Friday, January 24, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"If we abolish federal funding for disaster assistance, municipalities and states wouldn't be able to cover these types of catastrophic emergencies and people would be left to fend on their own," one expert warned.
By Jessica Corbett
LOOK AT THE DISASTER MAP - IT'S RED STATES THAT HAVE HAD THE MOST DISASTERS - REPUBLICAN GOVERNED STATES THAT FAIL TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS!
CHINA IS PROMOTING CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY & THEIR ECONOMY IS PROSPERING...CHINA IS BUILDING ROADS & MAKING FRIENDS WHILE TRUMP INSULTS & THREATENS ALLIES!
With trips to North Carolina and California on Friday, Republican U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his threat to the federal disaster assistance agency, drawing swift rebukes from climate campaigners, experts, and members of Congress.
ALWAYS ON FOX NEWS = FAKE NEWS LIARS where his LIES are never challenged! SEAN HANNITY SHILL!
Trump was sworn in on Monday and took aim at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during a Wednesday interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. He echoed those comments on Friday after landing at Asheville Regional Airport in North Carolina, to visit a region devastated by Hurricane Helene in September.
During his first trip since Inauguration Day, Trump declared that he will "be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA."
"I think, frankly, FEMA's not good," he said. "I think when you have a problem like this, I think you want to go, and whether it's a Democrat or Republican governor, you want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA."
FEMA DID AN INCREDIBLE JOB UNTIL TRUMP SPREAD LIES ABOUT FEMA & JEOPARDIZED LIVES! LET'S NOT RE-WRITE THE HISTORY OF TRUMP'S LIES!
"FEMA's turned out to be a disaster," the president added. "I think we're gonna recommend that FEMA go away and we pay directly, we pay a percentage to the state, but the state should fix this."
While attempting to kill FEMA could be legally complicated due to a federal law passed after Hurricane Katrina, Trump's comments sparked concern and criticism. According toCNN:
Officials with FEMA scrambled to understand his comments in North Carolina Friday, with personnel nationwide calling and texting one another, trying to figure out what his statements meant for the agency's future and work on the ground, according to a source familiar.
Trump's desire to eliminate or curtail FEMA could have chilling effects on emergency response even at state levels, former FEMA Chief Deanne Criswell told CNN.
"We need to take him at his word, and I think state emergency management directors should be concerned about what this means for spring tornado season" and the coming hurricane season, said Criswell, who served under former President Joe Biden. "Do they have the resources to protect their residents?"
Responding to Trump's remarks on social media, the think tank Carolina Forward said that "if you were upset at how FEMA responds to natural disasters, just wait until they don't exist at all. (Trump obviously won't do this—he can't, after all—but he'll very likely make a lot of noise about it and then not actually do anything, as usual)."
Congresswoman Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) also weighed in on X, saying that "FEMA has been a crucial partner in our fight to recover from Hurricane Helene. I appreciate President Trump's concern about Western N.C., but eliminating FEMA would be a disaster for our state."
Matt Sedlar, climate analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), noted in a Friday statement that "before he took office, some wondered whether Trump would actually deny federal disaster aid to states he considered politically unfriendly. The unpleasant truth is that in theory he could—and right now he appears willing to test that idea in reality."
"Trump is already setting the stage for a significant reduction in federal disaster aid and mitigation funding," warned Sedlar, who also published an article on CEPR's website that highlights how Trump's attacks on the agency relate to the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025. "He has made repeated demands that would tie California's aid to specific policy changes he would like to see, and has even begun discussing the possibility of overhauling FEMA—if not eliminating it entirely."
"States cannot absorb the costs of these disasters, and they don't have the money to prevent them either," he stressed. "The federal government agencies that aim to make the U.S. climate resilient are already chronically underfunded as it is. If Trump truly wanted to make America great again, he would prioritize funding for aid and mitigation. Instead, he is making incoherent political demands and setting Americans up for four years of uncertainty and suffering."
Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, released a similar statement on Friday.
"The president is suggesting eliminating FEMA. My question is: Should we also ban hospitals? Both are a means to recovery," Udvardy said. "This latest comment stretches the boundaries of reality. If we abolish federal funding for disaster assistance, municipalities and states wouldn't be able to cover these types of catastrophic emergencies and people would be left to fend on their own."
After visiting North Carolina on Friday, Trump took off for the Los Angeles area, which has been ravaged by recent wildfires. As of press time, the Hughes Fire was only 56% contained, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Sharing a video of Trump's Friday remarks on social media, Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said that "as someone who's actually been on the ground in LA, people are grateful for FEMA and want more help—not less."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, said in a Friday statement that "the people of Los Angeles are suffering. They need and deserve help. Wildfires fueled by high winds and climate change-fueled drought have destroyed 12,000 homes and killed 27 people in the area so far."
