Bad Bunny and Billie Eilish, you are famous because of your talents as musicians, not because of your idiotic views on politics and President Trump.

The anchorman, who was arrested over a protest in Minnesota, told an audience in Manhattan, “I’m not going to let them turn me around,” and sang lines from a civil rights era freedom song.

State Representative James Talarico used the word “mediocre” in connection with a former House member who is Black. The controversy has repercussions for a key contest.

In the latest example of his mercurial negotiating style, President Trump went from dropping his ask for a $200 million fine to demanding $1 billion from the university.

A resolution honoring the life of Corporal Grade One Matthew T. "Ty" Snook of the Delaware State Police. (02/03/2026)

Attorneys for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly argued that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was brazenly violating the separation of powers by seeking to punish a member of Congress for public statements.

President Trump’s extraordinary comments were the latest iteration of his unsubstantiated claims that U.S. elections are rigged as Republicans face potentially big losses next year.

Republicans are in full-out panic mode over their plunging support with Hispanic voters after losing a special election in a ruby-red Texas district over the weekend.

On Saturday, a Democrat posted a 14-point victory in a Fort Worth-based state senate district President Donald Trump had won by 17 points in 2024, a staggering swing that was powered by significant shifts across the district’s Hispanic areas.

It's the clearest sign yet that the GOP’s newfound coalition that propelled Trump’s return to the White House may be short-lived. Many Republicans are warning the party needs to change course on immigration, focus on bread-and-butter economic issues and start pouring money into competitive races — or risk getting stomped in November.

Polling already showed that Republicans were rapidly losing support from Hispanic voters. But the electoral results were a confirmation of that drop.

“It should be an eye-opener to all of us that we all need to pick up the pace,” U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Republican from a majority-Hispanic district in South Texas, said in an interview. “The candidate has to do their part, the party has to do their part. And then those of us in the arena, we have to do our part to help them as well.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday that the election was a “very concerning outcome.” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick posted on X that the results should be a “wake-up call for Republicans across Texas. Our voters cannot take anything for granted.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said “a swing of this magnitude is not something that can be dismissed.”

Taylor Rehmet, the Democrat who flipped the state Senate seat over the weekend, made huge gains with Hispanic voters amid national pushback to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics and widespread economic frustration across demographic groups.

Ahead of the election, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — an immigration hardliner who bused migrants to Democratic-led cities during the Biden administration — said the White House needed to “recalibrate” on its immigration crackdowns following the shooting of Alex Pretti by an immigration officer in Minneapolis.

“That imagery coming out of Minnesota in the last few days has had a huge impact on not only Hispanic voters, but swing voters, independents in Texas and around the country,” said Texas GOP consultant Brendan Steinhauser. “What's transpired there has definitely led to a bit of a political backlash.”

As Republicans panic, Democrats are feeling a renewed jolt of optimism after they swept statewide races last year in Virginia and New Jersey. They believe they found a winning formula with Rehmet, whose working-class biography as a union leader, Air Force veteran and Lockheed Martin machinist resonated with voters, along with his narrow focus on local issues like maintaining public school funding.

Tory Gavito, president of Democratic donor network Way to Win, said she received excited texts from several major donors over the weekend after the win. “Knowing it's a wave year, this just adds a little bit of more wind in our sails,” she said. “It's not just a question around Texas, it's a question around Texas and Mississippi and Alabama and what does this mean for lots of places.”

Texas Republicans have the most to worry about of any in their party about a major Hispanic snapback towards Democrats.

Hispanics are now the largest ethnic group in Texas, making up 40 percent of the population. Trump carried Latinos in the state in 2024, exit polls showed, a massive swing from earlier elections, and Republicans had been making especially strong gains with rural, more conservative Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley. But as Texas Democrats look to win a U.S. Senate election for the first time since 1988, they’re eyeing an opportunity to pull those voters back in.

“They are leaving in droves and going in the opposite direction,” said Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Business Council. “This is a warning sign.”

