• AI data centers boom out West
  • Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or…
  • Oct. 11, 2025, 8:00 AM EDTBy Alicia Victoria…
  • Palestinians Begin Return Home As Ceasefire Takes Effect

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Sept. 24, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Kevin CollierState and federal law enforcement agencies warned earlier this year that young people were at risk of radicalization on the chat platform Discord, according to government documents obtained by NBC News.Two intelligence assessments from the Department of Homeland Security and Ohio’s Statewide Terrorism Analysis & Crime Center (STACC) marked for distribution to police specifically cite Discord as a platform on which American youth have been exposed to extremist material from foreign terrorist organizations. Both documents are unclassified but marked “For Official Use Only.” They were obtained by the Property of the People, a pro-transparency nonprofit that seeks and publishes government documents through Freedom of Information Act requests, and shared with NBC News.It’s unclear how widely disseminated the documents were, but law enforcement information centers like STACC routinely share warnings and analysis with other police agencies.The reports, which draw on academic studies and law enforcement data, provide insight into how officials understand the risks of online radicalization. The FBI declined to comment and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to a request for comment. Discord did not respond to a request for comment about the documents.Discord, which was launched in 2015 as a communications platform for gamers, is particularly popular with young men — a 2023 Pew study found that a third of teen boys in the U.S. used it. Discord has previously faced criticism over its moderation practices. The platform allows for the creation of private chat groups on nearly any topic, and has long faced criticism over lax moderation. Co-founder and former Discord CEO Jason Citron testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2024 that Discord uses a mix of proactive and reactive tools to enforce its terms of service and community guidelines.One DHS memo from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, dated Jan. 21, said that “specific discussions or aspirational plotting tends to occur on Discord, where the average age of members — when determinable — was 15, according to academic reporting.”In 2021, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London think tank, found 24 English-language Discord servers associated with extreme right-wing activity. It determined that the average age of members was 15 and that they sometimes discussed far-right terror groups like the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division.Suspects in several high-profile mass shooting events in recent years allegedly used Discord to announce their actions or trade in violent or nihilistic content there. In 2022, the shooter in Buffalo, New York, who has since pleaded guilty to numerous charges related to killing 10 people, appeared to have posted a to-do list for the shooting on the platform. A few months later, the man who eventually pleaded guilty to killing seven in Highland Park, Illinois, appeared to have shared violent memes there.In 2024, an Iowa school shooter who killed two people before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound had warned on Discord that he was “gearing up.”A second document, dated April 30, jointly produced by DHS and Ohio’s STACC, focuses on attempts by foreign terrorist organizations to radicalize minors online. The website for STACC describes itself as Ohio’s primary fusion center, or law enforcement intelligence sharing hub. It did not respond to a request for comment.Since August 2023, STACC said, the U.S. had disrupted three plots nationwide in which juveniles had reportedly shared the Islamic State terrorist group’s messaging “in online environments, including private Discord chats and gaming platforms.”The April memo found that domestic violent extremists “create and disseminate violent content on youth-oriented platforms,” with some specifically calling on minors to commit violence before they become legal adults.Western countries more broadly, the second document said, have disrupted “more than 20 juvenile-driven plots” between January and November 2024. The documents, which primarily address radicalization of youth by foreign terrorist groups, also say that young Americans have been exposed to ISIS content online in spaces designed for minors. Teenagers “probably have become increasingly susceptible to such messaging due to post-pandemic shifts in online behavior, social isolation, and rising mental health issues,” one of the memos says.Discord has gained increased attention over recent weeks after authorities said that Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin used the chat app to communicate with friends in the wake of the killing. No law enforcement official has suggested that the suspect coordinated the attack with anyone else. Discord, in a statement last week, confirmed the suspect had an account on its platform, but said it has “found no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord.” Last week, FBI Director Kash Patel said that the agency was looking into more than 20 people who shared a private Discord channel with the suspect. Discord does not encrypt its private channels, meaning that the company has technical access to users’ conversations and can turn them over to law enforcement if presented with a court order or warrant.It has, however, been repeatedly accused of lax moderation. The company has also been the subject of an ongoing lawsuit alleging it didn’t do enough to stop predators, and it has been referred to as a platform for abusers in other child exploitation cases. Discord has said that it does not comment on legal matters and that it has ramped up its safety practices.Discord’s most recent transparency report said that the company had disabled 36,966 accounts in the first half of 2024 for promoting violent and graphic content or extremism. The U.S. government asked it for information on user accounts or servers 3,782 times in that period, the report said.Kevin CollierKevin Collier is a reporter covering cybersecurity, privacy and technology policy for NBC News.

