Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who almost never gives media interviews, sat for a rare podcast conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on “Verdict with Ted Cruz” in late August 2026, timed alongside Cruz’s new biography of Thomas, “Going Further: The Incomparable Clarence Thomas.” In the interview, Thomas thanked Cruz for publicly defending him during years of ethics controversies over undisclosed luxury travel and gifts from GOP megadonors, and separately delivered pointed remarks rejecting the idea that Black Americans are expected to hold uniform political views. The appearance renewed scrutiny of judicial-ethics standards at the Supreme Court, where Thomas is one of several justices — alongside Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — who have faced public criticism over financial disclosure and recusal practices.

Key Takeaways

• Justice Clarence Thomas gave a rare podcast interview to Sen. Ted Cruz on “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” timed with the release of Cruz’s biography of Thomas.
• Thomas thanked Cruz for publicly defending him during years of ethics controversy over undisclosed gifts and luxury travel from GOP-aligned donors.
• Thomas used the interview to reject the idea that Black Americans are expected to hold uniform political views, invoking the phrase “stay black and die.”
• The interview reignited scrutiny of Supreme Court ethics standards more broadly, given parallel controversies involving Justices Alito and Gorsuch.
• Cruz has defended Thomas publicly since at least 2023, arguing scrutiny of Thomas specifically was disproportionate compared to other justices.
• The appearance functions as joint promotion for Cruz’s new Thomas biography, “Going Further: The Incomparable Clarence Thomas.”

A Justice Who Doesn’t Do Media — Until Now

Justice Thomas has long been known as the member of the Supreme Court least likely to appear in any public media setting, making his sit-down on “Verdict with Ted Cruz” a notable departure. The timing was not incidental: Cruz has authored a new biography of Thomas tracing his path from poverty in segregated Georgia to more than three decades on the nation’s highest court, and the podcast appearance functioned as a joint promotional moment for that book as much as a stand-alone interview.

Thanking Cruz for “Standing Up”

Early in the conversation, Thomas directly thanked Cruz for his public defense during a period of intense scrutiny. “You’re one of the people who actually stands up, particularly at times when others seem to wither, and I appreciate it,” Thomas told Cruz, adding: “And more personally, when we, my wife and I, were under attack for obvious reasons, you and Mike Lee and some of the other friends would stand up. So I really appreciate that.” Cruz responded that Thomas’s acknowledgment was especially meaningful “coming from you because you’re someone who knows what that’s like and has done so in a way that has been… world-changing.”

The “obvious reasons” Thomas referenced trace to investigative reporting over the past several years revealing that Thomas accepted two decades of undisclosed luxury travel, real-estate transactions, and other financial benefits from Republican-aligned megadonors without reporting them on required judicial financial-disclosure forms — reporting that triggered ethics complaints, congressional calls for investigation, and renewed debate over the Supreme Court’s lack of a binding, independently enforced ethics code. Cruz has been a vocal public defender of Thomas throughout that period, telling Fox News in April 2023, regarding scrutiny of Thomas specifically, “They’re not looking at any other judges” — a framing Cruz has continued to advance.

On Race and Political Identity

Beyond the ethics discussion, Thomas used the platform to push back forcefully against what he characterized as external pressure to conform to a presumed political consensus based on race. “Then my question is, why is it then that you have a problem with me embracing certain ideas in certain books? What’s the difference?” Thomas said, addressing critics who he suggested view his conservative jurisprudence as a contradiction of an expected racial “script.” Referencing his early adulthood, Thomas recalled: “We had this saying that the only two things I have to do is stay black and die,” using the phrase to argue against any expectation — from either the left or right — that Black Americans must hold uniform political or ideological positions. Thomas also reflected on his own political evolution, telling Cruz that even during his younger, self-described “left-wing radical” period, Cruz suggested “you could see glimmers of the man that Clarence Thomas would become.”