And Texas Republicans also banked on retaining at least some of their newfound Hispanic support when they redrew their Congressional map last year, creating several majority-Hispanic districts that Trump would have carried by double digits last year. That includes rejiggering district lines for two top GOP targets, Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, as well as a third district outside San Antonio.

“They've banged three of these five new Republican seats on a demographic that Democrats were never able to turn out for 30-40 years, " said GOP consultant and Trump critic Mike Madrid, referring to young, Hispanic male voters. But now, Trump’s hardline immigration policies have “angered and upset them.”

Samuel Benson and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.

The organization’s latest guidance is a departure from the prevailing views of several other major medical organizations.

Testy remarks from a president who has frequently singled out female journalists for criticism and personal attacks.

President Donald Trump wasted no time in responding to the deaths of two U.S. citizens this month during protests against an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Trump and other top administration officials made inaccurate or unsupported statements within hours of the incidents, a departure from how previous presidents responded in similar situations, experts told us.

Hours after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good on Jan. 7, Trump claimed that Good was “very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” The president included a video clip of the shooting, captured from a distance, but closer video showed the agent wasn’t run over.

Then, hours after federal agents shot and killed Alex Pretti on Jan. 24, Trump posted a picture of a handgun and wrote, “This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go – What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers? The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves — Not an easy thing to do!”

Department of Homeland Security officials also made statements that Pretti “approached” officers with a handgun, “violently resisted” an attempt to “disarm” him, and “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” As we’ve explained, in the immediate aftermath of a shooting, it’s difficult to know exactly what happened, but bystander videos contradicted DHS’ account. They don’t show Pretti holding the gun or threatening officers with it.

The president, himself, softened his remarks, saying the next day, “We’re reviewing everything and will come out with a determination” on whether the federal agent’s actions were justified. And the civil rights division of the Justice Department is now investigating the Pretti killing.

All four of the experts we spoke to — a group that included political communications researchers and historians — said that Trump’s remarks following these deaths marked a shift from previous presidents, and even from some of his own rhetoric during his first term.

Trump speaks to reporters on Jan. 27 about the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Photo by Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images.

“As with so much else Trump, yes — he’s extremely different,” Matt Dallek, a political historian and professor at George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management, told us in an interview.

“He’s much more extreme and far more untethered from facts and the reality on the ground,” Dallek said, noting that, importantly, it’s not just the president, but also his officials who have taken this tack.

Others we spoke to made the same point.

“Without question,” there has been a shift, Roderick Hart, a professor emeritus of communication at the University of Texas at Austin with expertise in politics and the mass media, told us. “And it has very little to do with this particular situation in Minneapolis. He’s a rhetoric-first guy. … And he’s chosen his people who have exactly the same instincts,” Hart said.

Presidents are normally judicious, particularly when reacting to an event, Hart said. But, “Trump talks before the event is even finished.”

The Minnesota fatal shootings, however, involved federal agents, while examples from past presidencies concern state or local officers. 

For example, former President Barack Obama — who was in office at a moment when the ubiquity of camera phones and the rise of social media converged to shine light on the killings of unarmed Black men and boys — took more time before publicly expressing his thoughts.

One of the first illustrations of this moment didn’t actually feature an officer, but rather a neighborhood watch volunteer in central Florida, who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. About a month after that, in response to a reporter’s question, Obama said, in part, “Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me, so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now. But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together — federal, state, and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

Obama continued: “But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

In 2014, a year that saw several high-profile police killings, Obama waited three days to publicly respond to the Aug. 9 death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a local police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, sparking widespread protests.

Then, Obama said in a statement: “The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve.”

The former president waited three weeks — when he was asked about it in an interview — to comment on the shooting death that year of 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland. In a lengthy answer to a question about how responsible he felt his administration was for addressing police shootings, Obama said, “Well, I think an enormous amount. Not just because, as president, you’re always responsible for what happens in this country and you’ve got to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, but because of my particular experiences that I bring to this office.”

And Obama took more than four months to make remarks on the July 17, 2014, death of Eric Garner in New York — the former president had waited until a grand jury decided not to indict the police officer who had choked Garner. In December 2014, Obama said, in part, “My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation. But I want everybody to understand that this week, in the wake of Ferguson, we initiated a Task Force whose job it is to come back to me with specific recommendations about how we strengthen the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color and minority communities that feel that bias is taking place; that we are going to take specific steps to improve the training and the work with State and local governments when it comes to policing in communities of color; that we are going to be scrupulous in investigating cases where we are concerned about the impartiality and accountability that’s taking place.”

Before the era of the camera phone, the Rodney King case in 1991 grabbed national attention when a man in a nearby apartment videotaped Los Angeles police beating King during a traffic stop.

Then-President George H.W. Bush waited almost three weeks before commenting. Then, in a prepared statement on March 21, 1991, he said, in part, “We’ve all seen those shocking videotapes and have seen transcripts of the incident in Los Angeles. And without getting into the specifics of the case, those terrible scenes stir us all to demand an end to gratuitous violence and brutality. Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend. This administration will investigate possible breaches of federal law aggressively and will prosecute violators to the full extent of the law. … I was shocked by what I saw in that tape–that violence. And to the degree there’s a federal role here, I’m confident we will go the extra mile to see that that is fulfilled.”

Going back even further, to the 1970s, Dallek said, “Even Nixon’s comments in the wake of the Kent State killings were far more restrained and measured than anything Trump has offered the American people.”

On May 4, 1970, the same day that the National Guard shot and killed four students during a protest of the Vietnam War at Kent State University in Ohio, then-President Richard Nixon issued a statement that said, “This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy. It is my hope that this tragic and unfortunate incident will strengthen the determination of all the Nation’s campuses–administrators, faculty, and students alike–to stand firmly for the right which exists in this country of peaceful dissent and just as strongly against the resort to violence as a means of such expression.”

When he was asked about the proper role of the National Guard — which, in this case, had been called in by the state’s governor — at a press conference four days later, Nixon said, “I want to know what the facts are. I have asked for the facts. When I get them, I will have something to say about it. But I do know when you do have a situation of a crowd throwing rocks and the National Guard is called in, that there is always the chance that it will escalate into the kind of a tragedy that happened at Kent State. If there is one thing I am personally committed to, it is this: I saw the pictures of those four youngsters in the Evening Star the day after that tragedy, and I vowed then that we were going to find methods that would be more effective to deal with these problems of violence, methods that would deal with those who would use force and violence and endanger others, but, at the same time, would not take the lives of innocent people.”

“There are some echoes, I think,” Dallek said, comparing Trump’s recent statements with Nixon’s. But Nixon was much more measured in the aftermath, Dallek said, adding that “he never branded [the students] as traitors or domestic terrorists.” (After the Good killing, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called Good’s actions “domestic terrorism,” and Noem used the same phrase to describe Pretti’s actions.)

Minneapolis Cases Involved Federal Agents

One distinction between these previous examples and the current situation is that agents deployed in Minneapolis are federal, rather than state or local, Barbara Perry, a professor of governance at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, which focuses on the American presidency, told us in an interview.

Since most previous cases of officer-involved shootings implicated state or local police, presidents could distance themselves, she said, and say that the Justice Department would investigate.

“So they could keep at arms length the legal process while expressing their sorrow,” Perry said.

Similarly, Guian A. McKee, a professor of public affairs at the Miller Center, told us in an email, “Trump administration statements about the recent killings in Minneapolis have been immediate, they have been political, and they have had little regard for facts or willingness to wait until evidence is clear.”

He went on to explain that one reason for this may be that “the recent killings have been done by federal agents acting as instruments of the president’s own policies and the tactics chosen to implement them. This has not been the case in most other law enforcement-involved deaths, where the officers were state or local. So the actions and their consequences fall much closer to the president.”

Near the end of his first term, Trump made conciliatory remarks about a high-profile case that involved local police officers, not federal agents.

Two days after the May 25, 2020, killing of George Floyd, whose death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer led to widespread protests, Trump wrote on Twitter, “At my request, the FBI and the Department of Justice are already well into an investigation as to the very sad and tragic death in Minnesota of George Floyd.”