admin - Latest News - September 24, 2025
admin
13 views 13 secs 0 Comments




Law enforcement agencies warned earlier this year that young people were being radicalized in Discord servers, according to documents obtained by NBC News.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Sept. 24, 2025, 4:48 AM EDT / Updated Sept. 24, 2025, 4:55 AM EDTBy Alexander Smith and Jean-Nicholas FievetA call between world leaders is usually a carefully choreographed event reserved for talk of war and peace. France’s Emmanuel Macron used his hotline to President Donald Trump to complain about New York traffic.After giving a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Monday night, Macron found himself stuck behind a police barricade while trying to reach his country’s diplomatic mission in the city. Whereas regular folk may have sat patiently or taken to social media to vent their fury, Macron put aside any tension over their dueling stances on Israel’s war in Gaza and dialed his friend in the White House.“How are you?” Macron was filmed saying into his cellphone. “Guess what? I’m waiting in the street because everything is frozen for you!”He then attempted to use their traffic-chat as an excuse to discuss more weighty matters.“I would love this weekend have a short discussion with Qatar and you on the situation in Gaza,” said the French leader.French President Macron on the phone to President Trump.Document BFMTVAfter the barricade chat, an official traveling with Macron told NBC News that Macron “took the opportunity to call Donald Trump on the phone while walking, for a very warm and friendly conversation that allowed them to discuss several international issues.”It wasn’t possible to hear Trump’s response. NBC News has reached out to the White House for comment.Police officers guarding the barricades appeared somewhat embarrassed at having to block the path of a visiting world leader.“I’m sorry president, I’m really sorry, it’s just that everything’s frozen right now,” one of them said in the video. Macron seemed to joke with them that they could turn a blind eye to him crossing, saying he wanted to “negotiate” with them.He was not the only world leader to suffer such a traffic-related indignity. Earlier in the day, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was also seen held up at the barriers.French media reported that Macron was soon able to complete his journey to the consulate.Beneath the minor traffic-related indignity there was genuine friction between the two leaders this week. Macron had just announced that France would become the latest country to recognize Palestinian statehood — something Trump decried as a reward for Hamas’ terror attack of Oct. 7, 2023.”I think it honors Hamas and you can’t do that because of October 7. You just can’t do that,” Trump told reporters while sitting next to Macron on Tuesday.The French leader retorted that “nobody forgets the 7th of October, but after almost two years of war, what is the result.” He added, “This is not the right the right way to proceed.”Macron added later Tuesday that if Trump wants his long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize then he needs to stop the war in Gaza.”There is one person who can do something about it, and that is the U.S. president,” Macron told France’s BFMTV. “And the reason he can do more than us, is because we do not supply weapons that allow the war in Gaza to be waged. We do not supply equipment that allows war to be waged in Gaza. The United States of America does.”France is the latest European country to formally recognize Palestine as a state, joining the United Kingdom and adding to a growing list of global nations that now numbers more than 145. The United States, along with Germany, Italy, Japan and a handful of others, are firmly in the minority.Macron has sought to cast himself as a Trump-whisperer who can act as a counterweight to the American leader: Someone who gets on with the president personally but is unafraid to stand up for European interests when the need arises.Nevertheless, their relationship has blown hot and cold. Personal interactions have been characterized by uncomfortably long handshakes and macho knee-slapping. And in June, Trump branded Macron as “publicity seeking” leader who “always gets it wrong,” after Macron made comments about his counterpart’s decision to leave the G-7 summit in Canada early.Though he didn’t mention France by name, Trump during his U.N. address told European nations that “your countries are going to hell” because of their “failed experiment of open borders.”Alexander SmithAlexander Smith is a senior reporter for NBC News Digital based in London.Jean-Nicholas FievetJean-Nicholas Fievet is a senior desk editor for NBC News based in London.Reuters contributed.
