A few hours ago, RFK Jr. ousted the CDC Director for refusing to rubber-stamp unscientific and reckless directives. In its wake, three senior CDC officials also resigned. The United States lost remarkable leaders today—people who devoted decades, across many administrations, to protecting the health of families and communities. They weren’t just experts; they were steady hands and trusted voices, showing up in moments of crisis with clarity, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to the public good.

When leaders like this are pushed out, it’s not just the agency that suffers; it’s all of us. A weaker CDC means more vulnerable communities. Public health only works when the people leading it are strong, principled, and supported in their duty to protect and serve individuals and communities. Right now, that foundation is eroding at a speed I never thought possible. The nation’s health security is at risk.

Thank you for your service, Demetre, Dan, Deb, and Susan. I’m beyond heartbroken by what is happening at CDC and the public health field as a whole.

Simply put: This is not okay.

Now, for Covid-19 vaccine news…

At CVS the other day, a pregnant woman—glowing, excited for her first baby—stepped up to the counter and asked for the Covid-19 vaccine. She knew the shot could pass antibodies to her newborn, protecting during those fragile first months of life. The most basic human instinct: a mother protecting her child.

But the pharmacist shook his head. “We have no idea what’s happening. The guidelines keep changing. We can’t give you a vaccine.”

Tears welled up as she asked for the older Covid-19 vaccine formula. Again, no. She walked out without the protection she came for.

I wish I could have answered all of her questions (and the pharmacists!) right there in that moment. Instead, I’m hoping to equip you with the clarity she—and so many others—deserve. This scene is likely repeating across the country.

Here are the top 12 questions we got from you, answered with what I know today.

1. Who is eligible for the Covid-19 vaccine this fall?

This is a simple question with a complicated answer, as it depends on whom you want to turn to for guidance.

The federal government (FDA) changed the license (i.e., “label”) for the Covid-19 vaccine today. FDA’s job is to determine whether a vaccine is safe, effective, and properly manufactured. So each year, before fall vaccines go in arms, the FDA updates the fall vaccine labels after inspecting production and before they reach shelves.

Today, the FDA announced that the Covid-19 vaccine is ready for use, but it has limited the vaccine label to individuals over 65 and those between 6 months and 64 years old with at least one condition that puts them at high risk for severe outcomes from Covid-19. This is different from previous years, when it was labeled for everyone over 6 months. It is highly unusual for the FDA to restrict its approval for a drug in this way.

Regardless, last week, professional organizations started releasing their own recommendations (which they’ve done for more than 90 years), and some do not align with FDA’s new label:

• Kids: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that all children under 2 years old get vaccinated, as well as high-risk children or those living with someone who is high-risk. Notably, the guidance includes permissive language that children not in the risk groups “whose parent or guardian desires their protection from Covid-19” should be offered a vaccine.

• Pregnant women: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published guidance last week recommending that pregnant women receive the vaccine at any point during pregnancy, when planning to become pregnant, in the postpartum period, or while lactating.

• Adults: American College of Physicians (ACP) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have yet to give input regarding their recommendations for adults and immunocompromised patients. However, IDSA did put out a strong reactive statement today: “narrow[ing] the Covid-19 vaccine label ignores science and puts millions of lives at risk”

To make things even more confusing, the federal government will weigh in again this September through ACIP—an external advisory committee to the CDC that sets vaccine policy—on who they believe should receive the Covid-19 vaccine. Typically, this guidance is issued in June (before the license change), so this delay is unusual and leaves insurance companies uncertain about who should be covered.

Bottom line: If someone is not within the FDA label (for example, a healthy 1-year-old) but still wants the Covid-19 vaccine this fall (for example, because AAP recommends it), they will need to get the Covid-19 vaccine “off-label.”

2. What qualifies as high risk?

“High risk” appears undefined by the FDA. This is normal and indicates that it defaults to this CDC review, which remains unchanged from earlier this year. CDC’s “high risk” list covers a significant portion of the U.S. adult population, including pregnant people and people with diabetes, a disability, overweight/obesity, cancer, or a mental health condition.

