Published Time: 08-17-2025, 15:45

A federal judge has temporarily stopped the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from sharing personal data of Medicaid enrollees with deportation officials. The ruling comes after a lawsuit filed by 20 states challenged the legality and privacy risks of a data-sharing agreement that granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) access to sensitive information.

Federal Judge Issues Nationwide Block

The order, issued by Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court in California, prevents HHS from giving DHS access to the records of nearly 79 million Medicaid beneficiaries. The agreement had allowed DHS to review personal details, including home addresses and Social Security numbers, raising alarm over how immigration enforcement could affect public health programs.

Judge Chhabria, appointed under the Obama administration, emphasized the risk of undermining the Medicaid system itself.

“Using CMS data for immigration enforcement threatens to significantly disrupt the operation of Medicaid—a program that Congress has deemed critical for the nation’s most vulnerable residents,” Chhabria wrote in his ruling.

The injunction will remain in place until HHS can provide what the judge described as “reasoned decisionmaking” to justify its policy shift.

How the Data-Sharing Agreement Began

The data transfer first came to light in June, when The Associated Press reported that Medicaid enrollee information had been shared with DHS in several states. By July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) expanded the arrangement into a nationwide agreement, allowing DHS daily access to personal details of all Medicaid enrollees.

The deal was never formally announced, sparking criticism that the policy had been implemented without adequate transparency. According to court filings, the access would have given deportation officials unprecedented visibility into health data, raising constitutional and ethical questions.

States Push Back Against the Policy

Twenty states—including California, Arizona, Washington, and New York—filed lawsuits to stop the data-sharing program. The states argued that the agreement endangered the privacy of millions of lawful residents and U.S. citizens while discouraging immigrants from seeking medical care.

Nick Brown, Attorney General of Washington state, said in a statement:

“Protecting people’s private health information is vitally important. Everyone should be able to seek medical care without fear of what the federal government may do with that information.”

Wider Immigration Enforcement Efforts

The Medicaid case is part of a broader effort under the Trump administration to expand access to federal data for immigration enforcement. In May, a separate federal court declined to block the Internal Revenue Service from sharing immigrants’ tax records with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Those records have been used to locate and detain individuals living without legal status in the United States.

Immigration advocates argue that linking federal data programs with deportation enforcement undermines trust in essential services such as healthcare, schools, and public safety institutions. Critics say families may avoid emergency medical treatment if they fear their information could be shared with immigration authorities.

What Medicaid Provides and Who Qualifies

Medicaid, a joint federal and state program, provides low-cost or no-cost healthcare coverage for millions of Americans, particularly low-income families, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. By law, undocumented immigrants and some categories of legally present immigrants are ineligible for full Medicaid coverage.

However, emergency Medicaid—a limited benefit program—requires states to cover emergency room services for anyone in need of lifesaving care, regardless of immigration status. Advocates fear the new data-sharing policy could deter even eligible patients from seeking urgent medical help.

HHS Response

The Department of Health and Human Services has defended its agreement with DHS, insisting that it complies with federal law. A spokesperson for the department declined to confirm whether the agency would immediately halt data-sharing activities following Judge Chhabria’s order.

Despite the legal setback, HHS has maintained that the agreement was intended to strengthen government oversight, though critics argue it was designed primarily to expand immigration enforcement.

Implications Moving Forward

The ruling highlights an ongoing tension between immigration enforcement priorities and public health protections. While the court’s order is temporary, it represents a significant win for states and advocates who argued that Medicaid should remain a safeguard for vulnerable populations, not a tool for deportation agencies.

Legal experts say the case could set a precedent for how far the federal government can go in repurposing sensitive data collected for public services. The outcome may also influence how immigrant communities engage with healthcare providers in the months ahead.

For now, the injunction ensures that the personal data of tens of millions of Medicaid enrollees will remain shielded from immigration enforcement while the case proceeds.

Source: AP News – Judge orders RFK Jr.’s health department to stop sharing Medicaid data with deportation officials

The post Judge Blocks Health Department from Sharing Medicaid Data with Deportation Officials appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published Time: August 6, 2025, 14:30 (U.S. Eastern Time)

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will end funding for more than 20 vaccine projects aimed at combating respiratory viruses, marking a major policy shift under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The decision, announced Tuesday, halts $500 million in mRNA vaccine research and development, sparking widespread criticism from infectious disease experts who warn it could hinder future pandemic preparedness.

