone for medical termination of pregnancy through 70 days.”

There are numerous serious methodological issues with the EPPC report, whose analyses cannot be verified or replicated due to EPPC’s failure to transparently share its data sources. As the Society of Family Planning stated in a May letter to Commissioner Makary, “this paper is not a methodologically rigorous, evidence-based resource, and does not warrant consideration, particularly in scientific spaces.” The FDA should be using gold-standard science and evidence when making decisions about medication access for the American people. Typically, the FDA relies on its Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) or other postmarketing surveillance data to consider the safety risk of a particular drug, not unverified claims from a debunked report. FDA relying on a partisan, sham report as part of the evidence review for any drug is deeply concerning—and in this case, it’s clear that the Trump administration is downright eager to do away with established science if it helps further their extreme anti-abortion agenda.

It is also important to note that mifepristone is already subject to burdensome Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requirements that must be followed for prescribing and dispensing mifepristone. The REMS already restricts the number of providers who can prescribe or dispense the drug, and the FDA already restricts mifepristone more heavily than 99.5% of the over 20,000 prescription drugs it regulates, making it more difficult for women to receive the timely access to care they need. On January 3, 2023, the FDA approved a modification to the mifepristone REMS, which included permanent removal of the requirement that the drug be dispensed in-person, and the addition of a new pharmacy certification process to allow qualified retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone to patients with a prescription. These commonsense changes allow for improved access to mifepristone, yet the REMS criteria continues to impose unnecessary restrictions that cause administrative burdens for providers, which may impede their ability to provide the medication, thus impacting patient access.

Leading health experts, including ACOG and the AMA, have long advocated for removal of the mifepristone REMS, given that the restrictions do not make care safer and are not based on medical evidence or need. ACOG argues these restrictions only create further barriers to abortion care and medical management of early pregnancy loss, particularly for communities that already face structural barriers to care.

Abortion opponents are particularly focused on reinstating an “in-person dispensing” requirement for mifepristone. This would force every patient in the country to travel, in some cases hundreds of miles, to pick up the medication in-person at a health center. This mandate would apply even when the patient has been thoroughly evaluated and counseled by a licensed provider via telemedicine and there is no clinical reason to necessitate a health center visit, and even when it would be extremely burdensome or impossible to arrange the transportation, childcare, and time off work necessary for that in-person trip. Yet, as the FDA itself found, “there does not appear to be a difference in adverse events between periods when the in-person dispensing requirement was being enforced and periods when the in-person dispensing requirement was not being enforced. This suggests that mifepristone may be safely used without an in-person dispensing requirement.”

On October 30, 2025, a federal court ruled in Purcell v. Kennedy that the FDA’s explanation for its current restrictions on mifepristone is unreasoned, unsupported, and illogical; that the FDA did not engage with the objections of preeminent medical associations like ACOG and AMA that the mifepristone REMS is medically unnecessary and harmful; and that the FDA ignored peer-reviewed research showing both that mifepristone remains extremely safe when regulated like other prescription drugs and that the FDA’s restrictions significantly reduce patient access. The court also found that the FDA failed to meaningfully address the guardrails that Congress imposed on the agency’s authority to impose a REMS. That court order reinforces that, in conducting this new review, FDA may not cherry-pick junk science serving an anti-abortion agenda, but must instead look at the full body of evidence both confirming mifepristone’s safety and underscoring the harms of the FDA’s onerous restrictions.

The bottom line is that access to mifepristone allows patients to receive time-sensitive, essential health care, including abortion care and miscarriage management. Medication abortion is a critical option for patients who want to end their pregnancy in a place of their choosing, with access to the medical support and information they need. This option is particularly essential for patients who live in remote or rural areas and those who already face barriers to care due to inequities in our country’s health care system. If HHS insists on rejecting the science that clearly proves mifepristone is safe and effective, and instead decides to impose additional restrictions on its use, this will force countless women to carry pregnancies to term against their will—regardless of the consequences for their health or lives.

As you review the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of mifepristone, we request responses to the following questions by November 28, 2025:

Following the March 6, 2025 HELP Committee hearing to consider Dr. Makary’s nomination to be FDA Commissioner, he was asked, in a question for the record, if he planned to make any changes to how mifepristone can be prescribed, dispensed, or accessed. He responded: “I have no immediate plans to make changes to regulation of any specific products and would not do so without a fulsome review of safety and efficacy data.” What qualifies as a “fulsome review of safety and efficacy data?”
What prompted the Department to initiate the recent review of mifepristone?
1. What studies or data are HHS or FDA relying on to justify restrictions on mifepristone, including but not limited to, initiating a new review of mifepristone?
1. Have any mifepristone manufacturers communicated to HHS or FDA any changes in the safety and efficacy data for their products?
What process will you use to conduct this review?
1. Will you solicit unbiased expert review and public comment through advisory committees, expert review panels, public workshops, a request for information, the federal rulemaking process, or other avenues? If utilizing an expert review panel, how will you establish that members have relevant expertise, including recent experience prescribing mifepristone? If utilizing an advisory committee, does HHS commit to following all statutory requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10)?
1. Please list all procedural steps you intend to take in the review of mifepristone to ensure public participation and review of all relevant data.
1. How will you ensure that this review is based on the best available science? For example, will the agency consider only studies that have undergone peer review?
How will you ensure that the review is consistent with the court order in Purcell v. Kennedy and FDA’s limited authority under 21 U.S.C § 355-1(a), (f), and (g)?
The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) documents any reported adverse events to specific prescription drugs approved by the FDA. Does the agency have additional unreported data on adverse events that it is considering in initiating its new review of mifepristone? If yes, will the agency release the unreported data to the public and to the signatories of this letter?
A recent letter led by Senator Cassidy documented several statements from Secretary Kennedy on mifepristone in a September 4, 2025 Finance Committee hearing. Secretary Kennedy claimed the Biden administration “twisted the data” to bury one of the safety signals for mifepristone and that the signal showed an approximately 11% adverse event risk. Please respond to this letter with the same information you provide in response to Senator Cassidy’s letter.
Senator Cassidy asked a question regarding a statement by Secretary Kennedy in the same Finance Committee hearing, indicating studies relating to the safety of mifepristone are “progressing and that they’re ongoing.” Please respond to this letter with the same answer you provide to Senator Cassidy regarding the details of these studies, including the scope, expected timeframe, agencies involved, and type of study.
At the close of the same Finance Committee hearing, Ranking Member Wyden inquired about Secretary Kennedy’s planned mifepristone review which is “not based on new clinical trials or data from the scientific community,” but based on one non-peer-reviewed paper from an anti-abortion political organization. Secretary Kennedy responded by committing to “good science and good scientists” as part of this needless safety review. Please explain how the Secretary intends to meet this commitment and if the preeminent medical professional associations (i.e. ACOG, AMA) will be consulted as part of the review.

The American people need to be able to trust that any reviews, regulations, and approvals of medication by HHS and FDA are based on science and evidence—not on partisan attempts to attack abortion access. We are seriously alarmed by this administration’s obvious attempts to interfere with the science and politicize the drug review process in order to restrict abortion access. It is critical that scientific experts and evidence are central to any FDA review or REMS initiative. Mifepristone has long been shown to be safe and effective, and there is no new evidence to justify burdensome restrictions that block women from getting the health care they need.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and we look forward to your response.

###

The following sites updated: