LA Times Today: New Trump rule immediately bans undocumented immigrants from Head Start child care
Jenny Gold covers early education for the Times and joined Lisa McRee.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Laura Loomer Blasts Return of FDA Vaccine Chief She Helped Force Out
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Laura Loomer has reacted with anger after a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine chief she criticized returned to the agency. Writing on X, formerly Twitter, the conservative commentator slammed President Donald Trump's administration for rehiring Dr. Vinay Prasad two weeks after he resigned from his role leading the FDA's vaccines and gene therapy division. Why It Matters Loomer is an influential figure in right-wing circles. She was present alongside Trump on the 2024 campaign trail, and she has been tied to his decision to fire National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and other aides, although the president has denied that she was the reason for the sackings. Prasad used to work for the University of California, San Francisco. He has also previously worked at the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health. Laura Loomer outside the U.S. Capitol on June 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Laura Loomer outside the U.S. Capitol on June 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images What To Know Prasad, a physician who was first appointed to the role in May, left the FDA on July 30 following pressure from Loomer and other political influencers. Prasad had faced backlash over the agency's handling of a gene therapy linked to the deaths of two teenagers and his decision not to approve certain drugs. Loomer had also repeatedly claimed Prasad was liberal and said he was anti-Trump. "How did this Trump-hating Bernie [Sanders] Bro get into the Trump admin???" Loomer posted on X in July. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary had defended Prasad, who was a critic of vaccine and mask mandates, prior to his resignation. After it was reported he would return, writing on X, Loomer called the decision to rehire Prasad "egregious." She also indicated she would launch critiques of other figures, saying she "will be ramping up my exposés of officials within the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA so the American people can see more of the pay for play rot themselves and how rabid Trump haters continue to be hired in the Trump administration." NEW: In another egregious personnel decision under the Trump administration, it is now being reported that longtime progressive Marxist Vinay Prasad who referred to President Trump's supporters as criminals and compared them to drug addicts after saying he stabbed a Trump voodoo… — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) August 9, 2025 What People Are Saying Department Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement to Reuters: "At the FDA's request, Dr. Vinay Prasad is resuming leadership of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research." When he resigned, Prasad said he "did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the FDA" and had "decided to return to California and spend more time with his family." What Happens Next As Trump's presidency continues, it is likely that there will be further personnel changes in government departments.
CBS News
2 minutes ago
- CBS News
European leaders rally behind Ukraine as White House open to inviting Zelenskyy to Trump-Putin meeting
A coalition of European nations rallied behind Ukraine on Saturday, saying the Russia-Ukraine war can't be resolved without Kyiv, ahead of a planned meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that currently isn't set to include Ukraine's leader. The statement, signed by the president of the European Union and the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the United Kingdom, stated that the "path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine." The group stressed the need for a "just and lasting peace" for Kyiv, including "robust and credible" security guarantees. "Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities," the statement said. The statement by top European leaders — who also said they "welcome President Trump's work to stop the killing in Ukraine — came after Mr. Trump announced he would meet with Putin one-on-one in Alaska on Friday, Aug. 15, following weeks of U.S. pressure on Russia to cut a ceasefire deal. It's the first face-to-face meeting between Putin and an American leader since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in early 2022. Two sources told CBS News Saturday that Mr. Trump is still willing to meet jointly with Zelenskyy and Putin — but the meeting currently remains bilateral, as Putin requested. Mr. Trump also said last week that he expects "some swapping of territories" between Ukraine and Russia. The Russian military occupies large parts of eastern Ukraine, and Russia has indicated that it wants Ukraine to cede those territories — which Zelenskyy has pushed back on. The Europeans wrote in their statement: "We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations." Zelenskyy thanked the Europeans for their statement, saying in a post on X that he is "grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine." The Ukrainian president previously brushed off the planned Putin-Trump summit, writing that any peace deal that excludes Ukraine "will never work." Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance met Saturday with top European and Ukrainian officials at the British Foreign Secretary's weekend residence to discuss how to end the war. The Trump-Putin meeting may prove pivotal in a war that began when Russia invaded its western neighbor and has led to tens of thousands of deaths, although there's no guarantee it will stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. A monthlong U.S.-led push to achieve a truce in Ukraine has so far proved fruitless, with Kyiv agreeing in principle while Moscow has held out for terms more to its liking. Mr. Trump had also moved up an ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if the Kremlin did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday. The White House did not answer questions on Saturday about possible sanctions. The Kremlin earlier this week reiterated demands that Ukraine give up territory, abandon its bid to join NATO and accept limits on its military, in exchange for a withdrawal of Russian troops from the rest of the country. Zelenskyy said Saturday that Ukraine "will not give Russia any awards for what it has done" and that "Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier." Ukrainian officials previously told the Associated Press privately that Kyiv would be amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine's inability to regain lost territories militarily. But Zelenskyy on Saturday insisted that formally ceding land was out of the question.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Even if they settle with Trump, universities have their work cut out for them
