logo
Stephen Miller says Americans will live better lives without immigrants. He's blowing smoke

Stephen Miller says Americans will live better lives without immigrants. He's blowing smoke

Stephen Miller, the front man for Donald Trump's deportation campaign against immigrants, took to the airwaves the other day to explain why native-born Americans will just love living in a world cleansed of undocumented workers.
'What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?' he asked on Fox News. 'Here's what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problems. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who have special needs would get all the attention that they needed. ... There would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug deaths.' Etc., etc.
No one can dispute that the world Miller described on Fox would be a paradise on Earth. No waiting at the ER? School districts flush with cash? No drug deaths? But that doesn't obscure that pretty much every word Miller uttered was fiction.
The gist of Miller's spiel — in fact, the worldview that he has been espousing for years — is that 'illegal aliens' are responsible for all those ills, and exclusively responsible. It's nothing but a Trumpian fantasy.
Let's take a look, starting with overcrowding at the ER.
The issue has been the focus of numerous studies and surveys. Overwhelmingly, they conclude that undocumented immigration is irrelevant to ER overcrowding. In fact, immigrants generally and undocumented immigrants in particular are less likely to get their healthcare at the emergency room than native-born Americans.
In California, according to a 2014 study from UCLA, 'one in five U.S.-born adults visits the ER annually, compared with roughly one in 10 undocumented adults — approximately half the rate of U.S.-born residents.'
Among the reasons, explained Nadereh Pourat, the study's lead author and director of research at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, was fear of being asked to provide documents.
The result is that undocumented individuals avoid seeking any healthcare until they become critically ill. The UCLA study found that undocumented immigrants' average number of doctor visits per year was lower than for other cohorts: 2.3 for children and 1.7 for adults, compared with 2.8 doctor visits for U.S.-born children and 3.2 for adults.
ER overcrowding is an issue of long standing in the U.S., but it's not the result of an influx of undocumented immigrants. It's due to a confluence of other factors, including the tendency of even insured patients to use the ER as a primary care center, presenting with complicated or chronic ailments for which ER medicine is not well-suited.
While caseloads at emergency departments have surged, their capacities are shrinking.
According to a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences, from 1993 to 2003 the U.S. population grew by 12%, hospital admissions by 13% and ER visits by 26%. 'Not only is [emergency department] volume increasing, but patients coming to the ED are older and sicker and require more complex and time-consuming workups and treatments,' the report observed. 'During this same period, the United States experienced a net loss of 703 hospitals, 198,000 hospital beds, and 425 hospital EDs, mainly in response to cost-cutting measures.'
President Trump's immigration policies during his first term suppressed the use of public healthcare facilities by undocumented immigrants and their families. The key policy was the administration's tightening of the 'public charge' rule, which applies to those seeking admission to the United States or hoping to upgrade their immigration status.
The rule, which has been part of U.S. immigration policy for more than a century, allowed immigration authorities to deny entry — or deny citizenship applications of green card holders — to anyone judged to become a recipient of public assistance such as welfare (today known chiefly as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF) or other cash assistance programs.
Until Trump, healthcare programs such as Medicaid, nutrition programs such as food stamps, and subsidized housing programs weren't part of the public charge test.
Even before Trump implemented the change but after a draft version leaked out, clinics serving immigrant communities across California and nationwide detected a marked drop off in patients.
A clinic on the edge of Boyle Heights in Los Angeles that had been serving 12,000 patients, I reported in 2018, saw monthly patient enrollments fall by about one-third after Trump's 2016 election, and an additional 25% after the leak. President Biden rescinded the Trump rule within weeks of taking office.
Undocumented immigrants are sure to be less likely to access public healthcare services, such as those available at emergency rooms, as a result of Trump's rescinding 'sensitive location' restrictions on immigration agents that had been in effect at least since 2011.
That policy barred almost all immigration enforcement actions at schools, places of worship, funerals and weddings, public marches or rallies, and hospitals. Trump rescinded the policy on inauguration day in January.
The goal was for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents 'to make substantial efforts to avoid unnecessarily alarming local communities,' agency officials stated. Today, as public shows of force and public raids by ICE have demonstrated, instilling alarm in local communities appears to be the goal.
The change in the sensitive locations policy has prompted hospital and ER managers to establish formal procedures for staff confronted with the arrival of immigration agents.
A model policy drafted by the Emergency Medicine Residents Assn. says staff should request identification and a warrant or other document attesting to the need for the presence of agents. It urges staff to determine whether the agents are enforcing a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) or administrative warrant (issued by ICE). The latter doesn't grant agents access to private hospital areas such as patient rooms or operating areas.
What about school funding? Is Miller right to assert that mass deportations will free up a torrent of funding and cutting class sizes in half? He doesn't know what he's talking about.
Most school funding in California and most other places is based on attendance. In California, the number of immigrant children in the schools was 189,634 last year. The total K-12 population was 5,837,700, making the immigrant student body 3.25% of the total. Not half.
In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the estimated 30,000 children from immigrant families amounted to about 7.35% of last year's enrollment of 408,083. Also not half.
With the deportation of immigrant children, the schools would lose whatever federal funding was attached to their attendance. Schools nationwide receive enhanced federal funding for English learners and other immigrants. That money, presumably, would disappear if the pupils go.
What Miller failed to mention on Fox is the possible impact of the Trump administration's determination to shutter the Department of Education, placing billions of dollars of federal funding at risk. California receives more than $16 billion a year in federal aid to K-12 schools through that agency. Disabled students are at heightened risk of being deprived of resources if the agency is dismantled.
Then there's fentanyl. The Trump administration's claim that undocumented immigrants are major players in this crisis appears to be just another example of its scapegoating of immigrants. The vast majority of fentanyl-related criminal convictions — nearly 90% — are of U.S. citizens. The rest included both legally present and undocumented immigrants. (The statistics comes from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.)
In other words, deport every immigrant in the United States, and you still won't have made a dent in fentanyl trafficking, much less eliminate all drug deaths.
What are we to make of Miller's spiel about L.A.? At one level, it's echt Miller: The portrayal of the city as a putative hellscape, larded with accusations of complicity between the city leadership and illegal immigrants — 'the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and criminal aliens,' he said, with zero pushback from his Fox News interlocutor.
At another level, it's a malevolent expression of white privilege. In Miller's ideology, the only obstacles to the return to a drug-free world of frictionless healthcare and abundantly financed education are immigrants. This ideology depends on the notion that immigrants are raiding the public purse by sponging on public services.
The fact is that most undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for most such services. They can't enroll in Medicare, receive premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, or collect Social Security or Medicare benefits (though typically they submit falsified Social Security numbers to employers, so payments for the program are deducted from their paychecks).
A 2013 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that low-income immigrants use public benefits for which they're eligible, such as food stamps, 'at a lower rate than native-born low-income residents.'
If there's an impulse underlying the anti-immigrant project directed by Miller other than racism, it's hard to detect.
Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who last week blocked federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in Los Angeles, ruled that during their 'roving patrols' in Los Angeles, ICE agents detained individuals principally because of their race, that they were overheard speaking Spanish or accented English, that they were doing work associated with undocumented immigrants, or were in locations frequented by undocumented immigrants seeking day work.
Miller goes down the same road as ICE — indeed, by all accounts, he's the motivating spirit behind the L.A. raids. Because he can't justify the raids, he has ginned up a fantasy of immigrants disrupting our healthcare and school programs, and the corollary fantasy that evicting them all will produce an Earthly paradise for the rest of us. Does anybody really believe that?
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I was once an ICE prosecutor. What I see now in immigration courts is disturbing.
I was once an ICE prosecutor. What I see now in immigration courts is disturbing.

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

I was once an ICE prosecutor. What I see now in immigration courts is disturbing.

