The president appeared to nearly slip during a speech on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack last month.

“At his rally, he jokes about an intruder, whipped up by the Big Trump Lie, taking a hammer to Paul Pelosi’s skull. And he thinks that’s funny. He laughed about it. What a sick …” Biden said as his voice trailed off.

But Biden has privately described Trump as a “sick f**k” who delights in others’ misfortunes, three sources told Politico.

“What a f**king a**hole the guy is,” Biden said recently about Trump, according to one of the sources.

Chris LaCivita, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, unironically criticized the president for his language despite Trump’s repeated attacks and smears of his opponent.

“It’s a shame that Crooked Joe Biden disrespects the presidency both publicly and privately,” he told Politico. “But then again, it’s no surprise he disrespects the 45th president the same way he disrespects the American people with his failed policies.”

The reason why celiac disease has become so common is not entirely known, but it speaks to a bigger trend where autoimmune diseases are on the rise. Autoimmune diseases occur when the immune system mistakenly attacks healthy cells in a person's body. Other examples are multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, asthma, eczema, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

In 2023, researchers published a huge study of 22 million people that estimated one in ten people have an autoimmune disorder — again, with more women being affected than men. In the U.S. alone, researchers estimate that between 24 and 50 million Americans have an autoimmune disease, and nearly 4 out of 5 of those people are women. 

Why is it that females are at a greater risk of having their immune systems turn against them? A stud published this week in the journal Cell says it might boil down to the most fundamental difference between biological men and women: the difference in sex chromosomes.

“The big picture of this study is to understand what autoimmune diseases collectively affect women much more so than men,” Dr. Howard Chang, a professor of dermatology and of genetics at Stanford University, who co-led the study, told Salon. “The situation is actually much more striking, some even common diseases like lupus, the ratio is nine to one, female to male.”

Typically when people think about sex differences, they think it has to do with sex hormones. Females tend to have more estrogen whereas males tend to have more testosterone. But a key finding in Chang’s research shows that hormones aren’t responsible, but instead a single, female-specific gene that plays a significant role in female bias autoimmunity. 

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.

Embryos for both females and males carry 22 identical pairs of chromosomes, but the 23rd is different. For females, they have two X chromosomes; males have an X and a Y chromosome. On each chromosome there are genes that produce proteins to conduct specific functions inside of our cells. Since women have two X chromosomes, one might think that means that women have double the proteins.

But that’s not the case, as nature developed a way to neutralize those proteins. It's a good thing, too, given such an overproduction of them could be deadly. This is called “X-chromosome inactivation.” But in this study, researchers found that it’s this process that can increased susceptibility to autoimmune disorders thanks to a gene called Xist, which is responsible for silencing the proteins on the extra X chromosome.

As the Xist does its job, researchers found that in some cases it can trigger a strong immune response and that many of its co-conspirator proteins have been associated with autoimmune disorders.

“The thinking is that if this experiment were successful, this would mean that you don't have to have different sex hormones, you don't even have to have a whole second extra X chromosome — just this RNA being enough to confer the increased autoimmune risk,” he said. “And that's what we found.”

Indeed, the researchers placed Xist genes on two different strains of male lab mice – one that is susceptible to lupus and one that is resistant to it. Researchers found that once the Xist gene was activated, the male mice developed lupus-like autoimmunity at a rate similar to females. But human men still get autoimmune disorders without having their chromosomes manipulated in a lab. Why?

“That just highlights the fact that autoimmunity is multifactorial, there's not a single cause or only a single way to get there,” Chang said. “You can still get an autoimmune disease, obviously without Xist and not all autoimmune diseases have a strong female bias.”

“You shouldn't fault women for getting sick, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. It’s nobody’s fault,” Chang added, saying he hopes the biggest takeaway from this study is that female bias in autoimmunity disorders is a “critical feature” and science finally has an understanding as to why. That could open the door to new disease diagnoses and therapies, such as targeting B cells.

"Those are cells that make antibodies, that seem to expand in response to Xist," Chang said. "So maybe therapies targeting those B cells would be helpful. This obviously is now future research. But now we have some clues as to what might be happening."

Yet there is clearly still a lot to learn about how these conditions manifest.

"There are more than 100 known autoimmune diseases that in aggregate afflict ∼50 million Americans and comprise one of the top ten leading causes of death for women under the age of 65," Chang and his co-authors wrote. "Understanding the risk factors and drivers of autoimmunity has become even more critical in the race to develop effective therapies and sensitive diagnostics specific to each autoimmune disease."

It is all a matter of perspective.

Talk to any astronaut. Hell, talk to the original Captain Kirk— William Shatner, who became a rocket man: Until you see the big blue marble in space, you don’t really have the perspective that we’re all in this together. 

But once that is seen, I’m told, you can’t unsee it.

I can only imagine it.

But I understand it. Many politicians don’t get it.

America is sick of them.

Don’t take my word for it. Get out of the D.C. bubble. Visit America. For the first time, Time Magazine has named someone who is primarily an entertainer as their “Person of the Year”: Taylor Swift. Even Time is done with politicians. Better yet, if you need more evidence, go to a comedy club, a PTA meeting, a church gathering; any place where people gather and just listen. No matter the issue, the political tastes or the venue, after more than two decades of growing divisiveness, people are tired of politics and most politicians.

Granted, we’ve elected them and that’s a different issue, but neither the Democrats, who mean well, nor the strange MAGA Republicans, who only worship greed, get it. America has had enough — and, incidentally, so have some of the politicians. Just ask Kevin McCarthy, who threw in the towel Wednesday, or any other member of Congress who has recently retired. American politics has all the appeal of dog vomit on hot asphalt in the steamiest part of August. 

Even President Joe Biden seems sick of politics.

Tuesday night, while speaking at a fundraiser in Boston, he said the main reason he’s running for president is because Trump is — and he is determined not to let Trump win. Of course, Wednesday morning in the White House Roosevelt Room, Biden also said there are “probably 50” other Democrats who could beat Donald Trump next year. That’s only funny because recent polls show Biden isn’t one of them.

Everyone wants to keep Trump out of the White House, except Trump, and that’s because recapturing the White House is Trump’s only, slim, chance of staying out of the big house. He knows it and has vowed to prosecute politicians and the press who remind people of that fact.

But maybe there’s a better reason to run for president. Maybe it really is about the future.

On the campaign trail in early March 2020, Biden said, “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else,” as he campaigned with Cory Booker, Gretchen Whitmer and future Vice President Kamala Harris on a stage in Detroit. “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.”

Apparently, the future meant 2028, because he’s not standing down in 2024, despite his acknowledgment that others could beat Trump. And, of course, there are the polls that show his approval rating sagging. Reuters reported Monday that it is still hovering around 40 percent.

Biden’s trouble is that people still want to saddle him with high gas prices and inflation. Some even want to blame him for rising unemployment, though employment is around 3.9 percent — historically low and, in the past, a number that would have triggered the term “full employment.” Gone are the days of my youth when employment surged to around nine percent.

Still, Biden can’t get a break. At an appearance in Boston this week, he tried to outline his successes at a fundraiser. “The biggest investment of rebuilding America's infrastructure since President Eisenhower's rebuilding of the roads and highways and bridges and with the interstate highway system.  And we've done the same now delivering clean water, high-speed Internet to every American, and cheaply,” Biden explained. There is no doubt Biden has done a lot in four years. There’s also no doubt he’s having trouble getting people to listen and agree with him — even though he’s helped them.

Biden defends his re-election efforts (he famously did not confirm on the campaign trail in 2020 that he would commit to such a campaign) by saying “America is back” and that he’s rebuilt alliances damaged internationally by Donald Trump. He’s quoted former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, in saying that we are “the essential nation.” Frequently he’s claimed “It’s not hyperbole” but that America’s future is “literally” at risk, “Because this time we’re running against an election denier-in-chief.”

Biden is determined to beat Trump one more time — and there’s a good reason for it. Trump is determined to destroy American democracy. You only have to listen to Trump’s words to understand the severity of the challenge.

Trump has sent emails to supporters and shouted from stages across the country that “2024 is the final battle,” and he claims that he is “your retribution” while also saying we are a failing nation. He’s called his opponents “vermin” and has said “the blood of our country is being poisoned.” That’s a deep dive into language familiar to anyone who is a student of history; It’s straight from Nazi Germany. 
 
Of course, Biden is correct. Listening to Trump is to listen to a soul-scourging scream from the deepest, demented depths of Dante’s Inferno; a weak cry of a Vampire staked to a post and left in an empty field during a severe thunderstorm; a death-rattling threat from a cornered New York sewer rat; a man who only cares about himself and has convinced millions of those he’s fleeced that he is the sole source of salvation.

But is Biden the man to lead the country? Part of the appeal for younger voters, in 2020, was his stop-gap approach. The idea that he was a “bridge to the future” meant that younger leaders would step up. But Biden’s re-election bid has quashed the efforts of many of those potential leaders as Biden doubles down on taking out Trump again.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, debating Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Fox News last week, even made light of this in one of the night’s most entertaining putdowns. “Neither one of us will be the nominee of our party” in 2024, Newsom said. 

Meanwhile, in the House, the MAGATS are busy trying to lay the groundwork for a new Donny presidency. Marjorie Taylor Greene called for the release of all Capitol surveillance footage from Jan. 6 and the creation of what one congressman called a “January 6 revenge committee” to go after those who prosecuted the insurrectionists. House Speaker Mike Johnson is fine with that, as long as the faces of the insurrectionists are blurred so they cannot be identified. 

In the past, the MAGATS said the January 6 insurrection was a Black Lives Matter fiasco, or an “Antifa stunt” or even an FBI “false flag” operation. If that’s the case, then why blur the faces? Wouldn’t you want to know who they were and prosecute them?

Julie Farnam, the former Capitol Police Department assistant intelligence chief whose book “Domestic Darkness” comes out in January called out Congress for the move and said that Trump “doesn’t care about anybody but himself.”