NEXT
Sept. 24, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir | KFF Health NewsTaking a page from the private insurance industry’s playbook, the Trump administration will launch a program next year to find out how much money an artificial intelligence algorithm could save the federal government by denying care to Medicare patients.The pilot program, designed to weed out wasteful, “low-value” services, amounts to a federal expansion of an unpopular process called prior authorization, which requires patients or someone on their medical team to seek insurance approval before proceeding with certain procedures, tests, and prescriptions. It will affect Medicare patients, and the doctors and hospitals who care for them, in Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington, starting Jan. 1 and running through 2031.The move has raised eyebrows among politicians and policy experts. The traditional version of Medicare, which covers adults 65 and older and some people with disabilities, has mostly eschewed prior authorization. Still, it is widely used by private insurers, especially in the Medicare Advantage market.And the timing was surprising: The pilot was announced in late June, just days after the Trump administration unveiled a voluntary effort by private health insurers to revamp and reduce their own use of prior authorization, which causes care to be “significantly delayed,” said Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.“It erodes public trust in the health care system,” Oz told the media. “It’s something that we can’t tolerate in this administration.”But some critics, like Dr. Vinay Rathi, an Ohio State University doctor and policy researcher, have accused the Trump administration of sending mixed messages.On one hand, the federal government wants to borrow cost-cutting measures used by private insurance, he said. “On the other, it slaps them on the wrist.”Administration officials are “talking out of both sides of their mouth,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat. “It’s hugely concerning.”Patients, doctors and other lawmakers have also been critical of what they see as delay-or-deny tactics, which can slow down or block access to care, causing irreparable harm and even death.“Insurance companies have put it in their mantra that they will take patients’ money and then do their damnedest to deny giving it to the people who deliver care,” said Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican and a urologist. “That goes on in every insurance company boardroom.”Insurers have long argued that prior authorization reduces fraud and wasteful spending, as well as prevents potential harm. Public displeasure with insurance denials dominated the news in December, when the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO led many to anoint his alleged killer as a folk hero.And the public broadly dislikes the practice: Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought prior authorization was a “major” problem in a July poll published by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.Indeed, Oz said during his June press conference that “violence in the streets” prompted the Trump administration to take on the issue of prior authorization reform in the private insurance industry.Still, the administration is expanding the use of prior authorization in Medicare. CMS spokesperson Alexx Pons said both initiatives “serve the same goal of protecting patients and Medicare dollars.”Unanswered questionsThe pilot program, WISeR — short for “Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction” — will test the use of an AI algorithm in making prior authorization decisions for some Medicare services, including skin and tissue substitutes, electrical nerve stimulator implants, and knee arthroscopy.The federal government says such procedures are particularly vulnerable to “fraud, waste, and abuse” and could be held in check by prior authorization.Other procedures may be added to the list. But services that are inpatient-only, emergency or “would pose a substantial risk to patients if significantly delayed” would not be subject to the AI model’s assessment, according to the federal announcement.While the use of AI in health insurance isn’t new, Medicare has been slow to adopt the private-sector tools. Medicare has historically used prior authorization in a limited way, with contractors who aren’t incentivized to deny services. But experts who have studied the plan believe the federal pilot could change that.Pons told KFF Health News that no Medicare request will be denied before being reviewed by a “qualified human clinician,” and that vendors “are prohibited from compensation arrangements tied to denial rates.” While the government says vendors will be rewarded for savings, Pons said multiple safeguards will “remove any incentive to deny medically appropriate care.”“Shared savings arrangements mean that vendors financially benefit when less care is delivered,” a structure that can create a powerful incentive for companies to deny medically necessary care, said Jennifer Brackeen, senior director of government affairs for the Washington State Hospital Association.And doctors and policy experts say that’s only one concern.Rathi said the plan “is not fully fleshed out” and relies on “messy and subjective” measures. The model, he said, ultimately depends on contractors to assess their own results, a choice that makes the results potentially suspect.“I’m not sure they know, even, how they’re going to figure out whether this is helping or hurting patients,” he said.Pons said the use of AI in the Medicare pilot will be “subject to strict oversight to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with Medicare rules and patient protection.”“CMS remains committed to ensuring that automated tools support, not replace, clinically sound decision-making,” he said.Experts agree that AI is theoretically capable of expediting what has been a cumbersome process marked by delays and denials that can harm patients’ health. Health insurers have argued that AI eliminates human error and bias and will save the health care system money. These companies have also insisted that humans, not computers, are ultimately reviewing coverage decisions.But some scholars are doubtful that’s routinely happening. “I think that there’s also probably a little bit of ambiguity over what constitutes ‘meaningful human review,’” said Amy Killelea, an assistant research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.A 2023 report published by ProPublica found that, over a two-month period, doctors at Cigna who reviewed requests for payment spent an average of only 1.2 seconds on each case.Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions told KFF Health News that the company does not use AI to deny care or claims. The ProPublica investigation referenced a “simple software-driven process that helped accelerate payments to clinicians for common, relatively low-cost tests and treatments, and it is not powered by AI,” Sessions said. “It was not used for prior authorizations.”And yet class-action lawsuits filed against major health insurers have alleged that flawed AI models undermine doctor recommendations and fail to take patients’ unique needs into account, forcing some people to shoulder the financial burden of their care.Meanwhile, a survey of physicians published by the American Medical Association in February found that 61% think AI is “increasing prior authorization denials, exacerbating avoidable patient harms and escalating unnecessary waste now and into the future.”Chris Bond, a spokesperson for the insurers’ trade group AHIP, told KFF Health News that the organization is “zeroed in” on implementing the commitments made to the government. Those include reducing the scope of prior authorization and making sure that communications with patients about denials and appeals are easy to understand.‘This is a pilot’The Medicare pilot program underscores ongoing concerns about prior authorization and raises new ones.While private health insurers have been opaque about how they use AI and the extent to which they use prior authorization, policy researchers believe these algorithms are often programmed to automatically deny high-cost care.“The more expensive it is, the more likely it is to be denied,” said Jennifer Oliva, a professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, whose work focuses on AI regulation and health coverage.Oliva explained in a recent paper for the Indiana Law Journal that when a patient is expected to die within a few years, health insurers are “motivated to rely on the algorithm.” As time passes and the patient or their provider is forced to appeal a denial, the chance of the patient dying during that process increases. The longer an appeal, the less likely the health insurer is to pay the claim, Oliva said.“The No. 1 thing to do is make it very, very difficult for people to get high-cost services,” she said.As the use of AI by health insurers is poised to grow, insurance company algorithms amount to a “regulatory blind spot” and demand more scrutiny, said Carmel Shachar, a faculty director at Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation.The WISeR pilot is “an interesting step” toward using AI to ensure that Medicare dollars are purchasing high-quality health care, she said. But the lack of details makes it difficult to determine whether it will work.Politicians are grappling with some of the same questions.“How is this being tested in the first place? How are you going to make sure that it is working and not denying care or producing higher rates of care denial?” asked DelBene, who signed an August letter to Oz with other Democrats demanding answers about the AI program. But Democrats aren’t the only ones worried.Murphy, who co-chairs the House GOP Doctors Caucus, acknowledged that many physicians are concerned the WISeR pilot could overreach into their practice of medicine if the AI algorithm denies doctor-recommended care.Meanwhile, House members of both parties recently supported a measure proposed by Rep. Lois Frankel, a Florida Democrat, to block funding for the pilot in the fiscal 2026 budget of the Department of Health and Human Services.AI in health care is here to stay, Murphy said, but it remains to be seen whether the WISeR pilot will save Medicare money or contribute to the problems already posed by prior authorization.“This is a pilot, and I’m open to see what’s going to happen with this,” Murphy said, “but I will always, always err on the side that doctors know what’s best for their patients.”Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir | KFF Health NewsLauren Sausser and Darius Tahir | KFF Health News
Related Post
September 21, 2025
Trump shares the topic on which he disagreed with Kirk
September 23, 2025
Sept. 23, 2025, 12:01 AM EDTBy Natasha Korecki and Jonathan AllenFormer Vice President Kamala Harris’ memoir of her failed 2024 campaign for the Oval Office skewers some of the nation’s most prominent Democrats — including former President Joe Biden — offers her perspective on crucial moments in the election and outlines her own regrets about her decisions and performance.Published by Simon & Schuster on Tuesday, “107 Days” zooms in on the narrow window during which Biden abruptly handed her the reins of the Democratic nomination and she lost to Donald Trump.The book is notable among election memoirs in its often candid assessments of figures who are still active in politics and in the possibility that Harris will use it as a launch pad for a third bid for the presidency in 2028. Harris also ran in the 2020 Democratic primaries but abandoned her bid before the first votes were cast.She opted this year to forgo a run for governor of California, and allies say that decision was made in no small part to keep the door open to a presidential campaign.In one newsy nugget, Harris writes that Biden first asked her whether she would be willing to take his spot atop the ticket if he stepped aside. The two were sitting in the Situation Room at the White House after a briefing on the failed July 13 assassination attempt on Trump, and Biden raised a topic he hadn’t discussed with her before.“If for any reason I had to drop out, I would support you, but only if that’s what you want. It’s occurred to me I haven’t asked you,” Biden said, according to Harris’ account. She writes that he had “clearly rehearsed the speech, it wasn’t spontaneous thought.”Harris recalls replying: “I’m fully behind you Joe. But if you decide not to run, I’m ready. And I would give it all I’ve got, because Trump has to be beaten.” She writes that Biden didn’t raise the possibility with her again until nearly a week later, when he called to tell her he was leaving the race.Biden’s spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.Here’s some of the rest of what you’ll find in Harris’ new book.Resentment toward Biden Early on in “107 Days,” Harris describes her sentiments toward Biden as she spoke to her campaign staff for the first time in late July at the Wilmington, Delaware, headquarters.“My feelings for him were grounded in warmth and loyalty, but they had become complicated, over time, with hurt and disappointment,” she writes. In detailing her conversation with him when he dropped out, she recalls Biden’s wanting to wait days to endorse her so national attention would focus on him for a while — a plan she talked him out of, believing it would have hurt her ability to lock down the delegates she needed to secure the party’s nomination. When Biden spoke to the nation later that week to explain his decision, she writes, “it was almost nine minutes into the eleven-minute address before he mentioned me.” She took similar umbrage at Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention in August. “He spoke for nearly an hour, detailing the accomplishments of our administration,” Harris writes. “It was a legacy speech for him, not an argument for me, and he was entitled to it. But if we waited for some personal stories about working with me and what qualities he had seen that led him to endorse me, they weren’t there.” Silent anguishIn the book, Harris bemoans her choice not to question Biden’s decision to run again for president. She lays out some of her reasoning at the time.”Of all the people in the White House, I was in the worst position to make the case that