38 views

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.

- Latest News - September 23, 2025

In her new book, Kamala Harris dishes on Democratic leaders who were slow to endorse her, frustrations with Joe Biden and regrets from the 2024 campaign.

Source link

TAGS:
31 views

Sept. 22, 2025, 6:10 PM EDTBy Peter Nicholas and Matt DixonWASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s insistence that his attorney general bring charges against three perceived political opponents could backfire if any cases get to court, undermining his effort to see them punished, some legal experts said Monday.In a social media post Saturday, Trump pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi about three people who’ve raised his ire and who’ve not faced criminal charges to this point: Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; New York state Attorney General Letitia James; and former FBI Director James Comey.He mentioned that he’d been impeached and indicted multiple times “OVER NOTHING!”“JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED NOW!!!” he wrote. He also cited unspecified “statements and posts” he’d read contending that the trio are “‘guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.’”Because of Trump’s exhortation, defense lawyers could argue in court that their clients were targets of selective prosecution and did not receive constitutionally required due process, said Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham Law School who specializes in ethics issues.“If they’re picking these people not because they’re guilty of something … but because the president is out to get them because they’re Democrats and they made his life miserable previously, that’s an impermissible basis,” Green said.Another issue is whether Schiff, James and Comey could ever get a fair trial if it were to come to that, said Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law.“He is his own worst enemy,” Gillers said of Trump.“Sometimes people make statements, but this is the president of the United States telling the court and an eventual jury that the people on trial before them are guilty. I can’t imagine that a court would let that go to a verdict. The prejudice from that kind of statement is enormous,” Gillers said.John Walsh, who served as the U.S. attorney in Colorado for six years ending in 2016, said in an interview: “It certainly gives the defense an argument that the charges are politically motivated and not based on the merits and the evidence and the argument. Some judges might find that persuasive depending on the motions that take place prior to trial.” But he added that even if the Justice Department understands this reality, officials could be pursuing a strategy that he described as, “Investigation is the punishment.” Enduring a federal investigation is costly to the target and can bring significant harm to one’s reputation, he said. “An investigation is a very serious thing against professionals, yes, there is a cost to even just defend yourself,” he added.Trump’s extraordinary weekend message to Bondi — “Pam,” as he called her — put the attorney general in a tough spot, said Jill Wine-Banks, a former general counsel to the U.S. Army and an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s.If Bondi accommodates the president and the Justice Department seeks indictments against Schiff, James and Comey, “who’s going to believe it wasn’t done for political purposes?” Wine-Banks asked rhetorically. “And if she doesn’t, she’s going to get fired. So, it’s a lose-lose, no matter what.”Trump tempered his message to Bondi later on Saturday.He posted that Bondi was doing a “GREAT job” while also later telling reporters in a press gaggle: “If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty, or if they should be judged, they should be judged. And we have to do it now.”All three of the people Trump singled out have rankled him for different reasons.Comey led an investigation into Trump’s possible ties to Russian leadership, which concluded that Trump’s campaign did not collude with Russian operatives. Trump fired Comey five months into his first term. Comey declined comment Monday.Schiff, then a House member, led the first impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term. Schiff posted a response to Trump on social media: “There’s no hiding the political retaliation and weaponization. It’s all out in the open.”James brought a successful civil suit against Trump in 2022 that accused him of overvaluing assets, including real estate, in loan applications. The suit’s financial penalty against Trump was later voided.James’ office declined a request for comment.At a press briefing Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt amplified Trump’s condemnation of the trio.“You look at people like Adam Schiff and like James Comey and like Letitia James,” she said, “who the president is rightfully frustrated.”She added that Trump “wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abused their power, who abused their oath of office to target the former president and then candidate for the highest office in the land.”Trump has long contended that he was a victim of a weaponized judicial system when Joe Biden was in office. In his inauguration speech on Jan. 20, he pledged to end such practices. “Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents — something I know something about,” he said. “We will not allow that to happen. It will not happen again.”Bondi made a similar promise during her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate in January. “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end,” she said. “America must have one tier of justice for all.”Now, though, critics worry that Trump is erasing post-Watergate norms that were supposed to shield prosecutors from political interference.Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told NBC News in a statement: “The president should not be directing the Attorney General to prosecute those who pursued him over the last six years. Lawfare is corrosive to a democracy and he is doing exactly what he has accused the Democrats of doing to him. We need to stop the cycle of lawfare and escalation. His public statements to the attorney general were not wise and they undermine the citizens’ confidence of our legal system.”A worrying development came last week, critics said, when the federal prosecutor tasked with investigating mortgage fraud allegations against James resigned after Trump said he no longer wanted him to serve in that position. (Trump said he fired the prosecutor, Erik Siebert.)Trump administration officials had been pressing Siebert to investigate potential mortgage fraud charges against James. Two federal law enforcement sources say prosecutors did not believe they had enough evidence to charge James with mortgage fraud over a Virginia home she purchased for her niece in 2023.Those same sources said prosecutors felt there was not enough evidence to charge Comey regarding allegations that he lied to Congress in 2020 about FBI investigations into the 2016 election.Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., a member of the Judiciary Committee, told NBC News: “‘Two wrongs don’t make it right but they do make it even’ is the sort of thing that happens in countries whose Powerball jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat. It’s not supposed to happen in America.”“President Biden’s administration started this ‘lawfare’, as the media calls it, and I worried then that they had unleashed spirits they would be unable to control,” he added. “I questioned Attorney General Bondi about this in her confirmation hearing, and she agreed with me. Any prosecution of a public official has to be based on objective, compelling evidence of criminal behavior, not based on that official’s political ideology.”Peter NicholasPeter Nicholas is a senior White House reporter for NBC News.Matt DixonMatt Dixon is a senior national politics reporter for NBC News, based in Florida.Katherine Doyle, Dennis Romero, Ryan J. Reilly, Michael Kosnar and Chloe Atkins contributed.

- Latest News - September 22, 2025

President Donald Trump’s insistence that his attorney general bring charges against three perceived political opponents could backfire if any cases get to court, undermining his effort to see them punished,.

TAGS:
35 views

Trump on Tylenol use for pregnant women

- Latest News - September 22, 2025

President Trump said pregnant women should only take Tylenol for a fever if they can’t “tough it out.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other major medical groups say acetaminophen,.

TAGS:
32 views

By Berkeley Lovelace Jr., Aria Bendix and Erika EdwardsPresident Donald Trump said Monday the Food and Drug Administration approved a chemotherapy drug called leucovorin as a treatment to alleviate symptoms of autism, despite little evidence that the medication works.Trump also said the administration is issuing a warning to doctors not to recommend acetaminophen — the active ingredient in Tylenol and other widely used medications — for pregnant women, claiming it may be linked to autism in children. Trump had been teasing the announcement for days, as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other health officials have pledged to determine the cause of the developmental disorder by September.The administration had planned to release its long-awaited report on causes of autism around Sept. 29 or Sept. 30, a person familiar with the matter told NBC News. But Trump pre-empted the rollout over the weekend, and details soon appeared in The Washington Post.“We understood a lot more than a lot of people who studied it,” Trump said from the White House, referring to autism. He spoke alongside Kennedy, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. ”Taking Tylenol is not good,” Trump said. “I’ll say it. It’s not good.”Leucovorin is a drug approved by the FDA to counteract the side effects of certain chemotherapy drugs and sometimes used off-label to treat vitamin B9 deficiency. Leucovorin is a form of folinic acid, a B vitamin. It has shown promise in clinical trials with helping some children with autism improve their speech. But the Autism Science Foundation, which funds evidence-based autism research, does not recommend it as a treatment yet and says more studies are needed.Trump said the FDA updated the drug’s label Monday for the treatment of autism symptoms. Oz said Medicaid — in partnership with states — will cover it with a prescription.“We believe insurance companies will rapidly follow our lead,” he said.Kennedy also said the FDA will issue a letter advising health care providers that the over-the-counter medication should be used during pregnancy only in cases of high fever, when the fever itself may pose a health risk to the fetus. The FDA’s notice, sometimes called a “Dear Doctor” letter, is meant to alert physicians and other prescribers about urgent or clinically significant safety issues it has identified with a drug. Kennedy also said the FDA will begin the process to initiate a safety label change for the drug.Bhattacharya said at Monday’s briefing that the NIH will dedicate $50 million to 13 research projects focused on identifying root causes and treatments for autism, an effort known as the “autism data science initiative.” The research will focus on environmental and medical factors, nutrition, events during pregnancy, biology and genetics, he said.“Given this wide range of symptoms across the spectrum, it seems certain that there will be a wide range of biological contributors to explaining the cause,” he said.Researchers who’ve spent decades researching potential causes of autism say the administration hasn’t uncovered any new evidence — and the existing data still doesn’t support its claims.“This is not new,” Dr. Allison Bryant, a high-risk obstetrician at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an earlier interview. “It has bubbled up every now and again with studies that show maybe some kind of association but not clearly showing any cause and effect.”Experts say autism spectrum disorder, which is characterized by challenges with social and speech skills and by repetitive behaviors, most likely stems from multiple factors rather than a single cause. It affects 1 in 31 children in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The bulk of scientific research hasn’t identified a link between acetaminophen and autism.“The science hasn’t changed regardless of what comes out from the report,” said Brian K. Lee, a professor of epidemiology at Drexel University in Philadelphia, referring to the Trump administration’s finding. “I’m not sure what the administration is doing, but it looks like they’re just going back and reviewing the evidence and they’re coming to a different conclusion than many scientists would.”Acetaminophen was introduced in the United States in the 1950s as a prescription alternative to aspirin. By the 1970s, it had been made available over the counter and became one of the most commonly used pain and fever medications in the country. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other major medical groups say acetaminophen is one of the only safe pain relievers for women during pregnancy, and studies have shown no clear evidence that use during pregnancy leads to developmental issues in kids. The drug is also found in name brands like Theraflu and Excedrin.Forty percent to 65% of women use acetaminophen at some point during pregnancy, according to a 2014 study published in the American Family Physician.Earlier Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt touted a “major announcement” from Trump, telling reporters at a briefing to go into the autism announcement with “some critical thinking skills and with some open ears.”“They are paying attention to studies, and the gold standard of science and research, that many in this city for far too long have turned a blind eye to,” she said.Trump administration officials are citing previous research, including a literature review Mount Sinai and Harvard researchers published last month in the journal BMC Environmental Health. The review concluded there was most likely an association between autism and acetaminophen exposure during pregnancy. Outside autism researchers, however, said that the review wasn’t rigorously conducted and that it cherry-picked studies that supported its conclusion. The review’s senior author, Andrea Baccarelli, served in 2023 as a paid expert in a class action lawsuit against acetaminophen manufacturers, in which he testified that there was a link between the medication and autism. A judge ultimately excluded his testimony for being scientifically unsound and last year dismissed the case, which is being appealed.Baccarelli said in a statement that he and his colleagues conducted a rigorous review and that the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was strongest when acetaminophen was taken for four weeks or longer. He said he discussed his findings with Kennedy and Bhattacharya in recent weeks.“Further research is needed to confirm the association and determine causality, but based on existing evidence, I believe that caution about acetaminophen use during pregnancy — especially heavy or prolonged use — is warranted,” Baccarelli said.However, other autism researchers have pointed to a large study last year published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which found no link between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism, ADHD or intellectual disability. The study, from Lee and his colleagues in Sweden, analyzed data from more than 2.4 million children. When the researchers looked solely at children with autism, there was a small increased risk possibly associated with acetaminophen. But when the researchers compared siblings within the same families — one exposed during pregnancy, the other not — the link disappeared. The comparison allowed them to control for variables that past studies couldn’t. Siblings share a large part of their genetic background and often have similar environmental exposures in utero and at home.“The biggest elephant in the room here is genetics,” Lee said. “We know that autism, ADHD and other neurodevelopmental disorders are highly heritable.”In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, said the drug is the safest pain reliever option for pregnant women.“Without it, women face dangerous choices: suffer through conditions like fever that are potentially harmful to both mom and baby or use riskier alternatives,” the spokesperson said. “We believe independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism.”Bryant, of Massachusetts General Hospital, said, “The best science that we have available would still suggest that acetaminophen is a safe pain reliever and fever reducer in pregnancy.”Berkeley Lovelace Jr.Berkeley Lovelace Jr. is a health and medical reporter for NBC News. He covers the Food and Drug Administration, with a special focus on Covid vaccines, prescription drug pricing and health care. He previously covered the biotech and pharmaceutical industry with CNBC.Aria BendixAria Bendix is the breaking health reporter for NBC News Digital.Erika EdwardsErika Edwards is a health and medical news writer and reporter for NBC News and “TODAY.”

- Latest News - September 22, 2025

President Trump said Monday the FDA approved a chemotherapy drug called leucovorin as a treatment to alleviate symptoms of autism. The FDA also said it was warning that acetaminophen.

TAGS: