US domestic policy

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares84 Views

    The luxury gap: Trump builds his palace as Americans face going hungry

    by

    It was a feast fit for a king – and any billionaire willing to be his subject. From gold-rimmed plates on gold-patterned tablecloths decorated with gold candlestick holders, they gorged on heirloom tomato panzanella salad, beef wellington and a dessert of roasted Anjou pears, cinnamon crumble and butterscotch ice-cream.On 15 October, Donald Trump welcomed nearly 130 deep-pocketed donors, allies and representatives of major companies for a dinner at the White House to reward them for their pledged contributions to a vast new ballroom now expected to cost $300m. That the federal government had shut down two weeks earlier scarcely seemed to matter.But two weeks later, the shutdown is starting to bite – and throw Trump’s architectural folly into sharp relief. On Saturday, with Congress still locked in a legislative stalemate, a potential benefit freeze could leave tens of millions of low-income Americans without food aid. Democrats accuse Trump’s Republican party of “weaponising hunger” to pursue an extreme rightwing agenda.Images of wealthy monarchs or autocrats revelling in excess even as the masses struggle for bread are more commonly associated with the likes of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette of France, who spent lavishly at the court of Versailles, or Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos of the Philippines, who siphoned off billions while citizens endured deepening poverty.But now America has a jarring split-screen of its own, between an oligarch president bringing a Midas touch to the White House and families going hungry, workers losing pay and government services on the brink of collapse.View image in fullscreenView image in fullscreen“Are you fucking kidding me?” exclaimed Kamala Harris, the former vice-president, during an interview on Jon Stewart’s Comedy Central podcast The Weekly Show. “This guy wants to create a ballroom for his rich friends while completely turning a blind eye to the fact that babies are going to starve when the Snap benefits end in just hours from now.”For years Trump has cultivated the image of a “blue-collar billionaire” and, in last year’s presidential election, he beat Harris by 14 percentage points among non-college-educated voters – double his margin in 2016.Yet he grew up in an affluent neighbourhood of Queens, New York, and joined the family business as a property developer, receiving a $1m loan from his father for projects in Manhattan. He attached his name to luxury hotels and golf clubs and achieved celebrity through the New York tabloids and as host of the reality TV show The Apprentice.View image in fullscreenAs a politician, however, Trump has successfully branded himself as the voice of the left-behinds in towns hollowed out by industrialisation. His formula includes tapping into grievance, particularly white grievance, and into “Make America Great Again” nostalgia . His speeches are peppered with aspirational promises that his policies will guarantee his supporters a share of the nation’s wealth.This has apparently given him leeway with Trump voters who, despite their own struggles, turned a blind eye to the largesse of his first term and how it might benefit his family. But it was clear from his inauguration in January – when he was surrounded by the tech titans Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg – that part two would be different.Trump has made a personal profit of more than $1.8bn over the past year, according to a new financial tracker run by the Center for American Progress thinktank, which says the lion’s share came from launching his own crypto ventures while aggressively deregulating the industry. Other sources of income include gifts, legal settlements and income from a $40m Amazon documentary about the first lady, Melania Trump.There have been brazen “let them eat cake” moments. In May, Trump said he would accept a $400m luxury plane from Qatar and use it as Air Force One despite concerns that it could violate the US constitution’s emoluments clause. In October, it was reported he was demanding the justice department pay him about $230m in compensation over federal investigations he faced that he claims were politically motivated.View image in fullscreenLarry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “There is a glaring gap between the life of Donald Trump, which is gold-plated and luxurious, and the life of so many Americans who are now being hit by the government shutdown.“You have to go back in history to examples in the 1920s or the Gilded Age in the late 19th century to find this kind of opulence that’s not just going on but being advertised. That goes along with all the other efforts to enrich Donald Trump and his family and his friends. It’s a shocking display of the use of public power for private gain.”It is hard to imagine a more resonant symbol than the ballroom. Last month, Trump left presidential historians and former White House staff aghast by demolishing the East Wing without seeking approval from the National Capital Planning Commission, which vets the construction of federal buildings. He also fired all six members of the Commission of Fine Arts, an independent agency that had expected to review the project.He claimed the destruction was a necessary step towards building a long-needed ballroom which, at 90,000 sq ft, would be big enough to hold an inauguration and dwarf the executive mansion itself. It will be funded not by the taxpayer but the new masters of the universe.Among the companies represented at the 15 October dinner were Amazon, Apple, Booz Allen Hamilton, Coinbase, Comcast, Google, Lockheed Martin, Meta Platforms and T-Mobile. The Adelson Family Foundation, founded by the Republican mega-donors Miriam Adelson and her late husband Sheldon, also had a presence.The oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman, Small Business Administration chief Kelly Loeffler and her husband, Jeff Sprecher, and crypto entrepreneur twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss – who were portrayed by the actor Armie Hammer in the film The Social Network – were all on the guest list.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEthics watchdogs condemned the dinner as a blatant case of selling access to the president with the potential for influence peddling and other forms of corruption. Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic strategist, said: “It’s par for the course for Donald Trump. Millionaires and billionaires wine with him and dine with him and everything is fine with him. There’s a cost and there’s consequences.“They’re not donating this money because it’s a nice thing to do. Certainly there’s some sort of benefit to them and it could be the largest wealth transfer in American history with the big ugly bill [the Working Families Tax Cut Act] just a few months ago.”View image in fullscreenThat legislation delivers tax cuts for the rich while reducing food assistance and making health insurance more expensive for working families. The mood is only likely to darken as the second-longest government shutdown in history threatens to rip the social safety net away from millions of people. John Thune, the Republican majority leader in the Senate, warned on Wednesday: “It’s going to get ugly fast.”A number of essential public services are approaching the end of their available funds, a situation likely to be felt directly in households, schools and airports from this weekend.The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), also known as food stamps, is set to lapse for 42 million people, raising the spectre of long queues at food banks. On Friday, two federal judges ruled that the Trump administration must continue to fund the programme with contingency funds. But the decisions are likely to face appeals. It was also unclear how soon the debit cards that beneficiaries use to buy groceries could be reloaded.Schemes that provide early years’ education for low-income families and subsidised air travel to remote communities are also set to run aground. At the same time, thousands of federal employees will soon miss their first full paychecks since the shutdown began, raising the prospect of staffing shortages in areas such as airport security and air traffic control.The timing is awkward because Saturday also marks the start of open enrolment for health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act. Premiums are expected to soar, reflecting insurers’ doubts that Congress will renew enhanced tax credits before they lapse at year’s end – one of the key points of contention in the current standoff.Trump can often appear immune to political crises. But in a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos opinion poll released on Thursday, only 28% of Americans say they support the ballroom project, compared with 56% who oppose it. The same survey found that 45% blame Trump and Republicans for the government shutdown while 33% hold Democrats responsible. Notably, independents blame Trump and Republicans by a 2-1 margin – handing Democrats an opportunity.View image in fullscreenJohn Zogby, an author and pollster, said: “For the first time in a while, they have an opening with rural voters. Medicaid and Snap are infrastructural necessities in the poorest counties. Without programmes like this being funded, you’re not just talking about hurting poor people or rural people who are invisible; you’re talking about shutting down hospitals and clinics, and that matters to people. Democrats should be fanning out in rural areas and people should be telling their stories.”It is safe to assume that, had Barack Obama or Joe Biden built a ballroom during the crippling austerity of a government shutdown, Republicans and rightwing media would have gone scorched-earth against them. Trump’s ostentatious display of wealth and cronyism comes against a backdrop of widening social and economic inequality. Democrats, however, are often accused of lacking a killer instinct.Joe Walsh, a former Republican representative aligned with the conservative Tea Party who four months ago became a Democrat, said: “Democrats don’t know how to fight and I can see they’re already squirming on this ballroom issue. We’ve got a guy in the White House who every day is taking a blowtorch to this country and most Democrats don’t understand the moment. He ploughs ahead and tears down the East Wing because he knows he can get away with it.”Walsh believes that the next Democratic president should commit to demolishing Trump’s ballroom. “This is somebody who’s a tyrant who believes he can ignore all laws, rules, norms and processes,” he added. “You have to draw the line on that. No, he cannot unilaterally demolish the East Wing and build a big old ballroom. This guy has no clue what America is. We don’t have palaces in America.” More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares168 Views