"Rather than playing the traditional presidential role of 'comforter in chief,' Donald Trump's visit to the area is performative, using the tragedy to advance his personal agenda: changing state water management policy to help his Los Angeles private golf club," Alt suggested. "Trump's threat to withhold disaster aid to benefit his golf club seems, unfortunately, to be par for the course when it comes to his presidency. But the people of Los Angeles deserve better, and quickly."
"Wildfires like these will only get worse and more frequent if we don't address the climate crisis that is intensifying these disasters and other extreme weather including flooding, extreme heat, drought, and more that we are experiencing across the U.S. and the world," she added. "It is unconscionable to threaten to withdraw federal support to Americans suffering the effects of this crisis because of where they live or whom they may have voted for. The climate crisis won't spare anyone."
Alt argued that "the only acceptable course of action for Trump and the Republican majority in Congress is to stop playing politics with people's lives. They must ensure that FEMA has the resources it needs, and need to stop cutting programs designed to help mitigate climate pollution and pushing for more of the fossil fuels responsible for making this crisis worse."
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Friday statement that "if Donald Trump cared even one bit about the communities being ravaged by climate change, he wouldn't hold disaster aid hostage to his political whims, dismiss the climate crisis as a hoax, or pander to his Big Oil donors."
"Instead, he'd tackle the carbon pollution driving these catastrophes and support U.S. clean energy dominance to lower energy costs for families," he added. "But from day one, Trump's priority has been rewarding his corrupt fossil fuel donors and sabotaging America's clean energy future. Now, he's exploiting the suffering caused by extreme weather to peddle his political agenda—proving once again he's all in for polluters and all out for the American people."
This isn't the first time Trump—who was previously president from 2017-21—has come under fire related to disaster response. As The Associated Press reported Friday:
The last time Trump was president, he visited numerous disaster zones, including the aftermath of hurricanes and tornadoes. He sometimes sparked criticism, like when he tossed paper towels to survivors of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.
Trump tapped Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL with limited experience managing natural disasters, as FEMA's acting director.
Reporting on Hamilton's position, The New York Times noted Wednesday that "since Hurricane Katrina, when the federal response was severely criticized, FEMA has been led by disaster management professionals who have run state or local emergency management agencies, or were regional administrators at FEMA."
"Guess which country was exempted…?" wrote the investigative outlet Drop Site News.
By Eloise Goldsmith
The State Department on Friday reportedly issued guidance that it is freezing almost all U.S. foreign assistance—with exceptions for emergency food aid and foreign military financing for two U.S. allies, Israel and Egypt—according to a cable obtained by multiple outlets.
"Guess which country was exempted....?" wrote the investigative outlet Drop Site, in response to the cable, which independent journalist Ken Klippenstein shared on social media.
The aid carve out for Israel follows 15 months of nearly unqualified U.S. support for the Israeli government during its military campaign on the Gaza Strip, which began after Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, and led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians, according to the local health officials. A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas went into effect on Sunday, but Israel has since then attacked the city of Jenin in the West Bank.
Other traditional U.S. allies, like Ukraine and Taiwan, are not listed among the waivers to the pause. Trump has been a longtime critic of NATO, which Ukraine hopes to join, and has been critical of the scale of U.S. support for Ukraine as it battles an invasion by Russia.
On Monday, his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order calling for a 90-day pause on U.S. foreign development assistance in order to assess "programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy." But this latest memo, signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent to embassies worldwide, further fleshes out that directive.
The U.S. "shall not provide foreign assistance funded by or through the department and USAID without the secretary of state's authorization or the authorization of his designee," according to the cable, which was referring to the United States Agency for International Development.
Additionally, "no new obligations shall be made for foreign assistance until such times as the secretary shall determine, following a review" and "for existing foreign assistance awards, contracting officers and grant officers shall immediately issue stop-work orders."
Politico, which also obtained Rubio's memo, reported that "it had not been clear from the president's [Monday] order if it would affect already appropriated funds or Ukraine aid. The new guidance means no further actions will be taken to disperse aid funding to programs already approved by the U.S. government, according to three current and two former officials familiar with the new guidance."
"State just totally went nuclear on foreign assistance," one State Department official told Politico.
In fiscal year 2023, the most recent year with complete government reporting, the U.S. spent $68 billion in foreign aid obligations, on topics ranging from economic development, to health and the environment. Ukraine was the top recipient of foreign aid that year, with $17 billion obligated, and Israel came in second, with $3.3 billion.
According to The Associated Press, which also obtained the cable, the order was particularly disappointing to humanitarian officials who hoped that health clinics and other health programs worldwide would be spared from the funding freeze.
DID TRUMP PROTECT EGYPT BECAUSE OF THE $10 MILLION BRIBE THAT BILL BARR SILENCED?
"A renewal of hostilities would be a devastating blow for civilians still struggling to rebuild their lives," said one humanitarian worker.
By Julia Conley
The Trump administration on Friday called for a "short, temporary cease-fire extension" between Israel and Lebanon after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the country's troops will not complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon as it agreed to in a 60-day truce that began in late November.
Under the terms of the cease-fire, Israel agreed to withdraw its military from southern Lebanon by January 26, and the Lebanese political and paramilitary group Hezbollah was required to move its forces north of the Litani River and dismantle all military infrastructure in the south.
Netanyahu's office claimed Friday that "the cease-fire agreement has not yet been fully enforced by the Lebanese state" and said its "gradual withdrawal process will continue, in full coordination with the United States."
Israel asserted that the truce allowed for the withdrawal process to "continue beyond 60 days—a claim the Lebanese government and Hezbollah refuted—and claimed the Lebanese army had allowed Hezbollah to regroup since the cease-fire began.
Hezbollah called Israel's plan to maintain a military presence in southern Lebanon past the deadline a "blatant violation of the agreement."
As Hezbollah warned it would consider the cease-fire null and void if Israel does not withdraw by January 26, White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said an extension of the deadline is "urgently needed."
Emile Hokayem of the International Institute for Strategic Studies said Israel's "unilteral extension... is clearly a violation of the November cease-fire," while Lebanese American journalist Rania Khalek noted that Israel "has been violating the cease-fire the entire time with zero international condemnation."
The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) said that while the cease-fire has significantly reduced casualties in Lebanon following 14 months of fighting between the Israel Defense Forces and Hezbollah, at least 29 civilians have been killed since the truce began.
"While the cease-fire seems intact on paper, civilians in Lebanon continued to be killed and their homes blown up by the Israeli military," said Maureen Philippon, Lebanon country director for the NRC.
Prior to the cease-fire deal in November, the conflict killed at least 3,823 people and injured 15,859, as well as displacing tens of thousands of people in Israel and over 1 million in Lebanon. More than 100,000 people in Lebanon have still been unable to return to their homes.
"We have been displaced from our village for 16 months," a Lebanese citizen named Rakad, who fled the border town of Yarine, told the NRC. "We are all waiting for the 27th to go back, kiss the soil of our land, and breathe the air of our village."
Israel's likely delay in withdrawing troops comes as Lebanese residents have begun returning to their villages in the south, but the Lebanese military on Friday called on civilians not to return to the coastal town of Naquora, which Mayor Abbas Awada told Al Jazeera "has become a disaster zone of a town."
"The bare necessities of life are absent here," said the mayor.
The NRC warned that the "continued presence of Israeli troops in dozens of villages in southern Lebanon severely restricts the freedom of movement and leaves many in a prolonged state of displacement."
Philippon called on regional and international mediators to "ensure this truce evolves into a lasting cease-fire, with a firm commitment to protecting all civilians and civilian infrastructure."
"A renewal of hostilities would be a devastating blow for civilians still struggling to rebuild their lives," said Philippon. "Lebanese villagers are still being warned against returning to their homes and lands, while many others don't even know what happened to the house they left months ago. These people will need all the stability and support they can get to get back on their feet after. Israel must withdraw from these villages so that thousands can go back."
"They do not reliably increase employment, but they do kick people off essential benefits like food assistance and healthcare," said an expert at the Economic Policy Institute.
By Jessica Corbett
After nominees for U.S. President Donald Trump's Cabinet this week endorsed work requirements for social safety net programs, an economic think tank released a Friday report detailing the policy's drawbacks.
"Work requirements for safety net programs are a punitive solution that solves no real problem," said Economic Policy Institute (EPI) economist and report author Hilary Wething in a statement about her new publication.
"They do not reliably increase employment, but they do kick people off essential benefits like food assistance and healthcare," she stressed. "If policymakers are genuinely concerned about improving access to work, they should support policies like affordable child- and eldercare."
"The existing safety net is too stingy and tilts too hard toward making benefits difficult to access."
EPI's report explains that recently, congressional Republicans—who now have a majority in both chambers—"have embraced proposals to ratchet up work requirements as conditions for the receipt of some federal government benefits. These proposals are clearly trying to exploit a vague, but pervasive, sense that some recipients of public support are gaming the system to get benefits that they do not need, as they could be earning money in the labor market to support themselves instead."
"However, a careful assessment of the current state of public benefit programs demonstrates that almost none of the alleged benefits of ratcheting up work requirements are economically significant, but that the potential costs of doing this could be large and fall on the most economically vulnerable," the document states. "The most targeted programs for more stringent work requirements are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, popularly referred to as food stamps) and Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income people."
"EPI has surveyed the research literature on work requirements and how they interact with these two programs in particular, and we find that the existing safety net is too stingy and tilts too hard toward making benefits difficult to access," the report continues. "Tightening eligibility by increasing work requirements for these programs will make this problem even worse with no tangible benefit in the form of higher levels of employment among low-income adults."
Wething found that work requirements generally target nonelderly adults without documented disabilities who don't have official dependents living in their homes, formally called "able-bodied adults without dependents" (ABAWDs).
"While ABAWDs might not have documented disabilities that result in benefit receipt or have dependent children living at home full-time, they often experience health challenges and must take on some caregiving duties, each of which could provide a genuine barrier to finding steady work," the report says. "We find that 21% reported having a disability that affects their ability to find and sustain work, suggesting that adults with genuine health barriers are being swept up in overly stringent work requirements."
Additionally, "13.8% of ABAWDs live with an adult over the age of 65 in their household, suggesting that many are potential caregivers in some form and likely have caregiving responsibilities beyond what is captured on paper," the document notes. "Despite ABAWDs having health challenges and caregiving responsibilities that make participation in the labor market difficult, our current social safety net does very little to support these adults."
The publication highlights that "low-income adults generally face steep labor market challenges, making it difficult to meet work requirements," including that "low-wage work is precarious, making work time hard to maintain."
The report also emphasizes that "by making the process of applying for crucial safety net programs more burdensome, work requirements effectively function like a cut to programs," and "the consequences of losing access to SNAP and Medicaid for low-income adults are severe, often resulting in food and health insecurity."
Despite the abundance of research about the downsides of work requirements, Brooke Rollins, Trump's nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture—which administers SNAP—expressed support for the policy during a Thursday Senate confirmation hearing, echoing what Russell Vought, the president's pick to direct the Office of Management and Budget, said about Medicaid on Wednesday.
Rather than pushing work requirements, the EPI report argues, decision-makers could advocate for "policies that would measurably improve employment in low-income households," including "macroeconomic policy to maintain full employment."
The publication also promotes policies that increase scheduling predictability, provide better help with caregiving responsibilities, assist formerly incarcerated people with finding and maintaining jobs, reduce unnecessary education mandates for employment, and improve transportation options. It further calls for reducing existing work requirements.
"It is entirely possible that reducing eligibility barriers to safety net programs—barriers like work requirements—may well be more effective in promoting work than raising those barriers would be," the report states. "A majority of adults who gained coverage through Medicaid expansion in Ohio and Michigan found that having healthcare made it easier to find and maintain work."
"One of the things that we need to do is to talk to people directly," said the congresswoman. "There need to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk."
By Julia Conley
As Democratic lawmakers grappled with the reality of President Donald Trump's second term this week, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday urged the party to see the president's devotion to billionaires and corporations—after he campaigned as a champion for the forgotten working class—as an opportunity to make clear that Democrats, not Republicans, will fight for the interests of "everyday people."
First, the New York Democratic congresswoman said in an interview with Jon Stewart on his podcast, "The Weekly Show," the party must abandon its own allegiances to the billionaire class.
Trump, his close ties with tech billionaires like Tesla founder Elon Musk, his plans to extend the 2017 tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy, and his promises of deregulation to oil executives ahead of the election all highlight "ways that we can fight back," said Ocasio-Cortez.
"One of the things that we need to do is to talk to people directly," said the congresswoman. "There need to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk. There is an insane amount of hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy is what gets exploited [by Republicans]."
Ocasio-Cortez pointed to the example of "insider trading" by lawmakers, with members of Congress who receive briefings on the defense industry, pharmaceuticals, and other businesses able to use information not available to the public to predict future stock prices. As Common Dreams reported in December, dozens of members of Congress bought or sold up to $113 million worth of shares in Pentagon contractors last year, with three Democrats—Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Suzan Delbene (D-Wash.)—trading the most.
Pelosi, the former House speaker, is among the lawmakers who have vehemently defended stock trading by lawmakers, while Ocasio-Cortez has frequently spoken out against the practice.