This list could (and likely will) be changed in September during the ACIP meeting by the committee that RFK Jr. replaced. We will update you if that happens.

3. Will we need documentation to prove we’re “at risk?”

Pharmacies will likely go with something called “self-attestation.” In other words, you need to check a box that says you have a high-risk condition. It’s unlikely that insurance will check this against your medical records, but it’s possible.

4. If I’m not high risk, can I get the vaccine off-label? Could I pay out of pocket if I want it?

It will likely be hard to get it “off-label,” but not impossible. There are three reasons for this:

1. Pharmacists can’t give vaccines off-label in most states. This is a problem because more than 90% of Covid-19 vaccines were given in pharmacies last year.

2. Physicians will need to administer the vaccine, though many may be uncomfortable doing so (although it is legal; see next question).

3. It’s unclear whether insurance will cover off-label vaccines. If they do not, you can pay out of pocket.

5. What about physician liability?

Despite what RFK Jr. has implied in the most heinous way, doctors are not suddenly at risk for doing their jobs if they follow AAP or ACOG guidance. Prescribing off-label happens every day in medicine. One in five medications is prescribed off-label. The FDA label change may impact the additional liability immunity provided by the PREP Act for use of Covid-19 vaccines. Regardless, providers are covered by the same professional liability and malpractice standards that apply to their other medical decisions. Physicians remain free to recommend what they believe is best for their patients.

6. When should I get the Covid-19 vaccine?

Technically, you can get it right now. However, please note that it may take a few days to a week for your pharmacy to receive the new vaccine shipment.

If you have recently had a Covid-19 infection, it’s best to wait at least 6 months.

If you’re at high risk and more than 6 months have passed since your last vaccine, I recommend getting the vaccine now. This will help protect you against severe disease, and we are in the middle of a Covid-19 wave.

7. What is happening with the pediatric vaccine?

Pfizer will not have a vaccine for children under 5. But Moderna will. As a result, the supply may be more limited, but technically, a vaccine is still available for this age group. Specifically:

• Pfizer’s COMIRNATY COVID-19 vaccine for those 5 years and older

• Moderna’s SPIKEVAX for those 6 months and older

• Novavax’s NUVAXOVID for those 12 years and older

8. Is the vaccine formula being updated this year?

Yes, to better match the variants currently circulating.

9. Is it okay not to get the Covid-19 vaccine anymore? Does having had a vax + some boosters provide any long-term protection? For how long?

The science hasn’t changed: The vaccine is still safe and effective. What has changed is the environment: most of us now have some level of immunity, which is why Covid-19 is no longer an emergency.

Immunity has two layers: short-term antibodies and long-term memory cells (T cells). Covid-19 antibodies fade within about 4 months, so without a recent vaccine (or infection), you’re more likely to get infected and more likely to spread it to others. Memory cells last longer and help prevent severe illness—this doesn’t seem to fade for healthy or young individuals, but not everyone’s immune system holds onto that protection equally well. That’s why high-risk groups are prioritized for ongoing vaccinations, like pregnant women, children under 2, adults over 65, and those with chronic conditions.

10. Does this situation apply to all brands of vaccines?

Yes. mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna) and the protein vaccine (Novavax) are all part of the same regulatory and policy tangle.

11. What will you be doing?

For my family, I will look to medical societies whose recommendations are evidence-based, trustworthy, and consistent.

12. What should I do right now?

Consider getting vaccinated for Covid-19 this fall. People who meet the new label indications should seek vaccines in ways similar to past years—through a pharmacist, physician, nurse, or other health care provider.

For those who aren’t within the label:

• Parents: Ask your child’s pediatric practice about their plans to follow AAP recommendations, particularly given the irregular process for ACIP for 2025-26.

• Adults: Call your physician’s office and pharmacy and ask who will be able to get the Covid-19 vaccine at their practices.

• Everyone: Call your insurance company to inquire what they will be covering for the fall, and for whom.