Funding Cuts Affect 22 mRNA Vaccine Projects

In a statement, Kennedy confirmed that 22 ongoing projects, including those led by major pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer and Moderna, will be terminated. These programs focused on developing vaccines for illnesses like COVID-19, seasonal flu, and emerging threats such as H5N1 avian influenza.

Kennedy, a long-standing critic of vaccines, said the department will instead prioritize “safer, broader vaccine strategies,” including whole-virus vaccines and new platforms less susceptible to viral mutations.

“To replace the troubled mRNA programs, we’re prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms that don’t collapse when viruses mutate,” Kennedy stated in a video posted on his social media channels.

Experts Warn of Public Health Risks

Public health specialists have voiced strong opposition, arguing that mRNA technology has been instrumental in saving lives during the COVID-19 pandemic and could be critical in addressing future outbreaks.

Mike Osterholm, an infectious disease expert at the University of Minnesota, called the decision “the most dangerous in public health in my 50 years in the business,” warning that the removal of mRNA tools will make it harder to respond rapidly to emerging diseases.

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia emphasized that mRNA vaccines “have certainly saved millions of lives” and cautioned against abandoning a proven and adaptable platform.

The Role of mRNA Technology in Modern Medicine

mRNA vaccines work by delivering a genetic blueprint that instructs the body to produce a harmless piece of a virus, prompting an immune response. Unlike traditional vaccine production, which often requires cultivating viruses in eggs or cell cultures, mRNA vaccines can be developed and manufactured much faster — a key advantage during fast-moving outbreaks.

Beyond infectious diseases, researchers are exploring mRNA for cancer immunotherapy and other medical applications. Billionaire tech entrepreneur Larry Ellison recently praised its potential in oncology treatments during a White House event.

Shift in Vaccine Development Priorities

HHS clarified that the decision impacts only vaccine projects for respiratory viruses and does not affect other mRNA research underway within the department. Moderna, for instance, had been developing a combined COVID-19 and flu mRNA shot, which it said could speed production compared to traditional vaccines.

In its statement, HHS described the move as a “shift in vaccine development priorities” and pledged to invest in “better solutions” moving forward. Kennedy reiterated that the department still supports “safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them.”

Alternative Vaccine Strategies Under Development

Speaking at a news conference in Anchorage, Alaska, alongside Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, Kennedy announced that the administration is pursuing a “universal vaccine” designed to mimic natural immunity.

“It could be effective — we believe it’s going to be effective — against not only coronaviruses, but also flu,” Kennedy said.

According to Kennedy, this universal approach could offer broad-spectrum protection against multiple respiratory viruses, though no such vaccine has yet been approved for public use.

Potential Impact on Pandemic Preparedness

Infectious disease experts warn that eliminating mRNA research could weaken the U.S.’s ability to respond quickly to future pandemics, especially as concerns over bird flu outbreaks continue. The speed and adaptability of mRNA platforms, they argue, have been unmatched in modern vaccine development.

With funding for 22 projects now halted, pharmaceutical companies and research institutions face uncertainty about the future of their programs. Meanwhile, HHS says it remains committed to advancing alternative technologies that align with the administration’s new priorities.

Source: AP News –

The post RFK Jr. Cancels $500M in Respiratory Virus Vaccine Research appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Company’s “Healthy” Meals Contain Additives and High Sodium, Say Nutrition Experts

WASHINGTON —
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is promoting a meal delivery company as part of his vision to improve American health. But nutrition experts say the meals he’s endorsing are highly processed—packed with the same additives and ingredients Kennedy has long criticized.

In a video shared Monday from his official government account, Kennedy praised Mom’s Meals, a company that provides prepackaged, ready-to-eat meals to Medicaid and Medicare recipients. Speaking after touring the company’s facility in Oklahoma, he commended the company for delivering food “without additives” and called it “one of the solutions for making our country healthy again.”

But a closer look reveals a more complicated reality.

Heavily Processed Meals Marketed as Wholesome

An Associated Press review of the company’s menu, which includes items like chicken bacon ranch pasta and French toast sticks with ham patties, found that many meals contain additives and ingredients that qualify them as ultraprocessed. These are not meals most people could replicate at home using fresh ingredients.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert and professor emerita at New York University, reviewed the meals and found them filled with additives and high levels of sodium—and in some cases, sugar and saturated fats. While the meals avoid artificial dyes and high-fructose corn syrup (both frequent targets of Kennedy’s past criticism), Nestle said they remain far from healthy.

“It is perfectly possible to make meals like this with real foods and no ultra-processing additives,” Nestle said. “What’s so sad is that they don’t have to be this way.”

Company Responds to Criticism

In a statement, Mom’s Meals spokesperson Teresa Roof said the company avoids certain ingredients common in ultraprocessed food—such as synthetic food dyes and banned preservatives. However, she did not address other additives flagged by nutritionists.

Meanwhile, Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, defended the meals, calling them “a healthy alternative” to what many low-income Americans might otherwise find in grocery stores.

Meal Delivery for At-Risk Populations

Mom’s Meals is one of several companies providing “medically tailored” meals to people enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare. These services are typically reserved for individuals recovering from hospitalization or managing chronic illnesses like diabetes or cancer. Some Medicare Advantage plans also cover the program.

While the total cost of these programs to taxpayers is unclear, a 2023 investigation by STAT News found that several states are spending millions of dollars annually on meal deliveries. The report found many of these so-called “dietitian approved” meals still contained high levels of salt, sugar, or fat—contributing to the very health problems they’re meant to help prevent.

Kennedy’s Health Platform Faces Scrutiny

Kennedy has made health and nutrition a cornerstone of his public image. He frequently warns about the dangers of ultraprocessed foods and promotes whole, natural diets as the foundation of his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.

In a recent post, he claimed the U.S. had “lost the most basic of all freedoms — the freedom that comes from being healthy.” His message has gained traction among wellness-focused voters and segments of the conservative base.

But Kennedy’s enthusiastic support for Mom’s Meals appears to contradict his own messaging—raising questions about consistency and credibility.

The Complexity of Ultraprocessed Foods

Experts caution that defining what qualifies as “ultraprocessed” isn’t always straightforward. Most foods undergo some form of processing—whether it’s freezing, fermentation, or pasteurization. What distinguishes ultraprocessed foods are industrial ingredients, chemical stabilizers, and flavor enhancers that go far beyond what home cooks use.

Critics argue that while companies like Mom’s Meals provide a logistical solution for food access, they fall short on nutritional quality. For Kennedy, who has long framed himself as a champion of clean eating and public health, the contradiction between message and endorsement could prove politically costly.

“These meals might be better than fast food,” said one health policy analyst, “but calling them a solution to America’s health crisis is a stretch.”

Source: AP News – RFK Jr. promoted a food company he says will make Americans healthy. Their meals are ultraprocessed

The post RFK Jr. Endorses Medicaid Meal Provider Despite Ultraprocessed Food Concerns appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a bold move to reshape the nation’s social safety net, House Republicans are proposing nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. If passed, the sweeping legislation could result in millions of Americans losing access to essential healthcare and nutrition support — despite repeated promises by GOP leaders, including Donald Trump, to leave programs like Medicaid untouched.

Who’s at Risk?

The cuts would hit far more than just able-bodied adults not working, as GOP lawmakers suggest. Experts warn the reductions could impact:

• Children
• Seniors
• People with disabilities
• Low-income workers
• Caregivers and students

More than 71 million Americans rely on Medicaid, and another 42 million receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This proposal puts a sizable portion of the U.S. population in jeopardy.

Key Medicaid Changes: $700 Billion in Cuts

The House package slashes nearly $700 billion from Medicaid over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The result? Over 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage by 2034, with 7.6 million projected to be uninsured entirely.

A First in Medicaid’s 60-Year History

For the first time ever, certain adults ages 19 to 64 would need to work at least 80 hours per month — or participate in community service, school, or job programs — to keep their Medicaid benefits. The requirement, set to take effect in 2029, exempts some groups like pregnant women, medically frail individuals, and those with substance use disorders.

But there’s a catch: even people who are working or qualify for exemptions could still lose coverage due to complex reporting requirements.

“Millions could lose coverage simply because they can’t navigate the bureaucracy,” said Michael Karpman of the Urban Institute.

Collateral Damage: Hospitals and States

Hospitals — especially in rural and underserved areas — could be hit hard. With more people uninsured and states receiving less federal aid, hospitals may be forced to:

• Cut services
• Raise prices for insured patients
• Shut down altogether

Nursing homes and state health systems could also suffer as the bill limits how states tax health care providers — a major funding stream for local health programs.

Seniors, Dual Eligibles Also at Risk

The bill could delay streamlined Medicaid eligibility reforms until 2035, potentially pushing 2.3 million people, including seniors and those with disabilities, off the rolls.

And since Medicaid is the largest federal funding source for state budgets, cash-strapped states may have to cut optional services (like dental and home care), raise taxes, or slash other vital programs like education.

One projection from KFF says states would need to raise taxes by an average of 4% to compensate for the loss — ranging from 1% in Kansas and Wyoming to 11% in Louisiana.

Food Stamps: Work Requirements Expanded, State Burden Increased

Under the proposed bill, the rules around SNAP — the formal name for food stamps — would get significantly tougher.

Work Mandates Extended

Currently, adults 18–54 without dependents must work at least 20 hours per week to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months. The new bill would:

• Expand this requirement to adults up to age 64
• Include parents with children aged 7 to 18
• Make it harder for states to waive these rules during tough economic times

States on the Hook for Costs

For the first time, states would have to cover at least 5% of food stamp benefit costs by 2028 — and possibly up to 25% if they have high payment error rates. Administrative costs would also rise, with states covering 75% instead of the current 50%.

The result? Some states may pull back from the program or restrict access further.

“The work requirements could put 11 million people — including 4 million children — at risk of losing food aid,” said Ty Jones Cox from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

A Blow to Local Economies

Independent grocers and local businesses are also sounding the alarm.

SNAP funding supports:

• 388,000 jobs
• Over $20 billion in wages
• More than $4.5 billion in tax revenue

“SNAP is not just food assistance — it’s an economic engine,” said Stephanie Johnson of the National Grocers Association.

What’s Next?

The proposal still faces a rocky path through Congress, with conservative and moderate Republicans battling over the details. The Senate is expected to make further changes.

But one thing is clear: If passed, this legislation would mark a historic rollback of federal support for healthcare and nutrition — potentially reshaping the lives of millions of Americans and the communities they live in.

Source: CNN – House GOP lawmakers are proposing nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food stamps. Here’s who could be impacted

The post House GOP Pushes Nearly $1 Trillion in Cuts to Medicaid and Food Stamps appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

GENEVA — Stripped of its largest donor, the United States, the World Health Organization (WHO) is now fighting to secure support for its $2.1 billion annual budget. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus urged member countries on Monday to see this budget as “extremely modest” — especially when compared to global military spending and tobacco industry advertising.

“Two-point-one billion dollars is the cost of a single stealth bomber,” Tedros told the WHO’s annual assembly. “It’s the price of global military spending every eight hours. Yet it’s only a quarter of what the tobacco industry spends yearly on ads for a product that kills people.” His pointed comparison highlights the value of investing in health over harm.

Though Tedros did not directly mention the U.S. funding cut, he has called the decision a “mistake” and urged Washington to reconsider.

A Budget Under Pressure

The WHO has adjusted its budget for the next two years, reducing it by 22% after cuts from the U.S. and some Western countries. So far, about 60% of that funding has been pledged, but a gap of $1.7 billion remains.

Tedros acknowledged the difficulty: “Mobilizing that sum won’t be easy. But for an organization working in 150 countries with a vast mission, $2.1 billion a year is not ambitious. It’s modest.”

Impact of Funding Cuts

The budget cuts have already affected WHO’s ability to handle its broad responsibilities — from advising on sugar levels in soft drinks to leading global responses to pandemics like COVID-19 and outbreaks like Ebola or polio.

Tedros and his team are also dealing with reduced support from European countries that are shifting funds towards defense amid geopolitical concerns, rather than humanitarian aid.

Matthew Kavanagh, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Policy, said many nations are using the U.S. withdrawal as an excuse to scale back their contributions. “The WHO faces an existential crisis,” he warned, “one that goes beyond money — it’s about whether multilateral cooperation can survive in a world marked by nationalism and misinformation.”

The stakes are high. Kavanagh stressed that millions of lives could be lost needlessly if the global health community fails to respond effectively.

Pandemic Preparedness and Funding Reforms

At the ongoing nine-day World Health Assembly, WHO member countries are expected to approve two major initiatives:

• A 20% increase in assessed contributions (mandatory fees paid by member states) to strengthen WHO’s core finances and reduce reliance on unpredictable voluntary donations.
• A historic pandemic treaty aimed at preventing a repeat of COVID-19’s uneven global response. The treaty would ensure countries sharing virus samples get access to resulting vaccines and medicines and allow WHO to allocate up to 20% of these products to poorer nations.

Tedros called this assembly “a truly historic moment,” but the treaty’s success remains uncertain. The U.S., a key player in vaccine development, is currently not part of the treaty, and enforcement mechanisms are weak—common challenges in international agreements.

Still, experts like Kavanagh see the treaty as a potential turning point, especially for developing countries gaining greater influence in global health decisions.

WHO Faces Criticism and Internal Changes

The WHO has long faced criticism, notably from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who accused it of mishandling the COVID-19 crisis and pulled U.S. funding. President Joe Biden reversed that decision by rejoining the WHO, but Trump’s January executive order paused future U.S. payments.

Outside the U.N. compound in Geneva, activists protested the pandemic treaty, accusing WHO of centralizing too much power and threatening freedoms. Some displayed banners depicting WHO’s Tedros and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates — a major WHO supporter — in a controversial light.

Meanwhile, WHO has responded with management shake-ups to address financial challenges. Last week, Tedros announced the departure of his top emergencies adviser, Dr. Michael Ryan, amid efforts to tighten budgets. The organization now faces a salary shortfall exceeding $500 million due to funding losses.

In summary, the WHO’s $2.1 billion budget request may seem large but pales in comparison to global military and tobacco industry spending. With the world still facing health crises and future pandemics looming, WHO leaders warn that adequate funding and global cooperation are more crucial than ever — for the sake of millions of lives worldwide.

Source: AP News – After US cuts funding, WHO chief defends $2.1B budget request by comparing it with cost of war

The post WHO Urges Support for $2.1 Billion Budget After US Cuts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON – As Social Security undergoes significant changes under the Trump administration, older Americans are increasingly anxious about the future of the program, with a growing divide between political parties, a new poll reveals.

In an April survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, about 3 in 10 adults aged 60 and older expressed doubts about Social Security’s future. This is an increase from 2 in 10 in a similar poll conducted in 2023. While concerns are rising across the board, the shift in confidence varies greatly along partisan lines.

A Deepening Partisan Divide

Among older Americans, Democrats have shown the sharpest decline in confidence. Roughly half of older Democrats now say they are “not very” or “not at all” confident that Social Security will be there for them when they need it. This marks a significant shift from 2023, when only about 1 in 10 Democrats felt this way.

In contrast, confidence among older Republicans has grown significantly. Approximately 6 in 10 Republicans aged 60 or older are now “extremely” or “very” confident that Social Security will be available, a notable increase from just about one-quarter in 2023.

This growing partisan divide comes amid shifting political dynamics. Under the leadership of President Joe Biden in 2023, older Democrats had more trust in the program, but since the rise of the Trump administration and controversial changes to Social Security under Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, that trust has eroded. Musk, who has criticized Social Security, even called it a “Ponzi scheme” in a podcast interview, which has contributed to fears surrounding the program.

Personal Reactions to Social Security’s Future

Dennis Riera, a 65-year-old Republican from Huntington Beach, California, shares his concerns: “It’s really a shame that something so many people have relied on for generations is being undermined.” As a security official who has not yet retired, Riera worries about his future and the potential erosion of a key social safety net.

However, not all Republicans share this view. Linda Seck, a 78-year-old retired nurse from Michigan, remains confident in Social Security’s future. “When I was in college, financial planners told us not to depend on Social Security, but here we are more than 50 years later, and it’s still going strong,” she said.

Democrats Rallying Behind Social Security

As the 2024 midterm elections approach, Social Security is becoming a focal point in the political debate. Voters, especially Democrats, are expressing outrage over cuts to the program and staffing reductions. President Biden has criticized Trump’s administration for “taking a hatchet” to Social Security, and many expect the issue to play a significant role in the upcoming elections.

Timothy Black, a 52-year-old Democrat from San Diego who receives Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), is deeply concerned. “If anything happens to Social Security, it would really impact me,” Black said. He worries that cuts to SSDI could leave him unable to afford medical bills and face homelessness.

Looming Concerns Over Social Security’s Financial Stability

The future of Social Security remains uncertain, with the program on track to potentially run out of full benefits by 2035, according to the 2024 Social Security and Medicare trustees report. Once that date arrives, Social Security would only be able to pay about 83% of benefits, though it would not cease entirely.

Currently, over 72.5 million people—ranging from retirees to children—rely on Social Security benefits. Despite these looming concerns, older Americans remain more confident in Social Security than younger adults. Among those under 30, nearly half express doubt that Social Security will be available when they need it, with skepticism transcending party lines. Even younger Republicans, who typically show more trust in the program, remain uncertain.

