Category: Commentary Page 1 of 16

This is the home of grumpy opinions.

If you thought book banning was a relic of the past, think again. The United States is experiencing the most intense wave of book challenges in modern memory. Over the last four years, thousands of books have been removed from school and library shelves, sparking a national debate about parental rights, free expression, education, and the role of government.

At the center of the controversy is a simple but powerful question: Who gets to decide what children and communities are allowed to read?

We were casually looking for books to read with our grandson this year. He loves baseball so we were looking for books on that topic. Somehow we got on a site about banned books and, yes, there was a baseball story on the list, curiosity got us. The book is Baseball Saved Us by Ken Mochizuki and Dom Lee. This is the story about a baseball field that was created in a Japanese internment camp in during World War II and the prejudice they faced when they returned home after the war. The story, written on a fourth grade reading level, is about how the boys played baseball during their internment and how it helped them to survive. This is a banned book?? Why??

This made us wonder what it means to be on a “banned book list”. Just because it’s on the list does every library or school have to ban it? The answer is no, thank goodness. Members of library boards and school boards and parents play an important role and they have a lot to consider. Here are some interesting details about book banning in its current evolution.

The Scale of the Movement

The numbers are striking. According to PEN America, nearly 23,000 book bans have occurred in public schools since 2021. During the 2023–24 school year alone, more than 10,000 individual book bans were recorded. The following year saw nearly 7,000 additional bans affecting more than 3,700 unique titles.

Florida has led the nation in book removals for three consecutive years, followed by Texas and Tennessee. The American Library Association (ALA) documented more than 4,200 unique titles challenged in 2025, making it one of the highest years ever recorded.

Not every challenge results in a permanent ban. Some books are removed temporarily while review committees evaluate complaints. Others are eventually restored to shelves. Yet the sheer volume of challenges has significantly reduced access to books for many students and library users.

Supporters argue these actions protect children from inappropriate material. Critics view them as a growing campaign of censorship.

Which Books Are Being Targeted?

The books most frequently challenged share common themes.

According to the ALA, many complaints focus on books that discuss race, racism, gender identity, sexuality, or LGBTQ+ experiences. Others involve sexual content, abuse, violence, or mental health issues.

Among the most challenged books in recent years are Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, Looking for Alaska by John Green, and several novels by Sarah J. Maas.

Classic works have also been caught in the controversy. Schools and districts in several states have removed or restricted books such as The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini, and even George Orwell’s 1984.

Critics of the banning movement note that many of these books have been available in schools for years or even decades. They argue that the current challenges are less about newly discovered concerns and more about broader cultural and political disagreements.

Who Is Driving the Challenges?

One of the most significant developments is the changing source of complaints.

The ALA reports that in 2025, 92 percent of book challenges originated from organized groups, government officials, or political activists rather than individual parents. Twenty years earlier, most challenges came from local citizens raising concerns about specific books.

This shift suggests that book challenges have become part of a larger political movement rather than isolated local disputes.

Among the most visible organizations is Moms for Liberty, founded in Florida in 2021. Originally focused on opposition to COVID-19 school policies, the group later turned its attention to curriculum issues and library books. It now claims chapters in dozens of states and has become a major force in school board elections and library controversies.

Other organizations, including No Left Turn in Education, Citizens Defending Freedom, and various state-based groups, have pursued similar goals. These organizations often share lists of books to challenge, provide guidance to local activists, and coordinate campaigns across multiple communities.

Supporters describe these efforts as parental advocacy. Critics see them as organized attempts to impose political and ideological restrictions on public education.

The Political Connection

The book-banning movement has become closely associated with broader conservative politics, particularly the MAGA movement.

Moms for Liberty has maintained ties with the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that developed Project 2025. The Heritage Foundation has sponsored Moms for Liberty events and honored the organization with awards recognizing its activism.

The relationship became even more visible when Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice left the organization to lead the Heritage Foundation’s parental-rights initiative.

Former President Donald Trump has also embraced many of the same themes. He appeared at a Moms for Liberty national summit and has frequently criticized educational institutions, libraries, and schools that he believes promote what he describes as inappropriate or politically biased material.

Supporters view these alliances as part of a broader effort to restore parental control over education. Opponents argue they demonstrate that book challenges have become deeply intertwined with national political agendas.

Project 2025 and Libraries

Much attention has focused on Project 2025, the policy blueprint produced by the Heritage Foundation.

The document calls for stronger action against what its authors characterize as inappropriate materials in schools and libraries. Critics have highlighted language suggesting that educators and librarians who provide access to certain materials could face legal consequences.

Supporters argue that such proposals are intended to protect children from explicit content. Opponents contend that they would create a chilling effect, discouraging educators and librarians from offering books dealing with controversial subjects.

The debate reflects a broader disagreement about where the line should be drawn between protecting minors and preserving intellectual freedom.

How Libraries and Schools Are Responding

Responses vary widely across the country.

Some school districts remove challenged books immediately. Others establish review committees consisting of teachers, librarians, administrators, parents, and sometimes students. These committees examine books in their entirety before making recommendations.

Public libraries have generally been more resistant to removing books. Most rely on formal collection-development policies and challenge procedures designed to balance community concerns with principles of intellectual freedom.

Many libraries have retained challenged books after review, arguing that public libraries serve diverse populations and that parents should make reading decisions for their own children without limiting access for others.

At the same time, librarians in some states report increasing pressure from elected officials and advocacy groups. Concerns about funding, employment consequences, and potential legal liability have led some libraries to avoid purchasing controversial titles altogether.

Critics refer to this phenomenon as “preemptive censorship” because books disappear before formal challenges even occur.

State Governments Enter the Fight

Several states have moved beyond local challenges and enacted statewide policies.

Utah, South Carolina, and Tennessee have adopted mechanisms that allow certain books to be removed from schools statewide. Florida has expanded parental authority over educational materials and library collections.

Supporters argue these measures provide consistency and protect children across entire states. Critics counter that statewide restrictions eliminate local decision-making and reduce access to books for students whose families may have no objections to the material.

The controversy has occasionally reached dramatic levels. In Randolph County, North Carolina, county commissioners dissolved the public library board after it refused to remove a children’s book featuring a transgender character.

Such disputes illustrate how library policy has become a flashpoint in cultural conflicts.

The Courts Push Back

Many of these policies have faced legal challenges and the results have been mixed.

In Iowa, a federal judge blocked portions of a state law that prohibited books containing descriptions of sexual activity, ruling that the restrictions likely violated First Amendment protections. In the Rutherford County, Tennessee case, the first legal challenge to that state’s expanded book statute — a federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction, writing that a school board “has not prohibited students from reading the books or acquiring them elsewhere; instead, it has merely opted not to carry them on school library bookshelves.”

Courts have often struggled to balance competing interests. School boards possess significant authority over educational materials, while students have constitutional protections related to access to information.

The legal outcomes remain uncertain, but the judiciary has become one of the primary battlegrounds in the debate.

Voters Respond

School board elections have become another arena for the conflict.

In several Texas districts during 2025, voters removed incumbents who had championed aggressive book-removal policies. Similar results appeared in other states, suggesting that many voters are uncomfortable with the scope of current restrictions. At the same time, candidates supporting stricter controls continue to win elections in other communities.

The mixed results indicate that Americans remain deeply divided on the issue.

A Growing Countermovement

Opposition to book bans has generated its own political response. Organizations such as PEN America, the Authors Guild, the ALA, and numerous local advocacy groups have organized campaigns defending intellectual freedom. Several states have considered legislation designed to make book removals more difficult.

Minnesota, for example, has considered legislation that would prohibit the removal of books based primarily on ideological objections and would place greater authority in the hands of professional librarians.

Supporters argue such laws protect access to information. Critics contend they diminish parental influence and local control.

The Bottom Line

The modern book-banning movement is unlike anything seen in recent decades. Its scale is unprecedented, its organization is sophisticated, and its connections to broader political movements are well documented.

Supporters view the effort as a legitimate exercise of parental rights and community standards. Critics see it as an organized campaign to restrict access to ideas, experiences, and viewpoints that some groups find objectionable.

The debate is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. It touches fundamental questions about education, democracy, free speech, and the role of public institutions.

Who should decide what belongs on library shelves? Parents? Librarians? Teachers? School boards? Legislatures? Courts?

Americans have not reached a consensus on those questions. Until they do, the battle over books is likely to remain one of the most visible fronts in the nation’s ongoing culture wars.

Illustration generated by author using Chat GPT

Sources

PEN America — Book Bans Overview

PEN America — The Normalization of Book Banning (2024–25 Report)

American Library Association — Censorship by the Numbers

ALA — Most Challenged Books

NPR — ALA Releases 2025 Most Challenged Books

NPR — PEN America 2024–25 Report

Authors Guild — Voters Reject Book Restrictions, 2025

Washington Post — Trump, Moms for Liberty, Heritage Foundation

New Jersey Monitor — M4L Summit and Project 2025 Ties

GLAAD — Moms for Liberty and Book Bans

EveryLibrary Institute — Project 2025 and Libraries

I Love Libraries — Book Challenges Update

Freedom to Learn Foundation — 2025 State of Book Banning

Two Wheels, Full Throttle, No License

By John Turley

On June 12, 2026

In Commentary

How Young Riders Are Turning E-Bikes Into Motorcycles — And Paying the Price

Walk around any suburban neighborhood, school parking lot, or boardwalk on a warm afternoon, and you’ll spot them — teenagers zipping past on e-bikes that look suspiciously like small motorcycles. They’re leaning into the throttle, barely touching the pedals, weaving through traffic with the confidence of experienced riders and the inexperience of kids who’ve never had a driver’s license. It’s a scene playing out all across America, and it’s landing more and more young people in emergency rooms.

