Trump's former surgeon general blasts Kennedy for 'tepid' response to CDC shootings
A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Adams's fury comes after a gunman opened fire at the CDC's Atlanta headquarters on Friday, killing one police officer and repeatedly striking CDC buildings. The 30-year-old shooter reportedly blamed the Covid-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal. Under Kennedy's leadership, the agency has stopped recommending the vaccine for pregnant people and has narrowed the recommendations for healthy children.
Kennedy has previously voiced skepticism for vaccines including the Covid vaccine. Last week, he announced that HHS would halt $500 million in funding for mRNA research, the technology used to create some of the Covid-19 vaccines. Kennedy cited safety concerns as the reason behind the decision; critics said that concern was unfounded.
On Saturday, the secretary extended condolences to the family of slain Officer David Rose and other CDC workers affected by the shooting.
'No one should face violence while working to protect the health of others,' Kennedy said in a post to social media. 'We honor their service. We stand with them. And we remain united in our mission to protect and improve the health of every American.'
But Adams said that Kennedy's own rhetoric about the CDC — including his description of the agency as a 'cesspool of corruption' — may have played a role in influencing the shooter's actions.
'He made this statement just last year,' Adams said. 'And he still has not unequivocally condemned the violence. He said no one should be harmed while working to protect the public. There's an out there, Margaret. If you don't believe that people are working to protect the public, then that means it's OK to commit violence, at least in some people's eyes.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
H-1Bs are wreaking havoc on American workers
When it comes to immigration, there's a refrain that periodically arises with respect to new immigrants: 'They're even more American than us,' or something to that effect. And if immigration causes any ill effects on Americans already here — such as disruptions in the economy or employment environment — they are reminded that they should just grit their teeth and 'learn to code.' Unfortunately, that advice may no longer be helpful. Layoffs in the tech industry for 2025 had already exceeded 80,000 as of July, according to estimates. Although the public may know the tech climate has been bleak, they haven't heard much about the causes. Corporate executives have been eager to insinuate that AI is driving the employment environment. Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in June that there would 'be fewer people doing some of the jobs that the technology actually starts to automate.' However, Jassy did not mention another factor — the employment data indicate that Amazon has led corporate America in spurning U.S. workers in favor of foreign-born alternatives. The company's main operating arm submitted 31,817 Labor Condition Applications for H-1B, H-1B1, and E-3 visas in the second quarter of fiscal 2025, according to data published by the Labor Department's Office of Foreign Labor Certification. The number grows higher — to 40,757 — if one accounts for Amazon Web Services, the company's cloud-management division. NVIDIA placed a distant second with 27,244 applications. Other top offenders included Goldman Sachs, which used three entities to file more than 26,000 applications. There's also Microsoft (14,181 applications) and Apple (8,393 applications). Labor Condition Applications allow companies to fill roles based in the U.S. with foreign laborers. They recently came under fire from Vice President JD Vance. Alluding to Microsoft's announcement of layoffs weeks earlier, Vance said at an event, 'You see some Big Tech companies where they'll lay off 9,000 workers, and then they'll apply for a bunch of overseas visas.' He added that he 'just found out' and had 'not yet had that conversation with Microsoft.' In a statement, Microsoft denied that Americans had been laid off as a result of their foreign alternatives, pointing to the fact that it had also reduced its H-1B workforce. 'Our H-1B applications are in no way related to the recent job eliminations in part because employees on H-1Bs also lost their roles,' a spokesman told me. He added that 78 percent of Microsoft's applications over the last 12 months were for 'existing employees.' Although these foreign workers are, in theory, intended to fill 'high-skill' roles, the data tell a different story. According to the Labor Department, 82 percent of Microsoft's H-1B applications for 2025 have been for positions the department classifies as Level I or II — entry or mid-level roles paid at or below the 34th wage percentile. To put that in simpler terms: Microsoft is paying 82 percent of its foreign workers less than the prevailing market rate for their positions. Even if Microsoft were able to find Americans willing to work for less than they're worth, Microsoft wouldn't be required to make any attempt to hire them — despite a widely held belief that H-1B employers are required to certify that they haven't been able to find Americans to employ. 'It is remarkable how many policy wonks, news organizations, and academics get this critical fact wrong,' Howard University Professor Ron Hira, an H-1B expert who has testified on the issue before Congress, told me in an interview. 'My experience suggests that more elites believe the falsehood than the truth. The program would look radically different and function much better if such a requirement existed.' It is little wonder that younger Americans suspect all of this labor importation may have something to do with the challenges they're facing. That applies not just in terms of employment, but also of problems ranging from the national housing shortage to the rising cost of car insurance to traffic congestion — which, as anecdotal evidence would have it, spontaneously fell amid immigration raids in Los Angeles last month. Naysayers will disagree, nitpick, or read legalese about how their foreign workers were onboarded years ago to rationalize the idea that Americans haven't been affected. And that's fine, but it isn't going to change the fact that voters aged 18-21 sided with Republicans by a double-digit margin in Yale's recent youth poll, largely due to these very concerns. Of course, those numbers could shift, particularly if Republicans fail to take action — likely pushing those young voters even further to the right. Aside from Vance, mainstream politicos have been largely silent on this issue — perhaps because they don't want to offend their corporate patrons. The best they can do is stay silent and hope that voters forget. The media appear to be fully on board with that plan. As of July, a search for stories involving the Office of Foreign Labor Certification published within the last year returned zero results from outlets including The New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News, among many others. Contrast that with The Times' obsessive concern with the State Department terminating a little more than 1,300 employees. 'Cuts at State Department Demote Longtime U.S. Values,' the paper declared in the headline of a news (not opinion) article. It sounds like firing a federal worker is akin to an attack on the very fabric of America's values. By that measure, they must be the most American of us all. That must be nice, but it may not elicit much sympathy from those who have somehow been deemed less essential to the country than their foreign replacements.
Atlantic
6 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How Trump Threw Out the Pandemic Playbook
As of last month, there is no one left in the White House whose sole job is to keep the nation safe from biological threats. The leader of the National Security Council's biosecurity directorate recently resigned. His staff had been pushed out, and his unit is now defunct. The Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, established by Congress in 2022, has dwindled from a staff of about 20 under President Joe Biden to a staff of zero. The Trump administration has said that it's just reorganizing the bureaucracy and is prepared to handle biothreats. But our experience suggests otherwise. Without a leader from the NSC embedded in the White House and ready to coordinate other agencies, more people—including Americans—will get sick and die. We have spent years helping lead the U.S. government's efforts to contain the deadliest biological threats. One of us, Beth Cameron, helped found the NSC's biosecurity office, in 2016—created as a response to a deadly Ebola outbreak in West Africa that had begun a couple of years earlier. Ebola is a gruesome, highly contagious disease that causes its victims' organs, blood vessels, and immune cells to fail. The average lethality rate is about 50 percent. That outbreak killed more than 11,000 people across West Africa and cost the U.S. government billions of dollars to help contain. Despite our government's best efforts, 11 cases ultimately reached the U.S., and two were fatal. President Donald Trump terminated the NSC's biosecurity office during his first term, but Biden reestablished it—and just in time. In early February 2021, an ominous email came to the White House from federal health officials: reports of Ebola outbreaks in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The cases were close to the borders of Uganda and Rwanda, major travel hubs for the region. The White House was already managing the coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic crisis. But leaving Guinea and Congo to handle the Ebola outbreaks on their own was risky. So we activated a system developed through hard-learned lessons from past deadly outbreaks, designed to help contain them at their sources and to prepare for the worst at home. We sent public-health professionals to advise the affected countries. We took inventory of vaccines and other supplies so we would be ready to deploy them. We relied on a painstaking system of testing, vaccinations, and predeparture screenings in Congo and Guinea. We ensured that anyone who had been to an affected country and was seeking to come to the U.S. was funneled to one of a handful of American airports. The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security activated a program for tracing and contacting passengers after their arrival. One of us, Jon Finer—the principal deputy national security adviser at the time—led a team of senior health and national-security officials from across the government; it met every day to coordinate all of the moving parts, and to keep the president and other senior officials informed. It worked. The disease was entirely contained within the two source countries—no cases reached the U.S.—and 18 people died, a number that could have been exponentially higher. To strengthen our responses to future pandemics, lawmakers soon established the position of a U.S. coordinator for global health security; one of us, Stephanie Psaki, was the first person to hold that job. They also created the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy in the White House. The Trump administration, tasked with upholding the law, is supposed to be staffing these offices. Not only has it failed to do that, but in just six months, it also has dismantled many of the early-warning-and-response systems that were built over decades. In Trump's second term, his team has fired thousands of public-health experts at the CDC, the FDA, and other agencies. It has canceled investments in safeguards against pandemic influenza, undermined confidence in vaccines, and cut funding for potential future outbreaks. It killed USAID and is scaling down the CDC's global role, canceling many of the programs that maintained ties to countries where disease outbreaks occur. It has withdrawn the U.S. from the World Health Organization. And it has created confusion about who in the U.S. government is in charge of the system for tracking deadly biothreats, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. Put another way: The second Trump administration inherited a playbook, and then pushed out the people who knew how to run the plays. The United States is dealing with many biological threats at home and abroad, such as the bird flu and measles—with the latter, America is already facing the worst outbreak in decades. Scientists estimate about a 50–50 chance of another pandemic as severe as the coronavirus occurring in the next 25 years. The probability is even higher for smaller-scale threats, such as periodic Ebola outbreaks. Deadly biothreats are more and more likely to emerge for a range of reasons, including increased interaction between humans and animals, labs without sufficient biosecurity systems, easier public access to the information and technology needed to create or manipulate a bioagent, and continued concerns about the development of biological weapons by nefarious actors. The risk of death and economic disruption is only growing. America rebuilt the system of disease detection and response after the first Trump administration damaged it. That will be harder to do this time around. Far more officials have left the government. Will they be willing to come back, given the degree to which their work has been disparaged and their job security eviscerated? Stopping deadly diseases from reaching the United States is challenging at the best of times. Absent trusting relationships and, truth be told, a fair amount of pressure, affected countries aren't always forthcoming with information. (We dealt with one case that required resorting to threats to withhold U.S. support if the other government didn't share more data about an emerging outbreak.) Health imperatives can collide with political ones, such as when a country has to consider restricting travel. Questions can arise about how much of a vaccine or treatment should be shared with other countries, and how much should be kept at home (if a vaccine or treatment exists at all). But these are all reasonable policy debates that assume the system is basically functioning. In a worst-case scenario, we might not even know about a disease until it has started spreading in a major city with an international airport. With no warning, we will have less ability to stop the disease at its source, and less power, if it reaches our shores, to save American lives. The odds of us facing that scenario have now gone way up. This would be a terrible tragedy, and all the more so because it would be self-inflicted.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Smithsonian restores Trump to impeachment display in American history museum