Financial and Market Impact Section

Judicial Ethics as a Recurring Governance-Risk Story

While Supreme Court proceedings don’t move markets in the way Federal Reserve decisions or corporate earnings do, judicial-ethics controversies carry indirect but real financial relevance for the legal, media, and political-advocacy sectors. Continued scrutiny of undisclosed gifts and travel — not just for Thomas but, as the controversy has broadened, for Justice Samuel Alito (criticized over a flag controversy and a son’s brief employment at Treasury while Alito heard tariff-related cases) and Justice Neil Gorsuch (scrutinized over a real-estate transaction) — sustains a durable content and advocacy-fundraising ecosystem: legal-reform nonprofits, court-transparency watchdogs, and opposing political-media outlets all monetize sustained public interest in Supreme Court ethics coverage through membership drives, sponsored content, and advertising tied to legal-services and political-donation platforms, all of which carry above-average CPMs in the politics vertical.

Book Publishing and Media Monetization

Cruz’s biography of Thomas, released alongside this podcast appearance, represents a direct commercial angle: political biographies timed to coincide with media apparitions from their subjects routinely see meaningful sales lifts in their launch week, and publishing-industry analysts tracking political nonfiction as a category will be watching whether the rare-interview strategy — leveraging Thomas’s near-total media silence as a scarcity hook — translates into outsized initial sales relative to comparable judicial or political biographies released without a coordinated interview tie-in.

Confidence-in-Institutions Metrics

Public Supreme Court approval and trust polling — tracked regularly by Gallup, Pew, and Marquette Law School’s national survey — has trended downward over the multi-year period spanning the initial ethics revelations, and continued high-profile media moments involving the justices at the center of those controversies remain a factor pollsters and political-risk analysts cite when modeling public confidence in the judiciary, a metric with downstream relevance for how aggressively Congress pursues binding judicial-ethics legislation, itself a live and unresolved legislative question with implications for how the Court operates going forward.

Shanghai Ravioli Corporation recalled 24,900 lbs of frozen Buffalo chicken products over a missing federal inspection. Here’s the full product list, sell-by dates, affected states, and how to check if you’re impacted.

Key Takeaways

• Shanghai Ravioli Corporation of Boston, Massachusetts recalled approximately 24,900 pounds of frozen, not-ready-to-eat (NRTE) Buffalo chicken products on August 26, 2026.
• The recall (FSIS Recall 018-2026) is classified as High – Class I, the USDA’s most serious recall category, because the products were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and bear false USDA inspection marks.
• Two products are affected: “Buffalo Chicken Rangoon” (100-piece boxes) and “Benedetto’s Buffalo Chicken Mozzarella Stick” (120-piece boxes), both bearing establishment number “EST. 18004,” which does not hold a valid federal grant of inspection.
• Products were manufactured over nearly a full year — from July 8, 2025, to June 29, 2026 — with sell-by dates ranging from July 8, 2026, to June 29, 2027, meaning affected inventory could still be sitting in commercial freezers.
• The recall was shipped to foodservice locations across five New England states and was discovered through routine FSIS surveillance, not a consumer complaint or reported illness.

What Products Are Affected?

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) identified two specific recalled products:

• “BUFFALO CHICKEN RANGOON” — sold in cardboard boxes containing 100 pieces, with “Sell By” dates ranging from July 8, 2026, to June 29, 2027.
• “BENEDETTO’S BUFFALO CHICKEN MOZZARELLA STICK” — sold in cardboard boxes containing 120 pieces, with the same range of “Sell By” dates.

Both products bear the establishment number “EST. 18004” printed on the label — but critically, this number does not correspond to a valid federal grant of inspection, meaning the products were manufactured and labeled as though they had undergone required USDA oversight when they had not.

Why Was This Recall Issued?

Unlike many food recalls driven by contamination, illness reports, or allergen mislabeling, this recall centers on a regulatory compliance failure: the products were produced without the benefit of inspection, a designation that means the facility bypassed the federal oversight process required for meat and poultry products intended for interstate commerce.