And, two days after that, on May 29, he said at the start of an event for business leaders, “I want to express our nation’s deepest condolences and most heartfelt sympathies to the family of George Floyd. A terrible event. Terrible, terrible thing that happened. I’ve asked that the Department of Justice expedite the federal investigation into his death and do it immediately, do it as quickly as absolutely possible. … It should never be allowed to happen, a thing like that.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Trump’s Immediate Speculation on Shootings Bucks Presidential Norms appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Kareem N. Dockery Medal of Honor Act (02/03/2026)

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to James Capers, Jr., for acts of valor as a member of the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. (02/03/2026)

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to John W. Ripley for acts of valor during the Vietnam War, and for other purposes. (02/03/2026)

In unveiling new dietary guidelines, federal health officials have claimed they are correcting past guidance that created a “generation of kids low in protein” and that Americans should get “dramatically” more of the nutrient. While some individuals may benefit from more protein, Americans are not generally protein-deficient.

In fact, many Americans, including a majority of children, already meet or come near to meeting the lower end of the higher daily protein goals promoted in the new guidelines, which range from 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. There’s some uncertainty about how much protein people should consume for optimal health. Multiple factors affect protein needs, which may be higher for older adults, as well as for people who are building muscle through exercise or actively losing weight.

Despite this nuance, officials portrayed the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, released Jan. 7, as righting a clear wrong, while misleadingly stating or implying that Americans in general need to eat significantly more protein. The new guidelines include an inverted food pyramid that prominently features a large steak, and the website promoting the guidelines proclaims, “We are ending the war on protein.”

A phone shows the new food pyramid. Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

“The old guidelines had about half the protein that you need,” Dr. Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, said during a Jan. 9 appearance on CNN. “Look at the consequence of the old, corrupt food pyramid: a generation of kids low in protein, struggling with muscle mass, weak, having trouble concentrating, addicted to ultraprocessed foods and refined carbohydrates.”

“The science was clear enough on proteins that we should dramatically increase our input of proteins,” Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during a Jan. 21 rally.

Nutrition experts we interviewed objected to the idea that Americans in general need to “dramatically increase” protein intake, or that children are broadly deficient. HHS did not reply to an email asking for more information to support these claims.

“When you look at most intake surveys, most Americans were getting in the range of intakes that is being recommended, close to 1.2” grams per kilogram of body weight per day, Stuart Phillips, a professor who studies the effects of nutrition and exercise on skeletal muscle at McMaster University in Canada, told us.

For reference, the recommended range would translate to around 108 to 144 grams of protein per day for a 199-pound man or 94 to 125 grams per day for a 172-pound woman, the average weights for U.S. adults. A 3-ounce serving of chicken breast has 26 grams of protein; a 3-ounce serving of cooked salmon has 19 grams; half a cup of cooked lentils or white beans has 9 grams; and a cup of milk has 8 grams.

Moreover, “probably less than 5% of the U.S. population eat diets that are consistent with the previous dietary guidelines,” Wayne Campbell, a Purdue University professor who studies nutrients, foods and dietary patterns, told us. “It is an inappropriate attack on past guidelines to say that the guidelines are the reason why everybody eats a poor diet and is not as healthy as they hopefully would be.”

“There is no evidence of widespread protein deficiency in the U.S. population,” Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told us.

Previous editions of the dietary guidelines did not give a particular figure for the amount of protein people should eat, experts said. Hu explained that a different group of experts helps set daily recommendations for specific ranges of protein and other nutrients.

“Who is going to track how many per grams per kilogram body weight of protein” they are eating? Wendi Gosliner, who leads research projects at the University of California’s Nutrition Policy Institute, told us, noting that the guidelines are meant to guide federal food programs and nutrition education by providing advice that is “digestible” for the general public.