If you have trouble finding a vaccine and want to share your story, fill out this YLE form. We can’t help you find a store, but we would like to hear your story and share it with others, if you’re comfortable with it.

Bottom line

Today, the FDA changed the Covid-19 label, but the good news is that the high-risk list is still broad for now, and an off-label vaccination is possible. Many professional organizations are stepping in to recommend what the scientific evidence supports.

Love, YLE

*The original copy said 16, which was a mistake. The correct age is 6 months.

Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. YLE is a public health newsletter that reaches over 380,000 people in more than 132 countries, with one goal: to translate the ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below:

Subscribe now

Earlier this month, when the Donald Trump administration pushed to federalize Washington, D.C., sending the National Guard, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to “fight crime,” I mounted my bicycle and pedaled toward Union Station, where trains in and out of the city converge. The neighborhood apps that D.C. residents rely upon for local events and community announcements were exploding with news of a “city takeover.” Footage abounded of uniformed and plainclothes law enforcement standing in large numbers at corners, sometimes making an arrest, drawing crowds of impromptu protesters. Images of the National Guard troops who were posted at the train station looked especially sinister, the scenes reminiscent of garrison towns I have long left behind, so I wanted to see what had become of D.C. for myself.

The District of Columbia is barely 70 square miles in size and home to about 700,000 residents. But it is part of the greater DMV metro area, which includes D.C. as well as parts of Maryland and Virginia, and is home to over 5.5 million people, many of whom work in or commute through the district. Among the things we worry about in the city are your garden-variety urban concerns in today’s America: the cost of living, parking and, randomly, a measles scare after one confirmed case of a person who arrived in March by train at Union Station.

As for crime, well, it’s a city. Always lock your bike, secure your wallet and, when riding the metro, keep your cellphone close. Like any American city, drug dealing and gun violence keep the local police busy, even though many of the city’s illegal firearms come from places outside the district, like Virginia, where gun laws are lax and gun shops ubiquitous. A combination of high rent, lack of a safety net and a mental health epidemic often rooted in drug addiction push too many people toward homelessness which, unfortunately, is another signature of contemporary American life. The unhoused will seek shelter in encampments throughout public parks. But overall, statistically, crime rates in D.C. are at their lowest in years.

It was in this context that Trump began verbally berating D.C. for its “out of control crime,” a statement both disingenuous and apocryphal. It was also in this context that the city I have grown to call home began to remind me, overnight, of Damascus during the war in Syria. 

At Union Station, I found the National Guard and the heavy equipment they drove into the city parked across from the train station. The guard’s most intimidating armored vehicles faced the main door, so that upon arrival in the nation’s capital you were met with the military’s mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs), as if the military were protecting the city from your presence. Granted, the MRAPs had no guns mounted on their roofs — not as of this writing, anyway — but if we are to stick to the warped logic that seems to govern the country today, perhaps it would have made more sense for the army’s equipment to face outward, as if they were protecting you, though I wouldn’t know from what, or whom.

In the background of these optics, a continuous wail of sirens originated from afar. I assumed it was another sinister layer to add to our current state of manufactured dystopia, and made a mental note to cycle toward it later and investigate.

For now, I was looking at an unarmed army, carrying out their marching orders to mobilize in their own city (their arm patches indicated they belonged to the D.C. National Guard), with no clarity about their role or how long they could expect to stay here. Other than a few with batons and zip ties, the rest of the guards wore patches indicating they belonged to service support units, such as medical, transport and logistics. At least one was from the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear, or CBRN, branch. All looked bored, sweating uncomfortably in the blazing sun.

There is also no clarity as to what role they will play now that they have begun to carry arms, starting today, after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized them to do so. Trump has also indicated that other cities will be next, starting with Chicago, which has a metro area population of almost 10 million. Will we soon see a day when the U.S. military directly engages civilians in cities on U.S. soil, policing, arresting and, God forbid, shooting at us?

An Assad regime insider once told me that intimidating the populace did not require harassing every single citizen. An authoritarian regime only has to flex its muscles here and there, ensure that such news is widely circulated and then sit back and rely on the people to cower to its authority and police themselves. That the U.S. is already descending toward authoritarianism is no longer a matter of opinion. But how far we descend depends on the extent to which people capitulate to the bullying, as too many of the country’s top institutions have already started doing.

I have seen this movie before, and it is heartbreaking. We are witnessing the erosion of trust and respect between the people and the authorities entrusted with their protection.

I remember when I lived in the parts of Damascus that were under Assad’s control and the contingency planning I relied upon in case I was detained, arrested or disappeared by the regime, given that I was reporting undercover on the war. Now, I find myself in a similar state of mind, saving a lawyer’s phone number on my speed dial and sharing with trusted friends emergency numbers and protocols for our respective homes, pets and other loose ends, “just in case.” Conservatives and Trump supporters will dismiss this as the “hysteria” of a liberal city, but they are blind to a new reality for anyone who feels vulnerable because of their visa status (including those here legally), national origin or skin color, no matter how law-abiding they are.

In this familiar movie, I also recognize another ugliness that is rearing its head: the contempt that some law enforcement, namely ICE, show toward the public. The Trump administration claims that 300 people have been arrested in D.C. since Aug. 7 for illegal immigration status, a tenfold increase for ICE. Many of these arrests focused on easy targets, such as delivery drivers on mopeds, including one instance when an ICE car ran the moped over, injuring the driver before arresting him as he limped along on one foot.

An overwhelming majority of D.C. residents strongly disapproves of the federalization. People grow visibly upset at the sight, not just of ICE, whose actions are impossible to defend, especially in a city rooted in international culture, but these days at the sight of any law enforcement or anyone in uniform. Lately, it has not been unusual to be approached by random D.C. residents who, unsolicited and visibly shaken, tell you, “Be safe under fascism” and “Free D.C.” These are the rips and tears in the social fabric that threaten to seed a permanent hatred, followed by a permanent split.

Back at Union Station, a few protesters circulated the scene, as locals and the few tourists now seen around town snapped photos of the National Guard troops, who stood at ease or strolled through the park. I’ve since seen them elsewhere in D.C., casually walking through well-manicured touristy areas and national monuments. If they were sent here to “fight crime,” they were nowhere to be found in the dicey parts of town. 

“Why are they here? To wave and say hi? What’s the purpose?” one D.C. police officer asked me, rhetorically. He asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak to the media on the record. “I get that they’re supposed to be seen to deter crime,” the officer continued. “But the National Guard can’t do anything without us. It’s pointless for them to be here.”

The main issue with crime in D.C. isn't so much that it is happening at a high rate, one officer explained, but that a revolving door of arrest and release, due to lax laws and an overstretched legal system, keeps offenders on the street and makes them grow more emboldened. “We catch these guys and they keep getting released, which is bad for morale,” the officer said.

As a result, egregious offenses sometimes go unpunished. I have personal experience with this. A few months ago, a shootout took place in the alleyway behind my home. Unfortunately, this is not a unique occurrence in D.C. The perpetrators shot more than 30 rounds, including two that shattered my window and lodged in the wall of my hallway. Miraculously, no one was hurt — not in my home or among my neighbors, who also saw their windows shatter. The perpetrators, all of them juvenile, were unharmed, or so they appeared on neighborhood security camera footage as they made their escape. And yet, none seems to have been arrested for the illegal discharge of a weapon. Last month, in a nearby neighborhood, there was another shooting, this one involving 200 rounds. Again, miraculously, no one was hurt, and the perpetrators were juveniles still at large. Over and over, the profile of local crime is familiar. It’s rooted in the country’s gun culture, and it's racialized, with offenders too often under the age of 18. Crime spikes in the summer months, when young people are out of school and city youth programs remain inadequate. And, of course, unlike what plays out in the imaginations of Fox News viewers and Trump supporters in red states, city crime does not involve “illegal immigrants” running amok and wreaking havoc.