That is a big reason that while in Boston, President Biden said, “If Trump wasn’t running, I’m not sure I’d be running.” 

America has a problem. It is apparently tired of both Trump and Biden — but for different reasons.

Even as Biden positions himself as the bridge to the future, there are those who want the future now. Don’t take it from me.

Last week at a comedy show in beautiful downtown Burbank (apologies to Johnny Carson), Arsenio Hall appeared on stage at Flappers comedy club and said “Biden is old . . .” and followed it with a joke about the president’s gait and speech. It got a great round of applause in suburban Los Angeles, among a crowd as diverse as America. That doesn’t mean Arsenio is a Trump fan. “I can’t vote for Orange Satan,” he said. “I was an Apprentice. That man is the devil.”

Arsenio mused about winning “Celebrity Apprentice.” And said, “I was already a celebrity. It’s like a demotion.” Yeah, the white guy still runs the show.

Jay Leno, appearing on stage following Arsenio, said he’s tired of the division in this country. He said people are feeling alone and isolated. “If you’re lonely, you’re not alone,” he said to a room that responded with laughter. He even told a non-partisan political joke that went over well. But it’s obvious — the country is tired. Tired of it all.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Comedian Bill Burr went even further. Recently appearing on Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Burr said, “I want somebody in their 40s, somebody that’s gonna have to live with their decisions.” He continued: “With any luck, they’ll both die of natural causes before the election and maybe you could get somebody that still has something to live for.”

Burr drew a lot of heat for that comment, but it’s obvious many people have similar thoughts. While they also understand that Biden is right, this election is important. They want more than someone who is the same age as Trump running against the brigand.

The country needs and wants an infusion of John F. Kennedy-style hope. Kennedy challenged us with just 17 simple words: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

No president in peacetime had ever so challenged the citizenry to raise expectations and envision new possibilities. Kennedy, the youngest elected president, did that and ushered in an era that gave the world a much-needed lift.

It needs the same thing today.

Donald Trump cannot deliver that lift. He’s too busy tearing things down. And it appears people do not currently believe Biden can do it either.

But the person who delivers hope will save American democracy. It’s that simple.

Among those trying to become their party’s nominee, both Joe Biden and Donald Trump appear to have the inside trackt to set up a rematch of the 2020 election. Should Trump lose, he’ll obviously claim it was the work of those involved in dastardly deeds against the country and he was the victim. We are likely to see more violence and more bloodshed in a country that bathes in it. Sometimes it is nearly impossible to believe that everyone alive was the sperm that won the race.

This is what comes to mind every time I interact with politicians who remain nothing more than evidence of the randomness of life and the scarcity of intelligence. The names Jordan, Boebert, Greene, Trump, and a host of others stand prominent in the low-lives of American politics. Or, as President Joe Biden said of Rep.  Lauren Boebert in Pueblo, Colorado Wednesday, Boebert and certain members of the Republican Party represent a “massive failure in thinking.” 

As Tip O’Neill once said with a withering criticism about Republicans, “I hold them in the highest minimum regard.”

President John F. Kennedy in 1962 appeared in Louisville, KY, and infamously said, “Are we going to drift along with a majority of the members of the Congress saying 'no' to every proposal that we put forward, and having none of their own? Can you tell me one single piece of constructive legislation that has been suggested in the last 30 years by the Republican Party? Because I can’t. I can tell you what they’re against, but what are they for? Eighty-one percent of the members of the House of Representatives on the Republican side voted against aid for higher education," the Louisville Courier-Journal reported.

This means that the GOP has suffered through nearly a century of thoughtlessness.

Trump is well known for his massive failure in thinking. His former vice president, Mike Pence, as reported by NBC news recently, told us all about Trump’s failures on the run-up to the January 6 insurrection. Trump “surrounded himself with "crank" attorneys, espoused "un-American" legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a "constitutional crisis," according to sources familiar with what Pence told investigators.

Pence said he grew concerned when, within days of the election, Trump began ignoring the advice of credible and experienced attorneys inside the White House, instead relying on outside attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who pushed notions of widespread election fraud and, as Pence allegedly told Smith's team, "did a great disservice to the president and a great disservice to the country."

No court – even those populated by Trump-appointed judges, has found there was any election fraud in 2020. What we’re staring at now is a divided country whose politics have long been fractured, and whose final straw was Donald Trump. 

Mick Mulvaney, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration, wrote in The Hill this week that his guess was that it was a “gradual trajectory from ‘normal’ to whatever it is that we have today, which feels like a weird alternative universe.”

He also said, “U.S. politics more closely resembles a bad Hollywood screenplay than a competition to govern the world’s most important nation.”

I think Mulvaney, who once reminded me of Herb Tarlek in WKRP in Cincinnati, would make an excellent used car salesman. He’s also a cheerful sort, but his assessment of American politics leaves a lot to be desired

It isn’t a bad screenplay. It isn’t a weird alternative universe. It is the United States of America where many people don’t vote and won’t take responsibility for their actions. This allows the tyranny of the minority and allows people many of us would never want to speak with publicly, to become public representatives. Further, those who don’t vote are among those who scream the loudest about the results. They see a “deep state” that usurps all the authority vested in the people, and still they do not vote. 

We do not get better because we don’t put more effort into the work. American politics is a study in the lowest common denominator. Donald Trump, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene remain the greatest examples of that study.

That means that in 2024, we are staring at two senior citizens jockeying to become president who — if the actuarial tables are to be believed — probably won’t survive the four-year job for which they’re trying to get elected.

Worse, one of those running for office is Donald Trump.

There are Democrats, Republicans and Independents who want to make sure Trump never comes back to power. It isn’t, as Trump claims, because he’s been “hounded by political wolves,” it is merely that Trump is a truly loathsome human being. He has no class, no tolerance, nothing of joy is derived by him unless it is at the expense of others. Those who’ve had the misfortune of being associated with him in anything from friendship to kinship end up grease for the engine, grist for the mill, and are run over by the Trump bus.

In her new book, "Oath and Honor," due out next week, Liz Cheney talks about a conference call in which she gave a firsthand account of the planning of January 6. CNN, in an exclusive report, exposes Trump’s actions and also raises questions about the integrity of the Republican Party and its commitment to the rule of law.

The problem is that there are too many people in the Republican Party like Lee Grant in “Ransom for a Dead Man” (The second pilot for "Columbo"). As Peter Falk’s titular detective Lt. Columbo explains to her, “You have no conscience, and that’s your weakness. Did it ever occur to you that there are very few people that would take money to forget about a murder? It didn’t, did it; I knew it wouldn’t. No conscience limits your imagination. You can’t conceive of anybody being any different than what you are. And you are greedy,” he explains.

That is the Republican Party today. We have met the enemy and he is us, Walt Kelly’s Pogo told us.

On the other side, we have the incumbent president Joe Biden. He made positive strides with such little drama that many are convinced he’s done nothing. His detractors are convinced of worse: He is either crooked or sleepy, often both, and always called by the MAGA crowd, “the most corrupt president in our lifetime.” They believe he is a man who didn’t win the last election and may or may not be a foreign spy owned by a variety of shady national and international players straight out of a bad James Bond movie — so Mick got that part right.

Sane people will note that comparing Biden to Trump sounds like a bad skit on "Saturday Night Live." 

But here we go. And right now plenty of people are questioning if Biden can pull out a victory again. “No” is the answer being repeated on social media and in several media reports that reference recent polls. The question is why? As it turns out, age and energy are the current issues — which ignores facts and the future.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

If it comes down to Biden vs. Trump, I doubt there is little reason for those other than the diehard Trump fans to vote for a man who talks openly about dismantling the Constitution. The question is, can Biden energize the rest of the country out of their stupor and vote next year? I understand Biden’s belief that he should run again, but I’m really concerned about the future of both parties. What in the hell happens even two years from now? Who is the future for the Democrats and Republicans?

Sure, Trump is anathema to the democratic process and gives people like Jordan, Boebert and others the freedom to embrace their worst angels. But none of those people have a following that would get them elected nationwide. They are so overwhelmingly loathed by even others like themselves, that a national run for office is laughable for almost every Republican other than Trump.

Some who would vote for Trump happily say they can’t stand the man, but remain faithful he’ll “drain the swamp,” which reminds me a lot of “infrastructure week” during Trump’s tenure: long on promises and short on delivery.

On policy, the difference between Trump and Biden boils down to their difference of opinion on something very simple: wind energy, as expressed this week. While Trump apparently hates wind energy, Biden does not. Trump said wind energy causes cancer, was bad for the whales (I guess there are a lot of whales on top of cliffs and in fields), birds (“kills all the birds”) and said “I know more about wind than you do,” on numerous occasions while also describing it as glitchy, pricey and a fraud. 

Biden, on the other hand, supports wind energy, and showed up Wednesday in Pueblo, CO, to speak at the world’s largest wind turbine factory, touting his administration’s efforts to support and expand American productivity.

That, in a nutshell: the two leading candidates for the highest office in the land. But do not forget there are several Republicans who’ve yet to throw in the towel, though they’ve tossed their hat in the ring. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, just got an endorsement and lots of money from the Koch brothers. Ron DeSantis, the current governor of Florida, while floundering, is still around, as is Vivek Ramaswamy, even though his political director recently quit to join the Trump team. Why work for Darth Maul when Darth Vader is around?

The Democrats also have a few people in the race, though none of them appear to have a chance of winning. Then there are the independents. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is in the race and gargling a box of razors. Joe Manchin, who gargles Democrats, is also eyeing an independent run for president. Those are just two candidates who could have a large influence on next year’s Thanksgiving table blessings.

But the real question remains, and it is one that we cannot dismiss lightly: Will either one of the front runners for the office win, and what is the chance of their survivability for the next four years?

Biden has the edge, not only because he’s more healthy, but also because he’s not mentally compromised like Donald Trump. Each week Trump exposes his lunacy even more because his many criminal charges are scaring him straight into oblivion. That's ultimately good for Biden and the Democrats because there are few if any other Democrats sitting on the bench who could run for president successfully right now.

And while the early, useless polls, indicate Biden trails Trump, I for one still have doubts that Trump will be on the ballot next year. 

The greatest threat to the country right now is the Republican Party, or what’s left of it. It is filled with seditionists, greedy despot wannabes and no one that appeals to a majority of voters — despite what Haley, Trump, DeSantis or anyone else in the party says.

As the author once said, I believe Trump is destined to fail in his effort to be re-elected and will go down in history, "unwept, unhonoured, and unsung."

And, right now, the only declared candidate who can do the job is Joe Biden.

But things change. 

The ruling upholds last year's decision by Oregon Secretary of State LaVonne Griffin-Valade, a Democrat, barring the 10 lawmakers—nine Republicans and 1 Independent—from the 2024 ballot because they had accumulated more than 10 unexcused absences in violation of Measure 113, a state constitutional amendment approved by 68% of voters in 2022 following a series of Republican walkouts.

"I've said from the beginning my intention was to support the will of the voters," Griffin-Valade said in a statement Thursday. "It was clear to me that voters intended for legislators with a certain number of absences in a legislative session to be immediately disqualified from seeking reelection."

BREAKING: Oregon Supreme Court bars Republican state lawmakers with 10+ unexcused absences from running in 2024 and 2026, upholding a voter-approved amendment that disqualifies truant lawmakers from seeking reelection to the state legislature. https://t.co/1FQ3mBBtcC

— Democracy Docket (@DemocracyDocket) February 1, 2024

Five of the sanctioned lawmakers challenged Griffin-Valade's interpretation of Measure 113's language stating a lawmaker who misses 10 or more sessions is banned from running in "the term following the election after the member's current term is completed."

As The Associated Press explained:

The debate was over when that ineligibility kicks in: If a senator's term ends in January 2025, they would typically seek reelection in November 2024. The "election after the member's current term is completed" would not be until November 2028, the Republican senators argued, so they could run for reelection this year and then hold office for another term before becoming ineligible.

The court disagreed, saying that while the language of the amendment was ambiguous, the information provided to voters in the ballot title and explanatory statement made clear that the intent was to bar truant lawmakers from holding office in the next term.

"If we were required to choose between petitioners' and the secretary's interpretations based on the text alone, petitioners would have a strong argument that their reading is the better one," the court's opinion states.

"But we do not review the text in a void," the ruling adds. "We instead seek to understand how voters would have understood the text in the light of the other materials that accompanied it. And those other materials expressly and uniformly informed voters that the amendment would apply to a legislator's immediate next terms of office, indicating that the voters so understood and intended that meaning."

The 2023 walkout—which, at six weeks set a record in Oregon—paralyzed the Legislature and held up Democratic-led bills expanding abortion access, protecting gender-affirming healthcare, and banning so-called ghost guns. Oregon is one of only four U.S. states requiring the presence of two-thirds of its state lawmakers for a quorum.

"It is critical to our democracy that elected officials uphold the will of voters, not disrupt our constitutional rights or halt the democratic process when it does not align with their personal beliefs," the ACLU of Oregon said in response to Thursday's ruling.

The Oregon League of Conservation Voters said on social media that "Oregonians deserve legislators who will show up and do their jobs—and when they don't, there must be consequences."

"Voters were clear when they overwhelmingly passed Measure 113, and we're glad the Oregon Supreme Court agrees," the green group added.

Kaplan said that she rejected Trump’s request to work through a launch break because he thought the deposition was a “waste of my time.”

“And then you could kind of see the wheel spinning in his brain. You could really almost see it,” Kaplan said. “And he said, ‘Well, you’re here in Mar-a-Lago. What do you think you’re going to do for lunch? Where are you going to get lunch?’”

Kaplan said she told him that his legal team had “graciously offered to provide” her team with lunch, a common practice among attorneys.

“At which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table. And stormed out of the room,” Kaplan said, adding that Trump directed his ire at attorney Alina Habba.

“He really yelled at Alina for that. He was so mad at Alina,” she said.

Kaplan added that Trump later called her a euphemism for the c-word.

“We come in the room and I say, ‘I’m done asking questions’ and immediately I hear from the other side, ‘Off the record. Off the record. Off the record.’ So they must have planned it. And he looks at me from across the table and he says, ‘See you next Tuesday,’” Kaplan said.

“You could tell it was like, it was like a kind of a joke again, like teenage boys would come up with. But again, I wasn’t in on the joke,” she said. “I wasn’t in on the joke, so I had no idea. Then we get into the car and my colleagues are like, ‘Robbie, do you know what that means?’ And I’m like, ‘No, what are you talking about?’ They tell me and I’m like, oh my God, thank God I didn’t know because had I known, I for sure would have gotten angry. There’s no question I would have gotten angry.”

Three female servicemembers made the claims against Nauta, the sources said, noting that the women first reported his conduct, which had been occurring for years, to supervisors in spring 2021. 

The initial complaints arose after a woman reported an "inappropriate relationship between a senior person and a junior person" on a "command climate survey" around April 2021, one of the sources with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast. Given his high rank in the White House detail's leadership, Nauta was among the Navy officials briefed on the complaint, the source said, but the response did not name Nauta. A follow-up inquiry later identified the Trump aide and two inappropriate romantic relationships with two other women. The source told The Daily Beast that Nauta was removed from the White House after admitting to the relationships in a White House interview.

"[I]t's unclear whether the Navy officially charged Nauta with any violations, or whether all parties were content to let him quickly and quietly retire without further incident," The Daily Beast reports. When approached for comment by the outlet, a spokesperson for Trump's campaign, in a statement, did not deny the allegations but characterized them as a politically motivated effort to disparage Nauta. The Trump aide also faces seven federal charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, where he's accused of obstructing government efforts to retrieve highly sensitive national security material from the former president's resort club. 

Joe Biden, on the other hand, is brushing off the stock market's stellar performance even though he could take credit since every president is largely held responsible for economic conditions during their term, whether it's fair or not. But unlike Trump, he is required to act like a normal human being and the stock market isn't really relevant to most people. Yes, plenty of people have retirement savings in their 401ks but for the most part, this particular economic indicator doesn't tell the average American much about their everyday economic lives.

That doesn't mean Biden doesn't have a good story to tell about this economy and his administration's accomplishments, however. While many in the media have been flogging the doom and gloom of the post-pandemic recovery, both reflecting and creating a narrative of economic angst, the facts on the ground have been looking positive for a while. Now they are starting to look downright stellar and it's not just the stock market.

Friday's job report was chock-full of objectively fantastic economic news. The U.S. economy added 353,000 jobs in January, far exceeding economists' expectations of 180,000 jobs. With last month's jobs gains revised upwards to 333,000, the unemployment rate now stands at 3.7%. There is even good news on the stubbornly high inflation front. The Washington Post published a piece this week with the headline, "Falling inflation, rising growth give U.S. the world’s best recovery." Friday's report confirms that wage growth has outpaced inflation by over a full percentage point over the past year. 

Even Larry Kudlow, Trump's former economic adviser and current Fox Business host, had to tip his hat to reality this week.

Kudlow on the economy: From bust to slump to “I was wrong” pic.twitter.com/HjygBNLfe9

— Acyn (@Acyn) February 2, 2024

Here's just a short list of all the good economic indicators that have been there for quite some time now and are only now being acknowledged by the likes of Kudlow and, finally, the mainstream press as well, gathered by Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, for his newsletter:

-Best job market since the 1960s, stock market setting records (401Ks are happy), best recovery in the G7, GDP growth 3.3% last quarter, consumer sentiment rising

-The inflation fueled by COVID/supply chain disruptions, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and OPEC price hikes has ended, and we are now in a place much closer to historic norms. Prices for many items are falling including groceries, rents and mortgage rates [and people are starting to notice.]

-Historically elevated wage growth, new business formation and prime-age worker participation rates. In the last few months we’ve seen some of the most robust real wage growth we’ve seen in decades, and Americans at all income levels have seen sizeable increases in their overall net worth

-Lowest uninsured rate in history, record ACA signups this year

-Renewable and domestic oil production set records in 2023, US more energy independent than its been in decades. In 2023 the US produced more oil than any country has in any year in history

There is a view among political mavens that it's a bad idea to talk about the good economic news. "People aren't feeling it" they say, and they get mad when you tell them that they should be feeling good when they aren't. "Talk about what you plan to do to help them out of their troubles if you get another term" they say, "make them understand that you feel their pain." That might make sense if those statistics didn't belie that reality and if the sour responses weren't so colored by partisanship.

The New York Times' Paul Krugman has been tracking this phenomenon:

I’ve been writing about the recent improvement in reported consumer sentiment, which is really startling; here’s a chart from the Michigan consumer survey. In the release containing that chart, the survey notes that “Sentiment is now just 7 percent shy of the historical average since 1978.”

Reading that, I couldn’t help thinking about recent work by Ryan Cummings and Neale Mahoney in which they estimate the extent to which partisanship moves these numbers. Both sides of the aisle are more negative about the economy when the other party holds the White House, but the effect is much stronger for Republicans. Adjusting for this effect, they find, raises consumer sentiment by seven points, or around 10 percent — more than enough to bring current consumer sentiment above the historical average.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The good news is that people are starting to feel it, even if they aren't yet ready to accept that it might actually be real. The pandemic was a terrible jolt to the entire world economy and when you combine that horrible experience with the trauma of four years of Trump culminating in a coup attempt and insurrection it's not surprising that the American public has been suffering from mass PTSD. And this has been exacerbated by a coordinated right-wing propaganda effort and a mainstream media that has been relentlessly perpetuating the narrative that the country is in dire economic straits.

You can see the results in polling that has shown for months that a majority of people feel good about their own financial circumstances but believe that the rest of the country is in economic crisis. Why? Because that's what they are being told. When the media narrative changes, their views on the broader economy change too, and that's starting to happen.

The Wall Street Journal reported, "consumer sentiment leapt 13% in the first half of January from December, the Michigan survey said, after a sharp rise the prior month. The pickup in sentiment was broad-based, spanning consumers of different age, income, education and geography." They also point out that some of this rise in confidence comes from the shift in the press in recent weeks:

Media coverage might be rubbing off on consumers, too. The mood of economy-related articles has rebounded since November to the highest level since 2018, according to the San Francisco Fed’s Daily News Sentiment Index. Coverage had skewed much more negatively in the past three years relative to economic fundamentals, a Brookings Institution analysis found.

It is unknown if the strong economic news will be enough to boost the Democrats next November and prevent Donald Trump's restoration to the presidency. It's still a long road to bringing Joe Biden's approval rating up after having been ruthlessly battered by the bad press on this issue over the past three years and there is no time to waste. But the economy is always a primary concern in any presidential election and having a good one is certainly an asset.

Just in case, it might be wise for the Democrats to revisit this famous ad and think about updating it with an accurate picture of America in 2024. (Even in 1984, the whole country wasn't white...) Voters may just be getting ready to hear this message:

The deal would require Weisselberg to admit that he lied while testifying at Trump’s recent civil fraud trial and in an earlier interview with the New York attorney general’s office, sources told the outlet.

The reported deal comes after a long pressure campaign by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose team sought Weisselberg’s cooperation in several investigations into Trump’s business and alleged election crimes. Trump is scheduled for trial in Manhattan in March in the 2016 hush-money case.

The deal likely would not require Weisselberg to “turn on his former boss,” according to the report. Prosecutors are not expected to call him as a witness in the hush-money case and the investigation into Trump’s finances “may no longer be a priority for prosecutors,” the Times reported.

The potential deal is likely to strengthen Bragg’s hand, the report added, because it could deter other witnesses from lying on the witness stand. And it could discredit Weisselberg, who has disputed prosecutors’ evidence relating to the hush-money case.

Weisselberg previously pleaded guilty to a yearslong tax fraud scheme and spent about 100 days in jail on Rikers Island.

Bragg’s office threatened to bring additional charges against the longtime accountant. If the two sides don’t reach a deal, Weisselberg could be indicted, the report said.

It’s unclear whether Weisselberg would plead guilty to a felony or misdemeanor or what his sentence could be. It’s also unclear which statement brought about the perjury allegation, though reports accused Weisselberg of lying under oath about Trump’s Trump Tower triplex apartment, which is 10,996 square feet but was listed for years on financial statements as 30,000 square feet.

Weisselberg testified that he “never focused” on the unit but a Forbes article showed that Weisselberg “played a key role in trying to convince Forbes over the course of several years” of the apartment’s value.

Weisselberg was abruptly pulled from the stand after the article was published.

The reported deal comes amid a reported delay in the ruling in Trump’s fraud trial. Judge Arthur Engoron is now expected to issue a decision in early to mid-February, a court spokesperson told The Guardian.

It’s unclear what prompted the delay, which came after a court-appointed monitor flagged a potentially fake $48 million loan, but some legal experts believe it could be related to the Weisselberg negotiations.

“Why has Judge Engoron not issued his decision on the Trump civil fraud? One reason could well be the news that the Trump chief financial officer may be pleading to lying to Judge Engoron in a way to help Trump,” tweeted former Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann. “And the Judge is waiting for that to support his decision against DJT. This [would] be another big nail in the Trump civil fraud coffin.”

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, another former federal prosecutor, agreed that the deal may have given Engoron pause.

"If I'm in Judge Engoron's position here, and getting ready to issue a big verdict and ruling, and now I've heard this , and we've all heard it, that one of the key witnesses committed perjury in front of me — I slam on the brakes and say, 'I'm not going to rule until I know the specifics of this,'” he said Thursday.

"If you're going to issue a ruling and it turns out Weisselberg lied, that's going to harm the Trump Organization when it comes time for the verdict," Honig said, adding that the plea deal and delay are a “problem for Donald Trump because he's going to be on the receiving end of this verdict."

Honig also cited a report that Weisselberg’s $2 million severance package from the Trump Organization “required him not to cooperate with any law enforcement unless he was legally required.”

“That was stunning to me,” he said. “I’ve never heard of such a thing! I don’t think that’s enforceable to say you won’t cooperate with law enforcement. I mean, it certainly undermines what prosecutors are trying to do.”

2.1.24 908 PM ET CNN's @TheSourceCNN Anchor Kaitlan Collins @kaitlancollins w/ CNN Senior Legal Analyst & Former Assistant U.S. Attorney SDNY, Elie Honig @eliehonig pic.twitter.com/dLGhdnbwP4

— Jeff Storobinsky (@jeffstorobinsky) February 2, 2024

Experts say the development is likely to affect Trump’s upcoming Manhattan trial.

"It really does send a message to other witnesses in a case. I've been involved in cases where we prosecuted someone for perjury in a grand jury. And you see the other witnesses who are trying to decide just how much they can get away with, take note, so in this case I think it is really important,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance told MSNBC on Thursday.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

"One thing — it probably serves to keep Allen Weisselberg off of the witness stand as a defense witness for Donald Trump," Vance added. "He has always defied the normal expectations with someone who completes a guilty plea that they will cooperate for prosecutors as part of that deal. He never fully cooperated in any case… Keeping him off the stand and sending out a caution to other witnesses would be important for Alvin Bragg at this point."

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti called the development “very consequential.”

“You have to know that Allen Weisselberg is giving Alvin Bragg and his team a heck of a lot,” he told MSNBC. “Realistically, a prosecutor putting a witness up for the prosecution who's pleading guilty to perjury, you know, that's not going to be a very attractive witness… In order for that witness to be worth the time, they've got to be giving up something really important. That's what I think is really the news here."

Some investigators after the search came to believe that the closet, which was locked during the search, should have been checked, sources told the outlet. Investigators later learned that Trump allegedly had the closet lock changed while his attorney was searching for classified documents in a basement storage room, according to the report. One former maintenance worker described the request as “unusual,” sources told the outlet.

Trump’s efforts to conceal the classified documents from his own attorney were part of the indictment brought by Smith. The questioning suggests Smith’s team is still “trying to determine if there might be more classified documents there,” ABC News reports.

Jordan Strauss, a former Justice Department national security official and prosecutor, said the failure by the FBI to search the closet is a “bit astonishing” given how “especially thorough” the agents were.

"You're searching a former president's house. You [should] get it right the first time," he told ABC News.

Agents were unable to unlock the closet door because they could not find a key and were told the space behind the door went nowhere so agents decided not to break it open, sources told the outlet.

Agents also decided that they felt they had been at Mar-a-Lago long enough, sources said, but a senior FBI official pushed back.

"Discussions took place that day about additional areas of the property and it was determined that actions already taken met the parameters of the search warrant,” the official said.

Strauss questioned the FBI’s decision.

"[The FBI] is almost notorious for their relentlessness and follow-through," Strauss said.

The FBI also failed to search a so-called “hidden room” connected to Trump’s bedroom, sources told the outlet. Smith’s team was later told that some Trump employees heard that the FBI missed at least one room at Mar-a-Lago. Unlike the closet, the FBI was unaware of the “hidden room” at the time of the search, sources said.

A senior FBI official told ABC News that agents focused on areas they believed might have government documents.

"Based on information gathered throughout the course of the investigation, areas were identified and searched pursuant to the search warrant," the official said.

It’s unclear whether prosecutors or Trump’s lawyers were aware of the unexamined spaces and whether Smith considered seeking another search warrant to search Mar-a-Lago for additional documents.

A spokesperson for the Trump campaign called the investigations into the former president “desperate attempts at election interference ... to stop the presumptive Republican nominee for President."

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, tweeted that the report suggests that “an insider has tipped the FBI off,” suggesting “another cooperating witness” in the case.  

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance on her Substack blog called the FBI’s failure to search the closet and hidden room “troubling.”

“It’s inexplicable that agents didn’t insist on being provided with a key or break the lock in order to look into the space. Important national secrets were at risk, and they were authorized to look into any space within Trump’s control where they could be stored,” Vance wrote.

Though investigators did not appear to seek a second search warrant, it “doesn’t mean this evidence couldn’t prove to be useful,” she noted.

“The meat of the case against Trump is his effort to obstruct the investigation and to keep classified material from being recovered by the government, even after his own lawyers advised him he was required to return it,” she wrote. “If Jack Smith’s team has come up with evidence that Trump, for instance, changed the lock on his closet and stored documents there to conceal them from the government, that would be powerful when the case goes to trial.”

"Women 58 - 36 percent support Biden, up from December when it was 53 - 41 percent," explains the Quinnipiac analysis. "Men 53 - 42 percent support Trump, largely unchanged from December when it was 51 - 41 percent."

So you enjoy bashing Taylor Swift, Republicans? Well, how's that working out for you?

Okay, it's probably not just about the hyper-famous pop star whose romance with a Super Bowl-bound football player has driven Republicans batty. Trump has been on TV bragging about how he's the one who got Roe v. Wade overturned, a clip that has thankfully drowned out mainstream media efforts to paint him as somehow "moderate" on abortion. He also lost in court again to E. Jean Carroll, which resulted in a massive amount of news coverage reminding voters that, in the words of the judge, "Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll." Plus, Trump won both the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, causing a lot of voters who were previously skeptical to understand that yes, the sexual assailant who attempted a coup really will be the Republican nominee for president again. 

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

But let's face it: The Taylor Swift thing is not helping Republicans. For those remaining 7 people still unaware, there's been a growing amount of Republican hate towards the beloved singer-songwriter and her beau, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. They're mad that she is an unashamed cat lady, that she's more interested in being a superstar than a housewife, and, of course, that she is a Biden-endorsing liberal. But mostly the right is mad that Swift and her fans crush the stereotype that cat-loving feminists are ugly and unloved. This is why the fury metastasized over the weekend when Swift kissed her hunky boyfriend on the field after his big win. 