he should drop out. I knew it would come off to him as incredibly self-serving if I advised him not to run. He would see it as naked ambition, perhaps as poisonous disloyalty, even if my only message was: Don’t let the other guy win,” she writes.She then refers to what became a poisonous refrain from Democratic insiders: “It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.” “We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.” Dishing on DemocratsIt’s unusual for candidates who may run again to call out members of their own party in memoirs, but Harris does just that in this book, drawing on her contemporaneous notes to detail the responses she got from fellow Democrats when she asked for their endorsements the day Biden dropped out. In some cases, like those of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, there was no hesitation.But former President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the former House speaker, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom were among those who stalled or ghosted, according to Harris. From her descriptions in the book of this group: “Barack Obama: Saddle up! Joe did what I hoped he would do. But you have to earn it. Michelle and I are supportive but not going to put a finger on the scale right now. Let Joe have his moment. Think through timing.””Nancy Pelosi: I’m so sad about Joe. It’s so tragic. My heart is broken. But now it’s you! It’s important there’s a process, we have a great bench. We should have some kind of primary, not an anointment.””J.B. Pritzker: As governor of Illinois, I’m the convention host. I can’t commit.” Pritzker endorsed Harris a day later. “Gavin Newsom: hiking. will call back. (He never did.)” Newsom did endorse Harris hours later, which isn’t noted in the memoir.The wrong veep?Pete Buttigieg says Biden ‘should not have run’ after Kamala Harris calls his bid ‘reckless’01:37Harris writes that her first choice for a running mate was then-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a friend who may also be a 2028 rival. “He would have been an ideal partner — if I were a straight white man,” she writes of Buttigieg, who is gay. “But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.”Buttigieg pushed back last week in an interview with Politico after an excerpt of the book was released, saying he was “surprised” by her take.”My experience in politics has been that the way that you earn trust with voters is based mostly on what they think you’re going to do for their lives, not on categories,” he said.Harris ended up choosing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, whom she describes as a balance to her in terms of background.Of the three finalists, she passed over Shapiro, whom she described as “poised, polished, and personable” in their one-on-one interview. But Harris was taken aback when, according to her telling, Shapiro said he wanted to be in the room for every decision.”I told him bluntly that was an unrealistic expectation,” Harris writes. “A vice president is not a copresident. I had a nagging concern that he would be unable to settle for a role as number two and that it would wear on our partnership.”And, she added, “I had to be able to completely trust the person in that role.”Josh Shapiro says he raised concerns with Biden as Kamala Harris blasts his 2024 bid03:17Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., the former astronaut, was the remaining finalist, and Harris writes that she respected his public service in the military and in government. But she worried about his ability to handle the mudslinging of a campaign.”He also hadn’t yet had an ‘oh s—‘ moment,” Harris concluded as she interviewed Kelly, whose wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., narrowly survived a failed assassin’s bullet to the brain. “I wasn’t sure how he would cope with the kind of garbage Trump would throw at him.” Dismissing Trump’s jabsHarris says repeatedly that she took some of Trump’s more personal attacks as signs that he was worried about her and that she tried not to take what she saw as bait.In July, when Trump questioned whether she is Black or Indian — her father is of Jamaican descent and her mother is of Indian descent — she didn’t like adviser Brian Fallon’s suggestion that she give a speech about race like a famous address Obama delivered during his 2008 campaign.”I was so pissed I didn’t hold back,” recalls Harris, who was aboard Air Force Two, talking to Fallon by phone. “Are you f—ing kidding me?” she says she told Fallon. “Today, he wants me to prove my race. What’s next? He’ll say I’m not a woman and I’ll need to show my vagina?”Regrets, she had a fewChief of which was her response to the ill-fated query on ABC’s “The View” about what she would have done differently from Biden: “There is not a thing that comes to mind.” Trump’s team jumped on the response, which would haunt her until Election Day. “I had prepped for that question; I had notes on it. There was the answer I’d given in the debate: ‘I’m not Joe Biden and I’m certainly not Donald Trump.’ I had a note that I was a new and different generation. And I had this: ‘But to specifically answer your question, throughout my career I have worked with Democrats, independents, and Republicans, and I know that great ideas come from all places,” she writes. “If I’m president I would appoint a Republican to my cabinet. But I didn’t say any of that.” Harris writes about several regrets surrounding her first interview as the Democratic nominee, a joint session with Walz, hosted by CNN’s Dana Bash. She wasn’t happy with an alignment of chairs that emphasized Walz’s physical stature over hers, and she was disappointed in her own answers to several of the questions. Most of all, she writes, she shouldn’t have agreed to appear for the first time in an interview with her running mate at her side.”Having Tim there beside me, in hindsight, was an error,” she writes. “My campaign felt we should do the interview in tandem because it was a thing that had been done by prior candidates and their running mates. But because we’d waited to do this interview, there was so much riding on it. And the plan to have him there fed a narrative that I wasn’t willing or able to go it alone.”While she wouldn’t rewrite her position on defending transgender people, she notes she could have struck back at anti-trans ads running in battleground states with more precision. “I do not regret my decision to follow my protective instincts. I do regret not giving even more attention to how we might mitigate Trump’s attacks. Character matters. I wish I could have gotten the message across that there isn’t a distinction between ‘they/them’ and ‘you.’ The pronoun that matters is ‘we.’ We the people. And that’s who I am for.”The Joe Rogan of it all Harris spends some ink explaining how the decision not to go on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast went down. At the time, there was much ado about a Rogan invite, whether she declined and whether it hurt her politically. She never was on, while Trump spent hours appearing on an episode, which today has 60 million views. “On the eve of the election, Rogan endorsed Trump. Since then, he has lied on his show, claiming we pushed for tight topic restrictions,” Harris writes. “He even claimed that the very topics we had suggested were ones we’d refused to discuss. His team says we ‘never committed,’ which is accurate, but misleading. The plain truth: I wanted to go on Joe Rogan’s podcast on October 25. He chose Trump instead.”The Biden scourgeIt seemed that each time she was grabbing momentum, Biden would derail the campaign, emerging in the news with one inexplicable misstep after another. She describes the moment Biden briefly wore a MAGA hat — in an image that then went viral. “Joe was sharing a joke with some guys in MAGA hats. One of them took his hat off and offered it to Joe.”Don’t take it.”He took it.”Don’t put it on.”He put it on.” She said that within hours, images exploded of Biden wearing the hat accompanied by a caption: ‘Biden endorses Trump over Harris.'”At another campaign high, she was coming off a speech at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C., which drew tens of thousands of people. As she was still en route to celebrate, the news from a Biden call started circulating that he had called Trump’s supporters “garbage.” That supplied Trump with fresh fodder going into a critical weekend.Harris, though, relayed that ultimately her feelings toward Biden would remain loyal. “I was still vice president to President Biden. We had three months left of our administration. Even after the lack of support from the White House, the debate night phone call, and the MAGA hat debacle, I felt I owed him my loyalty.”No signs of what’s nextHarris reveals nothing about her 2028 aspirations except that she has learned that changing the system from within isn’t possible. “In this critical moment, working within the system, by itself, is not proving to be enough. I’ll no longer sit in DC in the grandeur of the ceremonial office. I will be with the people, in towns and communities where I can listen to their ideas on how we rebuild trust, empathy, and a government worthy of the ideals of this country.”Natasha KoreckiNatasha Korecki is a senior national political reporter for NBC News.Jonathan AllenJonathan Allen is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News.
October 7, 2025
Trekkers rescued from blizzard-struck Mount Everest
September 30, 2025
Several killed in suicide attack in Pakistan
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved