ReportWire

Tag: federal government

  • Why Democrats Shut Down the Government

    [ad_1]

    A few weeks ago, Ezra Klein, the influential liberal columnist at the Times, effectively called on Democrats to shut down the government, in an op-ed headlined “Stop Acting Like This Is Normal.” He looked back to March, when Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, rallied enough votes to help keep the government open ahead of a previous funding deadline; the Democratic base howled with rage, but Schumer argued that a shutdown risked weakening checks on President Donald Trump and further empowering Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to slash through federal agencies. Klein agreed that these were reasonable positions at the time, but now, he argued, times have changed. The existing curbs on Trump’s power look weak anyway, and his Presidency has moved out of its “muzzle-velocity” stage—a blitz of actions aimed at overwhelming opponents—and into a phase of “authoritarian consolidation” that Democrats can’t in good conscience sanction. A shutdown, Klein wrote, would turn the “diffuse crisis” of Trump’s corruption into an “acute crisis” that focusses popular attention—though the Party, he conceded, would need a strong message.

    According to Puck, Klein’s argument drove frenzied discussion among Democrats in Congress, not all of whom were on board. (One House Democrat said, succinctly, “Fuck Ezra.”) Most agreed, however, that there would be a shutdown this fall, be it when government funding ran out, on September 30th, or following a temporary extension to that deadline, and that the only remaining question was whether the Party’s message would highlight Trump’s constitutional abuses—a crisis that must be addressed, for some; a sop to élite Times readers, for others—or a pocketbook issue such as health care. It soon became clear that Democrats planned to go to the mat on the latter, demanding a guaranteed extension of expiring Obamacare subsidies and a reversal of cuts to Medicaid and other health programs that Republicans passed in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer. They did push back on one of the aforementioned constitutional abuses, too: the Administration’s aggressive attempts to usurp congressional spending authority. Last week, Russell Vought, the chief architect of that effort, warned (or, perhaps, promised) that the Administration would use a shutdown to enact permanent cuts to the federal workforce. Democrats dismissed the threat on the somewhat contradictory ground that the Administration can’t legally follow through with it, and that it has already been firing workers anyway; Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, called Vought a “malignant political hack,” for good measure. Trump agreed to meet with Schumer and Jeffries, then cancelled, then agreed again. The meeting, on Monday, did not yield a deal. Afterward, Trump posted a foul A.I.-generated video depicting Jeffries with a sombrero and a mustache, alongside Schumer, who could be heard, in a fake voice, promising health care to “illegal aliens” who “can’t even speak English” and thus “won’t realize we’re just a bunch of woke pieces of shit.”

    By this point, the Beltway Bible Politico had proclaimed that a shutdown was “all but inevitable.” John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, refused to budge from the position that, while Republicans would be open to discussing health care with Democrats, they would do so only with the government open; Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, didn’t even call the chamber back into session before the shutdown deadline. Yesterday, a vote on a Republican plan to extend funding through November peeled off a couple of senators who caucus with Democrats, but still fell five votes short of the necessary sixty-vote threshold; a Democratic counterproposal failed by a wider margin. Trump said that “a lot of good” might come from a shutdown if it allowed the government to make “irreversible” cuts to programs that Democrats like, and posted another racist video of Jeffries, this time with an A.I.-generated mariachi band of Trumps playing in the background. One minute after midnight, the government did indeed run out of funds. The end is not yet in sight.

    The history of government shutdowns began in earnest in the nineteen-eighties. Even then, they were typically short and often revolved around a handful of issues. Not that there even was an issue all of the time: in 1982, the government briefly closed because lawmakers were otherwise engaged at social and fund-raising functions. In 1995, congressional Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, triggered the first shutdown of significant length—it would go on for three weeks—over a broad spending dispute with the Clinton Administration. (Gingrich was also miffed, apparently, about having to use a rear door to disembark the flight back from the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s funeral.) In 2013, Republicans shut down the government again, this time for a little more than two weeks, in an attempt to defund Obamacare. The longest shutdown to date—thirty-five days—came in Trump’s first term, as part of an attempt to boost funding for his border wall. (Before that, Schumer had shut down the government over the treatment of the Dreamers, but he relented after a few days, when the G.O.P. offered a separate vote.)

    In each of these three major cases, the Party forcing the issue did not get what they wanted, and took the greater share of the blame among the public, too. (The separate vote on Dreamers never came to anything, either.) Over the years, several theories have emerged to explain how shutdowns are won and lost. A former Clinton aide once suggested that it’s hard for congressional opponents to beat a sitting President, given his vastly greater ability to corral attention—but then Trump managed to defeat himself in the shutdown over wall funding. (It probably didn’t help when Trump, in a televised meeting with Democratic leaders, said, “I will be the one to shut it down. I won’t blame you for it.”) Others have noted that Democrats—traditionally the “governing Party,” as my colleague Susan B. Glasser put it this week, with a deep-seated “responsibility gene”—have reliably been seen to prevail in shutdown fights. But Schumer didn’t, when it came to the Dreamers. It might simply be the case that the Party forcing the issue has a structural disadvantage. Shutdowns “don’t work,” the political scientist Matthew Glassman told the Times recently. Each time, the resistant side has demanded “a reopening of the government while pointing out all the ways the shutdown was hurting federal workers and American citizens. Eventually, the shutdown coalition cracked, the government reopened, they didn’t win their policy major objectives, and they were worse off politically going forward.”

    Various liberal commentators agreed, in the wake of Klein’s essay, that a shutdown was a bad idea for Democrats. And yet, as the deadline loomed, there were also legitimate reasons to temper such defeatism. For starters, several early polls suggested that voters were primed to blame Republicans this time; the Party, after all, controls the White House and both chambers of Congress, and shutdowns do not often happen under such conditions. Although the long-term political consequences of shutdowns have been contested in the past, it’s not really clear that Republicans paid any durable price for those they triggered in 1995 and 2013; indeed, one could argue that, while both failed in a substantive sense, they helped establish a mythology—of uncompromising, base-pleasing own-the-libbery—that seems to have helped the Party in the long run. If Democrats do wind up getting most of the blame for this shutdown, will anyone really care by the time the midterms roll around, a thousand and one fresh scandals from now? Will anyone even remember?

    [ad_2]

    Jon Allsop

    Source link

  • US government shuts down with funding deal out of reach on Capitol Hill

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — The federal government has officially shut down after a deadlocked Congress failed to pass a funding measure to keep the lights on – and no one inside the Capitol knows what will happen next.

    A weekslong stalemate between Republicans and Democrats over enhanced Obamacare subsidies has turned into the first government shutdown since 2019. Leaders of both parties are privately and publicly adamant that they will not be blamed for the funding lapse. Republicans insist Democrats need to simply agree to extend current funding for another seven weeks. But Democrats refuse to do so without major concessions for lending their votes to pass any funding measure in the Senate.

    Senators left the Capitol on Tuesday night in a state of deep uncertainty about how long the shutdown could last. The Senate is on track to vote again late Wednesday morning on the same GOP funding plan — which Republican leaders have vowed to put on the floor day after day until enough Democrats yield and agree to reopen the government. But many Democrats have declared publicly they will not relent, even as President Donald Trump and his budget office have ramped up threats to use the shutdown to further shrink the size of government — in some cases permanently.

    “It’s going to be very harmful for working people,” a visibly exasperated GOP Sen. Josh Hawley told CNN moments after Democrats blocked the bill. “I don’t know how it ends. They don’t know how it ends,” he said. “You’re asking millions of people to pay a really high price.”

    In the Democratic party, the pressure is now on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to keep more of his members from yielding to the GOP pressure campaign to support their seven-week funding bill and agree to negotiate later on the Obamacare subsidies. That task will become tougher with every day of a shutdown, particularly as Trump has threatened to cancel programs favored by Democrats. Inside the party, there’s growing concern about the damage that the White House budget office could cause across the country that can’t be easily reversed by Congress.

    Asked if he’s concerned that the White House could do permanent damage to the government, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse told CNN: “Of course, who wouldn’t be? We have a madman in charge.”

    He said Democrats now need to “make sure that Trump is held responsible for all of that, pays the price for it.”

    Some cracks have begun to show: Two more members flipped their positions to back the GOP bill on Tuesday night in the final vote before a shutdown: Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania also backed the GOP bill and has criticized his party’s strategy during the shutdown fight.

    At least two other Democrats appeared to be seriously contemplating their vote on the floor Tuesday — which Republicans took as another sign of weakening in the Democratic party’s stance.

    Senior Democrats had long conversations with Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, both of New Hampshire, on the floor before they ultimately voted with Schumer and the rest of their party. After Shaheen cast her vote, she went straight to Senate Republican Leader John Thune and spoke with him privately for several minutes.

    Asked later about what appeared to be extensive lobbying ahead of her vote: Shaheen told reporters: “No, I was just having conversations with other people who are thinking long and hard about how we move forward.”

    She added that she ultimately decided to vote against the bill to force Republicans into talks on ACA subsidies: “I thought getting this done so that we can now hopefully get back to the negotiating table was the best approach.”

    The beefed up premium subsidies, which were first approved as part of a Biden administration Covid-19 rescue package in 2021 and later extended, make Obamacare coverage more affordable for lower-income Americans and enable more middle class households to qualify for assistance.

    They spurred a record 24 million people to sign up for policies for 2025. If the enhanced subsidies are allowed to lapse at year’s end, premiums are expected to skyrocket by 75%, on average, for 2026, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group.

    Meanwhile, GOP leaders insisted there are other Democrats who are anxious about a shutdown and want to find an off-ramp to the looming crisis.

    “There are Democrats who are very unhappy,” Thune told reporters Tuesday night, adding that he is “having conversations” with some Democrats that he declined to name. “There are others out there I think who don’t want to shut down the government but are being put in a position by their leadership that ought to make all of them very uncomfortable. Tonight is evidence, there is some movement there.”

    Schumer, however, was adamant that the American people would see Republicans as causing the shutdown — not his own party — because of the looming health care cliff: “At midnight, the American people will blame them for bringing the government to a halt.”

    But asked by CNN whether he can guarantee that nine of his Democrats would not cross over and vote with Republicans, the New York Democrat did not answer.

    “Our guarantee is to the American people. We’re going to fight as hard as we can for their health care, plain and simple,” Schumer said, when pressed about the GOP’s plan to put up the same funding plan again and again until enough Democrats yield.

    Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii was hopeful but also doubtful pressure to cut a deal will build on Republicans from their own constituents who will face higher health care costs when their enhanced subsidies expire at the end of this year.

    “Let’s hope that they come around to the fact that they’re hurting a lot of their own constituents by not negotiating on the health care issue,” she said. “But you never know, because they apparently don’t care.”

    GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — who is seen as a potential dealmaker on any ACA subsidies deal — told reporters that she believes there still is room to negotiate on health care.

    “I think we do have to talk about the impending cliff that we’re looking at with the premium tax credits. What that’s going to look like, I think, is absolutely a subject of discussion,” Murkowski said.

    “I hope that people who are interested in seeing this shutdown come to a quick end are willing to talk about ways that we might be able to accomplish that,” Murkowski said.

    Shutdown impact

    The shuttering of the federal government means that hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be furloughed, while others who are considered essential will have to keep reporting for work – though many won’t get paid until the impasse ends. Still others, however, will continue collecting paychecks since their jobs are not funded through annual appropriations from Congress.

    About 750,000 federal staffers – who earn a total of roughly $400 million each day – could be furloughed, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It noted that the figure could change if the shutdown is prolonged.

    Americans will also feel the shutdown in a variety of ways. While some essential activities will continue, other services will shut down. While air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration employees will remain on the job, staffing shortages have led to snarled flights and longer security lines during past shutdowns.

    It remains unclear whether visitors will be able to go to the more than 400 national park sites during the shutdown, but the Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo will be open at least until October 6 using budget funds from previous years. In the past, some states have said they will use their own funds to keep their national parks open during the impasses.

    Senior citizens, people with disabilities and others will continue to receive their monthly Social Security payments, while jobless Americans will keep getting unemployment benefits as long as their state agencies have enough administrative funds to process them. Medicare and Medicaid payments will also continue to be distributed.

    Medical care and critical services for veterans will not be interrupted during a government shutdown. This includes suicide prevention programs, homelessness programs, the Veterans Crisis Line, benefit payments and burials in national cemeteries. However, the GI Bill Hotline will be suspended, as would assistance programs to help service members shift to civilian life. Also, the permanent installation of headstone and cemetery grounds maintenance will not occur until the shutdown is over.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Ferris, Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju, Tami Luhby and CNN

    Source link

  • Camp Pendleton is an oasis from SoCal urban sprawl. Feds now consider unprecedented development

    [ad_1]

    In the sweeping Southern California metropolis spanning from Santa Barbara to the Mexico border, Camp Pendleton has long remained the largest undeveloped stretch of the coastline.

    The 17 miles of beach and coastal hills has, since World War II, proven critical in preparing soldiers for amphibious missions. The bluffs, canyons and mountainous terrain that comprise the interior of the base has been fertile training ground for those sent to conflicts in the Middle East and beyond.

    But change may be on the horizon.

    The United States Department of Defense is considering making a portion of the 125,000 acre base in northwestern San Diego County available for development or lease in what, if successful, would be unprecedented for the military installation.

    “There’s no place in Southern California like Camp Pendleton when it comes to open space along the coast,” said Bill Fulton, a professor of practice in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at UC San Diego.

    Marine recruits rest while the rest of the remaining platoons in their company to catch up at Camp Pendleton in 2020.

    (Nelvin C. Cepeda/San Diego Union-Tribune via AP)

    In late August, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan conducted an aerial tour of Camp Pendleton and visited with Marines at the base where he had “initial conversations about possible commercial leasing opportunities” by the Department of Defense, Phelan’s spokesperson Courtney Williams told The Times.

    “These opportunities are being evaluated to maximize value and taxpayer dollars while maintaining mission readiness and security,” Williams said in a statement. “No decisions have been made and further discussions are needed.”

    Details about the sites being considered for commercial lease remain unclear. Officials with Camp Pendleton declined to comment to The Times.

    A view of the sign at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

    A view of the sign at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    Discussions over the 83-year-old base comes at a time when the Trump administration is more aggressively trying to use public lands to raise money for the federal government and rolling back protections on open space.

    The administration this month proposed rescinding a Biden-era rule that sought to protect public lands from industrial development and instead prioritizing the use of the land for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, timber production and livestock grazing.

    Secretary Doug Burgum has repeatedly emphasized that federal lands are untapped assets worth trillions of dollars.

    “We believe that our natural resources are national assets that should be responsibly developed to grow our economy, help balance the Budget, and generate revenue for American taxpayers,” he said in a statement to Congress in May.

    A man takes in the view from the Southbound I-5 Aliso Creek Rest Area of the surrounding Camp Pendleton property.

    A man takes in the view of Camp Pendleton property. Camp Pendleton has long remained the largest undeveloped stretch of the coastline in California.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    While there has been development on Camp Pendleton those projects have solely been for military uses. A large hospital was recently added, and there are various buildings for the base’s more than 42,000 active duty personnel.

    Camp Pendleton has won praise for balancing national security needs with environmental preservation.

    In 2022, Camp Pendleton was named the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s military conservation partner of the year for its efforts to support the recovery of several species, including the tidewater goby, coastal California gnatcatcher, the arroyo toad and southern California steelhead.

    Conservation and management of the least Bell’s vireo, California least tern, and western snowy plover have resulted in significant increases to on-base populations of these species, according to the agency.

    A marine walks through the Santa Margarita River running through Camp Pendleton, where the arroyo toad can be found.

    A marine walks through the Santa Margarita River running through Camp Pendleton, where the arroyo toad can be found.

    (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

    In addition to endangered populations, the base is home to a herd of North American bison, one of only two wild conservation herds of bison in California.

    Past efforts to build more on the camp have not been popular with the public.

    In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Marine Corps put forth a plan to build 128 homes for officers and their families on a 32-acre bluff at San Mateo Point near Trestles Beach, one of the nation’s most famous surfing spots. The California Coastal Commission ultimately rejected the project.

    In 2021, the Department of the Navy issued a request for information to seek feedback on hosting “critical energy and water infrastructure resiliency projects” on a portion of Camp Pendleton.

    In the document, the department sought information on long-term partnerships to plan, design, construct and operate facilities that could include energy generation, transmission and storage, microgrid technologies, water desalination, drought mitigation, stormwater management, reuse or alternative use of decommissioned energy infrastructure, high speed fiber communications, data centers or residential, commercial or industrial purposes.

    It is not clear whether any potential projects were identified from the request for information.

    Motorists travel the 5 Freeway with military housing at San Mateo Point in the background.

    Motorists travel the 5 Freeway with military housing at San Mateo Point in the background.

    (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)

    NBC News reported that funds from development on Camp Pendleton could potentially fund Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense project, citing defense sources. But officials have not publicly specified where funds would be allocated.

    Absent specifics, it’s challenging for people in the areas immediately around the base to know what to expect and how to prepare, Fulton said.

    “Are we talking about little shopping centers or high-rise hotels?” he said. “You would assume that the military has certain constraints that they would want to impose to protect their activities, but we just don’t know.”

    Given the base’s coastal location, development on the site could certainly be fruitful for the federal government. Developers have long had their eye on smaller swaths of coastal land in Southern California. Years-long battles between developers and environmentalists were waged in the fight over proposed housing and commercial developments at Bolsa Chica in Huntington Beach and Banning Ranch in Newport Beach. Ultimately, those projects were scrapped.

    Camp Pendleton, bordered by San Clemente to the north and Oceanside to the south, opened in 1942 during World War II at a time when the military was looking for large places to train soldiers, particularly for amphibious missions in the Pacific. It became a permanent installation two years later and has trained thousands of service members, sending troops to battle in Operation Desert Storm and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Camp Pendleton has a deeply entwined relationship with its southern neighbor, Oceanside, once a sleepy beachside town turned military city and recreation hub.

    In 1940, the city’s population was 4,652. Ten years later, it had swelled to more than 12,800 and grew further as the United States entered the Korean War and more service-connected families moved into the region, according to census data.

    Development on the base would certainly have an effect on Oceanside, city leaders say.

    Service members and their families frequently travel off the base to surrounding communities to shop and dine out, providing a steady customer supply for local businesses including those that cater heavily to Marines including dry cleaners, tailors, barbershops and military surplus stores. The base’s regional economic impact is more than $6 billion dollars annually, according to the city.

    “I think it would be very concerning to see large scale development without collaboration with local municipalities,” said Oceanside Deputy Mayor Eric Joyce. Joyce said the city hasn’t yet been given any insight into the federal government’s plans for the base.

    “We have neighborhoods that are literally right up to the gate, who are very impacted when there are changes in traffic or other developments there,” Joyce said, adding that the city has a deep respect for the base and any shifting away from its original mission of training Marines would “be deeply concerning.”

    [ad_2]

    Hannah Fry

    Source link

  • Northwest Native Nations could lose hundreds of millions in federal funding, report says

    [ad_1]

    Lucy Suppah, a member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, attends a protest in Madras on Saturday, April 5, 2025. (Photo by Julia Shumway/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

    A new report from Portland State University found that budget cuts under President Donald Trump’s new spending bill threaten nearly half of federal funding allocated to federally recognized Native American and Alaska Native nations last year.

    Roughly $530 million of the $1.19 billion allocated to Northwest tribal nations in fiscal year 2024 — used to fulfill the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations to Native American and Alaska Native tribes — is at risk of being cut. The congressionally allocated funds serve myriad functions for tribes in the Northwest, including providing clean drinking water, affordable housing, schools, transit and land management. Funding is decided by Congress on a yearly basis and can be disbursed over a period of time that exceeds the calendar year it is allocated.

    “All across the board tribes are worried about the funding cuts that are happening right now,” said Serina Fast Horse, who is Lakota and Blackfeet and serves as the co-director of the Northwest Environmental Justice Center, which provides grant application assistance and advising to Indigenous communities in the Northwest.

    Fast Horse says there are serious concerns among Northwest tribes about further cuts to vital programs ranging from health and wellness to early childhood education. The report warns of vulnerabilities to programs and grants that tribes rely on for resilience in the face of climate change, like improving home weatherization, managing forestland and renovating aging homes. Federal dollars to help Northwest tribes bolster their infrastructure against the increasing threats from wildfire, drought and sea-level rise could also be slashed.

    The Portland State report found millions in Clean Air Act funding could also go away — the Environmental Protection Agency earmarked nearly $2 million in 2024 for Northwest tribes in a series of grants for monitoring air quality and pollution. Much of the congressionally allocated funding has yet to be distributed to tribes and is now at risk of being cut altogether.

    The report demonstrates how proposed major reductions across the federal government, including at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, could reverberate across Indian Country.

    Tribal officials shared concerns that drastic cuts could cause the federal government to fall short of trust and treaty obligations that mandate the federal government support tribal services, uphold tribal sovereignty and protect tribal treaty resources — responsibilities that courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have repeatedly upheld.

    “All the funding reductions addressing clean water, air and dealing with climate change have impacts on the Tribes’ culture and treaty protected resources,” said William E. Ray Jr., chair of the Klamath Tribes.

    Researchers declined to disclose specific projects at risk of elimination for fear of retaliation, and a number of tribes and tribal organizations declined to comment to InvestigateWest, citing similar concerns.

    “Trump and Congressional Republicans are wreaking havoc on Tribal communities with their ‘Big, Ugly BETRAYAL’ of a law that arbitrarily cuts many programs supporting folks in Indian Country, where chronic underfunding is already impacting services and exacerbating disparities,” said Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat.

    He added that the federal government plays an outsized role in funding essential services to tribal communities, including health care, education and public safety, and that the Inflation Reduction Act took important steps in advancing funding for water infrastructure and environmental programs for tribes.

    In 2024, Clean Air Act related funds were used to fund 15 projects for 12 Northwest tribes. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Tulalip Tribes are some of the Native American nations set to receive research grants for improving air quality and pollution monitoring. Among 12 tribes selected for funding, several of them focus on minimizing exposure to poor air quality and harmful pollutants to their elderly and medically vulnerable residents. Other tribes intend to study impacts of pollutants on important first foods — culturally significant staple foods consumed before colonization — that officials say are critical to improving health outcomes for their citizens.

    Researchers at PSU examined 469 programs impacted by President Trump’s reversal of former President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14008, which sought to address climate change and created a number of environmental justice initiatives. Sixty of the programs identified by researchers were specifically named in the Republican-led spending bill for cuts, and 17 of those provided funding directly to tribes. The programs accounted for roughly 35% of all federal investments in tribes in 2024. The report says not all of the funding will be cut, but a significant portion of it could be.

    The cuts come at a time when Native Americans and Alaska Natives already have limited access to federal services and funds, according to a December 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog. It found when tribes had to compete with other entities for federal funding, they may receive a small portion of the total amount, and that limited access to federal services and funds contributes to known disparities for Native Americans and Alaska Natives compared to other Americans.

    Of the $20.15 billion in federal funding that went to tribes between 2010 and 2024, tribes within the boundaries of Idaho received a total of $304.56 million, Washington tribes $1.81 billion, Oregon tribes $690.76 million, and Alaska Native tribes received $2.35 billion.

    Other programs at risk of being cut include the EPA’s embattled Environmental Justice Government-to-Government Program, which funded initiatives by states, tribes and local governments to support activities that lead to measurable environmental or public health impacts.

    Under that program, in 2023, the EPA awarded the Tulalip Tribes $977,000 to work in conjunction with the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakama Nation to create a tool to detect which homes are at greatest risk from wildfire smoke infiltration and dangerously hot weather, which are growing issues affecting both communities.

    While the federal government has repeatedly affirmed its obligations to tribes, actual allocations remain disproportionately small compared to population figures. In 2024, Native American tribes received just 1.7% of federal energy and environment spending, despite Native people making up 2.9% of the U.S. population.

    Between 2010 and 2024, tribes within the bounds of Idaho, Washington and Oregon received roughly $2.81 billion in federal investments in energy and environmental infrastructure, which represents roughly 14% of the $20 billion in allocations made to tribes nationwide.

    The researchers determined that programs funded under the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s 2022 climate, health and tax law, are at particular risk of being eliminated. The funding allocated to tribes under the IRA represented a historic investment in infrastructure in Indian Country, more than doubling energy and infrastructure investment from $1.51 billion nationwide to $3.94 billion in 2024, around .04% of total federal grant spending obligations for 2024.

    “When you put them in the context of how much money the federal government actually spends on certain things, it’s pennies on the dollar,” said Sophie Lalande, a co-author of the PSU report.

    Soon after taking office and without consulting Congress, the Trump administration suspended some grants that tribal communities used heavily, such as community change grants, distributed by the EPA’s Offices of Environmental Justice and of External Civil Rights Compliance during the Biden administration, to support climate resilience and clean energy. Distributed as a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, the grants were suspended as part of the Trump administration’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

    The grants helped tribal communities in the Northwest tremendously, according to Fast Horse.

    “They were providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to communities for infrastructure improvements, like access to clean drinking water and climate resilience hubs, just really essential pieces of community development for health and safety of communities,” she said.

    The report stresses a multiplier effect from investments made in tribal communities. Infrastructure dollars invested on tribal lands often serve as anchors for broader local development, since tribal lands often share regional infrastructure like power grids, roads or water systems with non-Native communities, with the power of dollars rippling outward into surrounding rural towns and cities.

    Bobby Cochran, a researcher with Portland State University and senior project manager at the National Policy Consensus Center, co-authored the report.

    “We just haven’t made a major investment in infrastructure since the ’60s or ’70s, so this wasn’t fluffy,” he said. “It’s really important stuff that was just trying to play catch-up.”

    InvestigateWest is an independent news nonprofit dedicated to investigative journalism in the Pacific Northwest. Visit investigatewest.org/newsletters to sign up for weekly updates.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • WA leads states in suing federal government over sex education defunding

    [ad_1]

    The state of Washington is leading several other states in suing the federal government over threats to pull teen reproductive and sexual health education.

    Attorney General Nick Brown is leading a group of 16 states that are suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    The states are claiming that the federal government’s pulling of funding from reproductive and sexual health education programs is illegal.

    They say that the government is defunding these programs for political reasons.

    The new stipulations are a request of the Trump administration that requires states to remove language affirming students’ gender identity.

    The group claims that the administration is requiring them to use medically unsupported and incomplete program content, which goes against congressional law.

    State law in Washington requires that inclusive language in program materials.

    “The federal government’s far-reaching efforts to erase people who don’t fit one of two gender labels is illegal and wrong—and would deny services to millions more in the process,” Brown said. “These young people are treated equally under Washington state and federal laws, and we intend to make sure of it.”

    Washington receives $2.6 million in funds from the HHS through the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), along with other states that are part of the lawsuit.

    The states that have joined the lawsuit include Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Immigrants arrested during federal takeover of D.C. police are suing ICE and other federal agencies

    [ad_1]

    In August, President Donald Trump instituted a federal takeover of the D.C. police department after declaring a “crime emergency” in the city. Thousands of federal law enforcement officers and National Guard members were deployed, resulting in a surge of not only criminal arrests but also civil immigration arrests. Over 40 percent of the arrests made during Trump’s 30-day federal takeover of D.C. were immigration related, according to the Associated Press. Now, a lawsuit is challenging these arrests, saying that many of them violated federal law.

    The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by four plaintiffs and CASA, a national immigration rights organization, alleges that federal immigration officers did not follow proper procedures when making arrests during Trump’s D.C. crackdown. Although immigration agents are allowed to make an immigration arrest without a warrant, the officer must have “reason to believe” that the individual is in the U.S. in violation of any immigration law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. This “reason to believe” standard is considered equivalent to probable cause in immigration cases.

    Four of the five named plaintiffs in the case were arrested without a warrant, detained, and ultimately released on immigration charges during Trump’s federal takeover. In each instance, federal officers failed to either inquire about the plaintiff’s legal status or assess whether they were a flight risk, or both, before making an arrest. 

    One plaintiff, Jose Escobar Molina, was approached and immediately handcuffed by plainclothed unidentified federal agents outside of his apartment building on the morning of August 21, despite having a valid Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador since 2001 and living in D.C. for 25 years. The officers did not have a warrant and never asked for Escobar Molina’s name, identification, immigration status, or about his ties to the community—ties that are often used to assess whether someone is a flight risk. 

    According to the lawsuit, when he told the officers that he had legal immigration status, they replied, “No you don’t. You are illegal.” After being put into a vehicle, he pressed the issue again and told the officers he had “papers.” To which the driver responded by yelling, “Shut up, bitch! You’re illegal.” 

    After spending the night in immigration detention, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervisor realized that Escobar Molina did, in fact, have legal status, and he was finally released. 

    Another plaintiff, named only as “N.S.” in the suit, spent nearly four weeks in immigration detention before being released, despite having a pending asylum application after fleeing Venezuela. Federal agents arrested N.S. in a Home Depot parking lot without asking any questions about where he lived, for how long, or anything else about his ties to the community. Without making an individualized determination as to whether he posed a flight risk, federal officers “pulled N.S. out of the driver’s seat, threw him against the car, handcuffed him, and provided him a clear bag in which to place his belongings, before placing him in the back of a van,” according to the complaint. 

    Both men, along with the other plaintiffs arrested without a warrant, now live in fear of being arrested and detained again as immigration arrests continue in the nation’s capital.   

    In a post on X, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserted that the lawsuit’s allegations are “disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” and defended DHS law enforcement’s use of “reasonable suspicion” to make arrests, rather than conducting “indiscriminate stops.” 

    But the issue at the heart of the complaint is not whether the officers had the “reasonable suspicion” to make the stops—stops that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote could be made by considering factors like race, ethnicity, and speaking Spanish—but whether officers had probable cause to make the warrantless arrests that followed. 

    “They’re not even doing the bare minimum as far as asking individual questions about a person’s immigration status,” CASA Legal Director Ama Frimpong, told The Washington Post. 

    Federal law requires immigration officers to have “reason to believe” an individual is both in violation of an immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. These measures are in place to protect individuals from wrongful arrest and detention. But clearly, laws meant to protect people’s rights are dispensable when standing in the way of Trump’s mass deportation goals. 

    [ad_2]

    Autumn Billings

    Source link

  • The federal government could shut down soon. Here’s what you need to know

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — A possible federal government shutdown is only days away as congressional lawmakers remain at odds over funding the government beyond September 30.

    Although Republicans control Capitol Hill and the White House, they need at least seven Democrats in the Senate to join them to pass a spending package under the chamber’s rules. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, however, is demanding any funding bill contain an extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, along with several other items, to get his party’s support. GOP leaders want an extension of funding for seven weeks, with additional money for security for the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

    President Donald Trump does not appear interested in working out a compromise. He canceled a meeting this week with Democratic leaders and said Thursday that their demands were “totally unreasonable.”

    If the impasse is not resolved, the coming government shutdown could be unlike any other in recent memory. While no two shutdowns are exactly the same, Trump and the White House Office of Management and Budget have already signaled that they are willing to use a totally different playbook — urging agencies to downsize workers in programs whose funding has lapsed and which don’t align with Trump’s priorities.

    Trump is no stranger to government shutdowns. The most recent one occurred during his first term, starting in late December 2018 and lasting 35 days, the longest on record.

    Here’s what we know about the looming government shutdown:

    What is a government shutdown?

    Congress must provide funding for many federal departments and functions every fiscal year, which begins on October 1. If lawmakers fail to pass a spending package for the full year or extend funding for a shorter period, known as a continuing resolution, then many agencies and activities must shutter until Congress appropriates more money.

    Lawmakers have yet to pass through both chambers any of the 12 appropriations bills that make up the federal discretionary spending budget. So the coming shutdown would be considered a full shutdown.

    During prior impasses, Congress approved annual funding for certain agencies, which allowed them to continue operating while other federal departments went dark. That situation is known as a partial shutdown.

    Since 1980, there have been 14 government shutdowns, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    What is the shutdown deadline?

    The shutdown will begin on October 1, first thing Wednesday morning, if Congress doesn’t act before that.

    What programs and payments will stop?

    Every government shutdown differs somewhat, but typically functions that are critical to the protection of lives and property are deemed essential and remain open. Agencies file what are known as contingency plans that detail what operations will continue and how many employees will remain on the job, many of them without pay.

    However, in an unusual move, OMB this time is not posting agencies’ shutdown contingency plans on its website. Instead, the plans are hosted only on each agency’s site — making it harder to assess how the Trump administration will handle the shutdown and which activities it will deem essential. (OMB noted in a memo earlier this week that it had not yet received updated contingency plans from every agency.)

    Previous shutdowns have stalled food inspections; canceled immigration hearings; and delayed some federal lending to homebuyers and small businesses, among other impacts.

    In the most recent shutdown, students had trouble getting needed tax documents from the Internal Revenue Service to get financial aid for the spring semester, and the US Department of Agriculture warned that it could only guarantee to provide food stamp benefits through February.

    Notably, important benefit programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, will continue. Also, key services — including law enforcement and border patrol — are typically deemed essential and aren’t affected.

    Some government functions can continue – at least for a certain period of time – if they are funded through fees or other types of appropriations. For instance, when a shutdown loomed in the fall of 2023, the Internal Revenue Service said it could use some of the funding it received from the Inflation Reduction Act to keep preparing for the upcoming filing season – updating tax forms and technology systems and hiring and training staff.

    If the government shuts down next month, it’s possible that immigration, border patrol and defense activities funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law in July, would continue. The relevant agencies’ contingency plans should specify what functions would remain operational.

    Agencies and administrations have some amount of choice in which services they deem essential, said Molly Reynolds, interim director of the governance studies program at the Brookings Institution.

    In Trump’s first term, Reynolds noted that the administration took some measures to make the shutdown less painful, such as allowing the IRS to process tax refunds — a departure from prior shutdowns.

    But that may not be the case this year.

    “The OMB memo threatening wide-scale federal layoffs if there is a shutdown suggests that this time around, they might be looking to make the shutdown more painful,” she said.

    Will national parks stay open?

    The impact of shutdowns on the 400-plus national park sites has differed greatly in recent shutdowns.

    In 2013, an estimated 8 million recreation visits and $414 million were lost during the 16-day shutdown, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, citing National Park Service data. During the most recent shutdown in 2019, many parks remained open though no visitor services were provided. The Park Service lost $400,000 a day from missed entrance fee revenue, according to the association’s estimates. What’s more, park visitors would have typically spent $20 million on an average January day in nearby communities.

    States have also stepped in to keep some national parks open using their own funds. When a shutdown loomed in the fall of 2023, Utah said it would keep the Mighty 5 parks – Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef and Zion – open, while Arizona planned to keep the Grand Canyon operational. Colorado also said it would also keep its four national parks and other federal lands open.

    A National Park Service Ranger conducts a walking tour in Shark Valley, part of the Everglades National Park, on April 17 in Florida. Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Images via CNN Newsource

    What’s the impact on airline travel?

    Air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration officers are typically deemed essential and must remain on the job, though they are not paid. But some workers have called out sick during past shutdowns, snarling flights.

    The decision by 10 air traffic controllers to stay home in January 2019 helped end that shutdown. Their absence temporarily shut down travel at New York’s LaGuardia airport and caused delays at other major hubs, including in New Jersey, Philadelphia and Atlanta, driving Trump to agree to a temporary government funding measure.

    How about the impact on federal workers?

    Federal workers bear the brunt of government shutdowns. Some are furloughed, while others are considered essential and have to continue working. But many don’t get paid until the impasse ends.

    In March, the last time a federal government shutdown loomed before being averted, more than 1.4 million employees were deemed essential, according to Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. About 750,000 of them would have continued to be paid since their salaries were funded through other sources.

    Another nearly 900,000 workers would have been furloughed without pay. (Snyderman noted that the estimates did not include the layoffs and departures that occurred in the early weeks of the Trump administration.)

    In 2023, the Biden administration warned that the nation’s 1.3 million active-duty military troops would not get paid, before a shutdown was averted at the last minute.

    This week, judiciary officials warned that federal courts could be affected by a shutdown within days, much sooner than in previous occurrences, because of tight budgets. While judges and Supreme Court justices would continue to be paid, many other judicial employees would not.

    Federal workers are guaranteed to receive their back pay after the impasse is resolved. However, the same is not true for federal contractors who may be furloughed or temporarily laid off by their employers during a shutdown.

    What does a shutdown do to the economy?

    Shutdowns can have real consequences for the economy since federal spending is delayed, and many federal workers pull back on their purchases while they aren’t receiving paychecks.

    The five-week shutdown in 2018-2019 resulted in a $3 billion loss in economic growth that would not be recovered, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. It noted that some private sector businesses would never make up their lost income.

    Also, because the IRS reduced its compliance activities during the shutdown, CBO estimated that tax revenues would be roughly $2 billion lower — much of which would not be recouped.

    The impact stretches beyond the federal government.

    The US Travel Association wrote a letter to congressional leaders in late September urging them to avoid a shutdown, which it said would result in flight delays, longer airport security lines and canceled trips.

    “A shutdown is a wholly preventable blow to America’s travel economy — costing $1 billion every week — and affecting millions of travelers and businesses while placing unnecessary strain on an already overextended federal travel workforce,” wrote Geoff Freeman, the association’s CEO. “The consequences of inaction and immediate and severe.”

    [ad_2]

    Tami Luhby and CNN

    Source link

  • White House tells agencies to draft mass firing plans ahead of potential government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    White House tells agencies to draft mass firing plans ahead of potential government shutdown

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is telling agencies to prepare for large-scale firings of federal workers if the government shuts down next week.

    In a memo released Wednesday night, the Office of Management and Budget said agencies should consider a reduction in force for federal programs whose funding would lapse next week, are not otherwise funded, and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” That would be a much more aggressive step than in previous shutdowns, when federal workers not deemed essential were furloughed but returned to their jobs once Congress approved government spending.

    A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but also eliminate their positions, which would trigger yet another massive upheaval in a federal workforce that has already faced major rounds of cuts this year due to efforts from the Department of Government Efficiency and elsewhere in the Trump administration.

    Once any potential government shutdown ends, agencies are asked to revise their reduction-in-force plans “as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions,” according to the memo, which was first reported by Politico.

    This move from OMB significantly increases the consequences of a potential government shutdown next week and escalates pressure on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. The two leaders have kept nearly all of their Democratic lawmakers united against a clean funding bill pushed by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans that would keep the federal government operating for seven more weeks, demanding immediate improvements to health care in exchange for their votes.

    In statements issued shortly after the memo was released, the two Democrats showed no signs of budging.

    “We will not be intimidated by your threat to engage in mass firings,” Jeffries wrote in a post on X. “Get lost.”

    Jeffries called Russ Vought, the head of OMB, a “malignant political hack.”

    Schumer said in a statement that the OMB memo is an “attempt at intimidation” and predicted the “unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back.”

    OMB noted that it held its first planning call with other federal agencies earlier this week to plan for a shutdown. The budget office plays point in managing federal government shutdowns, particularly planning for them ahead of time. Past budget offices have also posted shutdown contingency plans — which would outline which agency workers would stay on the job during a government shutdown and which would be furloughed — on their website, but this one has not.

    The memo noted that congressional Democrats are refusing to support a clean government funding bill “due to their partisan demands,” which include an extension of enhanced health insurance subsidies set to expire at the end of the year, plus a reversal of Medicaid cuts that were included in Republicans’ big tax and spending cuts law.

    “As such, it has never been more important for the Administration to be prepared for a shutdown if the Democrats choose to pursue one,” the memo reads, which also notes that the GOP’s signature law, a major tax and border spending package, gives “ample resources to ensure that many core Trump Administration priorities will continue uninterrupted.”

    OMB noted that it had asked all agencies to submit their plans in case of a government shutdown by Aug. 1.

    “OMB has received many, but not all, of your submissions,” it added. “Please send us your updated lapse plans ASAP.”

    Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.

    Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s attacks on Kimmel and ABC put him at odds with high-profile conservatives

    [ad_1]

    The return of Jimmy Kimmel to ABC’s airwaves flipped the political script, for a time aligning the late-night comedian with several conservative figures who staunchly disagree with federal regulators trying to shut him down over free speech — even as President Trump continued to threaten the network.

    “I want to thank the people who don’t support my show and what I believe, but support my right to share those beliefs anyway,” Kimmel told viewers during his opening monologue Tuesday night.

    Trump in recent days has ramped up efforts to stifle his political opposition and what he perceives to be liberal bias in media coverage through lawsuits and regulatory actions, a move that has increasingly concerned the president’s supporters and influential conservative personalities.

    The firestorm over free speech came in the wake of comments Kimmel made about how the “MAGA gang” was trying to score political points from Charlie Kirk’s slaying. On a conservative podcast, Brendan Carr, a Trump loyalist who heads the Federal Communications Commission, accused Kimmel of “the sickest conduct” and suggested there could be regulatory consequences for local television stations whose programming did not serve the public interest.

    After Disney took “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air at ABC last week, some high-profile Trump allies worried the threat of regulating speech was taking it too far — and that conservatives could be next if the federal government were to follow through.

    “If we embrace the FCC stripping licenses from anyone who says something you disagree with, the next Democrat president who gets in the White House will do this and will come after everyone right of center,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a critic of Kimmel’s, said Wednesday on his podcast, “Verdict With Ted Cruz,” reaffirming previous comments in which he likened Carr’s threats to mafia-like maneuvers. “That is a slippery slope to oblivion.”

    Trump, however, was dismayed by Kimmel’s return and threatened legal action, following a pattern in which he has sued major media outlets over negative coverage of him.

    “I think we are going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do,” Trump wrote late Tuesday on his social media platform, suggesting a lawsuit against the network could potentially lead to a “lucrative” settlement. “A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings.”

    Combined, Trump’s legal threats and Carr’s comments have fueled a sharp debate about free speech, and whether Trump and Carr are trying to level the playing field for conservative voices or launching a coordinated and illegal attack to silence liberal ones. As a result, Carr — the author of an FCC chapter in the right-wing Project 2025 playbook — has landed in a glaring media spotlight and as the target of a congressional inquiry.

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and eight other Democratic senators wrote a letter to Carr on Wednesday expressing “grave concern” over the FCC’s apparent role in Kimmel’s suspension, and demanded answers about the role the agency played in it and its justification.

    “The FCC’s regulatory authority over broadcast licenses was never intended to serve as a weapon to silence criticism or punish satirical commentary,” the senators wrote. “Your agency’s mission is to serve the public interest, not to act as an enforcement arm for political retribution against media outlets that displease those in power.”

    California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has also written to Carr, accusing the Trump administration of “waging a dangerous attack on those who dare to speak out against it” and calling on Carr to recommit to defending free speech, including by disavowing his previous remarks about Kimmel.

    In the days after Kimmel was sidelined, Cruz and other influential conservatives, who have long trashed the longtime late-night host, voiced opposition to his situation based on concerns that the FCC may be trying to regulate speech on the airwaves.

    “You don’t have to like what somebody says on TV to agree that the government shouldn’t be getting involved here,” former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said on a social media post Monday.

    Podcast host Joe Rogan said he did not “think the government should be involved, ever, in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue” — and told conservatives they are “crazy” if they don’t think such tactics could be “used” against them. Candance Owens, a far-right influencer, said Kimmel’s suspension was an attack on free speech, and said she does not agree with the government controlling what can be said.

    Ben Shapiro raised concerns about potential government overreach.

    “I don’t want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliated that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be informationally false,” Shapiro said, warning that “one day the shoe will be on the other foot.”

    Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson said last week he does not want to see “bad actors” use Kirk’s killing as a means to restrict free speech, which he said is a cornerstone of Kirk’s legacy.

    “You hope a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country,” Carlson said.

    In his opening monologue, Kimmel touched on the same theme. He said Carr’s tactics were “un-American” and likened them to what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia.

    “This show is not important,” he said. “What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this.”

    On the podcast last week, Carr called Kimmel’s remarks about Kirk’s alleged shooter “some of the sickest conduct possible.” He then said: “Frankly, when you see stuff like this, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. There are ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

    On Monday, Carr denied claims that he threatened to pull television stations’ licenses and that he played a role in Kimmel’s suspension, saying “that didn’t happen in any way, shape or form.”

    “They’re completely misrepresenting the work of the FCC and what we’ve been doing,” he said during a conference in New York, accusing Democrats of engaging in a “campaign of projection and distortion.”

    Carr said the FCC wants to empower local television station owners to “push back on national programmers, even when they think there’s some content that they don’t think in their judgment — not my judgment, but their judgment — makes sense for the local communities.”

    What happened with Kimmel, Carr said, is that local television stations “for the first time in a long time stood up and said, ‘We don’t want to run that program, at least right now.’” He said Disney, a national programmer, then made its own business decision not to air Kimmel for a few days.

    After Disney brought back the show, station owners Sinclair Broadcast Group and Nexstar Media Group said they would not be running it on their ABC affiliates, hinting to future conflicts that could play out in the media landscape.

    Carr opened his Project 2025 chapter on the FCC by writing that the agency should “promote freedom of speech,” but has also sided with Trump in criticizing broadcasters for allegedly showing bias against conservatives and said that he would use the agency’s power to ensure that they better serve the “public interest.”

    Bob Shrum, director of the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, said the political brawl over Kimmel has been interesting to watch — in part because of the bipartisan backlash to the suspension and the administration’s apparent influence on it.

    “I’m encouraged by the fact that it’s not just Democrats who complained about this, it’s Republicans like Ted Cruz,” Shrum said. “That at least begins to set a deterrent for the federal government going too far on this.”

    While Trump was angered by Kimmel’s return, Shrum found it notable that his social media post ended with the line: “Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings.” It showed the limits the president sees on his power to wipe Kimmel from the airwaves, he said.

    “That’s not the kind of last line that says, ‘We’re coming after you,’” Shrum said.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos, Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Brendan Carr says networks must serve the ‘public interest.’ What does that mean?

    [ad_1]

    On his ABC late-night show last Monday, Jimmy Kimmel criticized President Donald Trump and his followers for their actions since Charlie Kirk’s murder. Within days, Kimmel’s show was suspended, after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr publicly threatened reprisal. (Kimmel’s show is set to return to the air Tuesday.)

    The entire affair was blatantly improper, as a federal official leaned on a private company to censor an employee’s protected speech. Carr, meanwhile, says he’s just pursuing the “public interest.” What does that actually mean? Just about anything a regulator wants, it turns out.

    Unlike other forms of media, radio and network TV stations broadcast over public airwaves, which the FCC polices by issuing broadcast licenses. Federal law authorizes the FCC to ensure licensees serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

    “Generally, this means [a broadcaster] must air programming that is responsive to the needs and problems of its local community of license,” the FCC claims.

    Carr often cites the “public interest” as his goal for FCC actions. “Broadcast media have had the privilege of using a scarce and valuable public resource—our airwaves. In turn, they are required by law to operate in the public interest,” he wrote in November 2024, the day after Trump announced he would appoint Carr to head the agency. “When the transition is complete, the FCC will enforce this public interest obligation.”

    In his current role, Carr has evoked the “public interest” to justify numerous FCC actions—including investigations of Comcast’s relationship with NBC affiliates and a San Francisco radio station’s coverage of immigration enforcement in San Jose, and accusing NBC of “news distortion” for its coverage of an immigration case.

    “One thing that we’re trying to do is to empower those local stations to serve their own communities,” Carr told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson last week. “And the public interest means you can’t be running a narrow partisan circus and still meeting your public interest obligations.”

    Who’s to say if Carr’s actions are in those local communities’ best interest? Law and judicial precedent actually give him some pretty considerable leeway.

    “Perhaps no single area of communications policy has generated as much scholarly discourse, judicial analysis, and political debate over the course of the last seventy years as has that simple directive to regulate in the ‘public interest,’” Erwin G. Krasnow and Jack N. Goodman wrote in a 1998 article for the Federal Communications Law Journal, a publication of Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. “If the history of this elusive regulatory standard makes anything clear, it is the fact that just what constitutes service in the ‘public interest’ has encompassed different things at different times.”

    Congress first included the phrase “public interest, convenience, and necessity” in the Radio Act of 1927, but did not define it—leaving it for future regulators to interpret. “Our opinions have repeatedly emphasized that the [FCC]’s judgment regarding how the public interest is best served is entitled to substantial judicial deference,” the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1981’s FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild. Subsequent legislation expanded the government’s regulatory power but largely kept the “public interest” standard intact.

    “Few independent regulatory commissions have had to operate under such a broad grant of power with so few substantive guidelines,” Krasnow and Goodman wrote.

    One would imagine the “public interest” is best served by respecting the First Amendment and defending free speech. “The FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views,’” according to the agency’s website. “Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seeks to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.”

    But that would directly contradict Carr’s actions: Over the past week, Carr not only pressured a broadcaster to punish one of its hosts over intemperate comments, he gloated over the host’s suspension and pledged daytime chat show The View might be next in his crosshairs.

    The “public interest standard” is in fact “not really a standard because it doesn’t tell you what they can’t do,” Thomas W. Hazlett, an economics professor at Clemson University, tells Reason. “There is some formal structure to the process, but in terms of an actual regulatory standard, it basically means that we’re going to make rules according to what we think is right. And of course, if you want to do things that are different and exercise power in a certain direction, you’ll talk a lot about public interest because it’s a very wide berth for justifying what you’re trying to do. It does dress it up a little bit, that it’s not just politics, it’s bigger than that, but not really: It’s what the five members of the commission vote to do, and that’s the beginning and the end.”

    As Reason‘s Robby Soave noted, one person who understood this was Ayn Rand, who wrote in 1962 that a government-enforced public interest standard was simply a more sophisticated form of censorship, “for stifling the freedom of men’s minds.”

    [ad_2]

    Joe Lancaster

    Source link

  • Alcohol escapes a government crackdown—for now

    [ad_1]

    Just over a year ago, I wrote about the bureaucratic machinations in the U.S. attempting to import an anti-alcohol agenda into the government’s 2025 Dietary Guidelines. Now, it appears that alcohol has officially escaped the government’s wrath—at least for another half-decade.

    The U.S. dietary guidelines are revised every five years, with the latest revision expected this year. The lead-up to the revision unfolds over several years, and recommendations for safe drinking levels are traditionally included alongside food in the final guidance. For decades, the guidelines have held that men can safely consume up to two alcoholic drinks a day and women one. But myriad sources from inside the federal government were reporting that the new guidelines were planning to include a declaration that “no amount of alcohol is acceptable for a healthy lifestyle.” (This was a standard imported from the World Health Organization, which declared in 2023 that “no amount of alcohol is safe”). 

    This news supercharged a long-simmering debate over whether alcohol is good or bad (or simply medium) for you. Researchers have become increasingly split over this issue, with some sharing evidence that moderate alcohol consumption reduces overall mortality rates, while others point to studies finding a link between alcohol and cancer. Regardless of the science, however, the process through which the government was attempting to arrive at a “no safe level” declaration for alcohol was deeply alarming.

    The dietary guidelines revisions are spearheaded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Biden-era HHS delegated the alcohol issue to the little-known Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Prevention of Underage Drinking (ICCPUD).

    ICCPUD’s marching orders were to issue a report on the health impacts of drinking, but it turned out ICCPUD had stacked its deck. Reports started coming out that at least half of the six-person research panel not only had well-publicized anti-alcohol stances but also didn’t even reside in the United States. The decision over whether alcohol would be deemed safe or not was being put in the hands of a group of biased international academics who were essentially accountable to no one. (Several commentators have also pointed out that ICCPUD, whose putative focus is supposed to be underage drinking, was being put in charge of determining adult drinking recommendations.)

    A potential “no safe level” declaration was particularly worrisome for the alcohol industry, since perceptions about the health impact of alcohol have already been trending negatively among younger demographics, a trend that would likely accelerate if the U.S. government were to state that no amount of alcohol is safe to drink. Attorney Sean O’Leary noted that such a declaration would also be likely to trigger a wave of Tobacco-style class action lawsuits against the drinks industry.

    Congress—surprisingly—reacted to this backdoor attempt to smuggle a neo-prohibitionist agenda into the American dietary guidelines by playing a decently effective watchdog role. It first tasked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to prepare a separate report on the health effects of drinking, which concluded that while moderate drinking raises the risk of certain types of cancer, it reduces all-cause mortality by decreasing the risk of heart disease.

    The remaining elephant in the room, however, was how President Donald Trump’s administration would handle the ICCPUD draft report that it inherited from the Biden administration. All eyes were on the new HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., famously a teetotaler, but he was silent about how the 2025 Dietary Guidelines would address alcohol.

    At long last, in early September, the House Appropriations Committee announced it was planning to defund ICCPUD, followed by news that ICCPUD’s draft report would no longer play a role in the 2025 guidelines revisions. It now appears that the alternative NASEM report will inform the new guidelines, although it’s not even certain that the guidelines will mention alcohol at all anymore (RFK Jr. has previously suggested that the 2025 Guidelines would be a mere 4 pages long, down from 160 pages in 2020).

    In the end, this counts as a narrow escape for the alcohol industry and U.S. drinkers. The science of drinking will likely be debated for years to come, but at the very least, the process should be allowed to play out in public view.

    [ad_2]

    C. Jarrett Dieterle

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s Assault on Disability Rights

    [ad_1]

    Eight years ago, Sara Fernandez flew into Newark, New Jersey, on her way back from the Dominican Republic, where her boyfriend lived. As she was going through airport security, she heard a T.S.A. agent say to one of his colleagues, “Do I need to pick her up and put her through the scanner?” Fernandez has dwarfism; she identifies as a little person. She also happened to be a new hire in the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which oversees anti-discrimination enforcement for the Department of Homeland Security, including T.S.A. “The guy obviously didn’t know I worked for D.H.S.,” Fernandez recalled. He had made her feel “really awkward and uncomfortable,” but she didn’t want to get him in trouble, so she contacted T.S.A. and scheduled a phone call with him. “I wanted to be, like, ‘You upset me. Look at me. I’m a professional,’ ” she said. After their call, “he got some training. Moments like that can actually stick with a person more, because he got to hear it from me.”

    Fernandez was raised in Pittsburgh by adoptive parents, also little people, who’d met at an annual meeting of Little People of America. Her mom’s family was “historically Republican,” in a moderate, John McCain kind of way, Fernandez told me. Her dad had emigrated from Argentina and worked as an accountant. “I have a picture of us at his naturalization ceremony, with American flags,” she said. Her parents weren’t political, but they believed in equal rights and taught their daughter not to feel limited by her stature. Still, she recalled, “as a kid, I was very reserved, observant, anxious. I didn’t want anyone to notice me.” Fernandez earned degrees in law and social work, and entered federal service through the Schedule A program, which expedites the hiring of qualified candidates with disabilities. She started at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, then went to D.H.S. in 2017, during the first Trump Administration. She married the man she’d been dating, who’s of average height, and gave birth to their son, a little person who’s now five years old.

    Being in a civil-rights office, Fernandez often thought about the laws that made her career possible. In the federal government, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “a physical or mental disability,” and requires that “reasonable accommodations,” or tweaks to working conditions, be provided to disabled employees. (In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act extended this protection to workers in state and local governments and the private sector.) D.H.S. gave Fernandez an accessible parking spot, placed step stools in common areas of the office, and brought over the customized chair she’d used at the E.E.O.C. During the pandemic, when she was dealing with an autoimmune sickness, her supervisor allowed her to work from home. “It was the best environment I’ve ever worked in,” she said.

    Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden had issued executive orders to improve access and opportunities for civil servants with disabilities. The first Trump Administration also “prided itself on continuing efforts around disability hiring and retention,” Daniel Davis, a disability expert who recently left the Department of Health and Human Services, told me. More than a tenth of the federal workforce identified as disabled in fiscal year 2021 (the most recent data available), including a great number of disabled veterans. In the past decade, the over-all employment rate for adults with disabilities has risen from seventeen per cent to nearly twenty-three per cent, with a big jump since 2020. The pandemic that killed more than 1.2 million Americans and caused many others to become disabled also led employers to offer flexible schedules and remote-work arrangements that made it easier for disabled people to do their jobs.

    Fernandez’s office was at D.H.S. headquarters, at St. Elizabeths, a huge campus in Washington, D.C. that was once the grounds of the Government Hospital for the Insane. Not long ago, people with disabilities had been relegated to such institutions, often against their will. At the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, or C.R.C.L., Fernandez was part of a team that enforced anti-discrimination and language-access laws, led equal-opportunity trainings, and reviewed requests for accommodation for D.H.S. employees. In 2023, she appeared alongside Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time, at a conference that marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Rehabilitation Act. They posed for a photo—Fernandez wore a blue pleated dress, her hair down to her shoulders—that was later published in an agency newsletter.

    C.R.C.L. also set policies for, and handled complaints from, the public. Its jurisdiction was vast, ranging from the encounter Fernandez had at Newark Airport to much graver incidents: sexual harassment in immigration detention, neglect of wheelchair users in FEMA disaster recovery, racial bullying in the Coast Guard, assault by federal security guards.

    Last year a group funded by the Heritage Foundation set up a website, “DHS Watch List,” to publicize the names and photographs of immigration judges and bureaucrats it deemed “subversive.” It described C.R.C.L. as “a bastion for leftist [sic] who want to use the tools in the department to frustrate efforts to deport illegal aliens.” Fernandez was surprised by this characterization. C.R.C.L. was a law-enforcement agency within a law-enforcement department—so unprogressive, in fact, that friends in the disability community had asked how she could even work there.

    Early this year, when the Department of Government Efficiency started to push large-scale layoffs, Fernandez reassured herself that, because C.R.C.L. was mandated by the founding statute of D.H.S., its hundred and fifty or so employees would be protected. In late March, she learned otherwise. Her position, according to an e-mail from Human Resources, was being eliminated as “a result of the dissolution of Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.” The entire office was found to be “non-essential or not legally mandated,” as were two smaller offices that conducted oversight of the immigration-detention system and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. A spokesperson for D.H.S. referred to the three as “internal adversaries.” Civil-rights mechanisms at Homeland Security were essentially wiped out. Fernandez would be put on paid administrative leave for sixty days, then terminated at the end of May. She packed up her office and left.

    One way to parse Donald Trump’s approach to disability is on the basis of his public comments. At a campaign rally in 2015, he mocked the hand movements of a disabled reporter. In his first term, he told aides that he didn’t want to appear with military amputees because “it doesn’t look good for me.” In 2020, according to a memoir by Trump’s nephew, who has a disabled son, the President said, of people with serious disabilities: “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.” And this year, after his second Inauguration, he said that Biden’s recruitment of “individuals with ‘severe intellectual’ disabilities” were partly to blame for an aircraft collision over the Potomac River that killed sixty-seven people.

    Fernandez had been so rattled by the general chaos in the Administration that her layoff initially came as a relief. Her husband, their five-year-old son, eight-year-old stepdaughter, and four dogs kept her more than occupied, especially when school let out for summer break. “Do you want some kids to live with you?” she joked to me one day, by text. “Mine are available.” After bedtime, she would go online to browse and exchange messages about crystals and rocks, which she’s collected her whole life. She posted closeups of blue lace agate and pink sugar amethyst on Instagram.

    But the relief soon curdled into worry. Her family relied on her salary and health insurance; her husband, who is Dominican and has a green card, took irregular freelance gigs as a construction worker, a personal trainer, a dance instructor, and an Uber driver. She would have to find a new job soon, but where? She had only ever been in the public sector, and by choice. “I want to do good work, but also, I want to move the world forward,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    E. Tammy Kim

    Source link

  • Florida applies for federal reimbursement for ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ costs despite court warning

    [ad_1]

    The state of Florida has asked the federal government to reimburse it for the costs of its “Alligator Alcatraz” immigrant detention camp, despite a recent appeals court ruling that receiving federal funds would trigger environmental reviews that the state ignored when it hastily built the camp.

    “The State of Florida submitted an application for reimbursement to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),” a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson says. “FEMA has roughly $625 million in Shelter and Services Program funds that can be allocated for this effort.”

    Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit lifted a lower court’s preliminary injunction shutting down the Everglades detention camp, allowing operations there to resume. It was a victory for Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, but it also complicated the state’s plan to be reimbursed by the federal government for hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses, as DeSantis repeatedly promised would happen.

    The appeals court panel ruled, in response to a lawsuit by the environmental advocacy nonprofits Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity, that the detention camp is not subject to environmental impact studies required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it has so far been entirely paid for by the state of Florida.

    “Here, no federal dollars have been expended on the construction or use of the Facility,” Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote in the majority opinion. “So, the Florida-funded and Florida-operated detention activities occurring at the Site do not conceive a ‘major federal project’ either.”

    “There may come a time when [the Florida Department of Environmental Protection] applies for FEMA funding,” Lagoa continued. “If the Federal Defendants ultimately decide to approve that request and reimburse Florida for its expenditures related to the Facility, they may need to first conduct an [environmental impact statement]. But, having not yet formally ‘committed to funding that project,’ the Federal Defendants have taken no ‘major federal action’ subjecting them to the procedural requirements of NEPA.”

    As the Associated Press reported Wednesday, the ruling created an apparent predicament for the state: “The state can either pass up federal reimbursement for hundreds of millions of dollars spent to build and operate the facility, or take the money and face an environmental review, which would risk halting the center’s operations,” the A.P. reported.

    But Florida has already applied for such funding, according to DHS’ statement to Reason.

    DHS and FEMA did not respond to requests for a copy of Florida’s application. No funds are reported to have been disbursed yet.

    DeSantis’ office did not respond to a request for comment. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), which is the state agency in charge of the detention camp, responded by sending a link to a DeSantis press conference from last month.

    Friends of the Everglades argues that, although no money has changed hands, the tacit agreement between the federal government and the state of Florida, and the repeated public statements by Florida and DHS officials, clearly show that the federal government has committed to pay for the project.

    In a dissenting opinion, Judge Adalberto Jordan agreed, writing that “the notion that Florida decided to build the detention facility without a concrete funding commitment from the federal government is squarely contradicted by the preconstruction statements of [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem and Governor DeSantis that the United States will pay for the facility.”

    Friends of the Everglades says Florida’s reimbursement application only adds to the pile of evidence that the federal government has always intended to pay for the project.

    “Time will prove the trial judge and Judge Jordan correct—and this evidence will support our case when we return to the trial court,” says Paul Schwiep, the lead counsel for Friends of the Everglades in its lawsuit.

    Federal and Florida officials have had a tacit reimbursement agreement for months.

    In a June 20 email, disclosed last month in a court filing, the Trump administration’s nominee for DHS general counsel, James Percival, wrote to the Florida Attorney General’s Office regarding Florida’s plan to detain aliens under an agreement with the federal government. “If you go forward, we will work out a method of partial reimbursement,” Percival wrote.

    At a June 25 press conference, DeSantis said the federal government would fully reimburse Florida. “This is something that was requested by the federal government, and this is something that the federal government is going to fully fund,” DeSantis said. “From a state taxpayer perspective, we are implementing it…but that will be fully reimbursed by the federal government.”

    Noem also said in public statements over the summer that FEMA funds would be used to reimburse Florida.

    The FDEM estimated in August that a shutdown of the facility would cost it more than $218 million it had already invested.

    [ad_2]

    C.J. Ciaramella

    Source link

  • FBI blunders and internet panic: How the search for Charlie Kirk’s killer went off the rails

    [ad_1]

    Authorities announced on Friday morning that they made progress in solving a mystery that has gripped the nation for two days: who murdered conservative activist Charlie Kirk with a rifle during a crowded event at Utah Valley University.

    Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox told reporters that 22-year-old Tyler Robinson had been turned in by his family after he “confessed to them or implied” his guilt in the assassination. A roommate also showed police Discord chat messages from Robinson about hiding a rifle, according to Cox, who said that Robinson acted alone.

    Without those tips, it’s hard to know how long the manhunt would have gone on for. The night before, authorities had signaled that they were completely stumped. Officials pleaded with the public for information based on a few grainy surveillance stills on Thursday night, and Utah Public Safety Commissioner Beau Mason told NBC News that authorities had “no idea” where the shooter was.

    Progressive critics—as well as conservative consigliere Chris Rufo—have accused FBI Director Kash Patel of bungling the investigation. Patel had caused major confusion by implying on social media that the FBI had caught the shooter, only to announce that the “subject” had been released after interrogation. That man, who was completely innocent, suffered a flood of threats after his name and photo were publicized.

    Adding to the confusion, police were also filmed escorting a local elderly gadfly out of the event while the crowd blamed him for the shooting. And to make matters worse, internet sleuths misidentified him as yet another innocent person who was nowhere near Utah at the time.

    Of course, chaos and mistakes are an unavoidable part of crises. Thankfully, none of these mistakes led to anyone’s death, as they have in the past. It will take a while for the full story behind the Kirk investigation to come out, to understand which errors were understandable and which were inexcusable.

    At the very least, the manner of Robinson’s arrest throws cold water on the idea that mass spying and heavy-handed police powers are the solution to dramatic crimes. In his post lambasting Patel’s leadership, Rufo also called for “a campaign to disrupt domestic terror networks” and “to investigate, infiltrate, and disrupt the violent movements—of whatever ideology—that threaten the peace in the United States.”

    But it’s not clear that more aggressive political surveillance would have stopped or caught the suspected assassin. The photos that identified him came from old-fashioned security cameras in a hallway, which captured him walking up a stairway and then jumping off the roof after the assassination. Robinson’s father, a longtime sheriff’s deputy, reportedly recognized his son from the photos and told him to turn himself in.

    Meanwhile, the release of the surveillance photos had led to a flood of tips that wasted the authorities’ time. At the Thursday night press conference, Cox said that authorities were sifting through 7,000 tips from the public.

    “It is clear they do not know the name of the suspect, that they don’t have a cellphone track, they don’t have fingerprints, DNA, or digital footprint,” journalist John Solomon, who is close to Patel, told Fox News after the press conference. “And that’s why they’re putting so much personally identifying information up, to try to help get the public to find something that’s there.”

    And the assassination did not come out of an organized political network that could be infiltrated. Although there are signs pointing to a left-wing motive—Cox said that a family member told police that Robinson was angry about Kirk coming to Utah because of his political beliefs—Robinson seems to be, like many other shooting suspects, a lone wolf who spent too much time on the internet.

    An internal law enforcement bulletin, leaked to the press, initially reported that the shooter had written messages about “transgender and anti-fascist ideology” on bullet casings. Those turned out to be a mix of references to the video game Helldivers 2 (which features killing fascists) and lewd jokes. “If you read this you are gay LMAO,” one of the casings read. Another mocked the “furry” fetish subculture.

    An eccentric personality with no criminal record who plays lots of video games and dislikes conservatives is a pretty broad profile, one that covers potentially millions of people. Most of them are neither violent nor members of organized political “networks” that could be disrupted. If the past few days are any indication, encouraging mass online reporting of anyone suspicious can actually make the police’s job harder.

    Using Kirk’s murder to tighten government restrictions would not only be ineffective at preventing more incidents like it. It would also be an unfortunate rebuke to Kirk, who often preached freedom over control.

    [ad_2]

    Matthew Petti

    Source link

  • Lawsuits against federal government over Columbia Basin dams to resume

    [ad_1]

    The possibility of removing four Snake River dams — Ice Harbor Dam, Lower Monumental Dam, Little Goose Dam and Lower Granite Dam — has long been a contentious one that has generally split along party lines. Shown is the Ice Harbor Lock and Dam, the first of four dams constructed as part of the Lower Snake River Project, authorized in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945. (Photo by Columbia River System Operations EIS)

    Northwest states, tribes and environmental groups will resume suing the federal government over its hydroelectric dam operations in the Columbia River Basin that have harmed endangered native fish species. 

    The move comes after the Trump administration in June withdrew from a “historic” deal made two years ago, when President Joe Biden was in office. This agreement called for putting long-running legal battles aside and investing in the restoration of endangered Columbia River fish runs. 

    Behind the litigation are 10 environmental groups backed by Oregon, Washington and four Lower Columbia River tribes: The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe. 

    Court fights over the dams had gone on for more than three decades before the pause. Now, they are back on, according to Amanda Goodin, an attorney with the environmental law group Earthjustice, which filed a motion Thursday in U.S. District Court in Oregon to end the multi-year pause on a 2021 lawsuit. 

    “The Trump administration’s recent actions leave us with no choice but to return to court,” she said. 

    On Oct. 8, Earthjustice will officially resume its lawsuit, spokesperson Elizabeth Manning said. 

    Earthjustice’s plaintiffs include the National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, Sierra Club, Idaho Rivers United, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, NW Energy Coalition, Columbia Riverkeeper, Idaho Conservation League and Fly Fishers International, Inc.   

    Oregon’s attorney general, Dan Rayfield, said in a statement that Oregon, too, was ready to resume legal action. 

    “The federal government has put salmon and steelhead on the brink of extinction and once again broken promises to tribal partners. Extinction is not an option. Oregon will return to court to hold the federal government accountable and ensure these iconic fish runs have a future,” he said.

    White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday. 

    The 2023 Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement involved pausing active Snake River litigation for a minimum of five years while the federal government worked with tribes and states on a plan to advance recovery of native fish populations in the Columbia Basin. 

    At the heart of the issue are four Snake River dams that provide irrigation and emissions-free hydropower for nearby communities, but have also contributed to the near extinction of 13 salmon and steelhead populations that return to the Columbia Basin from the Pacific Ocean to spawn. 

    The fish are important to tribal health and sovereignty and to basin ecosystems, and the declines are hitting southern resident orcas off the coasts of British Columbia, Washington and Oregon that rely on salmon for food and that are federally listed as endangered.

    “These wild native fish are essential to tribal cultures and important to sport, commercial, and tribal fishing communities and economies throughout the Pacific Northwest. We can and must do better,” said Bill Arthur, the director of the Sierra Club’s campaign to protect salmon in the Snake and Columbia rivers. 

    The Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative included a roadmap for salmon and steelhead recovery, as well as steps to replace the energy, transportation, irrigation, and recreation services provided by the four lower Snake River dams so they could potentially be breached. 

