Congressional intern killed in Washington D.C. shooting
Tarpinian-Jachym was not the intended target but an innocent bystander in the tragic shooting. Officers from the Metropolitan Police Department responded to reports of gunfire around 10:30 p.m. near 1200 7th Street. Upon arrival, they found Tarpinian-Jachym unconscious, along with two other victims who were conscious.
Tarpinian-Jachym succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead on Tuesday, ABC News reported. According to a LinkedIn profile believed to belong to him, Tarpinian-Jachym had been interning for Representative Estes for about two months. Before that, he reportedly worked for a government relations firm, also in Washington, D.C. A rising senior at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Tarpinian-Jachym was majoring in finance with a minor in political science.
Representative Ron Estes (pictured) and his wife, Susan, released a statement offering their condolences to the Tarpinian-Jachym family. 'I will remember his kind heart and how he always greeted anyone who entered our office with a cheerful smile,' Estes said in a press release. 'We are grateful to Eric for his service to Kansas' 4th District and the country.' Estes has represented Kansas' 4th Congressional District since 2017. He currently serves on the House Committee on Ways and Means, the Budget Committee, the Joint Economic Committee, and chairs the Social Security Subcommittee.
Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts also acknowledged Tarpinian-Jachym's death in a statement Wednesday , noting that he was a Springfield native and alumnus of Pope Francis Preparatory School. 'A rising senior at UMass Amherst, Eric was in D.C. interning on Capitol Hill, pursuing his passion for public service,' Neal said. 'Eric embodied what it means to be part of a community committed to learning, growth, and civic engagement.'
Neal also expressed sympathy for Tarpinian-Jachym's family, stating, 'Any parent will tell you there is no greater pain than the pain of losing a child.' The Metropolitan Police Department is offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible. Anyone with information is urged to contact police at (202) 727-9099 or text tips to 50411.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
How the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' will affect grad student loans
The House of Representatives is advancing the GOP's 'Big Beautiful Bill', which is set to significantly alter how graduate students finance their higher education. The bill proposes eliminating the federal Grad PLUS loan program starting July 2026, replacing it with increased but potentially insufficient limits on federal Stafford loans. Graduate students would face annual borrowing limits of $20,500 and a lifetime cap $100,000, while professional students could borrow up to $50,000 annually $200,000 lifetime maximum. Critics warn the changes could force students into private loans, deter them from pursuing advanced degrees, and exacerbate shortages in high-demand sectors like rural healthcare. While Republicans argue the limits will help control college costs, President Donald Trump is scheduled to sign the bill, which will also affect borrowers on the Biden-era SAVE plan from next summer.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
After a year studying Starmer, I can tell you that he is at once a very kind man and a ruthless one
Ask friends of Keir Starmer what they make of him and one of the first things they will say is that he can be incredibly kind. I've heard it time and again. The former Labour leader Neil Kinnock described how Starmer was among the first to turn up on his doorstep after he lost his beloved wife, Glenys. 'You don't have time for this; you've got a party to lead,' Kinnock told him. Then there was the former employee who started crying over a cup of coffee as she recounted to me how warm her boss had been when she lost a loved one. The lawyer Parvais Jabbar, who has been a close friend of the PM's for almost 30 years since they started working together to oppose the death penalty around the world, offered the same opinion. 'On a personal level, Keir is the opposite of ruthless,' he said. But on a political level? Having spoken to more than 100 sources for my paperback Taken As Red, which tracks Starmer's career from the moment he arrived in Westminster as a backbench MP through shadow cabinet roles to becoming Labour leader and then his first year as prime minister, I discovered his willingness to be politically ruthless, especially when it came to fixing things that had gone wrong. And right now it feels as if things have gone very wrong for the prime minister. On the eve of the anniversary of his first year in power, Starmer has not just suffered a humiliating climbdown over flagship reforms. His party is also trailing Reform UK in the polls and his personal popularity has spiralled down. Ben Walker at Britain Elects has compared Starmer's position with those of his predecessors through their first year and showed that his -33 approval rating, 339 days into the role, was six points lower than Rishi Sunak's (-27) at the same point and 77 points below Tony Blair's (+44). Although some of the problems have little to do with the Treasury (such as a failure to plan across government, or the freebiegate scandal), a number have emerged directly from No 11 Downing Street, including policies on winter fuel payments, inheritance tax changes for farmers and now welfare. That is why the sight of the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, visibly upset during yesterday's prime minister's questions, and Starmer's failure to fully back her in the moment (although his team later did), are leading people to ask how the prime minister will act in the face of declining popularity. Could he sack Reeves? Or his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney? I know from studying Starmer that he is certainly capable of being ruthless. To that end, surely no one is safe. Don't forget that he actually moved McSweeney on once before. After Labour's disastrous loss in the 2021 Hartlepool byelection, the key strategist was redeployed from Starmer's chief of staff to campaign director. And he wasn't the only one. McSweeney's successor, Sam White, found his period in charge also brought to an early end, as did the next in line, Sue Gray. They are far from the only examples of Starmer's willingness to take harsh action for political reasons. Take the phone call he made only 20 minutes after becoming Labour leader. Jennie Formby, who had been general secretary