The FSIS classified the recall as High – Class I, its most serious risk category, reflecting the agency’s determination that consuming or distributing uninspected product carries a reasonable probability of adverse health consequences — not necessarily because contamination has been confirmed, but because the entire chain of required safety verification was absent.

Use of false federal inspection marks is explicitly prohibited under both the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. FSIS noted this is not an isolated incident: a March 2026 FSIS alert flagged similar false-inspection-mark issues involving raw beef and pork products, suggesting this type of compliance failure has recurred across the industry in 2026.

Where Were the Products Shipped?

According to FSIS and follow-up reporting, the recalled products were distributed to foodservice locations across five New England states. Specific retail or foodservice distribution lists, when available, are typically posted on the FSIS website as part of the agency’s recall effectiveness verification process.

Because these products were shipped to foodservice locations rather than direct retail shelves, individual consumers may be affected indirectly — for example, through restaurants, cafeterias, or catering operations that purchased and served the recalled items — making direct consumer awareness more challenging than with a typical grocery-store recall.

Consumer and Foodservice Action Guide

If You Are a Foodservice Operator

• Check your freezer inventory immediately against the product names, establishment number (EST. 18004), and sell-by date range listed above.
• Do not serve or sell any matching product, even if it appears visually normal — the issue is a documentation and inspection failure, not necessarily a visible contamination defect.
• Contact Shanghai Ravioli Corporation directly with questions: Jordan Wu, QC Manager, at 617-989-3833 or shanghaicorp@gmail.com.
• Document your inventory and disposal of any recalled product for your own compliance records, particularly if you operate in a jurisdiction with local health department reporting requirements.

If You Are a Consumer

• If you believe you purchased or were served an affected product, particularly given the wide production window (nearly a full year), do not consume any remaining product matching the description.
• Contact the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline toll-free at 888-674-6854 (888-MPHotline) or via email at MPHotline@usda.gov with any food safety questions.
• Submit complaints through the USDA’s Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System, available 24 hours a day, if you experienced any adverse health effects potentially linked to consumption.
• Monitor for updates to the retail or foodservice distribution list on the FSIS website, since more specific distribution information may be published as the recall investigation continues.

What This Recall Means for Food Safety Compliance

For Food Manufacturers

This case is a pointed reminder that regulatory compliance failures can trigger the same severity of recall classification as contamination events. Manufacturers should treat inspection status verification — for their own facilities and for any co-packers or supply chain partners — as a critical, ongoing compliance function rather than a one-time certification.

For Foodservice Distribution Partners

Given that these products moved through foodservice channels across multiple states before the compliance gap was identified, this recall illustrates the traceability challenge inherent in B2B food distribution. Foodservice operators should maintain robust supplier verification processes, including periodic confirmation of establishment numbers against the USDA’s public database of federally inspected establishments.

Broader Industry Pattern

With FSIS flagging a similar false-inspection-mark issue in raw beef and pork products earlier in 2026, this recall is part of a recurring compliance theme this year — one that regulatory and legal observers suggest may prompt increased FSIS surveillance activity across the broader meat and poultry processing industry.

Actionable Takeaways

• Foodservice operators: Cross-check current freezer inventory against the specific product names, establishment number, and date ranges listed in this recall today.
• Consumers who consumed a recalled product and experienced illness: Document symptoms, retain any available product packaging or receipts, and consult a medical professional; food safety and product liability attorneys can also advise on whether legal options may be available depending on individual circumstances.
• Industry stakeholders: Treat this recall as a signal to audit supplier and co-packer inspection status verification processes, particularly given the recurring nature of false-inspection-mark violations flagged by FSIS this year.

Frequently Asked Questions

What should I do if I have Shanghai Ravioli Buffalo chicken products in my freezer?