Last month, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University cut deals with the Trump administration to resolve accusations related to antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and transgender rights. The administration believes it now has a template for forcing universities to accede to its policy preferences: Make vague but sweeping allegations of discrimination; freeze hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding; overwhelm administrators with civil rights investigations and document requests; and threaten consequences ranging from stripping universities of their right to enroll international students to revoking their tax exemptions. The means used to secure these deals amount to extortion. Over $400 million in research funding was frozen at Columbia with no due process and in violation of the procedural requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard University, which chose to litigate but is reported to be negotiating a deal, had over $2 billion in federal grants and contracts frozen and faces half a dozen civil rights investigations and threats to its international student population, tax exempt status and accreditation. Trump's tactics work because his targets cannot survive as modern research universities if they are at war with government agencies prepared to ignore legal constraints and social norms. There are ample reasons to question the sincerity of the Trump administration's commitment to combatting antisemitism, and throttling scientific research makes little sense as a response. Many of the policies agreed to in the settlements reached by Columbia, Brown and Penn are damaging and dangerous. But some of the concerns on which they are based are legitimate. American institutions of higher education should act as well as react to this crisis. The anti-Israel protests that engulfed some campuses last year brought with them a surge in antisemitism. Task force reports at Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, UCLA and other elite institutions acknowledge failures to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students, faculty and staff. At UCLA, for example, pro-Palestinian protesters barred Jewish students from crossing parts of campus, prompting a lawsuit UCLA recently settled for over $6 million and a Justice Department finding that UCLA violated civil rights laws and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. In its settlement agreement, Columbia pledged to review its Middle East programs to ensure their educational offerings are 'comprehensive and balanced,' appoint new faculty members in related fields who 'will contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment' and hire an administrator to serve as a liaison to students on antisemitism issues. We believe the imposition of these requirements poses a threat to academic freedom and university autonomy. That said, the Trump administration's draconian demands provided at least part of the impetus for institutions to revise their policies. Harvard, for example, announced a series of initiatives to encourage respectful discourse and support research on antisemitism. Other colleges and universities are also making efforts — generally commendable, sometimes problematic — to maintain their commitments to free speech while tightening time, place and manner restrictions on protests. In an April 11 letter, the Trump administration also insisted that Harvard hire an 'external party' to audit 'the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for viewpoint diversity,' and then hire faculty and admit students to achieve balance in every department, faculty and teaching unit. This demand is ill-defined, absurd and unconstitutional. But as Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has acknowledged, the university needs to do more to ensure 'a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity and academic exploration.' According to a 2023 survey, over 77 percent of Harvard's faculty identify as 'liberal' or 'very liberal,' compared to 3 percent who identify as 'conservative' or 'very conservative.' Similar if less extreme disparities exist on most elite campuses, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. And as the Heterodox Academy has observed, a too-uniform political culture can give rise to 'closed-minded orthodoxies within scholarly communities.' The devil, of course, is in the details. Departments can easily rule out hiring a creationist to teach biology or a climate change denier to teach environmental studies. But what is the right mix of expertise in a history or chemistry department? And how should that be achieved without employing affirmative action, given the dearth of conservatives pursuing a Ph.D. in many fields? One thing, at least, should be clear: The answers to such questions should come from internal deliberations rather than external mandates. The most controversial aspect of the Trump administration's effort to remake higher education has been its attack on DEI programs. The Columbia settlement insists not only that the university maintain 'merit-based admission policies' and refrain from racial preferences, but also that it 'may not use personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discrimination,' even though the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action permits universities to consider 'an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.' Universities must decide how to square this circle. Similar language forbidding racial preferences appears in the Brown settlement. That agreement also requires Brown to 'provide female student-athletes with intimate facilities such as locker rooms and bathrooms strictly separated on the basis of sex,' offer women the option of 'female-only housing, restrooms, and showering facilities' and 'ensure students have access to single-sex floors in on-campus housing,' with male and female defined in accordance with a Trump executive order insisting that sex is binary and immutable. These provisions go well beyond existing law and may make campuses less welcoming places for many students. That said, some DEI policies should be reconsidered. Requiring job applicants to submit diversity statements, for example, risks the imposition of ideological filters. And although concerns about transgender athletes participating in college sports have been vastly overstated, there is room for fine-tuning participation policies. Critics of the Trump administration rightly decry the bullying that is forcing universities to accept unprecedented government intrusion into university affairs. Most of that intrusion will do far more harm than good. But colleges and universities should seize the moment to preserve and promote core values while implementing reforms that are reasonable, feasible and just. Doing so may not keep the wolf away, but it might help win over a skeptical public.