Steven Peters, a 42-year-old independent from White House, Tennessee, says he’s long been aware of Social Security’s financial struggles. “I’m not confident at all that it’s going to be available,” Peters said. “I can’t say it’s related to the current administration, though.”

A Changing Leadership at Social Security

In the midst of these concerns, the Senate recently confirmed Frank Bisignano, a Wall Street veteran, as the new leader of the Social Security Administration (SSA). Bisignano was sworn in this week after a 53 to 47 vote. Many are watching closely to see how his leadership will influence the future of Social Security and whether it can overcome the financial challenges that lie ahead.

As more Americans express anxiety over the future of Social Security, the debate over its sustainability and political manipulation is likely to intensify in the coming months. With election season drawing near, Social Security remains a crucial topic for voters across the country.

Source: AP News – More older Americans worry Social Security won’t be there for them, an AP-NORC poll finds

The post Growing Concerns Over Social Security’s Future Among Older Americans appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Argentina has officially announced its decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO), following a similar move made by U.S. President Donald Trump last month.

Government’s Official Statement

Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, presidential spokesperson Manuel Adorni confirmed the decision:

“President (Javier) Milei instructed (Foreign Minister) Gerardo Werthein to withdraw Argentina’s participation in the World Health Organization.”

Adorni emphasized that Argentina will not allow external organizations to interfere with its national affairs:

“We Argentinians will not allow an international organization to intervene in our sovereignty, much less in our health.”

Following the U.S. Lead

The announcement comes shortly after President Trump, on his first day back in the White House in January, declared that the United States would also be withdrawing from the WHO—a move that has drawn criticism from public health experts.

This is a developing story. More updates to follow.

Source

The post Argentina to Withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Public Health Information Removed from Federal Websites

Multiple government agency websites containing crucial public health information on HIV, LGBTQ+ health, reproductive rights, and diversity initiatives were taken down as of Friday evening. The move follows executive orders from President Donald Trump targeting gender ideology and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

What Was Removed?

According to officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), key terms such as “pregnant people,” “chestfeeding,” “diversity,” “DEI,” and references to gender and health equity were flagged for removal.

Among the affected pages and databases:

HIV Data & Risk Information – CDC pages detailing HIV diagnosis rates, infection breakdowns by race and gender, and risk assessments for various sexual behaviors.
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System – A national survey tracking teenagers’ health habits and gender identity data.
HIV Risk Reduction Tool – An interactive resource for users to evaluate the risk of certain sexual behaviors.
Reproductiverights.gov – A website providing resources on reproductive healthcare and abortion access.
FDA’s “Minority Health and Health Equity” Page – Information focused on health disparities in minority communities.

Rushed Efforts to Preserve Data

Researchers and advocacy groups scrambled to archive as much data as possible before the websites went offline. Several public health experts expressed concern over the loss of critical health information used by medical professionals, educators, and the public.

Will the Pages Return?

Officials at HHS and the CDC suggested that some pages may be reinstated after their language is revised to comply with the new executive orders. However, it remains unclear which pages, if any, will return.

For now, much of the CDC’s previous HIV-related content has been replaced with a single, simplified page titled “About HIV.”

Trump Responds: “It Doesn’t Sound Like a Bad Idea”

When asked in the Oval Office on Friday whether government websites were being taken down for review, Trump did not deny the action:

“I don’t know – it doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me,” Trump said.
“DEI would have ruined our country, and now it’s dead. So, if they want to scrub the website, that’s OK with me. But I can’t tell you.”

Trump’s executive order on DEI called for the elimination of related policies within the federal government. Another order, titled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” directed agencies to recognize only two sexes: male and female.

Deadline for Website Removals

A memo sent to HHS officials on Wednesday instructed agencies, including the CDC, to remove “all outward-facing media (websites, social media, etc.) promoting gender ideology” by 5 p.m. on Friday.

What’s Next?

With federal agencies now enforcing these executive orders, public health experts warn of potential consequences, particularly for marginalized communities relying on government resources for healthcare, prevention strategies, and reproductive rights information.

For now, researchers and advocacy groups continue their efforts to document and preserve lost information while awaiting further clarification from government agencies.

