A federal judge has indefinitely blocked the $1.776B slush fund and has given Todd Blanche and the Treasury Secretary one week to rescind the fund in writing.
Todd Blanche petitioned the courts to release Epstein grand jury material as a diversion tactic after meeting with White House officials in the Situation Room to discuss how to protect Donald Trump.
President Trump has nominated Jay Clayton, a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, to be the next Director of National Intelligence.
Newly released transcripts reveal improprieties during the Broadview Six grand jury proceedings.
Iranian hardliners have mounted a rearguard rejection of a deal with the US as as they say it does not guarantee sanctions relief, compensation or control of the strait of Hormuz...
We're joined by our friend Mark Leibovich of The Atlantic to break down Trump's sinking approval ratings, the approaching midterms, and whether Democrats are overconfident.
We begin by looking at Trump and whether or not his party is feeling demoralized. Al thinks they certainly should be.
We then discuss the shape of the Senate, where Democrats need to win a net of 4 seats to take control, and the House, where Democrats seem to be on track.
Given the close races and election tampering from Trump and the GOP, how worried should Democrats be? And IF they take back Congress, what should their priorities be? Al and Mark agree that the House should leave impeachment alone. Interview:
However, the memorandum did not appear to address the most contentious issues, such as Iran’s nuclear programme, which would be addressed during a 60-day period leading to a more comprehensive deal...
“This is a colossal failure. A full-blown collapse. Iran has undisputedly emerged as the big winner,” wrote Avi Ashkenazi in the mass-market Maariv newspaper.
Jacob Nagel, a former national security adviser to Netanyahu, called the draft deal a “big mistake”.
Critics in Trump’s Republican party, which is struggling with high fuel prices and an unpopular war ahead of midterm elections, have also criticised the emerging deal...
A controversy at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions sparked national headlines after several prominent diabetes researchers were removed while distributing an editorial criticizing cuts and changes to U.S. biomedical research funding.
Dr. Zachary Rubin and Dr. Melanie Matheu discuss what happened, examine the editorial at the center of the controversy, and explore broader concerns about NIH funding, scientific independence, peer review, and the future of American research.
They also discuss how funding decisions today may impact patient care, medical innovation, and scientific progress for years to come. Interview:
At the 2026 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions, several prominent diabetes researchers—including current and former ADA leaders—were removed after distributing an editorial published in the ADA's own flagship journal.
In this episode of From Bench to Bedside, Dr. Zachary Rubin, MD, and Dr. Melanie Matheu, PhD, break down:
What happened at the ADA conference
Why researchers were handing out the editorial
The growing concerns about NIH funding and scientific independence
The proposed changes to federal grant review processes
Brain drain and the future of American biomedical research
The role of scientific advocacy in medicine
Why this controversy matters for patients, physicians, and researchers
This conversation goes beyond politics and focuses on a fundamental question:
What responsibility do scientists have to speak out when research is threatened?
📚 Editorial discussed:
"Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States. We Can No Longer Afford Complacency and Fear. We Must All Act Now."
Subscribe for evidence-based discussions on medicine, science, public health, and healthcare policy.
00:00 Midwest storms, tornado warnings, and recording delays
02:05 Welcome to From Bench to Bedside
03:10 What happened at the ADA Scientific Sessions?
05:20 What scientific conferences are really like
07:35 The American Diabetes Association and its mission
08:55 Researchers removed while distributing an editorial
11:20 The editorial criticizing NIH funding cuts
14:10 Proposed changes to NIH grant review and peer review concerns
17:15 Brain drain and the future of U.S. biomedical research
19:30 Scientific advocacy versus politics
22:10 Was this really a protest?
24:05 Why research funding matters for patients
25:55 Final thoughts: Why scientists must speak up
27:05 Outro