Do not consume or serve any product matching “Buffalo Chicken Rangoon” or “Benedetto’s Buffalo Chicken Mozzarella Stick” with establishment number EST. 18004 and the affected sell-by date range; dispose of it or return it according to guidance from the retailer or foodservice supplier, and contact the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 888-674-6854 with any questions.

Why was the Shanghai Ravioli chicken recalled if no illnesses were reported?

The recall was issued because the products were produced without the required federal inspection and bore false USDA inspection marks, which the FSIS classifies as a High – Class I risk regardless of whether contamination or illness has been confirmed, since the entire required safety verification process was bypassed.

Can I get a refund for recalled Shanghai Ravioli chicken products?

Consumers and foodservice operators with questions about refunds or replacement should contact Shanghai Ravioli Corporation directly at 617-989-3833 or shanghaicorp@gmail.com, as the company is responsible for coordinating its own recall remedy process with affected customers and distributors.

New documents contradict RFK Jr.’s Senate testimony about his 2019 Samoa trip, prompting calls for a criminal investigation. Here’s the legal background and what it could mean for U.S. health policy.

Key Takeaways

• Newly obtained letters contradict Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repeated Senate testimony that his 2019 trip to Samoa “had nothing to do with vaccines.”
• The letters, reported by The Guardian and the Associated Press, show Kennedy told Samoa’s prime minister before the trip that he wanted to investigate the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine used there.
• Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) has called for a criminal investigation, and government watchdog group American Oversight has formally asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Kennedy violated federal law by making false statements to Congress.
• Making false statements to Congress can be a federal crime, though legal experts note there is conflicting information about whether Kennedy was formally under oath during his confirmation hearings, and prosecutions of this kind are historically rare.
• The controversy comes amid an active measles outbreak in the United States, with critics directly linking current public health conditions to Kennedy’s leadership and historical anti-vaccine advocacy.

What the New Documents Show

During his Senate confirmation hearings in early 2025, then-nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was repeatedly questioned about a 2019 trip he took to Samoa, which coincided with a measles epidemic that killed 83 people, many of them children. Kennedy told multiple senators, under direct questioning, that his visit had “nothing to do with vaccines”:

• To Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR): “I went there, nothing to do with vaccines. I went there to introduce a medical informatics system that would digitalize records in Samoa and make health delivery much more efficient.”
• To Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA): “My purpose in going down there had nothing to do with vaccines.”
• Kennedy also told senators he did not influence Samoans’ vaccination decisions during the trip.

According to reporting first published by The Guardian and corroborated by the Associated Press, newly obtained letters show that before the trip, Kennedy wrote to the Samoan prime minister explicitly stating he wanted to investigate the MMR vaccine used in the country — directly contradicting his sworn testimony to Congress. Critics allege Kennedy’s visit, and his broader anti-vaccine messaging, contributed to reduced vaccination rates in Samoa ahead of the outbreak that followed his departure.

The Legal Question: Did Kennedy Commit a Crime?

The Relevant Law

Making false statements to, or concealing material facts from, the federal government can constitute a federal felony under U.S. law. Legal commentary following the revelation has noted that knowingly lying to Congress is a crime, “although it is rarely prosecuted” in practice — a critical caveat for anyone following this story with expectations of a swift legal outcome.

Complicating Factors

• Oath status: There are conflicting reports about whether Kennedy was formally under oath during his confirmation hearings. Legal experts note that even without a formal oath, providing false information to Congress during an official confirmation process can still carry legal exposure under certain federal statutes governing false statements to government bodies.
• Prosecutorial discretion: Any criminal referral would need to go through the Department of Justice, which currently operates under the same administration that appointed Kennedy — a dynamic that multiple commentators have noted makes near-term prosecution highly unlikely.
• Political mechanics: Sen. Wyden has explicitly acknowledged this dynamic, stating his intent to pressure Senate Republicans for a criminal referral now, while also signaling that Senate Democrats would prioritize accountability for Kennedy “when Democrats retake the majority.”