Many on the police force complain about an under-resourced police department, blaming the “defund the police” protest movement that started in 2020, which led to millions of dollars of cuts to the police budget that year. To them, federalizing the police has been helpful, at least with regard to the FBI now accompanying local police on patrol calls.

“We love it,” one officer told me during a patrol in which I was allowed to accompany law enforcement, adding that, unlike the National Guard, “the FBI are useful because they can make arrests.”

At one sketchy gas station located at a corner in the northeastern quadrant of D.C., where I have often seen loitering youth and drug deals, half a dozen FBI cars accompanied as many D.C. police cars to arrest one man for alleged possession of illegal firearms and illicit drugs. The suspect will now appear in District Court, which means he will face federal charges — which come with at least a 48-hour hold, as opposed to the usual next-day release in D.C. — and tougher sentencing than he would have in the D.C. courts.

Not too far from there, at a corner in the popular Union Market area, I came upon another swarm of FBI and Metropolitan Police Department cars arresting a man for — you guessed it — alleged possession of illegal firearms.

What would have been a routine arrest in D.C. had turned into a public spectacle, with dozens of locals surrounding the scene and shouting obscenities at law enforcement, heckling them and telling them to “go home,” adding, “you serve the constitution, not Trump.” There was a lot of “wake up and quit your job,” and many boos and jeers directed at the men and women in uniform. One thread of insults that I found especially alarming reminded me of the sectarianism that can grip a nation, though in the context of the U.S. today it goes along ideological and geographic lines, with elitism, coastalism and reactions to both mattering more than sect. “Go back to Alabama,” a young man shouted from the sidewalk at the FBI crew members, who were part of the arresting officers amid stopped traffic in the middle of the street. Replace “Alabama” with any red state, and these points of friction have become commonplace throughout the city, the mix of optics and politics of authoritarianism already producing their toxic brew. 

Though it has barely been three weeks, there is consensus among city cops that crime has tamped down during this period, as if offenders have been stunned into a state of paralysis. “They don’t know what to do. They don’t know how the feds operate, what technology they have, what unmarked cars they drive,” the officer said. “So they’re laying low.”

But the federal takeover of D.C. also seems to have left everyone else stunned, paralyzed and “laying low.” Businesses are complaining of low foot traffic, and restaurants are already seeing a 15% drop, a decrease that was evident even during Restaurant Week last week. During my daily walks and bike rides, the city has appeared eerily empty. Out-of-town friends are already inquiring with me about whether they should cancel plans to visit, and colleagues are wondering if they should move the venues for upcoming conferences out of D.C., especially if they are expecting an international audience.

“Other countries would love to have the freedom protections we’ve enjoyed here, and yet here we are. We’ve squandered it with eyes wide open,” a D.C. resident lamented to me.

Back at Union Station, I went to investigate the continuous sirens that wailed in the background. I found the source to be a small group of people protesting the genocide and famine in Gaza. They wore ear protection, as did I before I was able to approach them. There was an irony to the loudness of their protest, a reminder of the urgency of our era, with crises real or manufactured, no matter where in the world.

The post A Dispatch From America’s Garrison Capital appeared first on New Lines Magazine.

My recent essay on “LGBTQ+ Experience and Orthodox Tradition” provoked a strident response from Dr. Edith Humphrey, Professor Emerita of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. While I disagree with the main point of her critique—that the Church has nothing to learn from the experience of LGBTQ+ people—I am grateful for her extensive engagement with what I wrote. This is precisely the “vigorous debate by people of conviction” (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware) that we need in the Orthodox Church today.

How we approach the experience of sexual minorities is just one example of the much broader question of how the Christian tradition faces new questions, new experience, and new knowledge in any age. As I stressed in an earlier article on tradition and change, Orthodox tradition has evolved. Even a superficial reading of church history will show—despite the Orthodox eschewing of innovation—that the Fathers and Councils were faithful to the Tradition while at the same time introducing striking changes.[1] The Church was able to balance the antinomy of being both unchanging and dynamic at the same time.