      in US Politics

      Daniel Lurie: the millionaire mayor who got Trump to back off (for now)

      by

      Donald Trump rarely has kind words for Democrats, especially those who stand in his way. But on Thursday the president offered something unfamiliar: a compliment.As federal agents mobilized at a US Coast Guard base in the Bay Area, Trump credited San Francisco’s new mayor, Daniel Lurie, for “very nicely” persuading him to stand down from a planned immigration enforcement “surge” in the city this weekend.“I spoke to Mayor Lurie last night and he asked, very nicely, that I give him a chance to see if he can turn it around,” Trump wrote, without hurling an epithet or nickname. “I told him, ‘It’s an easier process if we do it, faster, stronger, and safer but, let’s see how you do?’”Speaking later at a midday news conference at city hall, Lurie said it was the president who initiated the conversation: “He picked up the phone and called me.”Trump had conveyed “clearly” that he was calling off the deployment of federal troops, Lurie told reporters, clarifying that the president had “asked nothing of me” in return.It was not Lurie’s assurances alone that changed Trump’s mind. According to the president’s Truth Social post, “friends of mine who live in the area” called to vouch for the “substantial progress” San Francisco had made since Lurie took the helm in January. Trump specifically cited “great people” such as Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce who ignited a firestorm when he suggested the president should send national guard troops to his native San Francisco before apologizing and backtracking, as well as Jensen Huang, the president and chief executive of Nvidia.“They want to give it a ‘shot’,” Trump wrote, summarizing the feedback he had received. “Therefore, we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday. Stay tuned!”Lurie, the 48-year-old heir to the Levi Strauss fortune, swept into city hall promising a reset for a city that had struggled with both real post-pandemic challenges – an empty downtown, an enduring homelessness emergency, an addiction crisis, repeated reports of corruption – and a caricatured portrayal by Trump and his rightwing allies as a Democratic-run hellscape awash in decay and crime. His victory over incumbent London Breed last November was widely viewed as a rebuke of San Francisco’s political status quo, and a test of whether a political newcomer and centrist pragmatist could help the city overcome its woes – and the perception that it was worse off than it was.So far, the statistics have trended in the right direction. The California governor’s office said earlier this month that San Francisco saw a 45% decrease in homicides and 40% drop in robberies from 2019 to 2025. The city is on track to have the lowest number of homicides in more than 70 years, according to a recent San Francisco Chronicle analysis.Yet looming over Lurie’s early months in office were questions over how he would fare in a showdown with the mercurial president who has made his antagonism towards the city clear for years. It’s a calculation every Democratic mayor and blue state governor has made as Trump threatens a widening federal crackdown on major US cities.At a moment when Democrats across the country are yearning for a confrontational foil to Trump, Lurie stuck to a “heads down” approach, insisting his top priority was keeping residents safe. Lurie rarely, if ever, refers to the president by name, and even when criticizing the administration, he avoids attacking Trump in personal terms. It is a stark contrast to Gavin Newsom, the California governor (and a former San Francisco mayor), who has emerged as a leading figure in the anti-Trump resistance and pillories the president daily on social media.In recent days, as tensions rose and Trump signaled he was prepared to send troops into San Francisco, Lurie carried on as he had, “laser-focused” on boosting the “greatest city in the world”. While he was firm that the city opposed a federal deployment, he refrained from criticizing the president directly. The mayor kept residents informed with a series of video messages in his signature direct-to-camera style, promising to protect the city’s immigrant communities and urging residents to protest peacefully. “While we cannot control the federal government, here in San Francisco,” he said earlier this week, “we define who we are.”The ties he has forged with Silicon Valley’s prominent leaders, as part of his mission to keep tech companies in San Francisco, appeared to have also helped defuse the situation, at least for now.At the press conference on Thursday, Lurie said he welcomed San Francisco’s “continued partnership” with federal authorities to tackle drugs and crime. He touted the city’s progress, noting that crime was down – violent crime particularly. The city had added police officers, workers were returning to the office, and downtown buildings were being leased and purchased, Lurie said he impressed on the builder turned president. The mayor’s message, too, was clear: “San Francisco’s comeback is real.”Lurie’s management of the city – and the president – has earned glowing reviews. Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker who represents San Francisco, said Lurie had “demonstrated exceptional leadership in his steadfast commitment to the safety and wellbeing of San Franciscans”.“I salute Mayor Lurie for standing up for our City and reinforcing San Francisco’s strength, optimism and recovery,” she said on X.Yet much remained unclear – whether Trump was calling off the anticipated national guard deployment or a ramped-up immigration enforcement effort, or whether he might send troops elsewhere in the Bay Area. The president has mentioned Oakland as another possible target – and, as ever, reserved the right to change his mind. Unlike Lurie, Oakland’s mayor, Barbara Lee, received no such call from the president, but said she was ready to “engage with anyone, at any level of government, to protect Oakland residents”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAt his press conference, Lurie said he could only repeat what the president told him during their call.“Our city remains prepared for any scenario,” he said. “We have a plan in place that can be activated at any moment.”Trump’s sudden reversal came as a surprise to local leaders and advocates, as protests against the federal intervention amassed at the Coast Guard base in Alameda on Thursday morning.Rights groups and community activists have urged Lurie and other city officials to take bolder steps to defend immigrants, some calling for a state of emergency if a federal deployment takes place, a designation that could help quickly boost resources for targeted communities. Others have called on Lurie to establish “safe zones” that federal agents cannot enter and declare an eviction moratorium, since raids and fears of ICE enforcement can force people to hide out and miss work.Outside San Francisco’s city hall, local leaders and organizers were also grappling with the whiplash.“At this time, we do not know which federal agencies are being called off. We don’t know if that’s the national guard. We don’t know if it’s ICE, if it’s border patrol,” said Jackie Fielder, the San Francisco city supervisor representing parts of the city’s Mission neighborhood. She said any federal agents deputized to help Trump “carry out his mass deportation plans” were “absolutely not welcome in San Francisco”.Newsom, who has made a sport of publicly clashing with Trump, said Trump’s decision to call off the deployment was proof of the president’s capriciousness and warned residents not to take the president at his word. “Business leaders made the phone call to Donald Trump – now we know who he listens to,” the governor said at an event in San Jose on Thursday, adding: “If you think this story just ended – that it’s got a period or exclamation point – you know better.”Even as Trump boasted of his own restraint, Lurie’s instinct was the opposite: deflect attention and press ahead. Asked on Thursday whether his approach could serve as a model for other Democratic mayors facing an unwanted federal intervention, Lurie demurred, suggesting the question was better left to the political chattering class.“Every day I’m focused on San Francisco,” he said. “Heads down. How do we keep our city safe?”Maanvi Singh in San Francisco and Sam Levin in Los Angeles contributed reporting More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Chicago organizers say city needs support, not politicalization by Trump: ‘This is not a serious solution’

      by

      For months, Donald Trump and his administration have been using violent crime as a justification for ramping up Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) operations and sending or threatening to send the national guard to blue cities – first in Los Angeles, then Washington DC and, last week, Chicago.But for those who work on the ground to prevent crime, the White House’s approaches will do little to address underlying causes. Instead, they say, increased law enforcement will only lead to harassment and increased surveillance in communities that are already overpoliced.“[Trump doesn’t] mean well for our community,” said Teny Gross, executive director of the Institute for Nonviolence Chicago, a non-profit that offers services for people most at risk of shooting someone or being shot. “Yes, there’s a lot of violence, and it’s because of policies over decades. If you want to go after violence, go to the cities and invest in them, not just send in the national guard.”Gross has worked in violence prevention for more than three decades. Over the years, he’s heard Chicagoans talk about the need for increased law enforcement in their neighborhoods, including deploying the national guard – comments he saw as expressions of understandable desperation. He says residents have grown exhausted from witnessing decades of bloodshed and poverty that go unabated under both Republican and Democratic administrations.Still, he said that these issues won’t be solved through the shows of force Trump is enacting. “We deal with grief daily. We see death daily. This is not a serious solution,” he said.Last year, 574 people were killed in Chicago, primarily from gunshot wounds, giving the city a homicide rate of 17 per 100,000 people. This is far below that of some cities in red states, such as Birmingham, Alabama, and Shreveport, Louisiana, whose rates were 59 and 41, respectively, that same year. Still, Chicago’s reputation for shootings is being exploited to normalize military force on city streets and expand law enforcement in neighborhoods that are already highly policed and surveilled, said Ethan Ucker, executive director of Stick Talk, a Chicago non-profit that approaches youth gun-carrying through a harm reduction lens.“Those narratives are strategically being deployed to justify state violence,” Ucker said. “I worry about increasing and accelerating criminalization. But that won’t stop when the national guard leaves. It’s ongoing.”The Rev Ciera Bates-Chamberlain, who leads Live Free Illinois, a coalition of faith-based organizations that advocate for criminal justice reform and public safety, said if Trump actually wants to help, he would emphasize better clearance rates and community-based support services for victims of crime, and would get gun trafficking under control.“We’ve advocated for more community-based resources to be invested in,” she said. “We’ve advocated to improve clearance rates. But to completely disregard those requests is immoral and not about protecting citizens.”Bates-Chamberlain, a native of Chicago’s South Side who’s worked in the violence prevention space for more than a decade, said that “two things can be true at the same time” when it comes to the current national conversation about crime in the US. While Chicago’s leadership is boasting a more than 30% decline in homicides in 2025 so far, there were still nearly 200 people killed in the city by the end of June and many more injured.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“The numbers are down, yet communities are still feeling the impact,” she said.But the pain these losses and injuries carry and their reverberations throughout the community won’t be addressed by sending more law enforcement to the street, Bates-Chamberlain said.“He’s politicizing our pain and that is diabolical and despicable for the president of the United States to do,” she said. “This is really harmful.” More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration cuts New York City’s anti-terrorism funding days after skyscraper attack

      by

      The Trump administration said it would cut terrorism prevention funding for New York City, according to a grant notice posted days after a gunman killed four people inside a Manhattan skyscraper.The Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) stated in a grant notice posted on Friday that New York City would receive $64m less this year from its urban area security fund. The amount was listed in a single line of an 80-page Fema notice on the grant program.US Congress created the program to help cities prevent terrorist attacks.“It makes absolutely no sense, and no justification has been given to cut NY’s allocation given the rise in the threat environment,” a spokesperson for the New York state division of homeland security and emergency services said in a statement on Monday afternoon.Manhattan has been the site of two attacks on high-profile corporate executives in the last year. The most recent attack came from a gunman armed with an assault-style rifle in late July, who killed four people inside an office building that houses the headquarters of the NFL and several major financial firms.New York governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, highlighted the attack in her late July letter to the US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem, asking why the Trump administration had not announced the amounts each city would receive from the program this year. Fema is part of the Department of Homeland Security.Noem’s office did not respond to two messages from Reuters asking why the federal government cut New York’s funding.In December 2024, the chief executive of insurance giant UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was shot dead on the street in Manhattan in a targeted attack. And security has been particularly tight in New York City ever since the al-Qaida terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, which killed almost 3,000 people in lower Manhattan when Islamist extremists flew hijacked passenger jets into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.Fema uses “an analysis of relative risk of terrorism” to decide how much money cities will receive, according to the grant notice posted on Friday. The agency may change the amounts later, according to the notice.In 2023, the agency considered city visitor counts, population density and proximity to international borders, among other factors, to determine the totals, according to a report signed by then Fema administrator Deanne Criswell.Fema has been decreasing terrorism prevention money for New York City each year since at least fiscal year 2022. The drop is much more drastic this year at 41% year-over-year.The New York City police department has used the funding in the past to pay for the Domain Awareness System, a network of cameras, license plate readers and detection devices, according to a 2016 statement from the former mayor Bill de Blasio’s office. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We need some hope’: can a rural hospital on the brink survive Trump’s bill?