    The agreement was a way to increase salmon populations and fishing opportunities while improving public services, cutting taxpayer subsidies and meeting promises made to the tribes, according to Mike Leahy, senior director of wildlife, hunting and fishing policy for the National Wildlife Federation. 

    In June, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum withdrawing the federal government’s support from the agreement, calling it “radical environmentalism” and saying completion of the restoration initiative would “be devastating for the region.” 

    “It’s been disappointing to see the federal government overrule all the progress made in the region in favor of returning to court,” Leahy said. 

    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said in a statement that renewing the lawsuit is necessary to protect natural resources, preserve fish runs, and hold the federal government responsible.

    “President Trump walking away from these commitments presents a very real threat at a time when the fish are on the brink of extinction. It also continues our nation’s shameful legacy of broken promises to sovereign tribal nations that this partnership sought to repair,” she said.

    While environmental groups agree that going back to court is an essential next step, they have committed to finding other ways to continue restoring the Columbia Basin while the lawsuits are ongoing. 

    “We will nevertheless keep working with sovereigns and stakeholders across the Northwest to find real solutions to restore healthy, abundant salmon and bring our communities forward together,” said Columbia Riverkeeper Legal Director Miles Johnson.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The feds own half the western U.S.—and can’t take care of it

    [ad_1]

    The federal government owns about a third of America.

    Since we’re on a path to bankruptcy, it would be smart to sell some unused property.

    President Donald Trump’s Interior Secretary says it may be worth as much as $200 trillion. Selling just a fraction of it would reduce our enormous debt.

    Not just that—since government doesn’t manage things well, selling or leasing some would leave it in better condition.

    Federal bureaucrats have been slow to do controlled burns and remove deadwood that becomes fuel for fires.

    “Fires on federal lands accounted for more than half of the acres burned,” says the Congressional Budget Office.

    But whenever a politician suggests selling any land, environmental activists freak out.

    Jennifer Mamola of The John Muir Project says the government must hold on to every bit of land it owns “to solve our biodiversity crisis.”

    “What is a biodiversity crisis?” I ask her in my new video.

    “Human fingerprints are on the scale, and we are out-tipping it!”

    Like many activists, she’s not knowledgeable about science.

    “We are in very tumultuous weather times,” she tells me. “The fact that Hurricane Helene hit North Carolina is just unprecedented!”

    No, it’s not. Hurricanes hit North Carolina all the time.

    “I guess I mean the travel trajectory, right?…[Helene] started in the Gulf and then it went all the way up. Seems pretty unprecedented—going inland.”

    Actually, lots of hurricanes go inland. Floyd caused catastrophic flooding; almost every river basin in eastern North Carolina surpassed 500-year flood levels. Matthew brought record flooding. Florence caused about $17 billion in damages.

    Still, Mamola sees weather changes. “It’s really not that predictable anymore because we have our thumb on the scale….In the nearly 40 years I’ve been alive, we’re definitely seeing a shift!…D.C., I’ve lived there 10 years. We had a drought last summer!”

    But drought isn’t more common. The Environmental Protection Agency says the last 50 years have actually been wetter than average.

    If government sells any land, Mamola says, loggers and mining companies will destroy it.

    Climate media company The YEARS Project peddles a deceitful video that says, “Imagine the Grand Canyon filled with oil rigs. That’s the world Pendley wants to live in.”

    “Pendley” is William Pendley, who ran the government’s Bureau of Land Management during Trump’s first term.

    I confront him with what the activists say:

    “Picture Yellowstone being strip mined for coal. These are the kinds of policies he advocates for.”

    “Absolutely not!” he replies. “We’re not going to do parks. They made it up!”

    He wants to sell, as Congress has done for decades, “multiple-use” land: “It’s supposed to be used [for] oil and gas, mining, grazing.”

    He says private lease holders would manage it better.

    Also, says Pendley, “The best forest managers are tribes and states because they’ve got skin in the game.”

    The governors of Utah and Nevada agree. They, too, want the feds to release some land.

    Most of Utah is federally owned. Utah sued the feds for the right to buy some of it. But so far, no success.

    In Nevada, 80 percent of land is federally owned and controlled. Gov. Joe Lombardo wants “immediate and systematic release of federal land.”

    “Why should it be controlled by the federal government?” I ask Mamola. “What if Utah or Nevada say they can do it better?”

    Mamola replies, “They’re not going to be able to maintain it.”

    But the feds don’t maintain it! The Park Service is $23 billion behind on repairs.

    Despite the incompetence of federal management, Mamola wants the feds to buy even more land.

    “They own 50 percent of the West. Isn’t that enough?” I ask. “What would be enough?”

    “I’m happy to give up some of the East Coast,” she replies.

    Yikes.

    But the silly people win. They’ve convinced voters that no land should ever be sold. Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) saw which way the political winds were blowing. He withdrew his proposal to sell public lands.

    Too bad. We’re deep in debt. The feds should at least lease unused land.

    Washington bureaucrats don’t need to control half the West.

    COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

    [ad_2]

    John Stossel

    Source link

  • DPS pushes back on federal government’s deadline to convert all-gender bathroom

    [ad_1]

    FILE – East High School. Dec. 14, 2022.

    Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

    Denver Public Schools have pushed back against the idea that the district is at an impasse with the government over demands about converting an all-gender bathroom back to single-sex facilities at a Denver high school.

    In a letter sent to the U.S. Office of Civil Rights on Sunday, district officials said it’s tried several times to discuss a resolution with the government, but it has been unwilling. DPS, though, said it’s willing to discuss options with the federal government over East High School’s all-gender bathrooms — missing a deadline set by the U.S. Department of Education.

    The district was given 10 days to comply with an order to change the bathrooms and other mandates. Instead, the district is asking the government to begin a 90-day resolution negotiation, the typical length the Office of Civil Rights gives to resolve complaints.

    The crux of DPS’ argument is that Title IX does not prohibit the conversion of a girls’ restroom to an all-gender restroom. The federal government says it does. 

    On Aug. 28, the federal department of education notified DPS that it violated the Title IX civil rights law by converting a girls’ bathroom to one that is for all genders, which the federal government calls “discrimination” against female students. It ordered DPS to rescind district policies allowing students to use private spaces based on gender identity or face “imminent enforcement action.”

    The following day, Denver Public Schools accused the government of “weaponizing” Title IX and called the ruling part of the administration’s “anti-trans agenda.”

    Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools, states that districts “may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.”

    ‘Willingness to Engage in Negotiation For Resolution’

    Sunday’s letter, titled “Willingness to Engage in Negotiation for Resolution,” DPS said it recognizes that a resolution is critical to avoid further unnecessary enforcement action and litigation and is committed to full compliance with Title IX and all applicable civil rights laws.

    The letter details how its attempts to resolve the conflict have gone unanswered by the Office for Civil rights. It said its communications with the government were limited to two phone calls and a letter. In one call, DPS says it tried to understand how an all-gender bathroom was a Title IX violation, the investigator said “it would be premature to say.”

    “This lack of a substantive response creates a sense of incredulity and concern, as the investigator was the named point of contact in this case,” wrote Kristin Bailey, senior counsel and Title IX coordinator for Denver Public Schools.

    The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment on DPS’s statement.

    The Office for Civil Rights argued in August’s finding that the conversion burdened East’s female students by leaving them without a single-sex restroom on that floor, while male students still had one. It said a female student reported that when her friend used the restroom “boys kept staring at her, looking her up and down, kind of taunting her.”

    Lacking answers from OCR about the course of action it wanted the district to take, DPS said it pursued what it thought might remedy the situation. It converted a boy’s bathroom on the same floor to an all-gender bathroom to address the disparity. 

    But the Office for Civil Rights said this did not fix the problem. It said it “created a hostile environment for its students by endangering their safety, privacy, and dignity while denying them access to equal educational activities and opportunities.”

    The district contends that the “new allegation” of a hostile environment was not investigated and is based on just three emails from non-direct witnesses.

    It notes that the legal standard for a “hostile environment” is “unwelcome conduct [on the basis of sex] determined by a reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the District’s education program or activity.”

    Similar Virginia cases

    In a similar case, the federal government threatened to withhold millions in federal funds from five Northern Virginia school districts because the Office for Civil Rights found that the districts’ policies allowing students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on “gender identity” rather than biological sex violated Title IX.

    But on Friday, a federal judge dismissed lawsuits by two of the districts against the U.S. Department of Education. He ruled that the federal district court didn’t have the power to weigh in on how the federal government distributes money. He wrote that the matter was better suited for the Court of Federal Claims.

    It’s unclear how that case will proceed. The districts can refile the case there or appeal to the Fourth Circuit, which has ruled that a school board discriminated against a transgender student by banning him from boys restrooms. The five Virginia districts say they’re following the law. They haven’t lost federal money yet but have been placed on “high risk status,” which means they have to pay for education expenses up front first, then ask for a reimbursement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump administration exploring ways to take over 9/11 memorial in NYC

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump’s administration said Friday that it is exploring whether the federal government can take control of the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York City.The site in lower Manhattan, where the World Trade Center’s twin towers were destroyed by hijacked jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, features two memorial pools ringed by waterfalls and parapets with the names of the dead, and an underground museum. Since opening to the public in 2014, the memorial plaza and museum have been run by a public charity, now chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a frequent Trump critic.The White House confirmed the administration has had “preliminary exploratory discussions” about the idea, but declined to elaborate. The office noted the Republican pledged during his campaign last year to make the site a national monument, protected and maintained by the federal government.But officials at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum say the federal government, under current laws, can’t unilaterally take over the site, which is located on land owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.The U.S. government shouldering costs and management of the site also “makes no sense,” given Trump’s efforts to dramatically pare back the federal bureaucracy, said Beth Hillman, the organization’s president and CEO.“We’re proud that our exhibitions tell stories of bravery and patriotism and are confident that our current operating model has served the public honorably and effectively,” she said, noting the organization has raised $750 million in private funds and welcomed some 90 million visitors since its opening.Last year, the museum generated more than $93 million in revenue and spent roughly $84 million on operating costs, leaving a nearly $9 million surplus when depreciation is factored in, according to museum officials and its most recently available tax filings.New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, meanwhile, voiced her own concerns about a federal takeover, citing the Trump administration’s recent efforts to influence how American history is told through its national monuments and museums, including the Smithsonian.The takeover idea also comes just months after the Trump administration briefly cut, but then restored, staffing at a federal program that provides health benefits to people with illnesses that might be linked to toxic dust from the destroyed World Trade Center.“The 9/11 Memorial belongs to New Yorkers — the families, survivors, and first responders who have carried this legacy for more than two decades and ensured we never forget,” Hochul said in a statement. “Before he meddles with this sacred site, the President should start by honoring survivors and supporting the families of victims.”Anthoula Katsimatides, a museum board member who lost her brother, John, in the attack, said she didn’t see any reason to change ownership.“They do an incredible job telling the story of that day without sugarcoating it,” she said. “It’s being run so well, I don’t see why there has to be a change. I don’t see what benefit there would be.”The memorial and museum, however, have also been the target of criticism over the years from some members of the large community of 9/11 victims’ families, some of whom have criticized ticket prices or called for changes in the makeup of the museum’s exhibits.Trump spokespersons declined to respond to the comments.In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed when the hijackers crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in southwest Pennsylvania during the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 2,700 of those victims perished in the fiery collapse of the trade center’s twin towers.

    NEW YORK —

    President Donald Trump’s administration said Friday that it is exploring whether the federal government can take control of the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York City.

    The site in lower Manhattan, where the World Trade Center’s twin towers were destroyed by hijacked jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, features two memorial pools ringed by waterfalls and parapets with the names of the dead, and an underground museum. Since opening to the public in 2014, the memorial plaza and museum have been run by a public charity, now chaired by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a frequent Trump critic.