I hadn't heard the rattling of chains in a courthouse since 2012, when I was a prosecutor for the Department of Homeland Security at the Varick Immigration Court in New York City. Back then, shackles were reserved for individuals deemed a public safety threat or flight risk by ICE as they were being escorted from their holding cells. They often already had arrests or convictions. But in 2025, it's a whole new world. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and other elected officials have been arrested for bearing witness to immigration enforcement. Last month, ICE agents handcuffed New York City Comptroller Brad Lander at 26 Federal Plaza after he linked arms with an immigrant during what should have been a routine court appearance. Each day, ICE raises the stakes –– even targeting Americans who dare to show solidarity. I no longer work for ICE, but I still advocate for immigrants. And what I'm seeing representing clients at ICE check-ins and court hearings is seriously disturbing. Courtrooms that once served as venues for justice are now used to intimidate and remove those who challenge policy. President Trump's militarized immigration enforcement has produced shocking due process violations, chaos and widespread fear. The chains are back, but this time they serve a different purpose. Detainment is no longer about controlling security threats or managing who enters the country. Instead, courtroom arrests are part of a broader effort to restructure the immigration system by force and without debate or legislation. With each new policy, principled professionals inside the courtroom resign, leaving fewer voices willing to question what's happening. This quiet exodus should alarm us all, not just noncitizens. If no one within the system challenges this overreach now, we will soon witness the collapse of immigration courts as we know them. It is hard to ignore the growing sense of danger inside today's immigration courts. Since 2017, more than 300 immigration judges have resigned, retired or been pushed out, many citing political pressure and the erosion of judicial independence. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice abruptly fired 20 immigration judges, including five assistant chief judges and an entire incoming class, a purge widely condemned as politically motivated. Newer judges, trained under Trump-era protocols, now operate under intense scrutiny and are instructed to deny even the most basic continuances, including the standard 10-day extension attorneys typically receive to prepare a response. In April alone, immigration judges closed more than 11,000 asylum cases, a new record high. They also set another record: denial rates exceeded 80 percent. These denials often serve one purpose: to fast-track cases. This advances Trump's novel strategy of dismissing cases to expedite deportation, and to clear dockets to comply with ICE's removal quotas. The loss of judicial expertise coincides with a staggering funding imbalance: from fiscal 2023 through 2024, Congres s spent roughly $24 on ICE and Border Patrol for every dollar spent on immigration courts. This leaves judges overwhelmed and under-resourced, while enforcement agencies received hundreds of billions in support. With arrest quotas at 3,000 per day, and ICE surpassing its 41,500 funded bed spaces, the administration isn't seeking neutral arbiters. It is demanding compliant 'yes' judges to carry out its agenda of expedited removals. Fewer independent voices on the bench, rushed court proceedings and a courtroom culture that now prioritizes handcuffs over hearings have created another urgent crisis: There aren't enough immigration lawyers left to meet the needs of a ballooning docket. And the lack of oversight around ICE's tactics inside courthouses has had a chilling effect on those who remain. A national survey of asylum attorneys found that immigration lawyers experience levels of burnout and secondary traumatic stress higher than those seen in social work, prison care or nursing. Many report symptoms like depression, insomnia, intrusive thoughts and emotional detachment — signs that often mirror PTSD. For those representing unaccompanied children or trauma survivors, the emotional weight is compounded by a sense of moral injury — the psychological damage done by witnessing injustice while feeling powerless to prevent it. While data on government workers — particularly ICE attorneys — is scarce, the signs are troubling. There is no official count of how many have resigned or been pushed out, but those who remain face mounting political pressure and growing caseloads, and they are given no discretion. ICE's legal arm, the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, is tasked with prosecuting millions of immigration cases, yet, unlike federal prosecutors in criminal courts, its attorneys operate with little public accountability. While the departures of immigration judges have drawn concern, attrition within the office remains unnoticed and unexamined. Yet its impact is felt as experienced, ethical attorneys quietly exit, leaving behind many who are less experienced or less ethical, and who at any rate are expected to implement policies without regard to their legality or the dictates of their consciences. One of them, James Joseph Rodden, an ICE attorney in Dallas, was recently exposed for running a white supremacist social media account while actively prosecuting immigrants in court. ICE declined to comment in late March on whether Rodden remains employed. We need courage from within the system –– judges, attorneys and officials willing to uphold the rule of law –– and meaningful reform to guard against the erosion of due process. When defenders of the Constitution resign and those like Rodden stay behind, loyalty to equal justice is replaced by loyalty to power. For the sake of our nation, we must do better. We must demand a system where immigration courtrooms are guided by principle. Veronica Cardenas is a former prosecutor with the Department of Homeland Security. She is the founder of Humanigration, a digital platform serving immigrants and their legal advocates.

The Razor-Thin Line Between Conspiracy Theory and Actual Conspiracy
The Razor-Thin Line Between Conspiracy Theory and Actual Conspiracy

Atlantic

time22 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

The Razor-Thin Line Between Conspiracy Theory and Actual Conspiracy

Elvis is dead. American astronauts really did leave footprints on the moon. And the end of the world has come and gone, over and over again, without the world ever actually ending. When you're a true-blue conspiracy theorist, none of that matters. What's real is only what you want to believe, not what the evidence shows. But when it comes to one of the most popular conspiracy theories in American history—the explosive case of Jeffrey Epstein—the rules of conspiracism only partly apply. The Epstein story seems practically lab manufactured to appeal to conspiracy theorists (incidentally, things manufactured in labs are also something conspiracy theorists love to talk about). The Epstein saga hits on practically every theme of every major conspiracy theory, going back for centuries: It entails allegations of horrific child abuse. There are multiple mysterious deaths involved. Missing tapes. Hidden documents. Claims about a shadowy cabal. Backtracking politicians. Celebrities. Plus, Epstein was Jewish—so the whole affair is inevitably laced with anti-Semitism, a key feature of conspiracism since the Crusades. The thing is, only some parts of the Epstein story are conspiracy theories, and it's surprisingly difficult to suss out which ones. Epstein really did commit awful crimes. People in positions of tremendous power really did let him off easy back in the Bush administration. So where is the line between conspiracy theory and actual conspiracy? In an attempt to make sense of all of this, I talked with Julie K. Brown, an investigative reporter at the Miami Herald and the reporter who knows more about Epstein than almost any other person on the planet. The following is a transcript of the episode: [ Music ] News host 1: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? Attorney General Pam Bondi: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. News host 2: Would you declassify the Epstein files? President Donald Trump: Yeah. Yeah, I would. All right. I guess I would. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino: I'm not ever gonna let this story go, because of what I heard from a source about Bill Clinton on a plane with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not letting it go. FBI Director Kash Patel: Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast, the largest scale pederast in human history? Alina Habba: We have flight logs. We have information, names that will come out. Piers Morgan: Is it gonna be shocking? Habba: I don't see how it's not shocking. Adrienne LaFrance: This is Radio Atlantic. I am Adrienne LaFrance, executive editor of the Atlantic, filling in for Hanna Rosin, who is away this week. For years, President Trump and his allies have promised to make bombshell news on the Jeffrey Epstein case. Many conspiracy-theory-obsessed Americans are preoccupied by Epstein, and MAGA world has long promised that Trump would be the one to release secret files about him. The saga is catnip for conspiracy theorists. The thing is, there are legitimate questions about Epstein, so it's hard to tell what's real and what's made up. Until recently, Pam Bondi, the attorney general, repeatedly said that she had specific new information about Epstein. But over the past two weeks, things got a lot more interesting and a lot more complicated. [ Music ] News host 3: The Department of Justice and FBI released a memo today, saying there was no Jeffrey Epstein client list, contradicting previous promises to provide it. LaFrance: Last week, the FBI released a memo, saying it had reviewed all of its evidence on Epstein, some 300 gigabytes of material, and it announced that it does not plan to release any more information. The Department of Justice now says there is no Epstein client list, and they say there's no evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent people. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what Trump world has been claiming all along. Now, Americans are accustomed to Trump and his allies making outrageous claims without evidence. But this particular about-face has MAGA tearing each other apart, with some major influencers turning on previous allies and many Trump supporters criticizing Trump himself for what seems to them like a cover-up. News host 4: President Trump facing unprecedented criticism from some of his biggest supporters. Trump: He's dead for a long time. He was never a big factor in terms of life. I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is. LaFrance: This is a wild story politically, so wild that it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that there are real crimes underlying the larger scandal. Like many people, I feel like I'm losing the thread on all of this. It's extremely hard to understand which aspects of this are known to be true, known to be false, or somewhere in the muddy middle. So on this episode, we're going to try to make as much sense of this as we possibly can. Julie Brown: This is gonna be like the [John F. Kennedy] assassination. Long after you and I are gone, there's gonna be people that are gonna be writing and looking at this, and writing books about it. I just know it. LaFrance: That's Julie K. Brown. She's an investigative reporter at the Miami Herald, and she probably knows more than anyone in the world about this case. In 2018, Julie published a series of deeply reported stories about Epstein that led to the effective reopening of the case. The next year, Epstein was indicted on federal sex-trafficking charges. Then a month after his arrest, he was found dead in his jail cell. Julie, hi. Brown: Hello. LaFrance: Let me start by asking you about last week. Are you surprised by all of this drama? Or have you been basically waiting for this moment, where Trump world says, Oh, just kidding. Nothing to see here? Brown: I've been waiting for this moment. I could see this like it was a train wreck that you can't take your eyes from, because you know what's going to happen, and this does not surprise me. What would've surprised me is if they had really released files, because I really didn't think they were going to. LaFrance: And is that because there aren't files to release, or because of what might be in them? Brown: Both. I mean, there are files to release, but I knew that they probably contain a lot of sensitive information and that there would be a lot of hand-wringing over what they could release, if they could release them. The other thing is: There is an ongoing criminal appeal of a criminal conviction attached to some of these files, which are the files that contain the Ghislaine Maxwell case. And so I would think that, legitimately, there might be some things there that they probably couldn't release, because the case is still on appeal. But nevertheless, there's still a lot of files that date back to probably 2005 even that they could have released if they elected to do so. LaFrance: And the Maxwell case is the affiliate of his who is in prison now. Is that right? Brown: That's correct. LaFrance: Well, let's establish some of the basics. I find myself watching all of this unfold, and beginning to sort of lose sight of what actually is true, what is speculation. Talk about what Epstein was accused of, what he was indicted for. What do we know for sure? Brown: Well, let's start with something that almost no one really starts with in this whole scandal that's been happening over the past week, and that is the victims. Jeffrey Epstein abused probably at least 200 young girls, some of them reportedly as young as 12 years old, over a span of decades. He also sexually abused young women who are in the area of 18 to 25 years old. But this is a case about a man who used these women as pawns to further his own ambition and finances, in that he used them not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others that he had hoped to do business with. And this was all part of the sex-trafficking operation. He had several different offices, so to speak, with this operation. He had a whole staff that helped him with this. He had legal people that helped him with this. So this was just not Epstein having sex in his mansion with a couple of underage girls. This was a whole operation. And I think people sometimes lose sight of the fact that he was able to continue doing that because our federal government and our criminal-justice system failed these victims, and never really pursued this case with the seriousness and intensity that they should have from the very beginning. And that's why he got away with it. It's why he was released way back in 2009, and he was able to continue doing the same things all over again after his release from this plea deal that he initially negotiated two decades ago with the federal government. LaFrance: Talk about that time period. When you think about the lag in taking this operation seriously, does that cross different presidential administrations in terms of the DOJ? Or is there one period in which it was particularly egregiously ignored? How should we think about that? Brown: Sexual assault doesn't discriminate based on political party. There were bad people on both sides of the political aisle in this story. And focusing on the political part of it misses the point. And the point is that our justice system is terribly broken. Our system is weighted unfairly in favor of people who have a lot of power and a lot of money and a lot of influence. LaFrance: It's such an important point. And when you hear all of these conspiracy theories, how do you sort between, you know, the theories that are just totally outrageous and you think are not worth dwelling on, versus, you know, perhaps an example of what might be called a conspiracy theory but you, as an investigative reporter, think is actually a legitimate line of questioning? Brown: That is this scandal, in a nutshell, in that we have some competing forces here. We have the forces of truth and facts, versus the forces of conspiracy that want to fan theories in order to further some kind of agenda, whether that's a political agenda or—there's a million agendas. Some of these influencers, their agenda is to get more viewers or more listeners. So there's these competing forces here with journalism today, and it's not just with the Epstein story, but with almost everything. And it's a real struggle, to be honest with you. That's why I always try to bring these questions back to what I know based on my reporting, based on court records, based on, you know, police records, based on interviews that I've done. And so when I'm asked about some of these conspiracy theories, I sort of direct it toward 'Here's what I do know.' LaFrance: Let's talk about the client list, or what's sometimes called the 'Epstein client list.' Is it real? Where did this idea that it exists come from? What do we know? Brown: That whole thing about the so-called list is really a red herring. I think it morphed out of sort of a phone directory that Ghislaine Maxwell actually is responsible for compiling on a computer way back in 2005, 2006. And it's public. The phone numbers are redacted out of it, but if you Google it, you could find—they used to call it the 'black book.' That was sort of the nickname that it was given. And it was these copies that were printed out from a computer, and every time Epstein or Maxwell met somebody important, they would get their contact information, and they would put it in this file. There were people like Donald Trump on that list and celebrities. But there were also his gardeners who were on that list, his hairdresser, his barbers, his electrician. I mean, it was a comprehensive list. So it was pretty clear that this was not a black book in the sense that these were all his clients. It