Who Is Calling for Action

• Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, called for a criminal investigation, stating: “RFK’s platform is built on lies and grifts that leave a trail of dead children in their wake. There are consequences for lying to Congress.”
• American Oversight, a government watchdog organization, sent a formal letter to the Department of Justice on August 27, 2026, requesting an immediate investigation into whether Kennedy violated federal law by making false statements to Congress.
• Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) connected the controversy directly to current public health conditions, telling CNN that America’s ongoing measles outbreak could be “tied directly to the horrific leadership of Secretary Kennedy.”

The Public Health Backdrop

This controversy is unfolding against the backdrop of an active measles crisis in the United States, which critics argue has been exacerbated by policies pursued under Kennedy’s leadership at HHS. Notable recent developments include:

• Kennedy joining President Trump for the signing of an executive order on childhood vaccines in August 2026.
• Ongoing friction between Kennedy and Republican senators with medical backgrounds, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who has periodically pushed back on vaccine-related policy positions and CDC guidance changes.
• Changes to CDC vaccine advisory board membership and vaccine-autism guidance language that have drawn criticism from public health researchers and some members of Kennedy’s own party.

What This Means for Future Health Policy

Regulatory and Legislative Risk

Regardless of whether a criminal investigation ultimately materializes, the controversy carries several concrete implications for organizations operating in the health policy and healthcare compliance space:

• Increased congressional oversight scrutiny of HHS actions and communications is likely to intensify, particularly if Democrats regain a Senate majority in the 2026 midterms, as Wyden has explicitly signaled.
• Vaccine policy volatility may continue, with public health, healthcare provider, and insurance stakeholders needing to monitor CDC guidance changes closely given the political environment surrounding HHS leadership.
• State-level public health responses may diverge further from federal guidance, particularly in jurisdictions where officials are skeptical of current HHS vaccine messaging, creating potential compliance complexity for national healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies.

Political Risk Heading Into the Midterms

The controversy adds to a growing list of oversight flashpoints that could shape the 2026 midterm campaign narrative around health policy, particularly in districts with competitive Senate or House races where vaccine policy and public health trust are salient issues.

Actionable Takeaways for Stakeholders

• Healthcare and pharmaceutical organizations should monitor congressional oversight activity closely, as intensified scrutiny of HHS could affect regulatory timelines and guidance stability.
• Public health communicators should prepare for continued public confusion or distrust around vaccine guidance stemming from ongoing controversy at the HHS leadership level.
• Legal and compliance teams tracking government affairs should watch for any DOJ response to the American Oversight referral request, as it could signal broader shifts in how the administration handles internal accountability questions.
• Political and policy analysts should track how this controversy factors into 2026 midterm messaging, particularly given explicit statements from Senate Democrats about prioritizing HHS accountability if they regain the majority.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did RFK Jr. lie to Congress during his confirmation hearings? Newly obtained letters reported by The Guardian and the Associated Press appear to contradict Kennedy’s repeated Senate testimony that his 2019 Samoa trip “had nothing to do with vaccines,” showing he told Samoa’s prime minister beforehand that he intended to investigate the MMR vaccine used there — though it is ultimately a determination for investigators and, potentially, courts to make.

Could RFK Jr. face criminal charges over his confirmation testimony? Making false statements to Congress can constitute a federal crime, but legal commentators note such prosecutions are rare, there is conflicting information about whether Kennedy was formally under oath, and any referral would need to proceed through a Department of Justice that currently operates under the same administration that appointed him.

How does this controversy affect current U.S. vaccine and health policy? The controversy is unfolding amid an active U.S. measles outbreak and ongoing friction between Kennedy and some Senate Republicans over vaccine guidance, suggesting continued volatility in federal public health messaging and potential intensified congressional oversight of HHS regardless of the investigation’s ultimate outcome.