    The White House confirmed the administration has had “preliminary exploratory discussions” about the idea, but declined to elaborate. The office noted the Republican pledged during his campaign last year to make the site a national monument, protected and maintained by the federal government.

    But officials at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum say the federal government, under current laws, can’t unilaterally take over the site, which is located on land owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

    The U.S. government shouldering costs and management of the site also “makes no sense,” given Trump’s efforts to dramatically pare back the federal bureaucracy, said Beth Hillman, the organization’s president and CEO.

    “We’re proud that our exhibitions tell stories of bravery and patriotism and are confident that our current operating model has served the public honorably and effectively,” she said, noting the organization has raised $750 million in private funds and welcomed some 90 million visitors since its opening.

    Last year, the museum generated more than $93 million in revenue and spent roughly $84 million on operating costs, leaving a nearly $9 million surplus when depreciation is factored in, according to museum officials and its most recently available tax filings.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, meanwhile, voiced her own concerns about a federal takeover, citing the Trump administration’s recent efforts to influence how American history is told through its national monuments and museums, including the Smithsonian.

    The takeover idea also comes just months after the Trump administration briefly cut, but then restored, staffing at a federal program that provides health benefits to people with illnesses that might be linked to toxic dust from the destroyed World Trade Center.

    “The 9/11 Memorial belongs to New Yorkers — the families, survivors, and first responders who have carried this legacy for more than two decades and ensured we never forget,” Hochul said in a statement. “Before he meddles with this sacred site, the President should start by honoring survivors and supporting the families of victims.”

    Anthoula Katsimatides, a museum board member who lost her brother, John, in the attack, said she didn’t see any reason to change ownership.

    “They do an incredible job telling the story of that day without sugarcoating it,” she said. “It’s being run so well, I don’t see why there has to be a change. I don’t see what benefit there would be.”

    The memorial and museum, however, have also been the target of criticism over the years from some members of the large community of 9/11 victims’ families, some of whom have criticized ticket prices or called for changes in the makeup of the museum’s exhibits.

    Trump spokespersons declined to respond to the comments.

    In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed when the hijackers crashed jetliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in southwest Pennsylvania during the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 2,700 of those victims perished in the fiery collapse of the trade center’s twin towers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal government sues California utility, alleging equipment sparked deadly Eaton Fire in LA

    [ad_1]

    The federal government filed two lawsuits Thursday against Southern California Edison, alleging the utility’s equipment sparked fires including January’s Eaton Fire in the Los Angeles area, which destroyed more than 9,400 structures and killed 17 people.“The lawsuits filed today allege a troubling pattern of negligence resulting in death, destruction, and tens of millions of federal taxpayer dollars spent to clean up one utility company’s mistakes,” U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said at a news conference Thursday.(Video above: LA, Maui wildfires tied to hundreds more deaths, new studies show.)The filings allege that Edison failed to properly maintain its power and transmission infrastructure in the area where the Eaton Fire ignited on Jan. 7. It asks for more than $40 million in damages to the federal, state and local governments. Edison spokesperson Jeff Monford said the utility is reviewing the lawsuits.“We continue our work to reduce the likelihood of our equipment starting a wildfire,” Monford said. “Southern California Edison is committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness and enhanced operational practices.”The company has stated it operates three transmission towers in the Eaton Canyon area overlooking the unincorporated area of Altadena, which was ravaged by the fire. In early reports to the California Public Utility Commission, Edison has said it detected a “fault” on one of its transmission lines around the time that the Eaton Fire started.In a July 31 report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the utility said while it has “not conclusively determined” its equipment was responsible for the fire, there was “concerning circumstantial evidence” that suggests its transmission facilities in the area could have been associated with the starting of the fire.It also said it was “not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition,” according to the report cited in the lawsuit.Though the investigation into the fire is still ongoing, Essayli said the government is confident moving forward with the lawsuit, especially with fire season quickly approaching.“There’s no reason to wait,” Essayli said. “We believe that the evidence is clear that Edison is at fault, and by their own admissions, no one else is at fault.” A second lawsuit filed Thursday alleges that Edison’s negligence led to the sparking of the Fairview Fire in September 2022, which scorched the San Bernardino National Forest in Riverside County.According to the filing, a sagging power line in Hemet, California, operated by Edison came into contact with a Frontier Communications messenger cable, which created sparks and ignited the vegetation below.That fire burned more than 21 square miles (54 square kilometers) of forest, killing two people and destroying 44 structures. The government is seeking $37 million in damages incurred by the U.S. Forest Service.Essayli said he will seek terms that prevent Edison from paying for the lawsuits by raising their utility rates.Several Altadena residents who lost their homes sued Edison in January, days after the fire broke out. Their attorneys said at the time they believed Edison’s equipment caused it, pointing to video taken during the fire’s early minutes that showed a large blaze directly beneath electrical towers.Los Angeles County sued Edison in March, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for costs and damages sustained from the blaze.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    LOS ANGELES —

    The federal government filed two lawsuits Thursday against Southern California Edison, alleging the utility’s equipment sparked fires including January’s Eaton Fire in the Los Angeles area, which destroyed more than 9,400 structures and killed 17 people.

    “The lawsuits filed today allege a troubling pattern of negligence resulting in death, destruction, and tens of millions of federal taxpayer dollars spent to clean up one utility company’s mistakes,” U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said at a news conference Thursday.

    (Video above: LA, Maui wildfires tied to hundreds more deaths, new studies show.)

    The filings allege that Edison failed to properly maintain its power and transmission infrastructure in the area where the Eaton Fire ignited on Jan. 7. It asks for more than $40 million in damages to the federal, state and local governments.

    Edison spokesperson Jeff Monford said the utility is reviewing the lawsuits.

    “We continue our work to reduce the likelihood of our equipment starting a wildfire,” Monford said. “Southern California Edison is committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness and enhanced operational practices.”

    The company has stated it operates three transmission towers in the Eaton Canyon area overlooking the unincorporated area of Altadena, which was ravaged by the fire. In early reports to the California Public Utility Commission, Edison has said it detected a “fault” on one of its transmission lines around the time that the Eaton Fire started.

    In a July 31 report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the utility said while it has “not conclusively determined” its equipment was responsible for the fire, there was “concerning circumstantial evidence” that suggests its transmission facilities in the area could have been associated with the starting of the fire.

    It also said it was “not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition,” according to the report cited in the lawsuit.

    Though the investigation into the fire is still ongoing, Essayli said the government is confident moving forward with the lawsuit, especially with fire season quickly approaching.

    “There’s no reason to wait,” Essayli said. “We believe that the evidence is clear that Edison is at fault, and by their own admissions, no one else is at fault.”

    A second lawsuit filed Thursday alleges that Edison’s negligence led to the sparking of the Fairview Fire in September 2022, which scorched the San Bernardino National Forest in Riverside County.

    According to the filing, a sagging power line in Hemet, California, operated by Edison came into contact with a Frontier Communications messenger cable, which created sparks and ignited the vegetation below.

    That fire burned more than 21 square miles (54 square kilometers) of forest, killing two people and destroying 44 structures. The government is seeking $37 million in damages incurred by the U.S. Forest Service.

    Essayli said he will seek terms that prevent Edison from paying for the lawsuits by raising their utility rates.

    Several Altadena residents who lost their homes sued Edison in January, days after the fire broke out. Their attorneys said at the time they believed Edison’s equipment caused it, pointing to video taken during the fire’s early minutes that showed a large blaze directly beneath electrical towers.

    Los Angeles County sued Edison in March, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for costs and damages sustained from the blaze.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump has pledged to ‘lead a movement to get rid of’ voting by mail. Will Utah be a target?

    [ad_1]

    Eva Przybyla, front, and Nicholas Wells process ballots at the Salt Lake County Government Center in Salt Lake City on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

    President Donald Trump this week vowed to “lead a movement to get rid of” voting by mail ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 

    “WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” the president said in a post on Truth Social Monday. 

    Trump, who has long opposed voting by mail, continued to claim, without evidence, that it’s fraught with fraud. 

    Utah has been the only red state among eight that have conducted universal by-mail elections, including six Democratic strongholds and one swing state — a fact that some conservatives here have balked at, while others have defended the state’s by-mail system as a popular, convenient and safe voting method. 

    After Trump’s post, Utah’s top election official, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican, issued a short statement on social media without addressing the president directly. 

    “The constitutional right of individual states to choose the manner in which they conduct secure elections is a fundamental strength of our system,” Henderson said. 

    The president, however, asserted that states should do what the federal government wants. 

    “Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” Trump said. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”

    Another high-ranking Republican and member of GOP legislative leadership — Senate Majority Assistant Whip Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork — disagrees. 

    McKell told Utah News Dispatch in an interview Tuesday that, like Henderson said, states have the right to choose how to administer their elections, and that he’d push back on an effort to completely undo voting by mail. 

    “In Utah, we’re in a good place. I think there’s strong support for vote by mail. There’s also strong support for security,” McKell said.

    He added that’s “the needle we tried to thread” earlier this year when the 2025 Utah Legislature passed a bill that he sponsored to require voter ID and eventually phase out automatic voting by mail in this state by 2026. The aim of that bill, he said, was to preserve voting by mail as an option for Utah voters while also adding a new layer of security. 

    Even though local polls have shown a vast majority of Utahns remain confident in their elections, Gallup polling shows trust nationally has decreased especially among a faction of Republican voters since 2006 as elections have become more polarized. After Trump lost the 2020 election, he ramped up rhetoric to cast doubt on election security and voting by mail. 

    Asked about Trump’s comments this week, McKell reiterated it’s a matter of states rights. 

    SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

    “It is a federalism issue,” he said. “If it’s not enumerated in the (U.S.) Constitution, it’s reserved for the states. That’s article 10. I think states have the right to dictate how they run their elections.” 

    McKell also defended Utah’s track record as a state that has used voting by mail for years, starting with optional pilot programs that counties opted into before moving to universal voting by mail. 

    “In the state of Utah, Republicans have done really well with vote by mail. We elect Republicans,” he said, also noting that Trump in 2024 won the red state handily. “There’s generally broad support for vote by mail, especially among rural voters and elderly voters in Utah.” 

    He added that “it’s OK if there’s some tension between the federal government and state government,” but he argued the Constitution clearly reserves elections for states to control and administer. 

    Pressed on how he’d respond to pressure from the Trump administration to get rid of voting by mail, McKell said, “I would resist a movement that didn’t originate in the state,” adding that he responds to his constituents, not the federal government. 

    “If there’s a movement to change vote by mail, it needs to come from — it must come from — the state,” he said. “It’s a state issue. The states need to be in control of their own elections. Right now, I don’t feel like there’s a reason to eliminate vote by mail. I think we do a good job.” 

    Not all Republicans in Utah embrace voting by mail, however, Earlier this year, McKell’s bill was the result of a compromise between the House and Senate to more drastically restrict the state’s universal vote-by-mail system. 

    Asked whether Trump’s comments could further inflame skepticism around the security of voting by mail in Utah, McKell said it’s nothing new. “We saw these comments before, and even going into the last legislative session, there were folks that opposed vote by mail.” 

    But McKell said multiple state audits “have shown that our elections are safe and secure,” while legislators have also made efforts to continually improve the system where issues have cropped up, like in voter roll maintenance. 

    It remains to be seen whether Trump’s comments could fan some Republican lawmakers’ appetite to go after voting by mail during their next general session in January, but McKell said typically every year there’s a slew of election bills for legislators to sort through. 

    Asked whether he plans to make any tweaks to his 2025 bill, McKell said he’s still talking with clerks about any possible changes. 

    “I feel like we did strike a really appropriate balance, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at ways to make it better,” he said, adding that he doesn’t have any specific proposals yet, “but that could change as we get closer to the legislative session.” 

    SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

    [ad_2]

    Source link