      by

      When her severely allergic toddler, Josie, began gasping for breath in the middle of the night, Krissy Cunningham knew there was only one place she could get to in time to save her daughter’s life.For 74 years, Pemiscot Memorial hospital has been the destination for those who encounter catastrophe in Missouri’s poorest county, a rural stretch of farms and towns in its south-eastern Bootheel region. Three stories of brown brick just off Interstate 55 in the town of Hayti, the 115-bed hospital has kept its doors open even after the county’s only Walmart closed, the ranks of boarded-up gas stations along the freeway exit grew, and the population of the surrounding towns dwindled, thanks in no small part to the destruction done by tornadoes.For many in Pemiscot county, its emergency room is the closest available without taking a 30-minute drive across the Mississippi river to Tennessee or the state line to Arkansas, a range that can make the difference between life and death for victims of shootings, overdoses or accidents on the road. In the wee hours of one spring morning, it was there that Josie received the breathing treatments and a racemic epinephrine shot that made her wheezing subside.“There is no way I would have made it to one of the farther hospitals, if it wouldn’t have been here. Her airway just would have closed off, and I probably would have been doing CPR on my daughter on the side of the road,” recalled Cunningham, a nurse who sits on the hospital’s board.View image in fullscreenYet its days of serving its community may be numbered. In May, the hospital’s administration went public with the news that after years of struggling with high rates of uninsured patients and low reimbursement rates from insurers, they may have to close. And even if they do manage to navigate out of their current crisis, Pemiscot Memorial’s leaders see a new danger on the horizon: the “big, beautiful bill” Republicans pushed through Congress earlier this month, at Donald Trump’s request.Centered around an array of tax cuts as well as funds for the president’s mass deportation plans, the bill will mandate the largest funding reduction in history to Medicaid, the federal healthcare program supporting low-income and disabled Americans. That is expected to have ripple effects nationwide, but will hit particularly hard in Pemiscot county and other rural areas, where hospitals tend to have frail margins and disproportionately rely on Medicaid to stay afloat.“If Medicaid drops, are we going to be even collecting what we’re collecting now?” asked Jonna Green, the chairwoman of Pemiscot Memorial’s board, who estimated 80% of their revenue comes from Medicaid as well as Medicare, another federal health program primarily for people 65 and older. “We need some hope.”The changes to Medicaid will phase in beginning in late 2026, and require enrollees to work, volunteer or attend school 80 hours a month, with some exceptions. States are also to face new caps on provider taxes, which they use to fund their Medicaid programs. All told, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts that 10 million people nationwide will lose their healthcare due to the bill, which is nonetheless expected to add $3.4tn to the federal budget deficit through 2034.Trump carried Missouri, a midwestern state that has veered sharply away from the Democratic party over the past three decades, with more than 58% of the vote last November. In Pemiscot county, where census data shows more than a quarter of residents are below the poverty line and the median income is just over $40,000 a year, he was the choice of 74% of voters, and Republican lawmakers representing the county played a notable role in steering his tax and spending bill through Congress.Senator Josh Hawley publicly advocated against slashing the healthcare program, writing in the New York Times: “If Republicans want to be a working-class party – if we want to be a majority party – we must ignore calls to cut Medicaid and start delivering on America’s promise for America’s working people.” He ultimately supported the bill after a $50bn fund to help rural hospitals was included, but weeks later introduced legislation that would repeal some of the very same cuts he had just voted for.“I want to see Medicaid reductions stopped and rural hospitals fully funded permanently,” the senator said.View image in fullscreenJason Smith, whose district encompasses Pemiscot county and the rest of south-eastern Missouri, oversaw the crafting of the measure’s tax provision as chairman of the House ways and means committee, and has argued they will bring prosperity rural areas across the state. Like others in the GOP, he has said the Medicaid cuts will ferret out “waste, fraud and abuse”, and make the program more efficient.It’s a gamble for a state that has seen nine rural hospitals close since 2015, including one in a county adjacent to Pemiscot, with a further 10 at immediate risk of going under, according to data from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform policy group.The Missouri Budget Project thinktank estimates that the bill will cost 170,000 of the state’s residents their health coverage, largely due to work requirements that will act as difficult-to-satisfy red tape for Medicaid enrollees, while the cap on provider taxes will sap $1.9bn from the state’s Medicaid program.“There’s going to be some really hard conversations over the course of the next five years, and I think that healthcare in our region will look a lot different than what it does right now,” said Karen White, CEO of Missouri Highlands Health Care, which operates federally qualified health centers providing primary and dental care across rural south-eastern Missouri. She forecasts 20% of her patients will lose Medicaid coverage through 2030.As the bill was making its way through Congress, she contacted the offices of Smith, Hawley and Missouri’s junior senator, Eric Schmitt, all politicians she had voted for, asking them to reconsider cutting Medicaid. She did not hear back.“I love democracy. I love the fact that we as citizens can make our voices heard. And they voted the way that they felt they needed to vote. Maybe … the larger constituency reached out to them with a viewpoint that was different than mine, but I made my viewpoint heard,” White said.Spokespeople for Schmitt and Smith did not respond to requests for comment. In response to emailed questions, a spokeswoman for Hawley referred to his introduction of the legislation to partially stop the Medicaid cuts.Down the road from the hospital lies Hayti Heights, where there are no businesses and deep puddles form in the potholes and ditches that line roadways after every thunderstorm. Mayor Catrina Robinson has a plan to turn things around for her 500 or so residents, which involves bringing back into service the water treatment plant that is the town’s main source of revenue. But that is unlikely to change much without Pemiscot Memorial.“Half of those people that work at the hospital, they’re my residents. So how they gonna pay their bills? How they gonna pay their water bill, how they gonna pay their light bill, how they gonna pay rent? This is their source of income. Then what will they do?” Robinson said.View image in fullscreenTrump’s bill does include an array of relief aimed at the working-class voters who broke for him in the last election, including tax cuts on tips and overtime pay and deductions aimed at senior citizens. It remains to be seen if whatever financial benefits those provisions bring to the workers of Pemiscot county will outweigh the impact of the stress the Medicaid cuts place on its healthcare system.“The tax relief of server’s tips and all that, that’s not going to change the poverty level of our area,” said Loren Clifton, the hospital’s administrative director. “People losing their healthcare insurance absolutely will make it worse.”Work can be found in the county’s corn, wheat, soybean and rice fields, at a casino in the county seat Caruthersville and at a shipyard along the banks of the Mississippi . But Green questions if those industries would stick around if the hospital goes under, and takes with it the emergency room that often serves to stabilize critical patients before transferring them elsewhere.View image in fullscreen“Our community cannot go without a hospital. Healthcare, employment, industry – it would devastate everything,” Green said.The board is exploring partnerships with other companies to help keep the hospital afloat, and has applied for a federal rural emergency hospital designation which they believe will improve their reimbursements and chances of winning grants, though that will require them to give up other services that bring in revenue. For many of its leaders, the stakes of keeping the hospital open are personal.“This is our home, born and raised, and you would never want to leave it. But I have a nine-year-old with cardiac problems. I would not feel safe living here without a hospital that I could take her to know if something happened,” said Brittany Osborne, Pemiscot Memorial’s interim CEO.One muggy Wednesday morning in July, Pemiscot’s three county commissioners, all Republicans, gathered in a small conference room in Caruthersville’s courthouse and spoke of their resolve to keep the hospital open.“It’s 50-50 right now,” commissioner Mark Cartee said of the hospital’s chances of survival. “But, as long as we have some money in the bank of the county, we’re going to keep it open. We need healthcare. We got to have a hospital.”They were comparatively sanguine about the possibility that the Medicaid work requirements would harm the facility’s finances down the line.“We got a guy around here, I guess he’s still around. He’s legally blind but he goes deer hunting every year,” commissioner Baughn Merideth said. “There’s just so much fraud … it sounds like we’re right in the middle of it.”A few blocks away, Jim Brands, owner of Hayden Pharmacy, the oldest in the county, had little doubt that there were those in the county who took advantage of Medicaid. He also believed that fewer enrollees in the program would mean less business for his pharmacy, and more hardship overall.View image in fullscreen“Just seeing this community, the situation it’s in, the poverty, we’ve got to get people to work. There are a ton of able-bodied people that could work that choose not to,” he said.“To me, there’s got to be a better way to weed out the fraud and not step on the toes of the people who need it.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump cracks down on homelessness with executive order enabling local governments

      by

      The federal government is seeking to crack down on homelessness in the US, with Donald Trump issuing an executive order to push local governments to remove unhoused people from the streets.The order the US president signed on Thursday will seek the “reversal of federal or state judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees” that restrict local governments’ ability to respond to the crisis, and redirect funds to support rehabilitation and treatment. The order aims to “restore public order”, saying “endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe”, according to the order.The action comes as the homelessness crisis in the US has significantly worsened in recent years driven by a widespread shortage of affordable housing. Last year, a single-day count, which is a rough estimate, recorded more than 770,000 people experiencing homelessness across the country, the highest figure ever documented.Cities and states have adopted an increasingly punitive approach to homelessness, seeking to push people out of parks and city streets, even when there is no shelter available. The supreme court ruled last year that cities can impose fines and even jail time for unhoused people for sleeping outside after local governments argued some protections for unhoused people prevented them from taking action to reduce homelessness.Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told USA Today, which first reported on the executive order, that the president was “delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again” and end homelessness.“By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need,” she said.The president’s order comes after last year’s US supreme court ruling, which was one of the most consequential legal decisions on homelessness in decades in the US.That ruling held that it is not “cruel and unusual punishment” to criminalize camping when there is no shelter available. The case originated in Grants Pass, Oregon, a city that was defending its efforts to prosecute people for sleeping in public.Unhoused people in the US have long faced crackdowns and sweeps, with policies and police practices that result in law enforcement harassment, tickets or jail time. But the ruling supercharged those kinds of aggressive responses, emboldening cities and states to punish encampment residents who have no other options for shelter.In a report last month, the American Civil Liberties Union found that cities across the US have introduced more than 320 bills criminalizing unhoused people, the majority of which have passed. The crackdowns have taken place in Democratic- and Republican-run states alike.Advocates for unhoused people’s rights have long argued that criminalization only exacerbates the housing crisis, shuffling people in and out of jail or from one neighborhood to the next, as they lose their belongings and connections to providers, fall further into debt and wind up in increasingly unsafe conditions.During his campaign last year, Trump used dark rhetoric to talk about the humanitarian crisis, threatening to force people into “tent cities”, raising fears that some of the poorest, most vulnerable Americans could end up in remote locations in settings that resemble concentration camps. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Consent decrees force schools to desegregate. The Trump administration is striking them down

