Trump Ends White House Public Health Advisory On Gun Violence
The government webpage detailing the consequences of America's easy access to guns is no longer live. It came down some time between March 5 and March 15, internet archives show, removing data about firearms being the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, among other disturbing statistics.
'Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,' White House spokesperson Kush Desai told HuffPost when asked about the page's removal.
The White House confirmed the advisory, which went into effect last summer, was removed as part of last month's executive order demanding a review of all federal firearms regulations to determine whether there are any 'ongoing infringements' of constitutional gun rights. The order specifically takes aim at gun safety legislation enacted under President Joe Biden.
The advisory was put into effect last June by then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who said at the time that driving down gun deaths would require a ban on automatic rifles and the introduction of universal background checks, laws restricting guns' use in public spaces and penalties for people who fail to safely store their firearms.
'People want to be able to walk through their neighborhoods and be safe,' Murthy told The Associated Press when he released the advisory. 'America should be a place where all of us can go to school, go to work, go to the supermarket, go to our house of worship, without having to worry that that's going to put our life at risk.'
His since-removed advisory noted that for people between ages 1 and 19, firearms now outpace motor vehicles as the leading cause of death. Gun deaths for that age group have been steadily on the rise for the past decade, far surpassing deaths from poisoning, cancer, suffocation, congenital anomalies, drowning and cardiovascular disease.
It also referenced a survey finding that more than half of Americans report they or a family member have experienced a firearm-related incident. Trump is part of that group, too, having been shot at a campaign rally in July.
Trump's demands to overhaul gun safety regulations come in spite of the fact that 61% of Americans say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in the U.S., according to Pew Research. A similar percentage of Americans favor stricter gun laws, with broad support across party lines for laws preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old.
Another survey from Fox News, the conservative broadcaster favored by Trump, found that a whopping 87% of Americans support universal background checks ― one of the policies endorsed by Murthy.
Columbine Survivor Dies 25 Years Later Of Complications From Shooting
Alex Jones Blames 'Globalists' After Infowars Writer Killed During Car Burglary
What A Trump Win Means For Guns
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
People Are Calling Trump's Latest Truth Social Rant "Outrageous" After He Slammed American Museums For Discussing "How Bad Slavery Was"
It's been 159 years since slavery was legally abolished in the U.S, and yet, in 2025, discussing the history of slavery has seemingly become too "woke" for the MAGA crowd. During a recent CNN panel discussion, MAGA-supporting celebrity Jillian Michaels shocked her colleagues after she argued that slavery shouldn't be blamed on "just one race," — meaning white Americans. CNN / Twitter: @Acyn Related: Well, President Donald Trump recently took to Truth Social to argue a similar point, criticizing American museums that discuss "how bad slavery was," calling them "woke" and "out of control." He wrote that he's instructed his attorneys to "go through the museums" and make changes to reflect "success" and "brightness." Here's the full post. Related: The now-viral post has been seen by over 10.2 million people and received thousands of comments criticizing Trump for his rhetoric. One person called Trump "out of his damn mind," and advocated for the history of slavery to be taught "again and again." Related: Another person described Trump's post as "pro slavery rhetoric." While this person called the president "fragile" for feeling attacked by teaching slavery. Representative Jim McGovern advised Trump to "spend more time in a museum." Related: And Gov. Gavin Newsom accused Trump of trying to "erase" slavery... And finally, this person asked: "Why do the same people who want to erase the history of slavery insist on preserving the Confederate flag and generals?" What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Obama applauds Newsom's California redistricting plan as 'responsible' as Texas GOP pushes new maps
Former President Barack Obama has waded into states' efforts at rare mid-decade redistricting efforts, saying he agrees with California Gov. Gavin Newsom's response to alter his state's congressional maps, in the way of Texas redistricting efforts promoted by President Donald Trump aimed at shoring up Republicans' position in next year's elections. 'I believe that Gov. Newsom's approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We're not going to try to completely maximize it,' Obama said at a Tuesday fundraiser on Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts, according to excerpts obtained by The Associated Press. 'We're only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn't go into effect.' While noting that 'political gerrymandering' is not his 'preference,' Obama said that, if Democrats 'don't respond effectively, then this White House and Republican-controlled state governments all across the country, they will not stop, because they do not appear to believe in this idea of an inclusive, expansive democracy.' According to organizers, the event raised $2 million for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and its affiliates, one of which has filed and supported litigation in several states over GOP-drawn districts. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Eric Holder, who served as Obama's attorney general and heads up the group, also appeared. The former president's comments come as Texas lawmakers return to Austin this week, renewing a heated debate over a new congressional map creating five new potential GOP seats. The plan is the result of prodding by President Donald Trump, eager to stave off a midterm defeat that would deprive his party of control of the House of Representatives. Texas Democratic lawmakers delayed a vote for 15 days by leaving the state in protest, depriving the House of enough members to do business. Spurred on by the Texas situation, Democratic governors including Newsom have pondered ways to possibly strengthen their party's position by way of redrawing U.S. House district lines, five years out from the Census count that typically leads into such procedures. In California — where voters in 2010 gave the power to draw congressional maps to an independent commission, with the goal of making the process less partisan — Democrats have unveiled a proposal that could give that state's dominant political party an additional five U.S. House seats in a bid to win the fight to control of Congress next year. If approved by voters in November, the blueprint could nearly erase Republican House members in the nation's most populous state, with Democrats intending to win the party 48 of its 52 U.S. House seats, up from 43. A hearing over that measure devolved into a shouting match Tuesday as a Republican lawmaker clashed with Democrats, and a committee voted along party lines to advance the new congressional map. California Democrats do not need any Republican votes to move ahead, and legislators are expected to approve a proposed congressional map and declare a Nov. 4 special election by Thursday to get required voter approval. Newsom and Democratic leaders say they'll ask voters to approve their new maps only for the next few elections, returning map-drawing power to the commission following the 2030 census — and only if a Republican state moves forward with new maps. Obama applauded that temporary timeline. 'And we're going to do it in a temporary basis because we're keeping our eye on where we want to be long term,' Obama said, referencing Newsom's take on the California plan. 'I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.' ___ Kinnard can be reached at