"People think that everyday people are stupid," Ocasio-Cortez told Stewart on Thursday. "Do you really think that people don't see this shit? ...And then we're supposed to act like money only corrupts Republicans? Give me a fucking break."
Trump won the support of working class people across the country, increasing his support among voters who earn less than $100,000 per year despite the fact, as Ocasio-Cortez said, "that he has a Supreme Court that guts labor rights, that [Republicans] are overwhelmingly opposed to raising a minimum wage, that they are really gutting the civil rights around working people and organizing."
Wealthier voters shifted toward the Democratic Party in the election, supporting Democratic candidate former Vice President Kamala Harris.
To respond to Trump's victory, Ocasio-Cortez said, "we need to be a party of brawlers for the working class."
"We've been chasing this affluent group and making all of these little concessions and hoping that working people don't notice," she added.
The congresswoman—who campaigned for a top House Oversight Committee seat in recent weeks but lost to a more senior Democrat—has been a leading proponent of the Green New Deal, which would fight the climate emergency while creating millions of green energy jobs over a decade; the push to expand Medicare coverage to every American; and a supporter of tuition-free public college, which was offered to students across the U.S. until at least the 1970s.
Her interview with Stewart came as Semafor reported that Democratic leaders are "wrestling with how much resistance to mount to Trump's Cabinet."
"We're obviously in a bit of disarray," one Democratic senator told the outlet. "I don't think people are really completely sure about what lesson is to be learned in this election."
Jesse Brenneman, an editor for the podcast "Know Your Enemy," commented that "the fact Democrats don't know what to do tells you everything about their priorities."
In an email to supporters the day after Trump was inaugurated this week, Ocasio-Cortez stuck to the same message she shared with Stewart.
Pointing to the tech billionaires who attended the inauguration, with many elected officials "kicked to the curb," the congresswoman told supporters: "You're getting ripped off. All of us are going to be getting ripped off for the next four years, but what do we do about it?"
"The Trump trifecta has taken hold, and so have their billionaire right-wing donors," she said. "Our movement for real progress will have to push harder than ever these next four years."
"Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized," Mayor Ras Baraka said.
By Eloise Goldsmith
Federal agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out a warrantless raid on Thursday targeting a local establishment in Newark, New Jersey, according to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka—who decried the move as an "an egregious act" in violation of the of the U.S. constitution.
Federal agents detained both undocumented residents and citizens, including a U.S. military veteran, Baraka said in a statement Thursday.
The local outlet PIX11 reported that ICE agents targeted the Ocean Seafood Depot, a wholesale seafood distributor. Store owner Luis Janota told the outlet that three people were taken into custody, including a Puerto Rican employee who is a military veteran. People from Puerto Rico have U.S. citizenship.
"We don't fret, we fight," wrote the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, which is distributing materials to inform community members about their rights.
Immigration raids on so-called "sanctuary cities"—a list that includes Newark—were expected. On Monday, Trump issued executive orders ramping up immigration enforcement via executive orders, including attempting to end birthright citizenship, reinstating his "Remain in Mexico" policy, suspending refugee resettlement, and moving to restrict federal funds for sanctuary cities.
Trump's deputy acting attorney general sent a memo to Justice Department staff this week indicating that state and local officials could potentially be criminally prosecuted for failing to cooperate with Trump's ramped up immigration enforcement, and the Trump administration has also revoked a directive barring arrests in "sensitive" locations, such as schools.
The changes to immigration enforcement have already been met with hurdles. On Thursday a federal judge temporarily blocked his challenge to birthright citizenship, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."
"Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized. I will be holding a press conference in alliance with partners ready and willing to defend and protect civil and human rights," Baraka said Thursday.
U.S. Sens. Andy Kim and Cory Booker, both New Jersey Democrats, said they were concerned about the news and that their offices had reached out to the Department of Homeland Security "to demand answers."
Following the incident, ICE issued the following statement to multiple news outlets: "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may encounter U.S. citizens while conducting field work and may request identification to establish an individual's identity as was the case during a targeted enforcement operation at a worksite today in Newark, New Jersey."
On X, ICE posted on Thursday that it had arrested 538 people and detained 373 others, though it's not clear from the post where those arrests and detentions took place.
"A reminder these raids and attacks on the Constitution are an attack on all of us—not just immigrants, not just their families, everyone. You, your neighbors, your colleagues—you're not safe just because you're a citizen, a legal resident, a veteran," wrote Peter Chen, an analyst at the think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.