Source

The post Public Health Pages on HIV and LGBTQ+ Issues Removed from Federal Sites appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Donald Trump’s latest move to assert executive power – temporarily halting federal aid – has triggered widespread confusion and alarm across the nation. The decision, which affected vital programs like Meals on Wheels and low-income housing assistance, marked a dramatic shift from the structured early days of his second presidency to a chaotic reality, reminiscent of the turmoil that characterized his first term. More than just a political misstep, this action ignited a pivotal legal battle over the limits of presidential authority, one that is poised to reach the Supreme Court.

While Trump has long cultivated an image as a disruptive force against Washington’s establishment, his push for near-unlimited presidential power is becoming increasingly evident. The funding freeze, along with other controversial early moves such as firing DOJ prosecutors and challenging birthright citizenship, has sparked fears that Trump’s view of presidential power could dangerously overshadow the Constitution.

A Memo That Sparked Chaos

The storm began when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo on Monday night, calling for a temporary suspension of “all activities related to obligation or disbursement of federal financial assistance.” While Medicare benefits were exempt, the memo left many wondering whether essential programs, from Pentagon funding to local community assistance, were at risk. This created a wave of uncertainty, leaving lawmakers, state governments, and non-governmental organizations scrambling for clarity.

Trump’s team struggled to contain the fallout. Despite attempts to reassure the public that the freeze was intended to target only certain programs, the lack of clear answers made the situation worse. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, initially unclear on whether Medicaid was impacted, later clarified that it was not, though many states experienced disruptions. By the end of the day, a federal judge imposed a temporary halt on the freeze, underscoring the confusion and urgency surrounding the decision.

The Fallout: Confusion, Political Damage, and Constitutional Concerns

The day’s events had immediate political ramifications, overshadowing the early, carefully crafted agenda of Trump’s second term. The administration’s shock-and-awe approach, characterized by a flurry of presidential orders and directives, has made it difficult for critics to focus on individual policies, let alone their implications. But the haste with which these actions were implemented seems to have caught the OMB off guard, with disastrous consequences.

Though Trump’s core support remains strong, particularly following his victory in all seven swing states, the chaos raises questions about the sustainability of his approach. Despite his desire for dramatic changes, Trump’s political capital is not unlimited. The uncertainty caused by the funding freeze only highlighted the crucial role many government programs play in American society – a reminder that slashing federal spending could have far-reaching impacts.

A Direct Challenge to Congressional Power

At the heart of the funding freeze lies a fundamental challenge to the Constitution’s separation of powers. By seeking to freeze and redirect funds already approved by Congress, Trump is effectively asserting that the executive branch has the authority to override the legislative process. This move directly undermines Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse” – its exclusive right to allocate government spending.

White House officials defended the freeze, claiming it was necessary to prevent bureaucrats from distributing funds for what they called “wicked and pernicious” policies. Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, argued that this move was aligned with the will of the American people. However, winning an election does not grant a president the right to ignore the law, particularly when it comes to federal spending approved by Congress.

This disregard for legal and constitutional boundaries is not limited to the funding freeze. Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to challenge established laws and norms, from firing career prosecutors to proposing drastic changes to immigration policy that contradict constitutional principles. His recent dismissal of over a dozen government watchdogs without following the required 30-day notice to Congress further reflects his tendency to act unilaterally, dismissing legal requirements he deems inconvenient.

A Growing Threat to Democracy

The growing pattern of constitutional overreach raises deep concerns about Trump’s vision for the presidency. According to constitutional law experts, the president’s actions are increasingly pushing the limits of executive power, with potentially authoritarian consequences. Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University, argues that democracy cannot function if presidents believe they can simply override laws that were passed by previous administrations or Congress.

“What democracy requires isn’t that as soon as the president comes into power, they could wipe away everything that came before,” Brettschneider explains. “The idea of a democracy is that when laws are passed – whether it’s the 1964 Civil Rights Act or environmental protections – those laws bind not just citizens, but even the president.”

Looking Ahead: Trump’s Unchecked Ambition

Tuesday’s events signal that Trump is just beginning to test the limits of his presidential power. There are growing concerns that his administration is deliberately engaging in political battles and legal fights to expand the scope of the presidency, particularly with the backing of a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. The current political environment, where checks on presidential authority have weakened, may give Trump the opportunity to achieve his goal of consolidating power.

Republican support in Congress and the growing influence of Trump’s Supreme Court appointees could provide him with the leverage needed to reshape the balance of power in the executive branch. However, as constitutional experts warn, this vision of an unchecked presidency poses a grave threat to democratic governance.