Raising protein intake recommendations requires data showing “widespread protein inadequacy” or that there are benefits to eating more protein beyond the minimum, Hu said. “We don’t have any of those data at this point to substantially increase protein intake recommendations” for the general population, Hu said. He added that an argument could be made for relatively high protein intake for certain segments of the population, including people on weight loss drugs, older adults and people engaged in physical activity that builds muscles.

Some experts are supportive of the protein recommendations in the new guidelines.

Phillips, who was not involved in the guidelines, said that the new range is “more in line with what I would recommend,” agreeing the evidence is particularly strong for certain subgroups and depends on physical activity level. However, he disagreed with the implication that prior guidelines led to widespread deficiency.

Claims that the old food pyramid “produced a ‘generation of children low in protein’ or broadly impaired muscle mass or cognition are not supported by direct evidence,” Phillips told us. “Childhood health challenges are far more plausibly linked to excess energy intake, poor diet quality, physical inactivity, and high consumption of ultra-processed foods than to insufficient protein per se.”

(To be clear, the new food pyramid does not replace the original 1992 food pyramid people may remember, which was replaced by another, less hierarchical pyramid in 2005 and then MyPlate in 2011.)

“My takeaway from all of it is that we’ve elevated protein in people’s thinking, it’s front and center, and we gave people very specific goals,” Donald Layman, a protein biochemist and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told us. “I think we’ve made an enormous step forward in clarity.” Layman, who is also a food company consultant, owns a fat loss company that sells meal replacement shakes, although he told us he has lost money on this latter endeavor.

Layman and nutritional physiologist Heather Leidy of the University of Texas at Austin co-authored reviews of the effects of the new recommended protein range on weight management and nutrient adequacy for HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agencies that produce the guidelines.

Unusually, Layman, Leidy and seven additional scientists were asked to perform these reviews in under three months, according to STAT. A 20-person committee of nutrition researchers had previously spent years identifying research questions, reviewing the literature and formulating recommendations. The scientific advisory committee does not write the guidelines, but their conclusions inform them. The guidelines in the past have been credited to a list of HHS and USDA staff, although this year’s guidance document does not name authors.

Muddled Messages on the Role of the Dietary Guidelines

Makary has repeatedly said that the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans increased recommended daily protein intake by “50% to 100%.”

It’s true that the new recommended intake of 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day is 50% to 100% above the Recommended Dietary Allowance of 0.8 grams per kilogram per day for adults. (Children have somewhat higher RDAs, when measured per kilogram of body weight.) These RDAs were established to set baselines for nutrients to prevent deficiency in the vast majority of Americans.

But to be clear, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not set RDAs, Campbell explained, which are instead set via a process led by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academies of Sciences Engineering, and Medicine. 

The RDA is “not a recommendation for people to purposefully try to eat that amount of protein,” Campbell said, but rather represents an amount people should not fall below. “If you’re eating 1.0 gram per kilo, 1.2 or 1.4 — or even very few people eat 1.6 — then that’s all within a range … that the 0.8 would support.”

The RDAs, along with other values, inform the dietary guidelines. However, Campbell said that the guidelines are meant to recommend which food types to eat, not particular nutrient intakes. Researchers do modeling to ensure what they are recommending “meets or moderately exceeds” the nutrient minimums, he said. He was not involved in the current guidelines but served on the scientific advisory committee for the 2015-2020 guidelines.

Campbell said that the current RDA was based on the best evidence available in the early 2000s, when it was last reviewed, and that there’s “inconsistent” evidence since on whether it should be changed. Ann Yaktine, director of the Food and Nutrition Board, told us that protein is among the nutrients set to be updated, although she said she could not predict a timeline. Until that update is complete, she said, the current RDA “will remain,” adding that RDAs and other nutrient-related values inform the dietary guidelines, “not the reverse.”

For Most, No ‘Dramatic’ Increase in Protein Needed

Americans mostly exceed the minimal requirement to prevent protein deficiency and, in many cases, even meet the higher goal set in the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“The consensus has not been that there is a dramatic shortage of protein in this country,” Gosliner said, contrary to Kennedy’s claim that Americans need to “dramatically” increase intake.

Using survey data on American diets collected by the U.S. government, researchers have estimated that adults on average get near or even slightly above 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day — the bottom of the range now recommended by the dietary guidelines.

“Because the intake of protein is already pretty high, especially animal protein, in the U.S. population, there is no evidence that further increasing protein intake, especially in a major way, will confer significant health benefit,” Hu said.

However, Layman pointed out that there’s variation in how much protein Americans consume. The people who already consume protein within the new recommended range do not need to increase their intake, he said, but some people “need to dramatically increase” protein intake.

A 2018 study on protein intakes between 2001 and 2014 shows that nonelderly American adult males on average exceeded 1.2 grams per kilogram, but that the average fell to closer to 1.0 as they aged. Women on average got between approximately 1.0 and 1.15 grams per kilogram per day, with amounts also falling with age.

Phillips also said there was room for improvement in protein consumption. “Many Americans meet the RDA only marginally, consume protein in uneven daily patterns, or obtain it largely from low-quality, ultra-processed sources,” he said. However, he added that most Americans “are not protein deficient in the clinical sense.” He cautioned against framing the new recommendations as being driven by deficiency, rather than a way to optimize certain outcomes.

Makary’s claim that prior guidelines led to “a generation of kids low in protein” also overstates the prevalence of protein deficiency in the U.S.

“It’s not like there’s growth stunting on a large scale in the United States because kids are protein deficient,” Phillips said. “It’s disingenuous at best and flat out wrong at worst.”

The 2018 study found that virtually no children age 8 and under ate less than the RDA — the level meant to prevent deficiency in the vast majority of the population. Protein underconsumption did rise with age for minors, with 11% of teenage boys and 23% of teenage girls not meeting the RDA.

Most age groups of children, both male and female, on average exceeded 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. The exception was adolescent girls, who consumed around 1.1 grams of protein per kilogram daily.

Layman acknowledged a relative lack of research on children and protein intake but also pointed to data showing that adolescents are at risk of not eating enough protein. He also listed the many poor health outcomes for American children today and argued that past guidance had preceded changes in kids’ diets.

“We know it’s not working,” he said. “We know that after the original guidelines in 1980 that mothers, thinking they were doing the right thing and avoiding cholesterol and saturated fat, switched from having eggs and bacon and milk at breakfast to having Pop-Tarts and Cap’n Crunch and orange juice.”

However, Hu detailed a long list of factors other than protein that have led to childhood obesity and other metabolic conditions. These include generally low-quality diets in an obesity-promoting environment, lack of sufficient sleep, inactivity and excessive social media use. “Those are all important drivers of adverse health incomes in children,” he said. “I don’t think protein inadequacy or protein deficiency is a major driver.”

“I wish I could tell you that I thought that … we just haven’t been feeding kids enough protein, particularly animal protein, and that’s what’s causing all of the very sad dietary-related challenges that kids are experiencing,” Gosliner said. “From my perspective, there is no evidence of that being true.”

More Protein May Benefit Certain Groups

A separate question is whether people are generally healthier if they consume substantially more protein than the RDA’s minimum requirement.

Campbell said that this is a challenging question to answer rigorously. “It’s very difficult to do controlled feeding studies of sufficient length to actually feed people different quantities of protein for months on end to see what happens to them,” he said.

“Where the science is strongest is in showing that certain groups benefit from protein intakes above the RDA,” Phillips said. “Older adults, people engaged in regular resistance or endurance training, individuals recovering from illness or injury, and those intentionally losing weight all appear to achieve better outcomes at intakes closer to 1.2–1.6 g/kg/day. In these contexts, higher protein supports the maintenance of lean mass, functional capacity, and satiety.” 

However, Hu criticized the new guidelines for setting this intake goal broadly, saying that they “are not designed for specific groups of U.S. adults,” but rather the general population. 

In a Jan. 7 opinion article in the Free Press, Makary and an FDA co-author referred specifically to benefits of higher protein intakes for weight loss. “Eating more protein in line with these recommendations consistently improves weight and body composition without harm,” they wrote. 