Dr. Humphrey is reluctant to speak of change and says that the abandonment of Jewish Law in the early Church was not really a change at all: “What looked like change was actual fulfillment.”  Of course, I agree with her that Christ fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament, but her comments mask the truth of how radically the early Church went in a new direction. For Jews and Jewish-Christians of the first century the sweeping aside of Jewish Law was in fact a huge transformation that made their Jewish tradition unrecognizable.

Dr. Humphrey says that taking new experience into account is a “Protestant hermeneutic.” But the interplay of tradition and new experience was at work long before the Protestant Reformation. Orthodoxy resists quick and authoritative pronouncements, so discernment is complicated and frustrating. And this is because, as Fr. John Meyendorff said, the Orthodox Church has no external criterion of truth, in contrast with Roman Catholicism (the Papacy) and Protestantism (the Bible). “Byzantine Christianity has recognized that in the Church the Spirit alone is the ultimate criterion of truth and the only final authority.”[2] Neither the Bible, the Fathers, the Councils, nor the bishops are in themselves the test of truth. Instead, the Orthodox have accepted the tradition’s rugged and twisting paths of discernment over time. In the short run, this is much less clear than the blunt edicts Dr. Humphrey wants from our bishops. But desire for premature clarity reflects less the Orthodox tradition than Catholic and Protestant impatience with Orthodoxy’s tolerance for mystery, uncertainty, and the imperfections of our current knowledge.

Dr. Humphrey also seeks to make a sharp distinction between personal experience and revelation. But every example in the Bible and in the lives of the saints of what later was accepted as divine revelation began as a personal experience, including the “primordial promise” to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 that Dr. Humphrey cites. And while the later church gradually developed protective guardrails of bishops, canons, councils, and creeds, there will always be tension between the institutional and the charismatic as long as—to cite Fr. Meyendorff again—“the Spirit alone is the ultimate criterion of truth and the only final authority.”

Dr. Humphrey strangely asserts that my comments stem from a misguided attempt to defend “academic freedom.” In fact, my essay has nothing to do with academic freedom. It’s about freedom within the Church to observe, consider, reflect, discuss, and debate the truth about reality. This is a fundamental principle of Orthodox tradition itself, because the struggle for freedom applies to how the church’s tradition is lived out in each generation. As Fr. Georges Florovsky wrote:

Loyalty to tradition means not only concord with the past, but in a certain sense, freedom from the past, as some outward formal criterion. Tradition is not only a protective, conservative principle; it is, primarily, the principle of growth and regeneration… Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical, principle.^[3]

Trusting in the Spirit of God, our bishops should encourage rather than suppress research and vigorous debate on important questions. Tradition can itself become an idolatrous ideology that prevents learning from new experience or from the Holy Spirit. The message and person of Jesus faced opposition precisely from those who were most ideologically “traditional.” The life in Christ is open ended, as Jesus Himself said. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:12-13).

Over time the Church moved forward— through new experiences, challenges, misunderstandings, uncertainties, and great debate. And in no disputed question was the answer immediately obvious. Indeed, it was often the most conservative protectors of received tradition who ultimately found themselves on the wrong side of the Orthodox Tradition, such as those who rejected the new non-biblical term homoousios (“one in essence”) to describe the union of Father and Son in the Nicene Creed.

In the pastoral section of my paper the main point was not to advocate for the blessing of gay marriages, but to hold on to the Orthodox tradition of offering to everyone time and space for “growth in life, and faith and spiritual understanding.”[4] When St. Paisios of Mt Athos (1924-1994) was approached for counsel by a gay man who had struggled unsuccessfully to “overcome” his same-sex attraction, St. Paisios simply told him not to despair, but instead “Do what you can, not what you can’t.”  He counseled him to pray, read the Scriptures, go to church, give alms, find ways to serve (he specifically suggested he take care of people dying from AIDS), and leave the rest to God.

It remains to be seen whether the Orthodox Church will move from revulsion to tolerance to acceptance to blessing.  But in the meantime, 1) we ought to listen more to the experience of LGBTQ+ people, especially from those who seek to live as Orthodox Christians, and 2) we ought to have a pastoral approach that discriminates against no one. As I pointed out in my essay there are four pastoral principles on which we as Orthodox Christians ought to agree.

• Everyone is welcome
  
• Everyone is expected to be pursue an ascetic life, seeking to grow in Christ
  
• Everyone is on their own timeline
  
• Everyone must focus on what they can do, not on what they can’t

I know that I have received abundant mercy from God and that I am still a flawed human being. But I take comfort in the words of Jesus, “No one who comes to me will be cast out” (John 6:37). I simply desire the same for everyone else who wants to live the life in Christ.

[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo, New Haven: Yale, 2003, 330ff.

[2] John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, New York: Fordham University Press, 1987, p. 150.

[3] Georges Florovsky, “The Catholicity of the Church,”  in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Belmont, Mass., 1972, 47.

[4] Second Prayer of the Faithful, Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

The post LGBTQ+ Experience and Orthodox Tradition: A Response to Edith Humphrey appeared first on Public Orthodoxy.

As some of you recently pointed out, the U.S. Constitution seems to have vanished for a while.

Not the physical Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, that remained on display in the Rotunda of the National Archives in Washington, D.C.—though as I can tell you from experience, it will instantly vanish into the vault below if you lean on the glass case a little too hard, and then they’re all like, “EVERYBODY OUT! SOMEBODY LEANED ON THE CONSTITUTION TOO HARD AGAIN AND WE HAVE TO CLEAR OUT THE ROTUNDA TO GO LOOK FOR IT,” acting like you meant to do it or something. Obviously, you didn’t. But unless that happened again, the physical Constitution was on display the whole time.

But the text of the Constitution vanished from an official government website, and not just any official government website but the one at Congress.gov. Congress, you may remember, was one of three independent branches of government in the United States, and so at least for historical purposes it seems important that its website contain the full text of this once significant document. Yet sometime in July (as you can see above via the Wayback Machine), it seems to have been deleted.

It’s back now, but it is a little concerning that nobody noticed for a couple of weeks.

Why did the Constitution disappear? An excellent question that many are asking, and that others will be asking later for different reasons, and while in custody, but according to the Library of Congress this problem was caused by a “coding error.”

“It has been brought to our attention that some sections of Article 1 are missing from the Constitution Annotated website,” the LOC said in a Bluesky post yesterday. “We’ve learned that this is due to a coding error. We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon.” A banner on the site said it was experiencing “data issues.”

About four hours later, it announced the missing sections had been restored. Upkeep of the country’s digital resources “is a critical part of the Library’s mission,” it asserted, though it had temporarily misplaced the Constitution, “and we appreciate the feedback that alerted us to the error and allowed us to fix it.”

As the above suggests, at the time people started to notice this, only part of Article I was missing. The Wayback Machine seems to show it was all gone at one point, so it may have been restored (or was deleted) in sections rather than all at once. No explanation has been forthcoming as to why someone would do that, or maybe more to the point, why someone was monkeying with this particular webpage at all. “Coding errors” don’t happen by themselves (unless you used generative AI, in which case that was the “coding error” you made).

Conspiracy theories were and are running rampant as to who did this and what the motive might have been. They were doing that in my own brain too for probably 12–15 seconds, but after just a little thought it seems likely incompetence is the culprit here, not malice. For one thing, apart from possibly the President, who thinks windmills kill whales, no one would think that deleting the Constitution from a website would have any legal effect.

Nor would deleting just parts of the Constitution, but I admit that like many others, I looked at which parts of Article I vanished and my brain started to form theories based on that “evidence.” But that too lasted only seconds, I think for two reasons.

One, that isn’t how authoritarian governments work. They use the same words a democratic government would. They just ignore them or pretend they mean something very different. For example, the Soviet Union had a constitution that guaranteed lots of neat stuff like “freedom of speech,” “freedom of the press,” an independent judiciary, and the right of the republics to secede. And if you were interested in discussing any of that, they would gladly invite you to a conference in Siberia for that purpose. Same words, though.