      by

      In late April, the Department of Justice announced that it was ending a decades-long consent decree in Plaquemines parish, Louisiana, in a school district that has been under a desegregation order since the Johnson administration in the 1960s.The Plaquemines parish desegregation order, one of more than 130 such orders nationwide, was in place to ensure that the school district, which initially refused to integrate, followed the law. Many consent decrees of the era are still in existence because school districts are not in compliance with the law.Some experts, including former justice department employees, say the change in direction for the department could be worrying.These orders “provide students with really important protections against discrimination”, said Shaheena Simons, who was the chief of the educational opportunities section of the civil rights division at the justice department for nearly a decade. “They require school districts to continue to actively work to eliminate all the remaining vestiges of the state-mandated segregation system. That means that students have protections in terms of what schools they’re assigned to, in terms of the facilities and equipment in the schools that they attend. They have protection from discrimination in terms of barriers to accessing advanced programs, gifted programs. And it means that a court is there to protect them and to enforce their rights when they’re violated and to ensure that school districts are continuing to actively desegregate.”The justice department ended the Plaquemines parish desegregation order in an unusual process, one that some fear will be replicated elsewhere. The case was dismissed through a “joint stipulated dismissal”. Previously, courts have followed a specific process for ending similar cases, one in which school districts prove that they are complying with the court orders. That did not happen this time. Instead, the Louisiana state attorney general’s office worked with the justice department in reaching the dismissal.“I’m not aware of anyone, any case, that has [ended] that way before,” said Deuel Ross, the deputy director of litigation of the Legal Defense Fund (LDF); the LDF was not specifically involved with the Plaquemines parish case. “The government as a plaintiff who represents the American people, the people of that parish, has an obligation to make sure that the district has done everything that it’s supposed to have done to comply with the federal court order in the case before it gets released, and the court itself has its own independent obligation to confirm that there’s no vestiges of discrimination left in the school district that are traceable to either present or past discrimination.”Despite the district not proving that it is compliant with the order, the justice department has celebrated the end of the consent decree.“No longer will the Plaquemines Parish School Board have to devote precious local resources over an integration issue that ended two generations ago,” Harmeet K Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the justice department’s civil rights division, said in a statement announcing the decision. “This is a prime example of neglect by past administrations, and we’re now getting America refocused on our bright future.”But focusing on the age of the case implies that it was obsolete, according to Simons, who is now the senior adviser of programs and strategist at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “The administration is trying to paint these cases as ancient history and no longer relevant.”In 1966, the Johnson administration sued school districts across the country, particularly in the south, that refused to comply with desegregation demands. At the time, Plaquemines parish was led by Leander Perez, a staunch segregationist and white supremacist.Perez had played a large role in trying to keep nearby New Orleans from desegregating, and once that effort failed, he invited 1,000 white students from the Ninth Ward to enroll in Plaquemines parish schools. By 1960, nearly 600 had accepted the offer. Perez was excommunicated by Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel for ignoring his warning to stop trying to prevent schools run by the archdiocese of New Orleans from integrating.Perez attempted to close the public schools in Plaquemines parish, and instead open all-white private academies, or, segregation academies, which became a feature of the post-integration south. An estimated 300 segregation academies, which, as private schools, are not governed by the same rules and regulations as public schools, are still in operation and majority white.Students and teachers working in school districts today might be decades removed from the people who led the push for desegregation in their districts, but they still benefit from the protections that were long ago put in place. Without court oversight, school districts that were already begrudgingly complying might have no incentive to continue to do so.According to the Century Foundation, as of 2020, 185 districts and charters consider race and/or socioeconomic status in their student assignment or admissions policies, while 722 districts and charters are subject to a legal desegregation order or voluntary agreement. The justice department currently has about 135 desegregation cases on its docket, the majority of which are in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Separate but equal doesn’t work,” said Johnathan Smith, former deputy assistant attorney general in the civil rights division at the justice department. “The reality is that students of color do better when they are in integrated classrooms … We know that the amount of resources that are devoted to schools are greater when there are a higher number of white students. So to have students attend majority-minority school districts means that they’re going to be shut out, whether that’s from AP classes, whether that’s from extracurricular activities. All the activities that make it possible for students to fully achieve occur when you have more integrated classrooms.”