The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History on Friday unveiled an updated impeachment display that now includes context about President Donald Trump's historic cases — a change the institution made a week after The Washington Post reported that a temporary placard containing his name had been removed from the exhibit as part of a Smithsonian content review prompted by White House pressure to oust a museum director. The new text makes minor changes to — and offers slightly fewer details than — the temporary signage. 'The National Museum of American History has completed its update to the Impeachment case within 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition,' the Smithsonian said in a statement on Friday. 'The updated display now reflects all presidential impeachments. Adhering to principles foundational to our role as the nation's museum, we take great care to ensure that what we present to the public reflects both intellectual integrity and thoughtful design.' The statement said that the interim sign, which had been in place from September 2021 until this July, was removed because it was not consistent with other sections of the exhibit and blocked the display case. 'We removed it to make way for a more permanent update to the content inside the case,' the Smithsonian said. The removal drew swift outcry from some members of the public as well as several Democratic leaders. The Smithsonian Institution has faced growing concerns about political interference at the education and research complex amid the Trump administration's efforts to exert more control over its work. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer called the removal 'pathetic' during Senate floor remarks last week. 'You can't make this up,' he said. 'This is a man rewriting history — or thinking he can rewrite history. He can't, but he thinks he can.' The Smithsonian said last week that no government official asked them to remove content from the exhibit. It also said that no other changes had been made at the museum. In a statement, Lindsey Halligan, a White House official charged with scrutinizing 'improper ideology' at the Smithsonian, reiterated that the White House wasn't involved with the revision. 'That said, it's encouraging to see the institution taking steps that align with President Trump's Executive Order to restore truth to American History. As part of that truth, it's important to note that President Trump was acquitted twice by Senate, fully and on every count — a fact that belongs in the historical record.' Some edits to the display's text are evident, including the addition of the word 'alleged' in the placard's description of the conduct that led to Trump's first impeachment. The display's main panel was also updated to reflect include Trump's name alongside Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice. In 2019, he was charged by the House with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his attempts to withhold military aid meant for Ukraine and pressure its government to investigate his political rival Biden. He was acquitted by the Senate in 2020. Then, just over a year later, Trump was impeached again, on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was acquitted a second time, after leaving office. Since returning to the White House in January for his second term, Trump has attempted to exert influence over prominent cultural institutions, including by taking over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, making drastic changes at the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and imposing budget cuts on the National Park Service. In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate 'divisive narratives' across the Smithsonian museums and 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.' Months later, he attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, for being a 'highly partisan' person — though he had no authority to do so. The White House provided a list of 17 instances it said supported the president's claims about her, including the caption for the museum's presidential portrait of Trump mentioning his two impeachments and 'incitement of insurrection.' Early Friday afternoon in the 'American Presidency' exhibition, visitors milled about the display case. Some had been aware of the Trump text's removal. 'I heard it was taken out, and I came here to see it,' said Jodi Lindstrom, 49, visiting from Minneapolis. 'I don't think it's a good idea for the president to have a say over what is history. … You can't erase it. It's what happened. So I'm very happy to see it back in.' Following The Post's reporting about the change, the Smithsonian said it would restore Trump to the impeachment display 'in the coming weeks.' 'It does say four now,' said Ed Burk, 75, of Washington, D.C., leaning in to examine the display. But he wasn't satisfied by the alterations. 'Clinton gets a little more attention. Why not something as big for Donald Trump?' Mindy Kiser, 52, visiting from Wichita, had not previously heard about the exhibition's alterations. 'It's disappointing to know that the museum may have caved to outside influences but also reassuring to know that they did the right thing and restored whatever they took away,' Kiser said. Her eyes lingered on the other items in the display case, and then the Trump text, displayed low with two small artifacts: admission to the Senate gallery for impeachment proceedings. 'The fact that he's been impeached twice, it does seem to be a little bit smaller, in my opinion,' she said. But 'in these days, we should just be happy that it's represented at all.'