for Labour for two years, had wanted to discuss how she and Starmer would work together in the coming weeks. We won't, Starmer told her. One of her allies told me there was shock. Pushing out Formby, who had been unwell with cancer, was without precedent, they said, pointing out it took Jeremy Corbyn three years to replace the previous general secretary. But after the controversies under Corbyn, including an antisemitism crisis, Starmer wanted to overhaul the party and did not hesitate when it came to sacking his leadership rival, Rebecca Long-Bailey, and then removing Corbyn himself. Starmer also forced through rule changes which meant that those on the most leftwing flank of the party would struggle to ever again reach the ballot for leadership. So I don't doubt that Starmer could act now if he felt it were necessary. Arguably there was a streak of ruthlessness in his decision to tell his biographer Tom Baldwin that he 'deeply regrets' using the term 'island of strangers' in a recent speech. As for McSweeney, there are rumours of vulnerability, suggesting that he could be replaced by someone such as Liz Lloyd, Tony Blair's former deputy chief of staff who joined Starmer's administration last November as director of policy. But it's worth remembering that Starmer credits McSweeney with last year's election victory and for turning things around when he hit tough times in the past. Would he really move against Reeves? In this case, there is definitely a different dynamic from those he has acted against in the past. Starmer has liked and trusted Reeves since a breakfast shortly before he became leader. And surely this has been their joint project, in which the most controversial decisions being blamed on the Treasury could also be laid at No 10's door. Sources tell me that the PM trusted his chancellor so completely over means-testing winter fuel payments that he nodded through the proposal based on the figures alone. As for welfare, senior figures under Starmer have known for weeks that it was going to be a major problem. When it comes to this threatened rebellion that was unprecedented in scale, many blame the prime minister himself for failing to reach out personally to his own backbenchers and persuade them to remain loyal. Rebuilding relations with backbenchers is going to be key for Starmer if he is to recover. For some close to Starmer, his loyalty to Reeves has been 'frustrating'. I don't doubt that it has wobbled and that he would be prepared to act. But he must also know that removing a chancellor carries the risk of turning all the ire towards him. As ever, he'll deliberate and weigh the options very carefully. He is ruthless, that we know – but far from reckless. Anushka Asthana is the US editor for Channel 4 News and author of Taken As Red: The Truth About Starmer's Labour
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Former CBS anchor slams Paramount settlement with Trump: ‘It was a sellout'
A former CBS News anchor and 60 minutes correspondent, Dan Rather, has blasted the $16m settlement between Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, and Donald Trump, calling it a 'sad day for journalism'. 'It's a sad day for 60 Minutes and CBS News,' Rather, a veteran journalist who was a CBS News anchor for over 20 years, told Variety in an interview published on Wednesday. 'I hope people will read the details of this and understand what it was. It was distortion by the president and a kneeling down and saying, 'yes, sir,' by billionaire corporate owners.' Last November, Trump sued CBS News, claiming that the network's interview with the Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, had been doctored to portray her in a favorable light – which he alleged amounted to 'election interference'. Many legal experts had widely dismissed the lawsuit as 'meritless' and unlikely to hold up under the first amendment, but on Wednesday Paramount announced that it had agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle the case over the interview that was broadcast on the CBS News program 60 Minutes. The settlement comes as Paramount is preparing for a $8bn merger with Skydance Media, which requires approval from the US Federal Communications Commission. Paramount has said that the lawsuit is separate from the company's merger. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement to the Guardian that 'With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit. 'CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle,' the spokesperson added. According to Wednesday's announcement, the settlement funds will not be paid to Trump directly, but instead would be allocated to Trump's future presidential library. The settlement did not include an apology. Rather told Variety on Wednesday that in his opinion 'you settle a lawsuit when you've done something wrong' and '60 minutes did nothing wrong, it followed accepted journalistic practices'. 'Lawyers almost unanimously said the case wouldn't stand up in court,' he said. Ultimately though, Rather said he was disappointed but not surprised by the settlement. 'Big billionaire businesspeople make decisions about money,' he said. 'We could always hope that they will make an exception when it comes to freedom of the press, but it wasn't to be. 'Trump knew if he put the pressure on and threatened and just held that they would fold, because there's too much money on the table,' Rather said. 'Trump is now forcing a whole news organization to pay millions of dollars for doing something protected by the constitution – which is, of course, free and independent reporting. Now, you take today's sellout. And that's what it was: It was a sellout to extortion by the president. Who can now say where all this ends?' He continued: 'It has to do with not just journalism, but more importantly, with the country as a whole. What kind of country we're going to have, what kind of country we're going to be. If major news organizations continue to kneel before power and stop trying to hold the powerful accountable, then we all lose.' In his more than 60 years in journalism, Rather told Variety he had never seen the profession face the kind of challenges as those it faces today. 'Journalism has had its trials and tribulations before, and it takes courage to just soldier on,' Rather said. 'Keep trying, keep fighting. It takes guts to do that. And I know the people at CBS News, and particularly those at 60 Minutes, they'll do their dead level best under these circumstances. But the question is what [is] this development and the message it sends to us. And that's what I'm trying to concentrate on.'