“Public education isn’t just about education for the sake of education,” he added. “It’s about preparing people to be citizens of our democracy and to be fully engaged in our democratic institutions. When you have students that are being shut out from quality public education, the impact is not just on those communities. It’s on our democracy writ large.”Smith, the current chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law, said that the decision “signals utter contempt for communities of color by the administration, and a lack of awareness of the history of segregation that has plagued our nation’s schools”.“Even though we are 71 years after the Brown v Board [of Education] decision, schools of this country remain more segregated today than they were back in 1954,” he said. “The fact that the administration is kind of wholeheartedly ending these types of consent decrees is troubling, particularly when they’re not doing the research and investigation to determine whether or not these decrees really should be ended at this point.”Smith said that the decision in the Plaquemines parish case may be a “slippery slope” in which other school districts begin reaching out to the Trump administration.“The impact they can have across the country and particularly across the south is pretty huge,” he said. “I worry that we’re going to see more and more of these decrees falling and more and more of these districts remaining segregated without any real opportunity to address that.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      So big, so beautiful: Fox News ignores the critics and champions Trump’s bill

      by

      Donald Trump’s mega-bill has been widely criticized in the press. News outlets and Democrats have warned that millions of people could be stripped of their health coverage through cuts to Medicaid, that cuts to food programs would see children go hungry, and that the legislation would cause the deficit to balloon.Fox News sees it differently.“This legislation is packed with massive, huge, important wins for you, the American people,” Sean Hannity told viewers on Monday, as US senators debated the bill in Washington.“Here’s what the bill doesn’t do. It does not decrease Medicaid, Medicare, Snap or social security benefits,” Hannity continued, a claim that completely contradicted the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the bill will cut Medicaid across the US by 7.6 million to 10.3 million people.Hannity had more.“The big, beautiful bill also does not increase the deficit. Instead, the deficit will go down around a little shy of $2tn – that’s to begin with, according to estimates,” he said.“Because guess what? That’s what happens when you cut taxes. It stimulates the economy, creates jobs, gets people off the welfare rolls. Guess what? People are working, now they’re paying taxes.”It was unclear where Hannity got his $2tn number from, because he didn’t say. But the CBO says the bill would add at least $3.3tn to the national debt over the next nine years, while the tax cuts will benefit high earners more than others.Hannity held up Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981 as an example of how the deficit will be reduced – a take that ignored that those tax cuts saw an increase of the deficit, and had to be reversed over the rest of Reagan’s presidency.Still, Hannity was sold.“The American people are on the verge of a level of prosperity they have never experienced before,” he said.Hannity’s interpretation was starkly different from the one many Americans were seeing.Even Republican senators have been dubious about the bill’s benefits, with three voting against it in the early hours of Tuesday morning, and House Republicans wavering on Wednesday.Yet, on Tuesday, Laura Ingraham largely ignored the bill – framing it only as Democrats losing a battle to “derail” the legislation before going on a minutes-long riff about a “slide in patriotism” in the US.She went on to offer complaints that there were “more foreign flags waving” in America’s streets and that leftwing politicians believe that “America can only be redeemed when she’s totally dismantled and then remade, with millions of new people from other countries”.Elsewhere, there were occasional, albeit small, concessions that the “big, beautiful bill” might not quite be the masterly piece of legislation the White House would have people believe.“It’s not perfect, but it does need to pass if we want this tax cut,” Ainsley Earhardt said on Fox & Friends at the start of the week. Her co-host Brian Kilmeade at least presented some of the negative points in an interview with Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, on Tuesday, challenging him to address the claim that “this is a tax break for the rich”. But Bessent didn’t even attempt to address that, and Kilmeade was unwilling or unable to press him further.Later that day, the theme continued. Trace Gallagher pulled up data from the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center during his show, with a series of bullet points claiming that if Trump’s bill failed it would lead to tax increases for families and small business owners.Gallagher left out the part of the Tax Foundation’s analysis where the organization said the bill would reduce incomes by 0.6% and result in a nearly $3.6tn deficit increase, and ignored the Tax Policy Center’s verdict that most of the tax cuts in the bill would go “to the highest-income households”.His guests seemingly overlooked those bits, too, as they kept up the ruse.“No bill is perfect,” Elizabeth Pipko, a former spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, told Gallagher, as she claimed “the Democrats seem to have forgotten that” before accusing the mainstream media, with no irony, of not accurately representing the bill.Pipko added: “I think it will pass, and I think it’ll go down in history as again another false alarm from the legacy media, from the Democrats, and another victory for President Trump.” More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A dark day for our country’: Democrats furious over Trump bill’s passage