“The presidency is supposed to be limited by the law and by the Constitution,” says Brettschneider. “But Trump sees it quite differently – that he is empowered to do whatever he wants. And that really is a vision of authoritarian control.”

As his presidency unfolds, the stakes are high: the struggle over the proper scope of executive power will not only define Trump’s second term but could reshape the very foundations of American democracy.

Source

The post The Chaos Behind Trump’s Power Play: Is He Overstepping His Bounds? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Uncertain Performance in Senate Hearing

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), faced a tough confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday. The three-hour session was marked by intense questioning, particularly on Medicare and Medicaid—two programs that affect tens of millions of Americans.

Kennedy struggled to provide clear answers on how he would handle these critical healthcare programs or lower healthcare costs. His lack of clarity drew corrections from senators throughout the hearing, raising concerns about his preparedness for the role.

Medicare and Medicaid Stumbles

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, pressed Kennedy on his plans for Medicaid reform. Kennedy, however, had no concrete proposals.

“I don’t have a broad proposal for dismantling the program,” he admitted after repeated questioning.

His grasp of Medicaid’s structure also appeared shaky. He mistakenly claimed that Medicaid is fully funded by the federal government—when, in reality, it is jointly funded by states and the federal government. He also inaccurately described Medicaid as having “high premiums and high deductibles,” despite it being a virtually free program.

Kennedy further displayed confusion regarding the agency’s funding of community health clinics and its role in enforcing a federal law that mandates emergency rooms stabilize all patients.

Abortion and Vaccine Controversies Take Center Stage

On abortion, Kennedy—a longtime Democrat before aligning with Trump—deflected questions, saying he would follow the former president’s lead. During his failed presidential bid, he had supported abortion access, but at the hearing, he called every abortion a “tragedy.”

His stance on vaccines remained the most contentious issue for Democrats. Kennedy attempted to reassure senators that he supports childhood vaccinations, noting that his own children are vaccinated.

“I believe that vaccines play a critical role in healthcare,” he told the committee.

However, Democrats were not convinced, citing Kennedy’s history of anti-vaccine rhetoric and leadership of Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine advocacy group. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) challenged Kennedy on past conspiracy theories he has spread about COVID-19, pesticides, and AIDS.

“This is a job where it is life and death for kids,” Bennet said, criticizing Kennedy’s history of misinformation.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) accused Kennedy of hypocrisy, pointing to baby onesies being sold on the Children’s Health Defense website with the slogan “Unvaxxed, Unafraid.” Kennedy distanced himself from the group, saying he was no longer involved.

Financial Conflicts and Legal Fees Raise Red Flags

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned Kennedy about his financial ties to lawsuits against drug companies, particularly his legal battle against Merck over Gardasil, a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer. Kennedy earned $850,000 from the lawsuit last year.

Warren asked if he would pledge not to profit from such lawsuits while serving as HHS Secretary. Kennedy refused to commit, prompting Warren to warn:

“No one should be fooled here. As Secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy will have the power to undercut vaccines and vaccine manufacturing across our country.”

Mental Health and School Shootings Controversy

Another flashpoint came when Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN) confronted Kennedy over his past suggestion that school shootings might be linked to antidepressant use.

“These statements reinforce the stigma that people with mental health conditions face every single day,” said Smith, who shared that she personally benefited from using antidepressants.

Republican Support Despite Concerns

While Democrats focused on Kennedy’s controversies, many Republicans saw little cause for concern. If Democrats vote as a bloc against him, Kennedy can afford to lose only four Republican votes and still be confirmed.

Republican Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a strong opponent of abortion, initially had reservations about Kennedy’s nomination. However, after Kennedy assured him he would follow Trump’s lead on the issue, Lankford appeared more supportive.

Final Thoughts: A Nomination in Jeopardy?

Kennedy tried to shift the focus to other priorities, such as researching food additives and improving federal food assistance programs. However, he reassured senators that he wouldn’t impose bans on popular foods, joking:

“If you like a McDonald’s cheeseburger and a Diet Coke like my boss, you should be able to get them.”

Despite strong backing from many Republicans, Kennedy’s lack of clarity on key healthcare programs and his controversial history with vaccines and lawsuits leave his nomination uncertain. With a crucial vote still pending from Sen. Cassidy, his confirmation hangs in the balance.

Source

The post Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Struggles to Answer Key Healthcare Questions at Confirmation Hearing appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.