Congressional letter obtained by AP outlines drastic job cuts expected at Voice of America
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration appointee overseeing the Voice of America has outlined job cuts that would reduce employment at the state-run news organization from over 1,000 people to 81.
The Voice of America, which has delivered news to countries all over the world for the better part of a century, has been largely silent for two months following an executive order by President Donald Trump. He believes Voice of America, and similar organizations like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, have reported with a liberal bias.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
Associated Press
14 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know
President Donald Trump's 2026 budget proposal, known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' introduces significant changes to federal spending and tax policies. Read Next: Try This: While aiming to reduce non-defense discretionary spending and extend tax cuts, the proposal has raised concerns about its potential impact on retirees who rely on federal programs for income, healthcare and essential services. 'These potential shifts could slow benefit growth, raise Medicare premiums or target higher earners with stricter eligibility or tax rules,' said Aaron Cirksena, founder and CEO of MDRN Capital. 'The biggest concern is uncertainty right now, and retirees rely on predictability, so even these small changes can have a big impact on them.' Here are four things retirees need to know about Trump's 2026 budget proposal. According to Congressional Budget Office analysis, if Trump's budget proposal, currently being debated in Congress, raises the federal deficit by $2.3 trillion over the next decade, it would automatically trigger spending cuts, including a projected $500 billion cut to Medicare. Such cuts may lead to reduced payments to providers, potentially affecting seniors' access to healthcare services. An analysis by the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy organization, found that the 'bill would undermine access to long-term care by shifting costs to states, likely resulting in cuts to HCBS (Home-and Community-Based Services). It would also make it harder for people to qualify for Medicaid coverage and avoid gaps in care.' Find Out: Key programs under the Older Americans Act, such as nutrition services and caregiver support, are at risk of significant funding reductions or elimination. For example, the National Council on Aging found that the Trump administration proposes to move the Aging Network Support program to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and reduce the program's funding by over 40%. The program allows seniors to live independently in their homes. This matters for individuals saving for retirement, because adult children often incur significant costs for caring for their parents. According to an AARP study, 'On average, caregivers spend 26% of their personal income on caregiving expenses. One in three dips into their personal savings, like bank accounts, to cover costs, and 12% take out a loan or borrow from family or friends.' The budget proposes substantial cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which could disproportionately affect low-income seniors who depend on these programs for healthcare and food security. According to NPR, 'If approved, starting in fiscal year 2028, states would be required to pay between 5% and 25% of food benefit costs for the first time. … In addition, states would receive less federal support to administer SNAP. The proposed changes would decrease the federal reimbursement rate for administrative costs to run SNAP from 50% to 25%.' An analysis of the Medicaid and SNAP cuts by The Commonwealth Fund found that these changes create ripple effects that affect the economies of entire communities, not just low-income households. 'For example, some of the food purchased in Georgia may have been grown in Kansas or processed in Tennessee, so lower grocery purchases in one state may cause losses in other states,' the Commonwealth report stated. 'A nurse who loses her job at a Louisiana clinic might reside in Texas; thus, a job lost in one state could create economic losses in another.' While the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' proposes extending tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it does not include provisions to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, contrary to some expectations. The bill does introduce a new $4,000 standard deduction for seniors aged 65 and older, providing tax relief for individuals with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 and couples with incomes of $150,000 annually. However, the substantial tax cuts and increased spending outlined in the proposal are projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. This significant increase in the deficit raises concerns among financial experts about potential future tax hikes to address the fiscal imbalance. 'If the proposal is passed, it could increase taxes on retirement income, making Roth conversions and smart withdrawal strategies more important than ever,' Cirksena said. 'The best move right now is do not wait. Review incomes, run scenarios and add some flexibility into your plan. Better to adjust early than react late.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 4 Housing Markets That Have Plummeted in Value Over the Past 5 Years 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on Trump's 2026 Budget Proposal: 4 Things Retirees Need To Know Sign in to access your portfolio