E-bikes — short for electric bicycles — have exploded in popularity. According to the American College of Surgeons, more than 1.1 million e-bikes were sold in the United States in 2022, with projected annual growth of around 10 percent. They’re cheaper than cars, faster than regular bicycles, and — crucially — they don’t require a driver’s license or registration in most states. For teenagers who can’t yet get behind the wheel of a car, an e-bike can feel like the next best thing. Sometimes it’s marketed that way, too.

But the gap between what parents think they’re buying and what these machines can do is widening dangerously and regulators, pediatricians, and trauma surgeons are all sounding the alarm.

A Classification System Built for Adults, Ignored by Kids

Under federal guidelines, e-bikes fall into three classes. Class 1 bikes use pedal assist — the motor only kicks in when the rider is actually pedaling, and it cuts out at 20 mph. Class 2 bikes come with a throttle, meaning the motor engages without any pedaling at all, topping out at 20 mph. Class 3 bikes are pedal-assist only but allow speeds up to 28 mph. The American College of Surgeons and most safety advocates have noted that Class 2 bikes — the ones with throttles — most closely resemble mopeds in how they really function.

The throttle is the key word here. On a Class 2 e-bike, a rider can twist the grip, lean back, and let the motor do everything. There’s no need to pedal. No need to exert any physical effort. The bike simply goes. A teenager who’s never ridden anything faster than a 10-speed now has access to a motor vehicle — because legally, in most states, that’s not what it’s called.

Some e-bikes complicate things further by allowing riders to toggle between classes, sometimes without the rider or parent even knowing it. A California lawsuit alleged that one manufacturer falsely marketed a bike as Class 2 when it could easily be switched to Class 3 operation. Colorado state lawmaker Lesley Smith, who co-sponsored legislation addressing this, put it plainly: “The biggest issue is e-bikes that switch from a power-assisted bike to essentially a motorized scooter.”

And then there are outright counterfeits and gray-market products — machines marketed as e-bikes that are functionally electric motorcycles. Researchers at the American College of Surgeons noted that some controllers can be deactivated by a magnet or a few keystrokes, unlocking speeds above 37 mph. Conversion kits available online can boost motors to more than 1,000 watts — well above federal limits. These aren’t bicycles by any meaningful definition, but they’re being sold and ridden as if they were.

Nobody’s Pedaling — And That’s the Point

Ask any parent who’s watched their kid ride an e-bike for more than five minutes and they’ll tell you: the pedals are mostly decorative. Young riders, especially those on throttle-equipped Class 2 models, are operating these bikes like mini motorcycles — right hand on the throttle, both feet tucked back, no pedaling whatsoever. It’s intuitive, it’s fun, and it’s exactly what the design invites them to do.

Manufacturers market throttle operation openly. One company describes it this way: “Throttle mode lets you control speed with a handlebar twist or button, requiring no pedaling — similar to a motorcycle.” Another notes the throttle “works like a regular throttle on a motorcycle.” The pitch is freedom and convenience. What isn’t mentioned in the branding is the risk profile that comes along with operating a motor vehicle without any training, licensing requirement, or mandatory safety course.

The legal fiction that these are bicycles and therefore unregulated as motor vehicles is doing a lot of heavy lifting for the industry. E-bikes are not subject to the same federal oversight as motorcycles or mopeds. No driver’s license is required. No registration. No insurance. In most states, no helmet is mandated for adult riders. A 12-year-old can, in many jurisdictions, legally operate a machine that travels at 20-28 mph through traffic, with zero formal training.

KFF Health News, reporting in late 2025, found that federal oversight of e-bike safety has largely stalled, leaving a patchwork of state and county rules that vary wildly. More than half the states now restrict who can ride Class 3 bikes, but Class 2, the throttle-equipped, motorcycle-operation models that require zero pedaling, often has far lighter age restrictions, if any.

The Injury Numbers Are Alarming — and Getting Worse

Trauma surgeons across the country are watching the data accumulate with growing alarm. At Penn State Health Children’s Hospital, doctors treated more children for e-bike and e-scooter injuries in 2025 than in the prior three years combined. At Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, pediatric e-bike injuries nearly tripled in just one year, from 32 cases in the first half of 2024 to 92 during the same period in 2025. In May and June of 2025 alone, the Connecticut hospital saw 25 injuries, compared to just 3 the year before.

The injuries themselves tell the story. Dr. James Dodington of Yale Medicine described an “explosion” in serious pediatric trauma, saying that patients are arriving with injuries more consistent with motorcycle accidents than bicycle falls: severe head trauma, facial fractures, internal bleeding. This is confirmed an American College of Surgeons report that e-bike injuries are more severe than standard bicycle injuries, and that the rate of such injuries is increasing every year.

Perhaps the most striking data point comes from Marin County, California, where health officials found that children between ages 10 and 15 who crash their e-bikes require an ambulance at five times the rate of other age groups involved in e-bike crashes. These aren’t minor spills. These are serious, life-altering events.

Why Young Riders Are Especially at Risk

It’s not just that kids are riding fast machines — it’s that adolescent brains are not yet wired for the kind of risk assessment that operating a motor vehicle demands. The prefrontal cortex, which governs impulse control and judgment, is still developing well into a person’s mid-twenties. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises that children under 16 should not operate motorized e-bikes at all.

Research consistently shows that young riders under 25 take the most risks on e-bikes and e-scooters and are also four times more likely to engage in risky behavior. Add to that the social dynamics of adolescence — showing off for friends, going faster than is wise, taking shortcuts through traffic — and the risk profile compounds quickly.

Helmet use is another major gap. Research published in JAMA Surgery found that e-bike riders without helmets were nearly twice as likely to sustain head injuries as those who wore them. And yet helmet use among young e-bike riders remains inconsistent, often because helmets aren’t legally required for them and because the cultural norm for e-biking hasn’t caught up with the reality of what these machines can do. For Class 3 speeds of 28 mph, many safety experts now recommend motorcycle-rated helmets rather than standard bike helmets — a recommendation that most young riders have not heard of and probably wouldn’t follow anyway.

Distraction compounds the danger further. Dr. Bryanna Emr, director of pediatric trauma surgery at Penn State, noted that many riders have headphones on or are looking at their phones while riding — a behavior that is dangerous on a regular bicycle and potentially fatal on a machine traveling at near highway speeds without the safety cage of a car.

The Regulatory Gap: No One Is Clearly in Charge

Part of what makes this problem so difficult to solve is that e-bikes fall between regulatory agencies in a frustrating way. The Consumer Product Safety Commission oversees products sold to consumers, while the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration governs motor vehicles. E-bikes, classified legally as bicycles, fall primarily under CPSC — but the existing standards were written for traditional pedal bicycles and have been acknowledged as inadequate for e-bikes. Parents should also be aware that some bikes marketed as Class 2 can be easily toggled into higher-speed Class 3 operation — sometimes without the rider even realizing it.

Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape at the state level is a true patchwork. Some states follow the three-class system in full. Others have partial adoptions. A few set minimum ages for Class 3 bikes. Some localities have taken things into their own hands — Marin County in California, for instance, has banned children under 16 from operating Class 2 e-bikes entirely. Colorado, Minnesota, and Utah passed new laws in 2025 addressing battery fire risks and attempting to distinguish legal e-bikes from the faster “e-motos” that are being sold under the e-bike label.

The American College of Surgeons issued a formal statement in June 2025 calling for clearer federal definitions, age-based restrictions, mandatory helmet requirements, and enforcement against illegally modified bikes. The statement noted that e-bikes should be classified based on their maximum obtainable speed on flat ground — not just their advertised class — and that speed unlocks and modification kits need to be regulated or banned.

For the moment, the fastest-moving part of this landscape is the injury statistics, which are outpacing the regulatory response at an escalating rate.

What Parents and Policymakers Should Know

If you’re a parent considering an e-bike for a child who’s still years away from a driver’s license, here’s what the evidence says: the machine your child will operate is functionally a motorized vehicle. A throttle-equipped model requires no pedaling, no physical effort, and no prior training. At speeds of 20-28 mph, a crash produces injuries more similar to a motorcycle accident than a bicycle tumble. And the regulatory system, for now, is not keeping pace with the technology.

From a policy standpoint, the calls from the medical and trauma community are consistent: age-based federal minimums, mandatory helmet laws for all e-bike riders, clearer definitions that separate true bicycles from what are functionally motor vehicles, and enforcement mechanisms restricting conversion kits that bypass speed limiters.

Until those protections exist, the gap between a child’s excitement about a new e-bike and the reality of what that machine can do will keep filling emergency rooms.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT

Sources

1. American College of Surgeons — Statement on E-Bike Safety (June 2025): https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/statement-on-electric-bicycle-safety-and-injury-prevention/

2. ACS Bulletin — Electric Bikes Are Emerging as Public Health Hazard (July/August 2024): https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/news-publications/news-and-articles/bulletin/2024/julyaugust-2024-volume-109-issue-7/electric-bikes-are-emerging-as-public-health-hazard/

3. KFF Health News — Kids and Teens Go Full Throttle for E-Bikes (December 2025): https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/electric-e-bike-regulation-federal-states-counties-cpsc-nhtsa-colorado-injuries/

4. Penn State Health News — E-Bike and E-Scooter Injuries on the Rise in Kids (October 2025): https://pennstatehealthnews.org/2025/10/the-medical-minute-e-bike-and-e-scooter-injuries-are-on-the-rise-in-kids-what-every-parent-should-know/

5. Connecticut Law Blog — The Alarming Rise of E-Bike Accidents (December 2025): https://www.doddlawfirmct.com/2025/12/17/the-alarming-rise-of-e-bike-accidents-what-recent-injury-data-means-for-riders-and-drivers/

6. Safe Kids CT — E-Bike Injuries Are Rising Fast (August 2025): https://ctsafekids.org/blog/e-bike-injuries-are-rising-fast-heres-what-parents-need-to-know/

7. The Conversation — Young People Are Being Killed or Injured on E-Bikes (April 2026): https://theconversation.com/young-people-are-increasingly-being-killed-or-injured-on-e-bikes-its-time-for-governments-to-act-269095

8. UCSF News — Electric Scooter and Bike Accidents Are Soaring (July 2024): https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2024/07/428096/electric-scooter-and-bike-accidents-are-soaring-across-us

9. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School — Evidence Synthesis on E-Bike Injuries (October 2024): https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2025-03/BIGRS_Evidence-Synthesis-E-bikes-2025.pdf

10. ABC News — Kids and Teens Go Full Throttle for E-Bikes (November 2025): https://abcnews.com/Health/kids-teens-full-throttle-bikes-federal-oversight-stalls/story?id=127708920

The President’s Private Prosecutor

By John Turley

On June 10, 2026

In Commentary, Politics

How Trump Turned the Department of Justice into a Tool of Personal Revenge

There is an old maxim in law: fiat justitia ruat caelum — let justice be done though the heavens fall. It reflects the principle that the law belongs to everyone equally and is not meant to serve personal grudges. Critics argue that Donald Trump’s second administration has embraced a very different view: that the Department of Justice can be used to pursue those who have challenged, investigated, or defeated him.

This is not simply a partisan accusation. It is based on a pattern in which Trump publicly identifies enemies and calls for action against them, followed by Justice Department investigations or prosecutions. The targets have included former administration officials, prosecutors, election experts, and individuals who prevailed against Trump in court.

The Guardrails Come Off

Trump’s first term provided occasional glimpses of this tendency, but institutional resistance often limited its reach. His second term began with far fewer constraints.

The selection of Pam Bondi as attorney general was widely viewed as a signal that loyalty would take precedence over the traditional independence of the Justice Department. During her confirmation hearing, Bondi declined to assure senators that the White House would remain separate from prosecutorial decision-making. That exchange foreshadowed what followed.

Within months, Trump directed investigations into former administration officials Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs. Taylor had authored the anonymous 2018 op-ed describing internal resistance within the administration. Krebs, Trump’s former cybersecurity chief, had publicly stated that the 2020 election was secure. Trump accused Taylor of “treason” while signing an executive memorandum ordering an investigation.

Whether or not either man had committed any wrongdoing, the sequence was striking: public presidential condemnation followed by federal scrutiny.

More consequential were the cases involving figures directly connected to Trump’s legal battles.

The Letitia James Case

Perhaps no public official has drawn Trump’s anger more consistently than Letitia James, the New York attorney general whose civil fraud case resulted in a massive judgment against Trump and his business organization.

In October 2025, James was indicted on bank fraud charges shortly after Trump publicly urged Bondi to move against his political opponents. The circumstances surrounding the case raised immediate questions.

According to reports, the original prosecutor assigned to the matter concluded that evidence was insufficient to support criminal charges and declined to proceed. He was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a former member of Trump’s personal legal team who had no prosecutorial experience. Within weeks, Halligan secured an indictment.

The legal process that followed was unusual. The indictment was later dismissed. Subsequent efforts to obtain new indictments reportedly failed before grand juries, an outcome that is relatively rare given the traditionally high success rate prosecutors enjoy in grand jury proceedings.

Yet the investigation continued.

Critics saw the episode as evidence that prosecutorial decisions were being driven not by evidence but by determination to target a political adversary. Supporters countered that investigations should continue if legitimate questions remained unresolved.

Regardless of one’s interpretation, the case illustrates a recurring theme: Trump publicly demands action against an opponent, and federal law enforcement soon responds.

The Comey Prosecution

James Comey has been a target of Trump’s anger since his dismissal as FBI director in 2017. That conflict entered a new phase in September 2025 when Comey was indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction.

The indictment arrived only days after Trump publicly called for prosecution on social media. Trump later suggested that he hoped there would be “others.”

Comey pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that he was the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution. Civil liberties advocates condemned the prosecution as an abuse of presidential power.

Whether the charges ultimately survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. But the timing reinforced the perception that DOJ actions increasingly followed Trump’s personal grievances. The ongoing “86 47” prosecution further emphasizes the appearance of political vengeance.

E. Jean Carroll: From Plaintiff to Target

No case better illustrates the concerns surrounding Trump’s Justice Department than that of E. Jean Carroll.

Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he denied her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store decades earlier. Two juries ruled in her favor, awarding her a combined $88.3 million in damages.

In May 2026, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Carroll herself.

The investigation centers on statements Carroll made during civil litigation regarding funding for her legal expenses. Prosecutors are examining whether financial assistance connected to a nonprofit associated with LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman was disclosed accurately and whether any false statements were made under oath.

Carroll is now 82 years old. She successfully sued Trump and won two jury verdicts. The federal government headed by the man she defeated in court is investigating whether to charge her with federal crimes.

The optics are difficult to ignore.

Carroll’s attorneys argue that the investigation lacks substantive merit and represents retaliation against a successful plaintiff. Legal observers note that if charges are eventually filed, Carroll would likely argue that the case constitutes vindictive prosecution — the use of prosecutorial power to punish someone for exercising a legal right.

Whatever the ultimate outcome, the sequence is extraordinary: a citizen sues a powerful public figure, wins twice before juries, and then becomes the subject of a federal criminal investigation under that same figure’s administration.

A Larger Pattern

Individually, each case can be debated on its merits. Together, they form a pattern that has become increasingly difficult for critics to dismiss as coincidence.

Many of the administration’s highest-profile investigations involve people who share one characteristic: they challenged Trump politically, legally, or personally. Former election officials. Former administration insiders. Prosecutors. Investigators. Civil plaintiffs.

The pattern is often the same. Trump publicly attacks an individual. He demands action. An investigation follows. Organizations tracking retaliatory government actions have documented numerous examples of this sequence. Legal scholars frequently identify such timing as one of the warning signs associated with selective prosecution.

The concern is not merely whether individual targets are guilty or innocent. The larger issue is whether prosecutorial decisions are being made independently or whether they are increasingly shaped by presidential preferences.

That distinction matters because the Department of Justice possesses powers unlike those of any other federal agency. It can investigate, indict, and imprison citizens. Its legitimacy depends heavily on public confidence that those powers are exercised fairly and consistently.

The Cost of the Process

Defenders of the administration argue that investigations should not be immune from scrutiny simply because targets claim political persecution. That is true. Public officials, former officials, and private citizens alike should be subject to the law.

But critics respond that the problem is not accountability. It is selectivity.

Even unsuccessful investigations impose significant costs. Legal defense can consume hundreds of thousands of dollars. Grand jury investigations create stress, uncertainty, and reputational damage. Years of litigation can disrupt careers and lives regardless of whether convictions are ultimately obtained.

The process itself becomes a punishment.

Courts and grand juries have occasionally pushed back. Several high-profile cases have encountered significant legal obstacles. But judicial intervention often occurs only after substantial personal and financial costs have already been imposed.

The Weaponization Paradox

Perhaps the greatest irony is that Trump’s political rise was fueled in part by his claim that the justice system had been weaponized against him.

For years, he argued that prosecutors, investigators, and political opponents used government institutions to pursue personal or partisan objectives. That argument resonated with many Americans because the principle involved is important. The justice system should not be used as a political weapon.

The challenge for Trump’s administration is that the same characteristics he identified as evidence of weaponization now appear in cases initiated by his own Justice Department.

He argued that prosecutors were motivated by personal animus rather than evidence. Critics now make the same allegation about prosecutions involving Letitia James, James Comey, and E. Jean Carroll.

He argued that the process itself was punishment. His opponents now make the same claim.

He argued that political pressure shaped prosecutorial decisions. Critics point to repeated examples in which Trump’s public demands appear to precede DOJ action.

Whether one accepts those comparisons or rejects them, the contradiction is difficult to ignore.

A Democracy’s Stress Test

The Justice Department was designed to serve the public interest rather than the interests of any single president. That principle became especially important after Watergate, when both parties embraced reforms intended to insulate law enforcement from political interference.

The durability of those norms is now being tested.

The central question is not whether every investigation discussed here will ultimately succeed or fail. Courts will decide that. The more important question is whether Americans will continue to believe that justice is being administered independently.

If citizens come to believe that criminal investigations are triggered by personal loyalty or presidential anger, confidence in the rule of law inevitably suffers.

The power to prosecute is among the most formidable powers government possesses. In a constitutional democracy, that power must belong to institutions, not individuals.

Whether that principle remains intact may prove to be one of the defining questions of Trump’s second term.

Image generated by author using ChatGPT

Sources

• Just Security — Chronology of Trump/DOJ Targeting (Oct. 2024)

• PBS NewsHour — Comey Indictment & Trump Vows More Prosecutions (Sept. 2025)

• Slate — Trump’s Vengeance Tour (May 2026)

• Time — Trump Vows to Prosecute Political Enemies (March 2026)

• Protect Democracy — Retaliatory Action Tracker (ongoing)

• Yahoo/AP — Trump Directs DOJ to Investigate Taylor & Krebs (2025)

• Time — DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation into E. Jean Carroll (May 28, 2026)

• Axios — DOJ Probes Reid Hoffman Nonprofit Over Carroll Funds (May 28, 2026)

• CNN — Carroll and the Pattern of Trump Retribution (May 28, 2026)

• MS NOW — Vindictive Prosecution Analysis (May 28, 2026)

• Newsweek — Timeline of Carroll’s Legal Battles with Trump

• CNBC — Trump DOJ Intervenes in Carroll Case (Oct. 2020)

• CNBC — DOJ Fails Second Time to Indict Letitia James (Dec. 2025)

• ABC News — Letitia James Indicted (Oct. 2025)

• PBS — Full Indictment of Letitia James

• House Judiciary Democrats — Investigation into DOJ Retaliation Against Letitia James (March 2026)

• 19th News — From Letitia James to Comey, Trump’s DOJ as Instrument of Revenge

• Sen. Whitehouse Letter to Barr re Carroll (Sept. 2020)

America at 250: A Revolution Remembered, Forgotten — or Rewritten?

By John Turley

On June 1, 2026

In Commentary, History

I’m old enough to remember the 200th anniversary of the American Revolution. Bicentennial symbols were everywhere — Liberty Bells, eagles, and that ubiquitous red, white, and blue stylized five-point star logo slapped on hats, T-shirts, socks, soft drink cups, beer cans, and even a special “Spirit of ’76” edition of the Ford Mustang II. Commemorative events were springing up everywhere, and people had full-blown bicentennial fever.

The 250th anniversary is a different animal entirely. Even the official name — Semiquincentennial — sounds like something you’d need a medical degree to pronounce. But the tongue-twisting label is the least of its problems.

The bicentennial came after a decade of national trauma: Vietnam, Watergate, and the civil rights struggles had left the country battered. By 1976, most Americans were ready to feel good about themselves again, and the bicentennial became a giant, colorful celebration of “American resilience.” The 250th arrives in a different kind of trauma — one that is arguably more confusing because it comes dressed as patriotism.

A Celebration Gets Complicated

While the 250th is being marked by numerous events, commemorations, and official proclamations, it has not yet captured the national imagination the way 1976 did. The official nonpartisan U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission, established by Congress in 2016 and supported by both George W. Bush and Barack Obama as Honorary Co-Chairs, has been working toward what it calls the “largest and most inclusive” anniversary celebration in American history. But its efforts have increasingly been overshadowed — and, critics argue, undermined — by a parallel White House effort with a very different philosophy about what American history should look like.

Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday,” creating his own body — Task Force 250 — to coordinate anniversary plans and promising “a grand celebration worthy of the momentous occasion.” A full year of festivities was planned, beginning on Memorial Day 2025 and running through July 4, 2026. On paper, more attention on the anniversary sounds like good news. In practice, the story is more complicated.

When “Restoring History” Means Removing It

Two months after launching his anniversary task force, Trump signed a second executive order — this one titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” — directing Vice President Vance to eliminate what the order calls “divisive race-centered ideology” from Smithsonian museums, educational and research centers, and the National Zoo (the Zoo??). The Smithsonian, one of the world’s great repositories of American history, was accused by the president of having come “under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” that portrayed “American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”

That executive order set off a chain of events that has complicated the 250th anniversary in ways the founding fathers would have found darkly ironic, given that the Revolution was, at its core, a fight against the arbitrary exercise of executive power.

At Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park — one of the most historically significant sites in the country — National Park Service employees abruptly removed exhibits about the nine people George Washington held in slavery while Philadelphia served as the nation’s capital. Passersby reportedly heard an employee repeating, “I’m just following orders” as the displays came down. The city of Philadelphia promptly sued the federal government, arguing that the removal violated a cooperative agreement for the site’s development.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. According to reporting from Poynter and PEN America, National Park Service employees were ordered to survey all signage and interpretive materials across the nation’s 400-plus parks and monuments, flagging anything “negative about either past or living Americans.” Exhibits about slavery, Indigenous history, women’s rights, and climate change were all swept into the review. At Fort Sumter in South Carolina — where the Civil War began — even a sign explaining the risks the site faces from rising sea levels was removed.

The Interior Department issued a November 2025 memo ordering National Park Service gift shops to remove items promoting DEI or “gender expression.” Free admission days that had previously honored Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth were dropped; June 14 — Flag Day and President Trump’s birthday (does anyone thinks that’s a coincidence?) — was added instead.

Meanwhile, a proposed commemorative dollar coin design featured President Trump on the obverse and the words “Fight! Fight! Fight!” on the reverse — evoking the imagery from the July 2024 assassination attempt. The Commission of Fine Arts, whose members Trump dismissed in October 2025 and replaced with his own appointees, subsequently recommended the design.

The Money Problem

The nonpartisan America250 Commission hasn’t just faced ideological headwinds. It has also faced financial ones. By early 2026, the Commission had received only $25 million of its congressionally appropriated $150 million, with the remainder at risk of being redirected to Trump-aligned Freedom 250’s “Freedom Trucks” — six state-of-the-art mobile museums traveling the country telling a version of American history that aligns with the administration’s vision. Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman raised concerns about the funding diversion, though the Commission stated it had enough to continue its core programming.

What Actually Happened at Lexington and Concord

Against this backdrop, the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 2025, became a preview of what the full anniversary might look like. The battle reenactments drew large crowds, along with protesters carrying signs reading “No Kings” and “Resist Like It’s 1775,” explicitly drawing parallels between opposition to King George III and what they saw as autocratic tendencies in current leadership.

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey told the crowd at the North Bridge ceremony that “we see things that would be familiar to our Revolutionary predecessors — the silencing of critics, the disappearing people from our streets, demands for unquestioned fealty.” Whether one agrees with that characterization or not, the spectacle of Americans invoking the Revolution to oppose their own government at a Revolution commemoration is at minimum historically interesting — and arguably points to the enduring vitality of Revolutionary ideals.

Historians have noted that the Revolution itself was messier and more ambiguous than either side of today’s debate wants to acknowledge. As University of South Carolina professor Woody Holton observed, most colonists in April 1775 weren’t seeking independence — they wanted better treatment within the British Empire and a return to pre-1763 arrangements. The revolution was improvised, contentious, and full of people who disagreed about its meaning even while it was happening. Sound familiar?

The Founding Fathers Were Not a Monolith

Here is what is genuinely troubling about selectively sanitizing Revolutionary history: the founders themselves would not have recognized the sanitized version. George Washington, the hero of the Revolution, held people in slavery, including at the presidential residence in Philadelphia — the very site where exhibits were just torn down. Benjamin Franklin, who helped draft the Declaration of Independence, owned enslaved people and only became an abolitionist late in his life. Thomas Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal” while holding more than 600 people in bondage over his lifetime.

Removing this history doesn’t honor the founders. It patronizes them by pretending their contradictions didn’t exist — and it patronizes us by suggesting we can’t handle the full truth. Even they recognized the contradictions. The founders were brilliant, flawed, and human. That’s what makes the Revolution worth studying.

Resistance in the Courts and in the Institutions

It’s worth noting that the administration’s efforts have met significant resistance. Federal courts have blocked some removals. Scholars, activists, and historians have pushed back forcefully. A coalition of groups filed suit in February 2026 arguing that the Interior Department’s mandate to strip historical information from national parks violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Philadelphia’s lawsuit over the Washington slavery exhibit is ongoing.

Northwestern University historian Leslie M. Harris, author of five books on American slavery, has said that no previous presidential administration has interfered with historic sites in this way, and warned of a potential long-term consequence: public distrust of government-maintained historical sites, or outright avoidance of them.

What We Can Do

I wrote earlier about a friend on the West Virginia 250th committee who told me their initial meeting accomplished nothing and, almost two years later, they’ve had not had a further meeting. They have only just in the past few weeks announced their plans for America 250. That’s disappointing, but in some ways, it underscores the larger point: the commemoration of this anniversary is going to be shaped by whoever shows up.

Here in West Virginia, we showed what’s possible when citizens take the lead. In October 2024, without any state or national organizational or financial help, the City of Point Pleasant and the West Virginia Sons of the American Revolution organized a commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Point Pleasant — a battle many consider a precursor to the Revolution. It worked. People came. History was honored.

We can do more of that. We don’t need to live in Massachusetts to commemorate Lexington and Concord. We don’t need federal approval to mark the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Battle of Saratoga, or the crossing of the Delaware. We don’t need the government’s permission to tell complete history — including the parts about who was left out and who fought to be included anyway.

All across the country, individuals and small groups are working to recognize the revolution. In West Virginia, we’ve organized commemorations of the Boston Tea Party, the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Continental Navy and the Continental Marines, George Washington’s Birthday, and a special America 250 Memorial Day service at the West Virginia Veterans Memorial, all without any governmental support or funding. There have been presentations at local libraries and civic groups about the lives of average people during the time of the revolution, the origin of the American flag and even demonstrations of cooking and foods from the time of the revolution. If we had waited for state or national support these activities never would have happened. Just because your event may be small doesn’t mean it’s unimportant.

The Revolution, after all, was not a government program. It was a citizen uprising.

The Stakes

The American Revolution matters to world history precisely because it planted ideas — self-governance, the rule of law, the consent of the governed, the equality of all people before the law — that were genuinely radical ideas in 1776 and remain contested in much of the world today. Those ideas were aspirational when they were written. They remain aspirational now. The gap between the ideal and the reality is not a reason to hide the history; it is the history.

If the 250th anniversary is remembered primarily as a moment when the federal government selectively curated which parts of the founding era the public was allowed to encounter, that will itself become a significant historical footnote — and not a flattering one.

It will be our great shame if we allow the commemoration of an event so significant in both American and world history to be used — by anyone, of any political stripe — to divide us rather than to strengthen our common bond. The Revolution was imperfect, contentious, and incomplete. So is the republic it created. That is not a cause for despair. It is a call to engagement and improvement.

We the people. Still the operative phrase.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

—

Sources

America250 Commission — https://america250.org/
White House Freedom 250 page — https://www.whitehouse.gov/freedom250/
AASLH on the 250th — https://aaslh.org/the-250th-anniversary-and-the-road-ahead/
PBS NewsHour: A divided nation battles over the Revolution’s legacy — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/250-years-after-the-start-of-the-american-revolution-a-divided-nation-battles-over-its-legacy
NPR: Trump executive order targets Smithsonian — https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-5342914/smithsonian-president-trump-executive-order
The American Prospect: Whitening American History — https://prospect.org/2026/02/23/whitening-america-black-history-trump-slavery-dei-philadelphia/
Poynter: Trump reshaping Black history — https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2026/trump-administration-altering-black-history/
PEN America: Purging history from national parks — https://pen.org/purging-history-from-national-parks/
Courthouse News: Groups sue over park history removals — https://www.courthousenews.com/trump-administration-accused-of-erasing-history-from-national-parks/
Wikipedia: Semiquincentennial coinage — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Semiquincentennial_coinage

You Are Pre-Approved!

By John Turley

On May 27, 2026

In Commentary

The Shameless, Relentless, Occasionally Confounding World of Credit Card Solicitations

There is a tree somewhere in North America that gave its life so that you could receive a glossy envelope informing you that you have been “pre-approved” for a credit card you never asked for, do not need, and will almost certainly use to buy something you will regret. And then, before the last fibers of that tree have even fully composted in a landfill, another envelope arrives. And another. And another. The credit card industry, it turns out, does not take rejection personally.

If there is one thing that unites every American regardless of age, income, or credit score, it is the daily ritual of sorting through a mailbox that appears to be funded entirely by credit card marketing departments. You may be rich, poor, employed, retired, or technically living in a van — the credit card offers will find you. In effect, your mailbox has become a credit card distribution center.

The Numbers: A Blizzard of Pre-Approval

Let’s start with some data, because the numbers are genuinely staggering. At an early peak of credit card direct mail campaigns in 2005 and 2006, the industry was mailing roughly 7.5 billion pieces per year — which works out to approximately 30 offers for every adult in the country. That’s a piece of mail roughly every twelve days, from an industry that had apparently decided that subtlety was for amateurs. The market is so saturated that the response rate is typically less than 1%; that’s an absurd amount of mail just to catch few fish.

The Great Recession briefly interrupted this party. By July 2009, the volume had cratered to a trickle of just over 1.2 billion pieces per year. But credit card issuers, being resilient optimists in the face of human financial suffering, bounced back. By 2020, estimates placed the total at around 11 billion credit card solicitations sent to consumers in a single year. (I think most of them wound up in my mailbox.)

For context, the average American household currently receives roughly 848 pieces of junk mail per year, and credit card solicitations make up a meaningful share of that. One statistical source estimates Americans spend, in aggregate, eight months of their lifetime opening junk mail. One can only imagine how much of that is spent frowning at an offer for a card with a 29.99% APR and a free tote bag.

Despite digital marketing’s rise, the physical mailbox remains a preferred channel for credit card pitches. Why? Because the industry discovered long ago that a glossy envelope with your name printed in a font that implies importance is harder to ignore than an email you delete before you even finish reading the subject line.

The Average American: Already Carrying Quite Enough, Thank You

So, what do all these offers produce? Americans currently hold an average of 7.1 open credit card accounts, though only about 3.7 of those are actively used. The rest appear to be dormant accounts accumulated over the years, like ex-partners you never quite got around to officially ending things with.

Baby Boomers lead the generational pack with an average of 4.61 active cards, followed by Gen X at 4.23. In total, there are now 636 million open credit card accounts in the United States as of mid-2025 — nearly two per American, counting children and people who have sworn off plastic entirely.

The average credit card balance in the U.S. as of late 2024 was $6,730, with the average APR sitting at a punishing 21 to 22 percent. This means that for many people, the credit card they received in a “pre-approved!” envelope is now costing them more in interest than they spend on groceries. The tote bag, presumably, was not worth it.

Senior Citizens: A Special Kind of Target

Now let’s talk about senior citizens, because the credit card industry has a special enthusiasm for this demographic. Seniors, after all, tend to have long credit histories, established accounts, and in many cases, the kind of pristine credit scores that issuers find irresistible. The fact that many are living on fixed incomes does not appear to dim the industry’s ardor.

According to recent data, Americans 65 and older hold on average, up to 4.8 cards per person. This tracks: decades of responsible use and a long credit history make seniors attractive applicants. And credit card issuers can absolutely count Social Security, pension income, IRA distributions, and investment income as qualifying income on applications. Federal law requires it.

What this means, in practice, is that a 78-year-old widower living on $1,400 a month from Social Security can receive and potentially qualify for a credit card — possibly with a $5,000 credit limit and a 28% APR. Whether this is a genuine service or a predatory opportunity dressed in rewards points is a matter of perspective, and apparently a matter of vigorous congressional debate. A House committee hearing on the subject noted with concern that older Americans are the fastest-growing age group to file for bankruptcy, a trend linked in part to credit card debt.

Scenario One: The Comfortable Retiree

Consider “Martha,” a 71-year-old retired schoolteacher in Ohio. She has a pension of $2,200 per month, Social Security of $1,800 per month, and a modest IRA she draws $500 from monthly. Her total annual income is around $54,000. She has an excellent credit score of 760, accumulated over 45 years of never once paying a bill late.

Martha’s mailbox is a cornucopia of opportunity. She receives offers for travel cards, cashback cards, AARP-branded cards, hotel rewards cards, and at least one card that seems to believe she has always wanted to earn airline miles in exchange for buying cat food. She probably qualifies for most of them. Her challenge is not getting a credit card — it is having the discipline not to get all of them.

Scenario Two: The Social Security-Only Retiree

“Robert,” 74, is a retired factory worker in West Virginia. His only income is $1,350 per month in Social Security. He rents a small apartment and drives a 2009 pickup. He would not describe himself as a big spender. Yet the offers come anyway. Some cards he would qualify for; some he would not. But the envelopes do not discriminate.

For Robert, a credit card on a Social Security-only income is a double-edged instrument. Used wisely — a small recurring charge paid off every month — it helps maintain his credit score. Used unwisely, with a 24% APR and a $3,000 limit he does not need, it can quietly become a slow-motion financial disaster. As one congressional witness summarized: more than a third of seniors depend on Social Security for over 90% of their income, and a high-interest credit card can be devastating for someone living on a fixed income.

Scenario Three: The Affluent Senior

“Eleanor” is 68, a retired surgeon living in Scottsdale. She has a pension, maximum Social Security, significant investment income, and a paid-off home. Her total income is probably north of $200,000 a year. Her credit score is 820. Eleanor receives credit card offers the way the rest of us receive pizza coupons — constantly, enthusiastically, and with the implicit suggestion that her life would be measurably improved if she just signed up.

Eleanor gets the platinum cards, the black cards, the invitation-only cards that arrive in weighted envelopes and refer to her, inexplicably, as a “member.” For Eleanor, the game is actually worth playing: if you have the discipline to pay the balance every month, a 2% cashback card on $150,000 in annual spending produces $3,000 in free money. The credit card companies are betting she won’t. She usually does. Eleanor is winning — one of the few.

The Ultimate Power Move: Apply for All of Them

Now we arrive at the scenario that the credit card industry’s actuarial tables do not like to contemplate: what happens if someone actually applies for every card they are offered, gets approved for most of them, charges them all to the maximum, and then declares bankruptcy?

Theoretically, this sounds like a heist. In practice, it is a lot messier, and the law has anticipated your enthusiasm.

First, the logistics. Applying for multiple credit cards simultaneously triggers multiple hard inquiries on your credit report, which almost immediately begins dragging your credit score down. Issuers can see those inquiries in real time. After the third or fourth application, the phone calls from the fraud department start. After the eighth, many issuers simply decline. The window for pulling this off is narrow and rapidly self-closing, like a submarine hatch operated by someone who has had one too many.

That said, people do accumulate considerable credit card debt before reaching bankruptcy. American credit card debt hit $1.18 trillion in 2025, and a meaningful portion of it is genuinely uncollectable. Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the kind that discharges most unsecured debts within a few months, absolutely does handle credit card balances. In most cases, credit card debt is treated as non-priority unsecured debt, meaning it is the first thing eliminated and the last creditor to get paid if there are assets. Usually there are no assets.

But — and here is where the bankruptcy judge stops smiling — there are several traps for the scheming would-be debt escapee.

The first is the luxury goods rule. If you charged more than $725 worth of luxury goods or services within 90 days of filing bankruptcy, that debt is presumptively non-dischargeable. The law has a very dim view of someone who maxed out a credit card at Nordstrom on a Thursday and filed Chapter 7 on a Sunday. Similarly, cash advances over $1,000 taken within 70 days of filing are presumptively non-dischargeable.

The second is fraud. If the bankruptcy trustee or a credit card company can demonstrate that you took on debt with no intention of repaying it — which, if you applied for 14 cards in a month and maxed them all out, is not a difficult case to make — those debts can be challenged as non-dischargeable. The burden of proof matters, and credit card companies have 60 days from your first creditor meeting to file complaints.

The third is the means test. Chapter 7 bankruptcy requires you to pass an income means test. If your income is above the state median, you may be pushed toward Chapter 13, which involves a three-to-five-year repayment plan. Not quite the clean escape the heist film suggested.

For seniors specifically, there is a wrinkle that is either reassuring or terrifying depending on your perspective: Social Security income cannot be garnished by private creditors — even if a court enters a judgment against you. A credit card company can sue you, win, and receive a judgment, and still be unable to touch your monthly Social Security check. This makes seniors who live exclusively on Social Security somewhat “collection-proof,” though that is a legal term, not an invitation, and the stress of debt and lawsuits is not trivial.

In other words, someone could theoretically max out ten credit cards, declare bankruptcy, watch most of the debt get discharged, and continue living on Social Security without the credit card companies collecting a dime. In theory. In practice, this would also mean having a bankruptcy on your credit report for 7 to 10 years, being unable to get any new credit, and explaining to your grandchildren why you have 14 maxed-out cards and a lawyer’s business card on the refrigerator.

Some people believe they may have found a way around this. They plan that if they are ever diagnosed with a fatal illness, they will simply max out every credit card they can get and leave the companies on the hook for their final days of high living.

There’ s just one problem. When you die, your credit card debt doesn’t just evaporate. Everything you own — and everything you owe — becomes part of your “estate.” Your estate is responsible for your debts, meaning outstanding credit card balances are paid from assets like your home, bank accounts, investments, and personal property. The legal sorting-out process is called probate.

So, if you pass away with $5,000 in credit card debt and a $50,000 estate, the debt gets paid first and your heirs get the rest. If you have $5,000 in debt and only $3,000 in assets, the creditor typically eats the difference — your kids don’t write a check. However, if your surviving spouse is a joint account holder or you live in a community property state, they may be responsible for your total credit card debt.

The Bottom Line: A Comedy in Several Acts

The credit card solicitation industry is, at its core, an enormous optimism machine. It believes, against all available evidence, that the person who received 847 pieces of junk mail last year is ready to finally respond to number 848. It believes that a 79-year-old man on Social Security is one glossy envelope away from becoming a loyal travel rewards customer. It believes that if it just makes the sign-up bonus big enough, you will forget about the 26% APR.

Most of us play along, at least a little. We hold three or four cards. We pay them off sometimes and carry a balance sometimes. We accept the cashback and occasionally read the fine print, mostly when something goes wrong.

And somewhere in a mail-sorting facility right now, another batch of envelopes is being addressed. They are glossy. They are personalized. They say, in bold letters, that you have been pre-approved.

You are always pre-approved. That’s the joke. And also, somehow, the business model.

Illustration Generated by author using ChatGPT.

Disclaimer

This article is written for general informational and entertainment purposes. It does not constitute financial, legal, or medical advice. Readers facing significant credit card debt or considering bankruptcy should consult a qualified financial advisor or licensed bankruptcy attorney. The author’s opinions are independent and do not represent any institutional affiliation.

Selected Sources

Acxiom — Direct Mail Credit Card Volume History

Bankrate — Credit Card Ownership and Usage Statistics

Payanywhere — Statistics on American Consumer Credit Card Usage

Clearly Payments — How Many Credit Cards Are in the USA in 2025

CardRates — How Many Credit Cards Does the Average American Have?

WalletHub — Opting Out of Pre-Approved Credit Offers

U.S. House of Representatives — Credit Cards and Older Americans (Hearing)

Firstcard — Best Credit Cards for Low-Income Seniors

Debt.org — Can Social Security Be Garnished for Credit Card Debt?

Justia — Credit Card Debt Under Bankruptcy Law

CBS News — Can Credit Card Debt Be Discharged in Bankruptcy on Disability?

Is the Roberts Court Biased? The Pattern Speaks for Itself

By John Turley

On May 19, 2026

In Commentary, Politics

Chief Justice John Roberts keeps telling Americans the Supreme Court is not political. He recently complained that people “view us as purely political actors,” and insisted that’s just not how the Court works. That might have been plausible twenty years ago. After the decisions of the past decade, it sounds less like reassurance and more like spin.

The Roberts Court started out conventionally conservative. Then came the turning points: Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in 2020. Donald Trump replaced them with Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, locking in a 6–3 conservative supermajority. Since then, on the biggest fights of our time—voting, money in politics, reproductive freedom, presidential power—the Court’s answers have marched almost uniformly to the right.

One analysis of the Court’s work through 2018 found more than seventy cases where the conservative bloc formed a majority in areas like voting rights, campaign finance, corporate accountability, and civil rights where the conservative justices either bent precedent or quietly shelved their own stated doctrines to get where they wanted to go. That is not happenstance. That is a method.

Look at the decisions that define this era.

In Citizens United, the Court announced that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money in elections, destroying what remained of campaign finance law and supercharging the power of wealthy donors and corporate interests. In Shelby County, it gutted a core provision of the Voting Rights Act, inviting a wave of state-level restrictions that predictably hit minority voters hardest. In Rucho, Roberts openly acknowledged that partisan gerrymandering is “incompatible with democratic principles”—and then declared the federal courts powerless to stop it. The Court saw a threat to democracy and chose to shrug.

Dobbs went further. For nearly fifty years, Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion. In 2022, that right vanished in a single 6–3 decision that tracked partisan lines. The majority did not just reject Roe; it rewrote the understanding of liberty in a way that puts other long‑standing rights on shakier ground.

Then there is Trump v. United States, which discovered sweeping criminal immunity for presidents found nowhere in the Constitution’s text or structure. Contrast that with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the same Court insisted modern gun laws must mirror 18th‑ and 19th‑century regulations. History is mandatory when it narrows gun regulation. History is optional when it might constrain a president. The “neutral” principles somehow keep landing on the same ideological side.

The real indictment of the Roberts Court is not that the justices are conservative; conservative legal thought has serious intellectual roots. It is that the Court’s philosophy behaves like a trapdoor: originalism when it helps, textualism when that works better, “judicial restraint” when restraint freezes progressive policies, and muscular judicial power when restraint would get in the way. The tools keep changing. The destination does not.

The shadow docket has only deepened the concern. Using unsigned, unexplained emergency orders, the Court has green‑lit sweeping policy changes—on immigration, civil rights, and executive power—while lower courts were still sorting out legality. Normally, dramatic changes to national policy come with full briefing, oral argument, and written opinions. Under Roberts, some of the most consequential decisions arrive in the dead of night, with no reasoning the public can read and no guidance lower courts can follow.

To be honest, the story is not all one-way traffic. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion which held that federal employment law protects LGBTQ workers. Roberts has occasionally voted to preserve precedent he personally disliked. There are a handful of high‑profile cases where the conservative justices have broken ranks or rejected expansive claims of presidential power, but those cases are rare.

In the high‑stakes political questions of the last decade the line is brutally clear: when democracy is at stake, money wins; when voting rights are at stake, restrictions win; when women’s bodily autonomy is at stake, state power wins; when presidential accountability is at stake, the president wins. That is not a random walk through neutral legal doctrine. It is a pattern.

Roberts is right about one thing: it is simplistic to call justices “politicians in robes.” Asking whether the Roberts Court is “biased” is not the point. Regardless of label, we have a Supreme Court whose decisions on the most contested issues overwhelmingly favor one political side. The law requires consistency and when the Court keeps changing its rules but not its results, the public is not fooled.

The Chief Justice can insist that is just how the law shakes out. The rest of us are entitled to look at the record and draw our own conclusions.

The Persecution Brand: How Trump Turns Grievance Into Political Currency

By John Turley

On May 14, 2026

In Commentary, Politics

“They’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.” —Donald J. Trump

Introduction

Donald Trump has turned political victimhood into something remarkably durable: a brand. Since his first term, Trump has consistently advanced a narrative that he is the unfair target of a corrupt establishment — not because of anything he has done, but because of who he is and the threat he poses to entrenched power. That narrative, far from fading, has deepened and accelerated in his second term, propelled by a relentless series of legal maneuvers, institutional confrontations, and rhetorical provocations that seem engineered to keep the grievance machine running. Whether the cause is a leaked tax return, a photograph of seashells on a beach, or a comedian’s joke at a press dinner, Trump and his allies have shown a remarkable ability to recast every controversy as evidence of persecution. The result is a political identity built less on policy than on shared victimhood — one that has proven more resilient to contradiction than almost anything else in modern American politics. I first wrote about this several months ago, but recent events have motivated me to update the topic.

The Anatomy of a Persecution Story

At the heart of Trump’s messaging is the claim that nearly every major American institution is rigged against him: the judiciary, the press, federal agencies, social media companies, and even fellow Republicans who fail to show sufficient loyalty. He doesn’t stop at personal grievance. His signature rhetorical move is to project that persecution outward — to his supporters — insisting that the forces targeting him are really targeting them, and that he alone stands in the way. Strongmen throughout history have used this populist inversion to build fierce loyalty, but Trump has refined it for the digital age, where every legal setback can be instantly monetized through fundraising appeals and turned into rally fodder before the ink is dry on a court filing.

Suing His Own Government: The IRS Lawsuit

Few episodes illustrate the paradox of Trump’s persecution narrative more sharply than his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department, agencies he controls as president. Filed in January 2026, the suit alleges that a government contractor wrongfully leaked his tax records to the press during his first term — a legitimate grievance in isolation, since the contractor did plead guilty and was sentenced to five years in prison. But the spectacle of a sitting president suing his own executive branch for a payout that would come from taxpayers has raised serious legal and ethical flags. Florida District Judge Kathleen M. Williams questioned whether Trump and the agencies are “sufficiently adverse to each other” for the case to proceed at all, noting that Trump’s own executive orders require the Justice Department to follow his legal interpretations. In plain terms: the president would be suing the government he runs, defended by lawyers who must take his side, with any settlement check written to him by American taxpayers. Trump’s lawyers and the IRS have meanwhile entered settlement talks, requesting a 90-day pause in proceedings. Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to prohibit the president, vice president, and their families from collecting any such settlement. The episode is vintage Trump — a genuine underlying grievance amplified into a high-profile conflict that simultaneously reinforces his victimhood and generates favorable headlines.

The Pursuit of James Comey: Retribution as Policy

The Trump Justice Department’s second criminal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, announced April 28, 2026, reads like a case study in how prosecution can become an instrument of political narrative. The charges stem from an Instagram post Comey made in May 2025 showing seashells on a beach arranged to spell “86 47” — a formation Comey said he simply found and photographed. Prosecutors interpreted it as a threat against the 47th president, an argument that First Amendment scholars have called legally dubious. Stanford First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh told CNN: “This is not going anywhere. This is clearly not a punishable threat.” The indictment is the second attempt to prosecute Comey; the first, built on allegations that he lied to Congress, collapsed when a judge ruled that the prosecutor handling the case had been unlawfully appointed. Trump had publicly urged then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to move against Comey, and Bondi was fired in April 2026 after reports that the president was frustrated that she wasn’t pursuing his critics aggressively enough. Her successor, Todd Blanche — Trump’s own former personal defense attorney — moved quickly. The pattern is hard to miss: an allegation, a prosecution, a dismissal, another allegation, a second prosecution. Whether or not the charges succeed, the process itself delivers the message Trump wants delivered.

Perhaps his fear of seashells has caused him to forget that he posted a picture of then President Biden bound and gagged on the back of a pickup truck. Certainly, that was more of a threat than someone’s beachside graffiti, yet Trump was not prosecuted. I wonder why.

The Ballroom and the Bullet: Security as Metaphor

On the evening of April 25, 2026, shots were fired near the security screening area outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton, where Trump was attending his first such dinner as a sitting president. The suspect, identified as Cole Tomas Allen, was arrested; no attendees inside the ballroom were struck. It was, by any measure, a frightening episode, and the third reported attempt on Trump’s life. What followed, however, quickly illustrated Trump’s talent for turning crisis into confirmation of his narrative. Within two minutes of beginning his press briefing that night, Trump pivoted to arguing that the incident proved the wisdom of his plan to build a new ballroom on White House grounds — a project historic preservationists have challenged in court as unlawful. His administration immediately pressured the National Trust for Historic Preservation to drop its lawsuit, with the acting attorney general writing that the preservation group’s case “cannot possibly justify delaying the construction of a secure facility for the President.” Critics pointed out that Trump’s own administration had given the Correspondents’ Dinner a lower security classification than other events he attends — a detail that complicated his argument. But in Trump’s telling, the shooting was simply the latest proof that enemies lurk everywhere and that his foresight is perpetually vindicated.

The Widow Joke: Melania, Kimmel, and the Media Enemy

Two days before the Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, comedian Jimmy Kimmel delivered a mock roast on his late-night program that included the line: “Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow.” Kimmel later said it was an obvious joke about the couple’s age difference. The timing — the joke aired before the attempted shooting — became fuel for a firestorm after the incident. First Lady Melania Trump, called on ABC to “take a stand” against Kimmel and President Trump wrote on social media that Kimmel should be “immediately fired by Disney and ABC,” calling his comments “beyond the pale.” FCC Chair Brendan Carr had previously threatened ABC affiliates over Kimmel’s coverage of an earlier controversy. Kimmel pushed back on his Monday night broadcast, calling the joke a “light roast” and denying any connection to the shooting, but the episode had already served its purpose in the persecution playbook: a comedian’s punchline reframed as an incitement; the president and first lady as targets of a corrupt, hostile media; and a federal regulator positioned to remind a broadcast network of who holds the license.

The Nobel Grievance: Peace Prize as Persecution

Trump’s relationship with the Nobel Peace Prize offers perhaps the purest distillation of his persecution aesthetic: a prestigious honor he was not given becomes evidence of institutional bias against him. In January 2026, Trump sent a text message to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre that, as reported by PBS and confirmed by Norwegian officials, declared: “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace.” The message was sent in the context of Trump’s threats to acquire Greenland by force and his tariff pressure on Norway. The factual problems were substantial. PolitiFact reported that the prize is awarded by an independent Norwegian committee, not the Norwegian government — a distinction Støre himself spelled out in a public statement — and Trump’s claim to have “stopped 8 wars” was not supported by evidence. The Nobel Committee separately clarified that a medal gifted to Trump by Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado did not legally transfer the prize to him. None of these corrections appeared to land with Trump’s base, for whom the image of a deserving president snubbed by a foreign establishment is emotionally resonant regardless of the technical details or even the truth.

THE BOARD OF PEACE: TRUMP’S PERSONAL PEACE PRIZE

The Board of Peace offers perhaps the most grandiose expression of Trump’s persecution narrative — not a complaint about being snubbed, but an institutional response to it. When Trump texted Norway’s prime minister in January 2026 linking his Greenland threats to the Nobel Committee’s failure to award him the prize, he was voicing a grievance he had already begun to act on. The Board of Peace, formally established at the World Economic Forum in Davos that same month, designated Trump as chairman for life — an arrangement that inverts the Nobel dynamic entirely: rather than waiting for an independent body to recognize his peacemaking, Trump created his own institution where recognition is structural and permanent. On the anniversary of his inauguration, Trump cited the United Nations never having helped him as a justification for the Board’s existence, suggesting it might eventually replace the UN altogether. The persecution logic runs cleanly through both episodes: the institutions that should have honored him failed him, so he built alternatives he controls. That no other G7 nation joined the Board, including Norway — the very country Trump blamed for the Nobel snub — will almost certainly be absorbed into the same narrative as further proof of establishment resistance to a leader they refuse to recognize.

Why the Narrative Works

Trump’s persecution story endures because it performs several functions simultaneously. It flips accountability into loyalty — every legal charge or critical headline becomes not evidence of wrongdoing but proof of how threatening Trump is to the establishment. It mirrors the genuine anxieties of his base, many of whom feel overlooked by media and government institutions. And it delegitimizes opposition before opposition can speak — if the system is rigged, then any ruling, verdict, or investigation against Trump is by definition corrupt. The narrative also has deep theological resonance for evangelical supporters who see Trump’s legal and political battles as a form of spiritual warfare, reinforcing the language of martyrdom that has surrounded his campaigns since 2016. For many supporters, belief in Trump’s victimhood has become identity, not analysis — and identity is far more resistant to factual challenge than any ordinary political position.

The Profitable Persecution

Trump’s persecution narrative is not merely persuasive — it is a business model. Every new indictment, investigation, or hostile media segment has historically triggered an immediate fundraising surge. His platform, Truth Social, serves simultaneously as megaphone and monetization engine. He has sold branded merchandise and Bibles invoking themes of embattlement and martyrdom. And now, with his IRS lawsuit, the grievance machinery has potentially come full circle: a complaint about institutional victimization that — if settled favorably — would result in a taxpayer-funded payout to the president himself. The architecture is durable precisely because it converts every attack into a resource, every setback into a rally cry, and every enemy into a fundraising opportunity.

After the Correspondents’ Dinner shooting, Republican senators moved to authorize $400 million in federal funding, with Senator Graham suggesting private donations could remain in play for furnishings or other expenses. What will happen to the hundreds of millions already raised and sitting in a private nonprofit shielded from standard conflict-of-interest review? That has not been addressed by the legislation or the White House and given the lack transparency in the ballroom fund it is reasonable to speculate on the probability of diversion to other uses.

Trump transferred $1.2 billion of US funds to the Board of Peace. He has pledged to transfer a total of $10 billion. These are taxpayer funds that will be totally under his personal control and can be used at his discretion. There is no public accountability for these funds.

For those who wonder about Donald Trump’s motivation for his persecution narrative, his personal wealth has almost doubled in little more than a year since his inauguration.

The Authoritarian Parallels

Scholars of democratic backsliding have noted that Trump’s strategy tracks closely with patterns seen in other countries where elected leaders have gradually dismantled independent institutions. The elements are recognizable: vilify the press as the enemy of the people; claim that legal proceedings against you are politically motivated; replace career officials with personal loyalists; and promise retribution against those who prosecuted or opposed you. In Trump’s second term, those patterns have sharpened. The firing of an attorney general perceived as insufficiently aggressive toward critics, the second indictment of a former FBI director on a legally thin — some say imaginary — theory, the use of regulatory threats against a broadcast network that aired an unflattering joke, are not isolated incidents. They form a coherent approach in which the persecution narrative both justifies and accelerates the consolidation of power.

Critiques and Contradictions

The persecution narrative has real vulnerabilities. Legal scholars have consistently argued that Trump mischaracterizes how due process works and overstates the degree to which prosecutions against him were politically directed. Fact-checkers have documented numerous false claims woven through his victimhood rhetoric — including the Nobel Peace Prize claim, the “8 wars” assertion, and the repeated charge of a “weaponized” Justice Department that, critics note, he now controls and is actively using against his own perceived enemies. The second Comey indictment, built on a social media photo that First Amendment experts regard as clearly protected speech, has drawn criticism even from some conservative legal commentators. The IRS lawsuit’s fundamental conflict of interest — a president suing the agencies he runs for money from taxpayers — has no obvious precedent in American legal history. Whether these contradictions ultimately matter to Trump’s political standing is another question entirely.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s persecution narrative has outlasted every legal challenge, every fact-check, and every prediction of its imminent collapse. In the spring of 2026, it is more operationally central to his presidency than ever. The narrative is the brand. It galvanizes supporters, raises money, provides cover for the use of government power against political adversaries, and makes every institutional constraint on presidential authority look like persecution rather than law. For many Americans who support Trump, his legal fate matters far less than the story his victimhood tells — and in that story lies a political power that has proven remarkably difficult to dislodge.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT

“86” — A Little Number With a Big History

By John Turley

On May 2, 2026

In Commentary

Fifty some years ago when I was in the Marines, we used the term “86” to refer to something that should be ignored or discarded—in the colorful vernacular of the Corps, “shit canned”. That’s trashed to you civilians. The Marines have never been known as a peaceable lot and we had many colorful euphemisms for doing grievous bodily harm, but “86” was never among them.

So why is “86” suddenly everywhere in the news? Blame James Comey. The former FBI Director posted a beach photo on Instagram showing seashells arranged to spell out “86 47” — and the internet promptly exploded. Republicans argued it was a death threat against the 47th president. Comey said it simply meant he wanted Trump removed from office. That dispute has brought a piece of century-old American slang back into the spotlight, so it’s worth taking a look at what the term means and where it came from.

The Short Answer

Eighty-six is slang meaning “to throw out,” “to get rid of,” or “to refuse service to.” It most likely comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that an item was sold out. This was part of a broader diner code that included: 13 “the boss is around,” 81 “glass of water,” and 95 “customer left without paying”. Over the decades it evolved from a kitchen noun into a verb with broader reach, and today it shows up everywhere from restaurant kitchens to Twitter and now worldwide headlines.

The Longer Answer

Here’s the honest answer: nobody knows for certain. Its etymology is unknown, but it seems to have been coined in the 1920s or 1930s. There are many theories about its origin — one article enumerates 18 possibilities, and another suggests there are “about 86 theories about 86.”

While the leading contender is the mundane diner option, there are several other more or less plausible and frequently more colorful options.

The most linguistically grounded explanation is that “86” is simply rhyming slang. The most common theory is that it is rhyming slang for “nix.” That’s the same “nix” meaning to reject or say no.

One of the more colorful stories involves a Prohibition-era speakeasy. Chumley’s, a bar with multiple entrances including one at 86 Bedford Street in New York. The story goes that the bar was supposedly warned by police before raids. Customers were told to “86 it” — meaning leave through the Bedford Street exit while cops came through the other door. It’s a great story, and if it’s not true it should be.

How It Evolved

First appearing in the early 1930s as a noun, it did not take long for the word to broaden its use beyond the realm of the soda counter. In the 1950s the word underwent some functional shift and began to be used as a verb — initially meaning “to refuse to serve a customer,” and later taking on the slightly extended meaning of “to get rid of; to throw out.”

It was quickly adopted and members of the military services who love slang, shortcuts, and inside terminology. It may just be a coincidence that Article 86 of the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice concerns Absence Without Leave, or AWOL.

By the 1970s it had moved well beyond the restaurant world. In the 1972 film The Candidate, a media adviser says to Robert Redford’s character, “OK, now, for starters, we got to cut your hair and eighty-six the sideburns.”

Where It Stands Today

These days, people use “86” when they cancel plans, dump something, or boot someone from a chat. Social media picked it up — Twitter and TikTok users will “86 a trend” or “86 a person” in a heartbeat.

In professional kitchens and bars, it remains “everyday lingo” — one hospitality industry veteran called it “probably the most overused word in hospitality.”

The Comey controversy also resurrected an older, arcane, and darker shade of the term. According to Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang, “to 86” can alternatively mean “to kill, to murder; to execute judicially.” That said, Merriam-Webster notes this use is infrequent, and they do not include this sense due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.

The bottom line is that “86” is one of those wonderfully slippery pieces of American slang that started in a noisy kitchen, picked up mythology along the way, and is now flexible enough to mean anything from “we’re out of the salmon” to a loaded political statement — depending entirely on who’s using it and who’s listening.

Or, perhaps this entire tempest is just the response of one thin skinned man to his pathologic fear of seashells.

Announcing a New Feature

By John Turley

On April 23, 2026

In Commentary, Uncategorized

As part of my ongoing efforts to make sure that The Grumpy Doc is no more than 20 years out of date, I’ve added a search function to the site. If you look to your right, you will see it cleverly labeled as SEARCH. Just enter any keyword and search away.

The One True Gospel of Wellness

By John Turley

On April 23, 2026

In Commentary, Medicine

Why Every Guru Thinks They’ve Found the Only Path to Health

There’s a peculiar affliction that seems to strike fitness influencers, biohackers, homeopathic healers, and wellness gurus with near-universal consistency — the unshakeable conviction that they, and only they, have cracked the code on human health. Whether it’s cold plunges at 4 a.m., microdosing mushrooms, coffee enemas, or whatever supplement stack is trending this week, every one of these prophets arrives at the same conclusion: their method is the path, the others are at best misguided, and mainstream medicine is a corrupt temple worth burning down.

Psychologists have a name for part of what’s happening here. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect — the tendency for people with limited knowledge in a domain to overestimate their own competence. But that’s only part of the story. Many of these figures are genuinely smart, sometimes even credentialed. What really drives the zealotry is something closer to what researchers call “belief perseverance” — the tendency to hold tightly to a conclusion even when contradicting evidence rolls in. Once someone has built an identity, a brand, and an income stream around a single idea, the psychological and financial cost of admitting nuance becomes enormous.

Take the biohacking community as a prime example. Some influencers — like the self-proclaimed “father of biohacking” — have built empires on the premise that optimizing the body is a matter of finding the right levers and pulling them correctly. They have championed everything from Bulletproof Coffee to infrared saunas to testosterone replacement, positioning each as a revelation that conventional medicine is too slow or too corrupted to acknowledge. The problem isn’t that all of these interventions lack merit — some have legitimate science behind them. The problem is the rhetorical framework: the idea that skeptics aren’t just wrong, they’re complicit. That’s not science; that’s a revival meeting.

Homeopathy sits at a different extreme but runs on the same engine. Developed in the late 18th century by Samuel Hahnemann, homeopathy is based on the idea that substances that cause symptoms in healthy people can cure those symptoms in the sick — and that extreme dilution actually strengthens a remedy’s potency. The scientific consensus is unambiguous: systematic reviews and meta-analyses have repeatedly found homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebo. And yet its advocates don’t merely disagree with this consensus — they dismiss the entire evidentiary framework, arguing that conventional research methods simply can’t measure what homeopathy does. It’s an airtight position: no evidence can ever count against it.

The fitness world runs its own version of this dogmatism on a perpetual loop. CrossFit devotees insist that anything other than functional high-intensity training is a waste of time. Carnivore diet advocates declare that vegetables are quietly poisoning you with antinutrients. Yoga instructors sometimes slide into the claim that breath control and mindfulness can substitute for actual medical care. Each subculture has its orthodoxy, its apostles, and its convenient explanations for why people who don’t follow the program are sick, lazy, or deceived. The irony is that many of these systems contain genuinely useful elements. Resistance training really does build muscle and bone density. Mindfulness really does reduce cortisol. Dietary quality really does matter enormously. But the insistence on one method to the exclusion of all others transforms useful practices into something closer to religious doctrine.

What’s lost in all the noise is the most important truth in medicine: human bodies are wildly heterogeneous. What works beautifully for one person may be ineffective or even harmful for another. This isn’t a flaw in the science — it is the science. Precision medicine, one of the most promising frontiers in modern healthcare, is built entirely on this recognition. The dream of a single universal protocol for human health isn’t just unrealized — it’s probably unrealizable. Yet that’s precisely what every wellness guru is selling.

There’s also a social dimension worth naming. The wellness industry is, in the most literal sense, an industry. It generated an estimated $5.6 trillion globally in 2022, according to the Global Wellness Institute, and that number continues to climb. When someone’s livelihood depends on their particular system being not just good but uniquely correct, objectivity becomes a luxury they can’t easily afford. Dismissing alternatives isn’t just tribalism — it’s good business.

None of this is to say that skepticism toward mainstream medicine is always misplaced. Conventional healthcare has real blind spots — in chronic disease management, in nutrition research, in the treatment of pain, and in its historical tendency to dismiss patient experience. The gurus often fill genuine gaps that the system has left open. But filling a gap is different from claiming you have the only map to the entire territory. The honest answer in health and fitness, as in most complex domains, is that we know a good deal, we don’t know quite enough, and anyone who tells you they’ve figured it all out probably hasn’t.

The next time someone tells you they’ve discovered the only way — whether it’s a supplement protocol, a spiritual practice, or a morning routine — it might be worth asking the simplest question in science: compared to what? If the answer is a dismissive wave at everything else, you probably have your answer.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

Global Wellness Institute — Global Wellness Economy Monitor: https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/industry-research/

Ernst E. — Homeopathy: The Undiluted Facts (Springer, 2016): https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-43592-3

Dunning D. — The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260111440024

National Institutes of Health — Precision Medicine Initiative: https://www.nih.gov/research-training/allofus-research-program

Medical Disclaimer

The information provided in this article is intended for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. It should not be used as a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Always seek the guidance of a qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or treatment. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read here.

If you are experiencing a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number immediately.

The author of this article is a licensed physician, but the views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of any hospital, health system, or medical organization with which the author may be affiliated.

Grumpy opinions about everything.

Category: Commentary Page 1 of 16

Who Gets to Decide? The Modern Battle Over Books in America

Two Wheels, Full Throttle, No License

A Classification System Built for Adults, Ignored by Kids

Nobody’s Pedaling — And That’s the Point

The Injury Numbers Are Alarming — and Getting Worse

Why Young Riders Are Especially at Risk

The Regulatory Gap: No One Is Clearly in Charge

What Parents and Policymakers Should Know

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT

Sources

The President’s Private Prosecutor

America at 250: A Revolution Remembered, Forgotten — or Rewritten?

A Celebration Gets Complicated

When “Restoring History” Means Removing It

The Money Problem

What Actually Happened at Lexington and Concord

The Founding Fathers Were Not a Monolith

Resistance in the Courts and in the Institutions

What We Can Do

The Stakes

Sources

You Are Pre-Approved!

The Numbers: A Blizzard of Pre-Approval

The Average American: Already Carrying Quite Enough, Thank You

Senior Citizens: A Special Kind of Target

Scenario One: The Comfortable Retiree

Scenario Two: The Social Security-Only Retiree

Scenario Three: The Affluent Senior

The Ultimate Power Move: Apply for All of Them

The Bottom Line: A Comedy in Several Acts

Is the Roberts Court Biased? The Pattern Speaks for Itself

The Persecution Brand: How Trump Turns Grievance Into Political Currency

Announcing a New Feature

The One True Gospel of Wellness