stock here: they don’t even pretend to present evidence. poal kind of took over for Voat which was great until they got bought out just before the election. poal is a daily read, but when the chips are down, they are going to be controlled by the marxists. 2 full on anti-Trump article on the home page today.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-vance-promised-no-wars-140114433.html
The writeup is vague enough that it is hard to know whether it is describing a real, specific executive action or simply reframing a broader policy shift. The key phrase is:
“Trump’s intervention resolved the standoff…”
That could mean several very different things:
- A direct executive order.
- White House pressure on the FDA.
- Appointment or removal of officials.
- A policy memo changing enforcement priorities.
- Simply declining to enforce or defend stricter rules.
The article never specifies which happened, and that omission matters.
A few things stand out as potentially misleading or incomplete:
- It says the FDA commissioner “stepped down in protest,” but does not name the commissioner.
- It does not identify the specific vaping rule, docket, or regulation involved.
- It does not say whether the action was:
- a formal rule change,
- enforcement discretion,
- litigation settlement,
- PMTA authorization issue,
- or flavored cartridge guidance.
- It implies direct causation between donations and policy outcome without documenting the mechanism.
Historically, under Donald Trump there actually were mixed signals on vaping:
- Around 2019, after the EVALI lung injury scare and youth vaping concerns, Trump publicly discussed strong flavor bans.
- Later, the administration backed away from a full prohibition and implemented narrower restrictions, mainly targeting cartridge-based flavored products while leaving open-tank systems more available.
- Tobacco companies like Altria and British American Tobacco generally favored regulations that smaller vape companies could not easily survive, because large firms could absorb compliance costs.
So the reality was often more nuanced than “Trump helped Big Tobacco.” In some cases:
- strict FDA regulation actually benefited large tobacco firms,
- while hurting small independent vape shops and e-liquid makers.
That is why the article feels incomplete: it collapses several competing interests into one simplified narrative.
The most important missing detail is:
What exact action did Trump take?
Without that, you cannot evaluate:
- whether it was pro-tobacco,
- pro-vaping,
- anti-youth vaping,
- anti-small-business,
- or simply deregulatory.
A credible article would normally include:
- the FDA rule number or guidance,
- the commissioner’s name,
- dates,
- specific companies involved,
- and quotations from the White House or FDA.
This one reads more like a politically framed summary than a fully sourced policy analysis.