was just a phone directory. But the reason why they called it a black book is because when the FBI first got its hands on it, there was someone who was trying to sell it to one of the lawyers who represented the victims. He sort of circled some names on that list, of people that he was trying to say were somehow connected to Epstein in a more nefarious way, whether it was business or whether it was sex trafficking. People just started then on social media, started to refer to something called a client list. It took a life of its own, into that, Oh, Epstein had a client list. He actually had a list of clients that he sent girls to, or that he sent women to. I never believed that there was ever a list like that, because, quite frankly, Epstein didn't need to do a list like that. The bad actors here, the people that he sent some of these victims to, they know who they are. And he really only used this whole sex-trafficking operation as a way to pressure them to help him in some way, to either invest in, or give them his money to invest, or just to make money. So as long as they were cooperating with him and doing that, there was no reason to say, I have you on a list. That wasn't the way he operated. But that said, there are still names in those files, of people who were involved with Epstein's operation. He could never have done this all by himself. He had people. We know he had assistants. We know he had lawyers. We know he had people helping him get visas for women that he was recruiting from overseas countries. So there was a network here of people that were working for him and helping him. [ Music ] [ Break ] LaFrance: Let's talk for a moment about the Donald Trump of it all. You know, there are some conflicting data or information to reconcile here, and I'm really interested to hear how you think about this, because we're talking about a man, in Trump, who has bragged about grabbing women without their consent, who is credibly accused of rape and sexual assault. And so, on one hand, you have, you know, this—you point out that the Epstein list is a red herring, that, you know, Elon Musk claimed without evidence that Trump is on this list, which you're saying probably doesn't even exist. On the other hand, there's good reason, empirically grounded reason to question Trump's record of sexual or alleged sexual abuse. And so I'm curious how you think about, you know, in this moment, when you have the Trump administration waving this away, saying, There is no list, you know, Trump saying, This whole line of questioning is boring. What do you make of this? How should we think about how he fits in (or doesn't) to this larger scandal? Brown: Well, it's hard to know. You don't really know how he fits completely into this scandal. I was finally forced to say something during the election, when there were so many of those conspiracy theorists out there on the left who were trying to directly link him with Epstein's crimes. And there's absolutely no evidence that he was involved in Epstein's crimes. There isn't. And I've pretty much read almost everything that's out there. But that doesn't mean that it's not possible. And I would say that with everything that's happened in the past week, it certainly raises suspicions that maybe there is more to his, you know, friendship with Epstein than maybe we know. LaFrance: Right. And to your point about them having had a relationship, you know, Trump himself has said that they were friends. In 2002, there was an interview that Trump did with New York magazine. I'm going to read this quote from Donald Trump at the time. It says—he says, quote, 'I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.' So given that, and given everything, you know, more importantly, do you think it's possible that Donald Trump didn't know what Epstein was up to? Brown: No. He had to know. Yeah, I think he absolutely knew. The reason why he knew is, one of the impetuses for their alleged falling out was: Epstein went to Mar-a-Lago at one point, and he hit on one of the young daughters of one of the other club members. And we were told by multiple sources that that's why Trump and him broke it off, because Trump banned him from Mar-a-Lago because of that. I honestly think, back in the culture that existed back then and to some degree, of course, still today, that some of these powerful men really believed they were helping these girls and women. They really felt that by paying them, this was a good thing: We're helping this woman, you know. We're helping this girl to get an education. They still sometimes look at these cases and say, What's the problem here? The women got paid. They had to know what they were doing. There is still this cultural problem that we have in this country that powerful men who take advantage of vulnerable women or younger women don't do anything wrong. LaFrance: You're someone who has spent years trying to understand the truth about all of this. If you had a magic wand and could wave it and, you know, get the question you most want answered answered, or see the document, or whatever it is, what is the thing that you most wish you could know, once and for all, about all of this? Brown: I think the one nagging question for me—because, you know, I know so much about the case, to be honest—goes all the way back to 2008, and I wanna know the person in the Department of Justice who said, Don't charge Epstein. If you're gonna charge him, charge him with just something minor, and let's get this done. LaFrance: And that 2008 case—remind us how that came about. Brown: Well, there was intense political pressure because, you know, initially, the case was a local police case. It was the Palm Beach police who found a litany of girls that were going in and out and having sex with Epstein at all hours of the day and night. And they wanted to, of course, charge him with sexual battery or rape or, you know, something like that, on a local charge. And initially, the state attorney in Palm Beach County, where