Fox News went ape with outrage at this young (ish) love. Trump got involved, pathetically lying by saying he's "more popular" than Swift while his allies dramatically declared "holy war" on her. The combination of overkill, silliness, and pop culture relevance sent the story of GOP angst over Swift into every corner of the media. So even people who pay very little attention to politics were hearing about MAGA's beef with America's sweetheart. Most people, however, did not react how Republicans had hoped, by deciding they now hate Swift. Instead, they were grossed out by the misogyny. As popular sports commentator Colin Cowherd said in a viral video this week, the hate is coming from "weird, lonely, insecure men" who "are often misogynistic and resent women."

Or, as the big brains setting the MAGA strategy might say, their voting base. 

Starting in 2014 with "Gamergate," an online harassment campaign against women in the gaming industry, Trump advisor Steve Bannon has championed the idea that misogynist tantrums in the face of "girl power" pop culture would attract young male voters to the GOP. That's why there's this targeted GOP hate at everything from Cardi B's hit songs to the "Barbie" movie.

As Adam Serwer recently wrote in the Atlantic, Republicans hope the overt misogyny is "a way to expand their base of support beyond the core of white Christian conservatives," by reaching some men of color and non-religious men. The strategy has had some success, especially in radicalizing angry young men by blaming feminism rather than their own hygiene/video game addictions for their romantic failures. But what Bannon and his crew failed to account for is that women can also vote, and they are getting increasingly angry about this crap. 

It doesn't help that these misogynist pile-ons are happening against a backdrop of rising frustration from women over being overworked and underappreciated. As Melanie McFarland wrote at Salon, regarding the cultural impact of the "Barbie" movie, there's a reason audiences gushed for America Ferrara's "being a woman is impossible" speech. The pandemic exposed how much the nation still relies on women's unpaid labor to keep the economy running. The thanks women got for holding things together, however, were abortion bans and a cascade of media stories demanding that women settle for unsatisfying marriages so men don't have to suffer the indignities of wifelessness. The injustice of it all is getting harder to ignore. 

I've been struck, for instance, by this bizarre and sudden freakout over the Stanley cup — not the hockey trophy, but the thermos that has suddenly become a hot commodity among lady influencers and their legions of fans. As Daniela Pierre-Bravo at MSNBC documented, the Stanley Quencher model has been around since 2016, but exploded in popularity after three online influencers convinced the company "to start marketing to women for the first time." The campaign focused on moms by highlighting that it's a great way to caffeinate and hydrate while driving kids around to soccer games and, oh yeah, it's dishwasher-safe. 

But of course women can't simply enjoy something, even something so innocent as a water bottle, without it kicking off a massive moral panic. We're now deluged with scare stories about how the cups are dangerous (they're not) and sensationalist stories about how women are going too far in their enthusiasm for the cups. "Saturday Night Live" even had a sketch about the "big dumb cups" that went viral despite being only mildly funny. 

SNL: Stanley Tumblers Craze Zinged In 'Big Dumb Cups' Sketch https://t.co/pmx3RM869Z

— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) January 28, 2024

I admit I laughed a few times, but basically the joke of the skit was a series of stereotypes about middle-class soccer moms being vapid. Which isn't just unfair, but frustratingly so. These are women who are doing everything they were told they're "supposed" to do. They got married and had kids. They try to stay sexy and fashionable, and keep their marriages interesting despite being overwhelmed with responsibilities. And their reward for hard work and sacrifice and conforming to social expectations? They get shamed because they want a nice cup to make their endless responsibilities a little easier. Because a woman's job is apparently to sacrifice and never want the slightest creature comfort for herself. 

So far, the right-wing noise machine has mostly left the Stanley cups alone, though give it time. But the cup discourse adds to the larger aggravation that comes from the Taylor Swift hate or the parade of hand-wringing articles demanding women lower their standards to get married to Trump voters. It really is impossible to be a woman. Even if you clip your own wings and marry someone who is beneath you, the next phase of your life is being told you're a bimbo because you want your coffee to stay hot in between PTA meetings. Complicity, it turns out, buys you nothing but more bulls**t.

I know that Biden's campaign will reject my proposed slogan: "Stanley cups and free abortions." Still, it's a vibe and one they'd be wise to ride throughout what is going to be, if the Swift paranoia is any indication, a ridiculously sexist campaign from the other side. 

Trump’s “dangerous charisma” attracts already corrupt and ethically compromised people into his orbit. He also exerts a malignant perfidious influence over people who are vulnerable to such energy and temptations, but for whatever reason have not yet fully surrendered to them. This is a defining feature of dangerous leaders. 

On this, political scientist Brian Klaas warns in his book “Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How It Changes Us": “Whatever specific interventions are adopted, a big part of the battle is acknowledging a core problem: those who shouldn’t be in power are more likely to seek it. We need to design every system to try to screen out the corruptible, power-hungry candidates.”

New reporting about the inner workings of the White House during the Trump administration sheds even more light on the ex-president’s (and now criminal defendant facing 91 felonies and hundreds of years in prison) corrupting power and influence over the people around him and the type of toxic environment he created and enabled while in office. From Rolling Stone:

White House pharmacists reportedly distributed uppers and downers like candy to Trump administration officials during his time in office, according to a new report from the Department of Defense Inspector General. 

The 80-page document, which was released on Jan. 8, found that “all phases of the White House Medical Unit’s pharmacy operations had severe and systemic problems due to the unit’s reliance on ineffective internal controls to ensure compliance with pharmacy safety standards.” ...

While Trump lived under the White House roof, the pharmacy reportedly kept messy, handwritten records, spent lavishly on brand-name medications, and failed to comply with a slew of federal law and Department of Defense regulations governing the handling, distribution, and disposal of prescription medication. 

Through in-person inspections and interviews with over 120 officials, the report concluded “that the White House Medical Unit provided a wide range of health care and pharmaceutical services to ineligible White House staff in violation of Federal law and regulation and DoD policy. Additionally, the White House Medical Unit dispensed prescription medications, including controlled substances, to ineligible White House staff.” 

In an attempt to better understand the Trump White House pharmacy scandal, I recently spoke with Dr. Justin Frank. He is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and the author of "Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President."

In this conversation, Dr. Frank shares his professional insights about the Trump White House pharmacy and why it was so dangerous. He also discusses the specific drugs and narcotics that were apparently being given out there with few or any controls of limits and how they could impact people’s behavior and moods – which includes the possibility of fatal outcomes.

Dr. Frank also continues to warn about Trump’s extremely dangerous mind and overall pattern of behavior and why as seen with the second E. Jean Carroll court case for defamation, and escalating threats of violence and retribution against his “enemies”, that the corrupt ex-president will not be stopped by “the walls closing in." Instead, Dr. Frank predicts that Trump is a malignant narcissist who will go down in a blaze of glory before he ever surrenders or is otherwise made to yield in his assaults on society, human decency, and the rule of law.

How are you feeling given what has happened since our last conversation a month or so ago? Trump is winning in the primaries and is about to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee. He is being forced by a civil court to pay even more money to E. Jean Carroll for attacking her reputation. Trump is only continuing to escalate his threats of violence and mayhem and being a god-like dictator. And how do you think the American people are doing emotionally right now?

Your question is very broad, pertaining both to my individual reactions as well as assessing the American people in general. So there is a bifurcation in my own feelings. The tension is between rage and resignation. And then somewhere in the middle is a wish to expose the criminals who are part of Trump's orbit, and more generally who are inspired by his behavior. There is a part of most people's personalities that gets a thrill from breaking the rules and engaging in the types of misdemeanors that kids indulge in such as taking candy from a store without paying. But there are people who are far more dangerous than that. Trump is one of them. He unconsciously declares himself a psychopath by saying that he is above the law. He is also a cruel man who enjoys destroying anyone who disagrees with him.

As for the American people? We are a society more divided than united. Many of us are anti-intellectual and don't want to think. That makes such people attracted to strongmen and bullies like Trump. Trump has made his followers reject the truth for alternate facts – and that makes most of us insecure and uncertain about what to believe. As November approaches there will be more uncertainty and anxiety about who and what to believe. That can only lead to people making choices and then sticking to them for their own safety sake. To me, cruelty is the biggest change that is happening, and it is getting worse on a daily basis.

During the second E. Jean Carroll civil trial, Trump was disruptive. He got angry and stormed out of court while it was in session. He continued to attack her character, literally, while being involved in a second trial for defamation. You are an expert on Trump's mind and behavior. What did you see as you watched Trump's antics?

From the time Trump was five years old, he hated rules and couldn't control himself. If Trump didn't like something, he would convert feelings into immediate action. He threw rocks at a toddler who lived next door when he was five. He punched out his second-grade teacher because he got mad at him. As a father, Trump knocked out his son, Don Jr., when he was in high school because he wasn't dressed appropriately. Trump has always been like this. As people age, they generally do not change; they instead become more of their true selves.  His capacity for self-restraint is becoming a thinner veneer over fundamental destructiveness. He is increasingly no longer able to fake it. This is why Trump is in court acting out, mumbling, being angry and disruptive. 

Trump continues to claim, contrary to all the evidence, that he didn't know E. Jean Carroll. Based on what we know about his personality and mind, does Trump really believe this? Is he just lying and/or delusional?

In my opinion, Donald Trump is a "segmental thinker". He lives in the moment and is attracted by a shiny object and forgets everything else. Trump sees an attractive woman and she becomes the focus of his attention. That is who Trump is. Trump was caught bragging on that recording admitting that he grabs women in their genitals whenever he wants to. So, when Trump says that he didn't really know E. Jean Carroll, he is not simply denying having known her. But the real meaning goes much deeper: Women are interchangeable for Trump. So of course, Trump didn't know E. Jean Carroll. When Trump says he doesn't know a woman, or anyone else, he is really letting you know that he has no concern or care about anyone other than himself.  

During her interview on Monday with MSNBC, E. Jean Carroll said that she is not afraid of Trump anymore and that he is like a “walrus” making noises. Many people ran with Carroll's comment about Trump and then proceeded to make fun of him. As you know, I have repeatedly warned that there is nothing funny about Trump. Donald Trump and what he represents is terrifying. That laughter is defensive and a function of deep existential terror and denial. In the end, all these people laughing at Trump are engaging in gallows humor.  

E. Jean Carroll was not simply making fun of Trump. She was speaking her truth, that when she saw Trump in the court, she suddenly realized he was like the emperor without clothes. She is saying that to her Trump is nothing. To be afraid of this man is ludicrous as she now sees him. Trump has a lot of money, but he really is unremarkable. Sure, he bullies weak Republican congressmen but he is nothing at his core. E. Jean Carroll called Trump a hollow man. That is what E. Jean Carroll is saying.

Moreover, E. Jean Carroll and Liz Cheney and Hillary Clinton and the other women who have stood up to Trump show, at least as I see it, that women are less afraid of Trump than most men are. Lots of men – both in Congress and his MAGA followers in general - are terrified of Trump and are afraid of being emasculated by him. That fear of Trump also paralyzes many among the opposition. When Trump says "jump!" there are so many men who say, "how high?" and then do whatever Trump wants.  

It is now being reported, which is not at all surprising, that the White House pharmacy under Trump's regime was giving out prescription medication, including powerful narcotics, with few oversights or limits. It was basically candy and it was being doled out like Dr. Feel Good was running the pharmacy. You are a highly respected physician who has worked at some of the country's leading medical facilities, what was your initial reaction when you learned about the Trump White House pharmacy? 

Trump basically gave the people in his White House permission to not obey the law, since the law doesn't matter to him. There was no regulation in Trump's White House as seen with the pharmacy — and more generally. Drugs were basically being given away to anyone who asked for them. Under Trump, the White House pharmacy was basically lawless and like something out of the Wild West. As for specifics, two of the drugs that are prominent in the reporting on that pharmacy are Ambien, which is a common sleeping pill, and Provigil, a psychological stimulant that makes the brain more alert. It doesn't work like amphetamines and was first used to treat narcolepsy.  Provigil is also used by people to help them concentrate.

The Department of Defense's investigative report into the Trump White House pharmacy lists many different drugs. Here are some drugs that stood out to me: morphine; ketamine, and fentanyl.

Those drugs are really dangerous, and they're controlled substances. I cannot prescribe codeine or morphine unless I have a special license that allows me to do it. My medical license alone will not allow me to prescribe those drugs.  I have a special license from the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs so I can prescribe some of those medicines. Not only that, but I also can’t even call in a script over the phone. The patient has to bring in a written prescription in order to get it filled. I'm really struck by the amounts that were given out and the poor record keeping. Many of these drugs are addictive narcotics. They are also sedatives and depressants. These drugs make you disconnected and calm. You feel no pain. These drugs numb you.

What about the ketamine and fentanyl? 

Ketamine is used to treat severe depression, but under controlled circumstances where it's administered intravenously, and the person goes into a special ketamine practice where it is administered via an IV. Ketamine is also used as a recreational drug. It is a very powerful drug that is dangerous and needs to be monitored. Fentanyl is a sedative that people take who just want to zone out. But Fentanyl can kill you really fast; if a person takes too much Fentanyl they will die.

If a physician was giving out drugs in the ways these government audits and investigations are indicating it is malpractice. If someone who is not a physician is giving out these drugs in the manner detailed in the report on the Trump White House pharmacy it is, in my opinion, criminal. They should all be prosecuted.

What do you think is going to happen with Trump's behavior as the election approaches and his criminal trials, fingers crossed, finally begin in earnest? What do you want to prepare the American people for?

The main thing that I am worried about is the complacency of the public and specifically the country's leaders and law enforcement and other people in positions of authority and power who are still letting Trump run wild. Trump is extremely dangerous. Trump does not believe in laws and rules. He wants to be a lawless dictator. This is why I continue to share my conclusion, based on the evidence, that Donald Trump appears to be psychotic. He is a person who is detached from reality. Even with the trials and other pressures, Trump is not capable of breaking down, of being cowed and/or broken. If anything, Trump will go down in flames if he goes down at all. Trump is an extreme narcissist who will destroy anyone who has ever done anything to hurt him, to oppose him, or defy him.

The FTC says drugmakers illegitimately use the patents to prevent competitors from offering cheaper generic alternatives.

It’s the first time the FTC has tried the tactic, said Hannah Garden-Monheit, director of the FTC’s Office of Policy Planning.

“We are using all the tools we have to bring down drug prices and reduce barriers to generic competition,” she said in an interview.

President Joe Biden has instructed his Federal Trade Commission to be more aggressive in reining in the pharmaceutical industry. Under its chairperson, Lina Khan, the agency is aggressively testing the limits of its powers in pursuit of that goal.

The targeted patents cover devices that propel medicines for asthma and emphysema into the lungs or inject epinephrine to treat a severe allergic attack. Drugmakers list them in the FDA’s “Orange Book,” which can afford the products greater protection from generic competition.

Many of the medicines delivered by the devices are decades old, years off patent. But manufacturers have long tweaked the delivery methods, patenting the changes, in ways that sometimes make the drugs more convenient to administer.

They might, for example, change the propellant in an inhaler or add a counter that tells a patient how many doses are left. Autoinjectors mean patients don’t see a needle or syringe but merely press a device with a hidden needle against the skin to deliver the medicine. Some autoinjectors even talk patients through the process.

Though there has long been a procedure for disputing the validity of Orange Book-listed patents, it is rarely used.

In challenging Orange Book listings, the FTC is trying to cut away at what are known as patent thickets. While a single patent once would cover a single active medicine, many drugs today are protected by half a dozen patents or more, creating additional obstacles for cheaper generics seeking to enter the market.

The move is critically important because drugmakers frequently extend the 20-year patent protection of a drug by changing the delivery device or method. For example, instead of a pill, they make a capsule. Or instead of a dose every six hours, they create a longer-acting, once-a-day version. They can also alter the process by which a drug is made — so-called “process patents.”

Each tweak gets a new patent, which the manufacturer then adds to its official compendium of drug patents. There is no advance scrutiny of listings by regulators.

Generic drugmakers wishing to make a copycat version of a branded drug generally have to challenge the patents in court. But merely listing a patent in the Orange Book automatically triggers a 2½-year delay of FDA approval of a litigating generic competitor.

The FTC says patent law protects active ingredients, not delivery methods.

The pharmaceutical industry, already battling the Biden administration’s plan to negotiate prices of some drugs for Medicare patients, says it wants more clarity about which aspects of its products can be patented.

“The underlying statute is not clear about listing certain types of drug delivery device patents, and the industry has long asked for the FDA to provide guidance,” said Megan Van Etten, a spokesperson for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, in an email. “We’re disappointed that the FTC has characterized companies as acting inappropriately rather than help seek the clarity the industry needs to ensure compliance.”

After an FTC challenge, companies have 30 days to withdraw or amend the patent or show it is valid. Some have already backed down.

“We’ve had some significant wins,” Garden-Monheit said. After the FTC’s challenge, drugmaker GSK, formerly GlaxoSmithKline, withdrew all patents on two popular inhalers for asthma, Advair and Flovent, both of which contained old off-patent medicines but nonetheless cost hundreds of dollars. Amneal Pharmaceuticals withdrew patents on its epinephrine injector.

Still, the deadline for companies to respond to the first set of warning letters has passed and only about 30% of those that received them answered, leaving the commission to ponder its next steps. The FTC could take a drugmaker to court to seek a cease-and-desist order.

And Garden-Monheit said the agency is poised to look at other types of patents that may be invalid, which pile up to add to the thicket. There are thousands of patents in the Orange Book.

“We are taking a close and active look at this,” Garden-Monheit said. “Companies who haven’t received a letter from us challenging a patent shouldn’t think they’re off the hook.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

Its second grace was that Pitt and his wife Jennifer Aniston announced separation months before the movie came out, confirming the tabloid rumors that he’d strayed with his co-star Angelina Jolie. Audiences flocked to this movie, making it a modest hit, less for the premise than out of a curiosity to see whether anything onscreen tipped off that these two were smashing.

Pitt and Jolie do spark onscreen. Upon closer examination, however, you may notice how much Liman relies on the audience to fill in the blanks. Maybe the issue is when we meet them they're trapped in a five- or six-year stale marriage that's a long way off from the day they stumbled into a hotel bar in Colombia, just one gorgeous person drawn to another. In the space of a handshake that lasts too long and some slo-mo dancefloor grinding, they’re in love. Neither realizes the other is an assassin for hire.

Or maybe it's because the script doesn't make much of an effort to build a sense that there was any closeness for these two to lose, whether through racy dialogue or sultry silence. 

Prime Video’s eight-episode “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” doesn’t allow John (Donald Glover) and Jane Smith (Maya Erskine) to meet so cutely. They know they’re both spies when they lay eyes on each other for the first time at the New York apartment doubling as their HQ. What they don’t know is they’re also married.

John and Jane put that together when they dig into their welcome packet from the mysterious employer they call Hihi and discover rings and marriage certificates. Jane immediately decides that their union should be strictly for appearances, taking sex off the table. But success in the spy game is a matter of finding a balance between trust and distrust. We learned that through so many movies, making it a foregone conclusion that somehow these crazy kids must find a way to live and work together and eventually to care whether the other lives or dies.

The better John and Jane operate as a couple, the more effective they are as operatives.

But Glover and Erskine aren’t interested in contorting themselves to fit common expectations of what sexual heat should look like. Their approach is more ingenious, sending up tried and true movie methods of telegraphing burgeoning attraction and making us trust them without entirely believing.

Before a mission, for instance, John reaches out to brush a lock of Jane’s hair off her face – a standard rom-com move, along with her stammered reply that she’s not interested in anything sensual. He flatly responds that he’s merely trying to position her earpiece. Neither her sentiment nor his motivation is true. Not all of it is a lie, either. That uneasy energy steers “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” into slightly unconventional territory without successfully nailing enough notes to qualify it as a comedy.

A similar vibe permeates Glover’s recently ended “Atlanta,” on which he worked with this show’s co-creator and showrunner Francesca Sloane, but Glover’s FX series earned the audience’s faith in the artistic excursions undertaken in its second and third seasons by prioritizing laughter in its introductory run.

“Mr. and Mrs. Smith” feels more studied and aggressive in its effort to subvert expectations. That doesn’t mean it fails its mission but, rather, keeps making us ask what it is, exactly. It serves all the typical fare expected of action-forward movies and series, with at least one shoot-out, explosion or chase per episode.

John and Jane are a test case in exploring intimacy onscreen without the typical accelerants. They hit Italy twice in a short period and venture into the jungle once, getting bloody and battered each time. But there's nothing romantic about any of these trips. Even a grand gesture John makes at one point frustrates Jane. The story is gentler in floating an extended joke meant to normalize farting in the marriage bed. Efforts to bring the characters’ cultural differences into the story are more clumsily handled, to put it politely.

It’s an odd feeling to appreciate the show’s focus on the lighthearted banality of cohabitation over its gun fights and stranger still to notice the ways these choices shortchange the milestones that make us believe in cinematic relationships. Jane decides she cares about John only when she realizes death is on the table. Shortly after that, she leaps to the “L” word almost without giving us a reason to wonder why.

He kind of reciprocates. Maybe. But is this John holding his cards close to the vest or is Glover  merely low-keying his way through this performance, as he's done in other shows?

There’s no denying that he and Erskine are a treat to watch – especially Erskine, who takes the gravelly voiced energy she channels through her voice work in “Blue Eye Samurai” and packs it into physically grueling, fight-for-your-life sequences between her slightly awkward interactions.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Neither her Jane nor Glover’s John are operatives par excellence, which is where the farce creeps in. They dress well, but their moves are sloppy and unpolished, making gruesome choices in one moment and doing their best to keep from vomiting midway through that decision in the next. Most of their jobs end with us wondering whether they’ve succeeded or failed – but not for long, since Hihi lets them know. Stumbles are inevitable, but only a few times before measures must be taken.

The targets they meet along the way occasion cameos by famous actors, including Sharon Horgan, Ron Perlman, Michaela Coel and John Turturro, all of which serve to augment the pedigree of what Sloane and Glover are attempting.

One can’t help but think about the name that isn’t present: Phoebe Waller-Bridge, the series' original Jane Smith. In recent press appearances, Glover explained Waller-Bridge’s departure from the series as a matter of incompatible processes as opposed to hard feelings. Erskine’s eccentric style matches Glovers well enough – the underappreciated, brilliant “PEN15” wasn’t afraid to be more dramatic than comedic either.  

Still, one wonders how much better this would be if its makers were more insistent on seducing the audience with humor instead of searching for ways to dance around it. This approach makes the TV version of “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” smarter than the movie, without question. But we didn’t flock to the original story for a brain teaser. Our assignment was to figure out if the thrill was worth all the trouble it caused. The same question is at the heart of this new marriage, and I’m not sure the answer at the end of “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” is worth sticking around to obtain.  

All eight episodes of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" are streaming on Prime Video.

The charming, raspy-voiced performer has had a stellar past year. From starring in the delightful and raunchy road trip escapade "Joy Ride" and Randall Park's comedy-drama "Shortcomings" to wrapping up the final season of the GLAAD-nominated Freeform series "Good Trouble" — Cola is in high demand and shows no sign of slowing down.

She told me in an interview that her humble come-up working on a radio station's street team helped form her work ethic. "It taught me a lot about the hustle, something that's always in my blood. Nothing's overnight, and you really just have to go for it . . . Something I've always had is the lack of fear of rejection, which may be a toxic trait, but just go for it." 

Cola has definitely has gone for it. The multi-talented star is ushering in the Lunar New Year with Henry Golding, Sandra Oh and Michelle Yeoh in the Paramount+ animated film "The Tiger's Apprentice," based on the book series by Laurence Yep.

Cola spoke to Salon about her extensive work, her comedy career and what monkey business she gets up to in "The Tiger's Apprentice." 

The following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Congrats on the GLAAD nominations! What does it mean to you to be a part of film and TV that centers on queer stories and really does it successfully? 

I've been so lucky to portray characters with multi-dimensional identities, me being an immigrant, queer Chinese American woman – qualities that society never rooted for – the fact that I get to embrace them now, which was not overnight. I get to do it on the screen and represent that way and hopefully create a ripple effect for people who are inspired to do what I do. "Good Trouble" getting nominated by GLAAD is always such an honor. And I don't take it lightly because they show love every year, and it means the world because we are such an LGBTQ+ show that I'm just happy it gets recognized.

They also nominated "Shortcomings." We got the double nom! There was actually a queer character in that film as well directed by the one and only Randall Park based on the graphic novel of the same name. GLAAD nominated "Shortcomings" and "Good Trouble." In both projects, I play a character named Alice and they are both queer. And yet they have such different personalities like Alice in "Shortcomings," she got kicked out of grad school, she's in your face, unapologetic kind of a troublemaker and very liberated in her queerness. Whereas Alice in the five seasons, in the 88 glorious episodes [of "Good Trouble"], you've seen her evolution from being timid and uncomfortable in her own skin and finding her voice through that journey. And now, she's someone who stands up for herself and really just takes on being queer and is proud of it. So I'm just really lucky to portray all these characters that people can look up to.

Talking about one of your new projects, "The Tiger's Apprentice" is a new animated film. It's based on the books by Lawrence Yep. Can you tell us what the film is about and your role in it?

So in "The Tiger's Apprentice" premiering exclusively on Paramount+ on Feb. 2. . .

Nice plug!

I play Naomi the Monkey, who's such a prankster. She doesn't really take too much seriously. There are so many personalities with these 12 Chinese zodiac animals going on this mystic adventure with this young warrior. It's about embracing your individuality, and Monkey is definitely a good time and we have a star-studded cast. We have Henry Golding, Lucy Liu, Michelle Yeoh, Bowen Yang, Leah Lewis and Brandon Soo Hoo, who literally went to the same high school as me. So Temple City represent! Temple City is out here.

It's just so fun, and animation is the dreamiest thing to do because we grew up watching cartoons. We grew up watching things that allowed us to open up our imagination and in a voice-over booth, anything's possible. I'm throwing my body around; I'm playing a monkey, just really taking on that character.

I can't wait to celebrate at the premiere because it's just in time for Lunar New Year, and that's such a big holiday, I think I celebrate that the most out of all holidays. Growing up, it's funny, being an immigrant, and obviously being American as well, it's interesting because there's some things we never fully embrace. I never had a Christmas tree growing up. But Lunar New Year, at midnight, my mom and I go to the Buddhist temple and we pray, we do the red envelope. We do all that. So this is definitely a tradition that we get to live on screen because it's part of the film.

What is your relationship to the Chinese zodiac and did you grow up talking about it, can you share a bit more about your heritage?

So in real life, I was born in 1989. So I'm the year of the snake. Shout out to Taylor's [Swift] work. But there are so many funny superstitions that my mom has forced me to embrace. For example, when it's your year, it's a very transformative year. So good things can happen. Bad things can happen. You have to be better ready for anything and protect yourself. So when it was the year, the same 12 years ago, because this year is the year of the dragon. So next year will be the year the same. So 12 years ago was a year the snake. And my mom made me wear red underwear [for] 365 days. So laundry was a common occurrence. 

How many pairs of red underwear did you have? 

Not even that many! I guess I was just doing laundry. But that's something because red is such a lucky color. It fights off the bad spirits. Whatever my mom says I do. I think it's just like vision boards, charging your crystals, manifesting, I think it is very much believing in something that is bigger than you. It's special, and I think it's necessary. It's very much a major part of my life to trust in a higher power and let that guide you. I go to the Buddhist temple, I pray and I wear Buddha beads. You can hear it from the temple. I don't feel complete if I leave these at home. I would have to go back and put them on. So there is that kind of energy that I really embraced. Yeah, something about it. But I mean, maybe it's all in our heads or maybe it's real?

So for this film, did you get to pick your zodiac animal to play? Was that a casting decision that was made for you?

For "The Tiger's Apprentice," it was definitely a casting decision for me to be Monkey. I actually auditioned for a couple of other animals before this one. I can't even remember which ones to be honest with you. This was in 2020. So I booked this in 2020. Because animation definitely takes forever to make all the visuals come alive. So I got the audition for Monkey. But Monkey really is a perfect fit because she's goofy. There are some exclusive clips that have aired now of me shrinking Rooster [Jo Koy] and Rat [Bowen Yang]. So it's just like this comedic cast, and it's so fun. Monkey is definitely the most magical of all the zodiac signs. I believe in the actual powers that monkey has. She has the shrinking abilities. She has really whimsical, mystical skills. I feel like Monkey's always up to no good. Monkey is just swinging all over the place.

This isn't your first animated feature film. What about the stories draw you in as an actor? And are there any challenges to voice acting versus doing it in person?

I gotta say something about the voice acting work was not necessarily challenging, but in voice acting a lot of the time you're by yourself in the booth. I think Henry and Brandon were together because obviously the Tiger and the Apprentice have such a special bond. I think they recorded a bunch together. But most of us other Chinese zodiacs, we did it individually. Which also is a good time because you're in there just doing whatever you want and finding the moment. You're really discovering the character and creatively collaborating with the directors and producers as you go which can be really fun. But of course, on set in a live-action project, you're bouncing energies off your scene partner, and I do stand-up as well. So that's a solo sport through and through and the audience is your scene partner. I'm really fortunate to explore all these different mediums and play around in that regard. But yeah, it's all collaborative at the end of the day so that's kind of cool. It's cool to see come alive because you really don't know what to expect like what they're gonna use. And it's always a fun surprise. 

You have a multi-skilled background, you were once an on-air radio host. What lessons did you learn about performance and trying to establish rapport with a subject? Does any of it apply to your stand-up?

Oh, absolutely. I think a lot of the just wonderful wizardry of wit. I love alliteration, comes from the in-the-moment interactions I have with people. And I remember being so proud of whether I was interviewing Khalid or Fifth Harmony or Noah Cyrus. Back in the radio days, there was something about making them feel comfortable to open up and not feel nervous or not feel threatened. I feel like I have this intriguing yet disarming quality. Like I said, zero to matching tattoos real quick. I learned a lot in the radio world.

I was there for over two years and I went from street teamer to on-air. With the street team experience, it was so humbling. Because on a Friday, you'd be escorting Ariana Grande to a meet and greet. And on a Tuesday, you'd be passing out stickers at Metro PCS. It was such a roller coaster of emotions; you're close to your dream, and then you're pulled back. It's so humbling. I mean, I'd be doing lunch runs, I've been doing social media stuff, I'd be doing trips to Palm Springs where we set up activations at a little pool party Coachella-adjacent. We did it all. And I truly did everything I could in that building, in order to be on air. That was my goal when I stepped my foot in that building.

Eventually, in 2016, I started doing stand-up, and I had some funny videos online, and Carson Daly, he got wind of me, and threw me on the morning show. Then eventually, I've got my own show on Sunday nights. It has really taught me a lot about the hustle, something that's always in my blood. Nothing's overnight, and you really just have to go for it. I think that something I've always had is the lack of fear of rejection, which may be a toxic trait, but just go for it. Find a way to do it, and here I am.

It's paid off.

It's bananas. 

Speaking about comedy, you've probably seen a lot of conversation about stand-up since the Katt Williams podcast episode. How challenging is it to keep comedy sets fresh in your opinion?

I've always been a big believer of not two people can write the same book – although we can all relate to dating in LA or having helicopter moms or things like that. I think we all have different perspectives on it and could still have a unique way of putting that into jokes. I also do believe that there's such a thing as creative coincidence. Sometimes we all absorb the same things growing up. How many of us quote "Mean Girls"? Sometimes it does get blurry and accidental. But I think it's truly case by case.

Depending on the situation, with comedy personally I just talk about things I know firsthand, and it can also be so random. Like I have a joke, making fun of EDM names. I have a joke talking about iPhones versus Androids, being a bridesmaid, personal experiences, just little things that are observational and also deep. I think comedy is so powerful because you're kind of tricking the audience into learning something. People can leave a show that they see me and they're laughing, but really, they just learned something about the queer Asian experience. I think that's something that is not lost on me that comedy should have intention to some degree . . . and also boob jokes.

Taylor Tomlinson just debuted as the only female late-night host. So what are your thoughts? Would you like to host a talk show at some point? And what would it be like?

First of all, I love Taylor Tomlinson. We met in 2017 on an unscripted show called "Safe Word" on MTV. So we've been rooting for each other for a long time. And to see her just thrive and thrive and thrive makes me so happy. I tuned in live to "After midnight." Literally, what was it 12:37 a.m. or something like that? I tune in live because I also love Stephen Colbert, and the people at "Funny or Die" who are producing it, and I'm just a big fan of Taylor. I know her. And I recently saw her and she showed me love for "Joy Ride." It's just supporting comics who are so funny and deserve to get the spotlight. I'm so stoked that she's the only female late-night host right now. She deserves it. She's so good at what she does.

Would you ever consider doing it yourself?

Absolutely. I love hosting and just being a stand-up. That's like, the natural thing to do — is to host a talk show one day. Absolutely. Hit me up.

The message of identity and found family seems to be heavily present in especially "The Tiger's Apprentice" and across all your work like "Joy Ride" and "Shortcomings" to "Good Trouble." Why do you think this is?

Community is everything, whether it be the queer community, whether it be the Asian community, whether it just be womanhood, whether it be just people trying to find their true passions in life, whether it's just people coming together because of trauma. I think having a support system and having real conversations and human connection, is the priority for the audience to feel seen and heard is everything to me. I've been spoiled, honestly being on a show, like "Good Trouble" for five seasons because no one is left out when you watch that show.

Moving forward as I embark on finding my next television show, it has to have the same intentional messages and the same importance and impact. I think I'm just really grateful to be in the industry right now, where we are having these conversations more and more and more. The themes are so prominently cohesive in every project that I've done because we are finally seeing it. Of course, something like "Crazy Rich Asians" changed the game for us. There's still extreme, dark and ugly things happening in the world, with the politics and a lot of states are not on the same page here, right? There's still so much to fight for. So the fact that I get to express that through my craft is not lost on me. I don't take it for granted that I get to touch people through storytelling. and just do what I can, because I'm not even doing the most, you know what I'm saying they're like people who are doing incredible work to try to make real change.

And to just be a part of that is a responsibility that I don't take lightly. Yeah, it's deep. It's really deep. Because I'm from comedy, and it wasn't until "Good Trouble" that I learned to be a dramatic actress and to learn to amplify my voice and other voices, to understand that everyone's experience is different but worthy of being heard and seen. I'm a better person because of "Good Trouble." I will always give "Good Trouble" its flowers. The fact that we're talking about trans rights, BLM, equal pay, etc. all these real-life topics in a natural way, in a human way. We were having these private conversations in public before it was trending. I'm so proud of that. I'm truly a better person from this television show, which is why it really is hard to let go. I know, we're all ready to spread our wings in whichever direction. I can't wait to see the next chapters of all my cast members and just continue to work together without working together.

That's what I told Zuri [Adele] when we weren't getting a sixth season. First of all, we were crying on the phone, just bawling, tears. That's my sister. We're gonna work together forever. Even if it's not on screen, we are in this together. That's the family that "Good Trouble" has given me. But yeah, I think we're only now seeing these stories come to life on the screen. And I'm lucky to be a part of it right now. In real-time, we're shifting the narrative as we speak.

In "The Tiger's Apprentice," the main character, Tom (Brandon Soo Hoo) has a complicated relationship with his identity, especially having been descended from immigrants, but also wanting to assimilate to American culture. He says his grandmother is embarrassing and cool. In what ways were you able to relate to him or not?

I was born in Shanghai. And we came to the United States, and I was four, and I went back to Shanghai a bunch as a kid, and there were a lot of American things I guess you could say that we had to get used to. I remember this experience, the first apartment we lived in Alhambra [California]. I remember at recess the older kids. I was like maybe five, six. And these kids were maybe teenagers and they were in the parking lot. I was lingering. I don't know if they thought I was creepy and annoying or something or they just thought I wasn't cool. They flipped me off. They gave me the middle finger. And I remember thinking, what is that? I did not know what that meant. I didn't know what that meant. I was like, well, that's not the peace sign. That's not quite a thumbs up. What is that? I quickly found out what it meant when I did it to my mom's co-worker. I remember everyone was outraged. My mom just pulls me to this walk-in refrigerator and spanks me.

I quickly learned that lesson, but there were a lot of moments like that where whether it was like kids on the playground calling me Chino you know what I'm saying or me even being ashamed of the fact that my parents had an accent. I'm ashamed that I ever felt that way. Because back then you were brainwashed into thinking that the other was less than, you felt like a foreigner – because society made you believe that.  Embracing all of my identities as I said, queer immigrant, Chinese-American woman — that was not overnight. It's because of representation and these opportunities to play these characters. It's allowed me to feel liberated in my own life as well. So Tom's story, I think is so specific yet universal because we're constantly trying to figure out where we belong and embrace our individuality and feel comfortable in our own skin and it's hard especially because high school is tough. 

"Joy Ride" was one of the funniest movies of 2023 and it deserves a sequel. And I know that sequel conversation probably keeps coming up for y'all. Ideally, where would be the best place for you to film in the world if you had the chance of doing it again?

Well, I gotta say, I'd love to do a sequel. If the opportunity presents itself. I think the film really set itself up for a sequel. No spoilers. Since we went to Asia, maybe we'll go somewhere where we are a fish out of water. I mean, we kind of were in Asia as well, but maybe we go into Europe. Obviously, we're we ended up in Paris, which was hilarious. I don't know . . . Space! Honestly, the possibilities are endless. I really would love to do a sequel. I'm down to go anywhere because people are amazing.

Can you share your parting words for your character Alice in "Good Trouble" as you are wrapping up your final season?

Alice has been my rock. Alice has been my reflection. Alice has been my best friend. I evolved with her because I booked the show and I thought this character might be a potential role model. I came out to my mom in real life and since then I've had so many open conversations about queerness. This show has taught me how to fight for something real. To have important conversations, even though it can be uncomfortable, even though it can be tough. 2020 was the first time my mom ever voted. She has been an American citizen since I was in seventh grade because I started to speak up and speak out about so many things.

Alice has taught me to prioritize myself, I guess all the characters have, to just not be a people pleaser, to just be unapologetic, and own up to you know your actions and be proud of who you are. Alice has just taught me so much, and I learned so much from this girl, sweet Alice Kwan. I think about her evolution of being comfortable in our own skin and being deviant. Being that same girl deep down though, that fire, that awkwardness will never go away, but now just being proud of it. There's so much to say in this love letter to Alice. It's infinite, and I'm always gonna remember her. I'm always gonna carry what I learned on "Good Trouble."

"The Tiger's Apprentice" begins streaming Friday, Feb. 2 on Paramount+. "Good Trouble" airs weekly on Freeform and is streaming on Hulu.