Layman and Leidy’s review, used to justify the new guidelines, concluded there was “moderate to strong” evidence that eating protein within the new recommended range promotes weight management.

However, Gosliner said that the review relied on studies of people engaged in weight loss, which are not necessarily generalizable. “They are extrapolating that to the entire population, which doesn’t make sense,” she said.

Layman countered that 75% of Americans are overweight or obese. “Should they basically be guidelines to keep people fat or to get people to ideal weight?” he said. He said that the weight loss studies included in his review in many cases included a maintenance period where people were not restricting calories.

But just because many Americans could benefit from calorie restriction or strength training does not mean that most adults are engaging in these behaviors, other experts said.

A higher protein diet while people are “purposefully energy restricting their diets to lose weight” may help people maintain lean tissue and muscle, Campbell explained. But protein is “not going to be a magical solution for you to actually permanently keep any weight off.”

“Protein without resistance exercise, during weight loss, does very little,” Phillips wrote in a Jan. 6 article on protein hype published in the Conversation. “Exercise is the major driver that helps lean mass retention. Protein is the supporting material.”

Phillips also pointed out that older adults, who can benefit from higher protein intake, make up an increasing share of the population. Protein is “important,” he said, “but it is not a stand-alone solution to metabolic health, childhood development, or healthy aging.”

Overall Diet Also Matters

The impact of the new dietary guidelines will depend on how people interpret them, some experts said.

Phillips wrote in his Conversation article that 2025 was the year protein “jumped the shark,” explaining a cultural context where it has been “oversold, overvalued and overhyped.” One concern, he told us, is that people will think they are doing “something good for their health” simply by increasing their protein intake, even if they are already consuming a relatively high amount.

If people eat “substantially” more protein, it could increase the risk of chronic disease, Hu said, explaining that consuming too much protein — and particularly animal protein — is associated with increased risk of chronic disease. “It depends on what comes together with the protein,” he said. For example, he said, people who consume more animal protein also consume more saturated fat, cholesterol and “other unhealthy components.”

A sign advertises protein cold foam at a Starbucks in October 2025. Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

“At the end of the day you are eating foods for multiple compounds and nutrients, not just protein,” Campbell said.

The guidelines themselves encourage eating a “variety” of protein foods from animal and plant sources, but the new food pyramid prominently features a large steak in the upper left-hand corner, with nuts and legumes further down.

The original committee tasked under the Biden administration with the scientific review for the dietary guidelines recommended an emphasis on consuming more peas, beans and lentils and less red and processed meat. The new dietary guidelines rejected this advice, with the exception of recommending against processed meat.

If someone replaced refined carbohydrates and sugar in their diet with plant protein, lean protein and eggs, that would be “reasonable,” Hu said. But people who consume a large quantity of animal protein tend to eat significantly less nutrient-dense plant protein sources, he said.

Further, Hu said, supermarkets are now stocked with numerous highly processed protein products. 

The new guidelines discourage eating highly processed foods. But Gosliner reiterated that people often do not follow dietary advice. “There’s no reason to think now that if protein is all the rage and people are saying, ‘Eat more protein,’ that you’re not going to start seeing ice cream with protein powder and cookies with protein powder.” 

When asked about the risk of the new guidance feeding into the current trend for promoting highly processed foods as sources of protein, Layman replied, “I think you need to step back and look at the guidelines. What’s the opening words? Eat real food.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Americans Don’t Need ‘Dramatically’ More Protein, Despite Officials’ Claims appeared first on FactCheck.org.

There are two kinds of people in the world: people who break things, and people who put the pieces back together.

World Cup ticket prices are not fair play.

In just one weekend, Melania's $7 million, three-day weekend haul has already out-grossed the entire domestic run of five 2025 movies nominated for this year's Academy Awards. Entertainment

Did you notice something... weird on your social media network of choice this past weekend? (I mean weirder than normal.) Something like various people posting about swarms of AI agents achieving a kind of collective consciousness and/or plotting together for humanity's downfall? On something called... Moltbook?