this happened, was completely on board with the police case and their investigation, said, Go after him. We're gonna nail him. We're gonna arrest him. And then somebody got to him. Epstein lawyered up with some pretty powerful lawyers, including Alan Dershowitz, and they started getting dirt on the girls, trying to show that they didn't live, you know, the best lives. It was intense. Epstein mounted an unbelievable pressure campaign. And I think he thought that it would end with the local police once the state attorney—which the state attorney finally did sort of say, I am not going to charge him. But the police, to their credit, never gave up on it. They did everything they possibly could have done to try to move the needle and get him put away. And, you know, of course, at that point, once the feds took over, then Epstein had a bigger problem, and then he needed to hire more lawyers who were politically connected in Washington. Then at that point, it rose and rose to the White House, really, where the case just kept rolling. And that was part of my—really, the biggest part of my investigation was looking at how Epstein and his lawyers manipulated our Justice Department in a big way. They basically got almost everything they wanted, except they wanted the case to completely disappear. They wanted him to walk away without anything. And what they ultimately got was this sweetheart deal that they kept secret for a year. You know, the victims never even knew exactly what happened until a year later, when finally, a judge unsealed the agreement. LaFrance: So for you, it's not the Epstein list or the jail-cell video or the circumstances around his death, but really: Who was that person in the first place who decided that he should walk, basically? Brown: Yeah. LaFrance: That's really interesting. Brown: Yeah, who were the people behind that in the beginning? Because if they had done their jobs, of all these people in 2006, 2007, and 2008—if all those people working for us, the American public, had done their jobs, we wouldn't be sitting here right now. A lot of those victims would've never been victimized. LaFrance: So it sounds like under the Bush administration, primarily, or does this go into Obama's DOJ as well? Brown: No, it was primarily initially Bush's administration. LaFrance: What should happen now, if there's any possibility of justice or truth or any sense of closure in this scandal? What is it going to take, and what do you think should happen next? Brown: I go back to when I took up this case initially. It had been written about. A lot of people knew. There had been tons of stories about the 'Lolita Express,' 'Epstein Island.' You know, this conspiracy-theory cycle started way back before I even took up the investigation, but I was looking at it from a different vantage point, as a journalist, about exactly what happened. I looked at it sort of like a cold-case detective, just pretend that I know nothing about the case and start all over. And I think at this point, that's probably the same thing that the Justice Department, in an ideal world, should do. Because this is never going to end. This is going to be like the JFK assassination. Long after you and I are gone, there's gonna be people that are gonna be writing and looking at this, and writing books about it. I just know it. And so I think in an ideal world, we should just step back and look at everything from the start and examine what happened. I just don't think there's the courage or the political will to do something like that, because a hearing where you're bringing a couple people before Congress isn't going to do that, isn't gonna get you those answers. What will get your answers if you get a really good prosecutor to really examine this. LaFrance: I want to end where we started, which is with the victims, and we're talking here about some 200 people whose lives are forever changed by these crimes. Have you talked to any of those victims in the past week or so? I'm curious what they're saying now, how they're responding to this latest drama. What have you heard? Brown: I try not to bother them, you know, every time you call them—even one of the lawyers I spoke with who represented nine victims, I spoke with this morning, I said, Have you spoken with your clients? And he said no. He said, I do not call them unless it's something really big, because you just open that wound every time they get that phone call. And so I've been very respectful of their privacy. I rarely ever call them. I figure if they need me, they'll call me. I did think about them after Trump made the comments that this was boring—and I can't remember the other word he used—but I just cringed because I thought, Oh, gosh. You know, I felt their pain when he said those words. This is just a nightmare for them. You know? This is just a horrible nightmare for them because all they want is for the government to do its job. I might get emotional here because I feel bad for them because I know them so well, some of them. And the interviews I did with them were very painful to do. And I just feel that our government is just failing them over and over again. And, you know, even though I'm a journalist, I am a human being too. And I just think that what they went through and they're still continuing to go through is painful. Painful. LaFrance: Well, Julie, thank you so much for all of your extraordinary reporting and, especially, for your time today. Brown: Thank you. [ Music ] LaFrance: This episode of Radio Atlantic was produced by Rosie Hughes and Kevin Townsend. It was edited by Claudine Ebeid. Rob Smierciak engineered this episode and provided original music. Sam Fentress fact-checked this episode. Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor. Listeners, if you like what you hear on Radio Atlantic, you can support our work and the work of all Atlantic journalists when you subscribe to The Atlantic at

Worried About Social Security Cuts? The Solution May Be Worse Than the Problem Itself.