      by

      Democrats have erupted in a storm of outrage over the passage of the Donald Trump’s budget bill, delivering scathing critiques that offered signs of the attack lines the party could wield against Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.Party leaders released a wave of statements after the sweeping tax and spending bill’s passage on Thursday, revealing a fury that could peel paint off a brick outhouse.“Today, Donald Trump and the Republican party sent a message to America: if you are not a billionaire, we don’t give a damn about you,” said Ken Martin, the Democratic National Committee chair.“While the GOP continues to cash their billionaire donors’ checks, their constituents will starve, lose critical medical care, lose their jobs – and yes, some will die as a result of this bill. Democrats are mobilizing and will fight back to make sure everybody knows exactly who is responsible for one of the worst bills in our nation’s history.”The bill’s narrow passage in the House on Thursday, with no Democratic support and only two no votes from Republicans – which came from Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzgerald of Pennsylvania – is “not normal”, wrote congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.Ocasio-Cortez highlighted the contradictions in the bill that Democrats can be expected to campaign on over the next two years, pitting its spending on immigration enforcement against the loss of social benefits for working-class Americans. She noted that Republicans voted for permanent tax breaks for billionaires while allowing a tax break on tips for people earning less than $25,000 a year to sunset in three years.She also noted that cuts to Medicaid expansion will remove tipped employees from eligibility for Medicaid and remove subsidies for insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and reduce Snap food assistance benefits.“I don’t think anyone is prepared for what they just did with Ice,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Bluesky. “This is not a simple budget increase. It is an explosion – making Ice bigger than the FBI, US Bureau of Prisons, [the] DEA and others combined. It is setting up to make what’s happening now look like child’s play. And people are disappearing.”Many critics referred to choice remarks made by Republicans in the run-up to the bill’s passage that displayed an indifference to their voters’ concerns.Senator Mitch McConnell was reported by Punchbowl News to have said to other Republicans in a closed-door meeting last week: “I know a lot of us are hearing from people back home about Medicaid. But they’ll get over it.”And Republican senator Joni Ernst, of Iowa, speaking at a combative town hall in Parkersburg in late May, responded to someone in the audience shouting that people will die without coverage by saying, “People are not … well, we all are going to die” – a response that drew groans.Cuts to Medicaid feature prominently in Democratic reaction to the bill.Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib described the bill as “disgusting” and “an act of violence against our communities”.She said: “Republicans should be ashamed for saying, ‘Just get over it’ because ‘We’re all going to die.’ They are responsible for the 50,000 people who will die unnecessarily every year because of this deadly budget.”“There is no sugarcoating this. This is a dark day for our country,” wrote senator Raphael Warnock.“Republicans in Washington have decided to sell out working people. As a result, millions will lose their healthcare and many millions more will see their premiums go up. Rural hospitals and nursing homes across Georgia will be forced to close. Children will be forced to go hungry so that we can give billionaires another tax cut.”But budget hawks on the left and the right have taken issue with the effects this budget will have on the already considerable national debt.“In a massive fiscal capitulation, Congress has passed the single most expensive, dishonest, and reckless budget reconciliation bill ever – and, it comes amidst an already alarming fiscal situation,” wrote Maya MacGuineas, the president of the oversight organization Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in reaction to the House’s passage of the bill.“Never before has a piece of legislation been jammed through with such disregard for our fiscal outlook, the budget process, and the impact it will have on the wellbeing of the country and future generations.”“House Republicans just voted – again – to jack up costs, gut health care, and reward the elite with tax breaks,” wrote the House Majority Pac, a Democratic fund.“They had a chance to change course, but instead they doubled down on this deeply unpopular, toxic agenda. They’ll have no one to blame but themselves when voters send them packing and deliver Democrats the House majority in 2026.”“Republicans didn’t pass this bill for the people,” wrote Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat. “They passed it to please Trump, protect the powerful and push cruelty disguised as policy.” More