Two, it was hard to see a motive for deleting the part of Article I that was missing, namely part of section 8 and all of 9 and 10. That would get rid of that pesky habeas corpus, for example, and the Emoluments Clause, which forbids any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under” the United States from accepting anything from a foreign power (unless Congress consents). Not that any Person would ever violate those. But you can see how an authoritarian might not like them. But it’s hard to see why they would care much about section 10, which prohibits states from doing things they don’t really do these days anyway, or why they would take away Congress’s power “to provide and maintain a Navy” (§ 8 cl. 13). They like navies. Also it would be weird to do that while preserving its power “to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.” Hard to do if you don’t have boats.

So while I am not aware of any “coding error” that would cause that text to just disappear, apart from the error of selecting the relevant code and erroneously hitting the “delete” button, it seems very unlikely to me that there was any strategy here, much less a conspiracy. I would like to know why anyone felt the need to tinker with text that, with one exception, hasn’t changed in quite a while. See “Guy Who Got a C on Constitutional-Amendment Paper Gets Constitution Amended” (Mar. 20, 2017). But I don’t think we need a second-shooter theory to explain this one.

       

Related Stories

• Justice Harlan on Dirty Movies: “By Jove! Extraordinary!”
• Counsel, Would You Be Surprised to Learn This Case Does Not Exist?
• Lawmaker Wants to Regulate Self-Checkout Lanes

 

Not good.

Trump and Hegseth have been on a firing spree throughout the military, especially when it comes to removing women from senior positions. This past winter, the administration fired Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first female chief of naval operations; Admiral Linda Fagan, the first female Coast Guard commandant; and Lieutenant General Jennifer Short, who was serving as the senior military assistant to the secretary of defense, all within weeks of one another. I taught for many years at the U.S. Naval War College, where I worked under its first female president, Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield. In 2023, she became the U.S. military representative to the NATO Military Committee—and then she was fired in April, apparently in part because of a presentation she gave on Women’s Equality Day 10 years ago.

At this point, women have been cleared out of all of the military’s top jobs. They are not likely to be replaced by other women: Of the three dozen four-star officers on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, none is female, and none of the administration’s pending appointments for senior jobs even at the three-star level is a woman.

Some observers might see a pattern here.

Discerning this pattern does not exactly require Columbo-level sleuthing. Hegseth’s antipathy toward women in the armed forces was well documented back in 2024 by none other than Hegseth himself. In his book The War on Warriors, Hegseth decried what he believed was “social engineering” by the American left: “While the American people had always rejected the radical-feminist so-called ‘Equal Rights Amendment,’ Team Obama could fast-track their social engineering through the military’s top-down chain of command.” (This is probably why Hegseth also fired the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General C. Q. Brown, who is a Black man; Brown was let go for ostensibly being too interested in promoting diversity in the armed forces.)

For generations right-wingers have been decrying the “social engineering” mentioned above, arguing that using recruitment and training policies in the nation’s single largest institution to effect social goals detracted from effectiveness and “lethality.”* But over time changes in the character of war have resulted in a world where “lethality” is less dependent upon large biceps and reckless courage than it is on careful planning, well thought-out coordination of different elements of power, and effective management of personnel. An effective military organization in the 21st century looks much more like a well-run corporation than a Spartan phalanx. And it turns out that right wingers… didn’t want an effective and lethal military so much as they wanted to effect their own social goals through management of the nation’s single largest institution.

Thus, Pete Hegseth. And women and minorities are sideline while trans-Americans are tossed to the curb.

*”Lethality” in modern military-speak is kind of just a synonym for “good,” rather than an aspiration to kill people. To illustrate I have written a short play:

• Colonel: “Is this coffee lethal?
• Captain: “Yes, sir.”
• Colonel: “Oh well then I’ll have a cup.”
• Captain: “Cream and sugar?”

Photo credit: By U.S. Navy – https://www.navy.mil/Leadership/Flag-Officer-Biographies/BioDisplay/Article/3148210/admiral-lisa-franchetti/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=146184751

The post Women in Hegseth’s Military appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.