Worried About Social Security Cuts? The Solution May Be Worse Than the Problem Itself.

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Worried About Social Security Cuts? The Solution May Be Worse Than the Problem Itself.

Key Points Social Security is at risk of having to cut benefits in less than a decade. There's a good chance lawmakers will do what it takes to prevent those cuts from happening. The solutions implemented to prevent Social Security cuts may not be preferable to the cuts themselves. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security has been in the news lately. And unfortunately, it hasn't been for a good reason. The Social Security Trustees recently released their much-awaited report. And in it, they shared a pretty lousy update. In a nutshell, the program's combined trust funds are set to run out of money by 2034. And the depletion of the Social Security trust funds could set the stage for broad benefit cuts. That's clearly far from ideal. And it's a situation that lawmakers need to address immediately. But unfortunately, the solutions to the problem could end up being worse than benefit cuts themselves. Why lawmakers are invested in preventing Social Security cuts Social Security has faced benefit cuts in the past. Each time, lawmakers have managed to find a way to prevent them. Therefore, there's a good chance benefit cuts will be avoidable this time around, too. The reality is that many retirees rely on Social Security to provide all or most of their income. If benefits were to be cut, countless seniors would then need other types of government assistance to stay afloat. Lawmakers do not want a senior poverty crisis on their hands. And if they don't prevent Social Security cuts, they're going to have to pick up the pieces elsewhere. Why the solutions to prevent Social Security cuts aren't great Lawmakers have been working on different ways to prevent Social Security cuts. But unfortunately, each potential fix comes with a major and very obvious drawback. One option is to raise the Social Security tax rate. It's currently 12.4%, split evenly between employers and employees. Raising that tax rate could easily result in an uptick in revenue for Social Security. But it would also burden working Americans with higher taxes. The same would hold true for employers, which could lead to price hikes that hurt consumers, as well as an uptick in unemployment to conserve costs (which, incidentally, hurts Social Security, because the fewer workers there are, the less revenue the program takes in). There's also the possibility of raising full retirement age, which is when older Americans can collect their monthly Social Security benefits without a reduction. Right now, full retirement age is 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later. Pushing that age out to 69 could help Social Security conserve resources and potentially avoid having to cut benefits. However, that solution introduces a problem because as it is, many older people struggle to work until 67. Forcing them to work two extra years could mean subjecting a lot of folks to health issues, not to mention denying them the slightly earlier retirement they deserve. Plus, it's not a given that everyone who wants to work until full retirement age gets to. Employers are notorious for pushing older workers out of their jobs and getting away with it. Raising the full retirement age only makes it that much harder for eligible recipients to get their Social Security checks in full. All told, there's a good chance that lawmakers will find a way to prevent Social Security cuts. But whether the solutions are good for the public is a different story. Unfortunately, this is shaping up to be one of those lose-lose situations, no matter how you look at it. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Worried About Social Security Cuts? The Solution May Be Worse Than the Problem Itself. was originally published by The Motley Fool 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store