People Are Being 'Mean' About FEMA Chief's Hurricane Comment, DHS Says
The Department of Homeland Security says people are being a little too mean after acting FEMA head David Richardson said he didn't know the United States had a hurricane season.
Richardson, who has led the emergency aid agency since last month, made the comment at a briefing on Monday that was first reported by Reuters.
The U.S. hurricane season began Sunday and will end in late November. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts 'above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin this year,' with as many as 10 hurricanes on the forecast.
The national reaction to Richardson's comment has been one of shock, disbelief, and outrage, with many Democratic lawmakers swiftly calling for his removal. But DHS, which oversees FEMA, says people are being a bit too mean.
'Despite meanspirited attempts to falsely frame a joke as policy, there is no uncertainty about what FEMA will be doing this Hurricane Season,' a DHS spokesperson said in a statement to media outlets. 'FEMA is laser focused on disaster response, and protecting the American people.'
Richardson initially joined the Trump administration in January as assistant secretary for DHS's Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, after previously serving in the United States Marine Corps as a ground combat officer. His qualifications to lead FEMA are unclear.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
33 minutes ago
Trump moves to block US entry for foreign students planning to study at Harvard University
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump is moving to block nearly all foreign students from entering the country to attend Harvard University, his latest attempt to choke the Ivy League school from an international pipeline that accounts for a quarter of the student body. In an executive order signed Wednesday, Trump declared that it would jeopardize national security to allow Harvard to continue hosting foreign students on its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 'I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' Trump wrote in the order. It's a further escalation in the White House's fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. A federal court in Boston blocked the Department of Homeland Security from barring international students at Harvard last week. Trump's order invokes a different legal authority. Trump invoked a broad federal law that gives the president authority to block foreigners whose entry would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' On Wednesday, he cited the same authority when announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the U.S. and those from seven others would face restrictions. Trump's Harvard order cites several other laws, too, including one barring foreigners associated with terrorist organizations. In a statement Wednesday night, Harvard said it will 'continue to protect its international students.' 'This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' university officials said. It stems from Harvard's refusal to submit to a series of demands made by the federal government. It has escalated recently after the Department of Homeland Security said Harvard refused to provide records related to misconduct by foreign students. Harvard says it has complied with the request, but the government said the school's response was insufficient. The dispute has been building for months after the Trump administration demanded a series of policy and governance changes at Harvard, calling it a hotbed of liberalism and accusing it of tolerating anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard defied the demands, saying they encroached on the university's autonomy and represented a threat to the freedom of all U.S. universities. Trump officials have repeatedly raised the stakes and sought new fronts to pressure Harvard, cutting more than $2.6 billion in research grants and moving to end all federal contracts with the university. The latest threat has targeted Harvard's roughly 7,000 international students, who account for half the enrollment at some Harvard graduate schools. 'Admission to the United States to study at an 'elite' American university is a privilege, not a right,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X. 'This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the President's proclamation suspending the entry of new foreign students at Harvard University based on national security concerns.' Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., called the measure ridiculous and said it has nothing to do with national security. 'It's a thinly veiled revenge ploy in Trump's personal feud with Harvard, and continued authoritarian overreach against free speech,' Jayapal said on the social media site X. The order applies to all students attempting to enter the United States to attend Harvard after the date of the executive order. It provides a loophole to allow students whose entry would 'benefit the national interest,' as determined by federal officials. Trump's order alleges that Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students in response to the Homeland Security request, and it lacked the detail to gauge if federal action was needed. Trump concluded that Harvard is either 'not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.' 'These actions and failures directly undermine the Federal Government's ability to ensure that foreign nationals admitted on student or exchange visitor visas remain in compliance with Federal law,' the order said. For foreign students already at Harvard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will determine if visas should be revoked, Trump wrote. The order is scheduled to last six months. Within 90 days, the administration will determine if it should be renewed, the order said. A State Department cable sent last week to U.S. embassies and consulates said federal officials will begin reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants who plan to attend, work at or visit Harvard University for any signs of antisemitism. In a court filing last week, Harvard officials said the Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion.' Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said in the filing. ___ ___
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Historian Federico Finchelstein: Trump's "abuse of the law fits an old autocratic pattern"
The Age of Trump wrapped itself in the flag of false patriotism while simultaneously destroying America's sacred civic myths about its national greatness and the permanence of its democracy. This paradox has left many, white Americans in particular, dizzy as they are forced to confront the harmful consequences caused by their belief in a country that never existed. President Ronald Reagan famously talked about a 'new day in America' as he encouraged the American people to shrug off their old cynicism and to embrace a new optimism. So many Americans believed that their country was truly 'a shining city on the hill' and a beacon of democracy and freedom for the world. There is also the common belief in the fundamental decency and goodness of the American people and that such 'universal values' would make the likes of President Trump and other such demagogues an impossibility, as they were judged to be incompatible with the national character and temperament of the American people. In total, the ascent of the Age of Trump and the authoritarian fake populist MAGA movement has revealed the hollowness of these myths and narratives. So where do the American people go from here as the authoritarian tide continues to rapidly rise in their country? Federico Finchelstein is a leading expert on fascism, populism and dictatorship and professor of history at the New School for Social Research and Lang College in New York City. He is the author of seven books on fascism, populism, Dirty Wars, the Holocaust and Jewish history in Latin America and Europe. Finchelstein's most recent book is 'The Wannabe Fascists: A Guide to Understanding the Greatest Threat to Democracy.' In this conversation, Finchelstein explains how Donald Trump and his forces represent what he describes as 'wannabe fascism' and the specific type of danger that such autocrats and aspiring tyrants pose to a failing Western democracy. Finchelstein also reflects on the danger caused by how 'respectable' elites and other mainstream voices in the political class and news media were and continue to normalize Trumpism because they are not (yet) being targeted in the same way as undocumented people and other marginalized communities. At the end of this conversation, Federico Finchelstein warns that Donald Trump and his forces have moved at a very fast rate to consolidate power, but that their victory is not guaranteed — especially if pro-democracy Americans and their leaders finally decide to commit themselves earnestly instead of being bystanders who are mostly looking away. How common or distinct is America's experience with democratic backsliding and democracy collapse as compared to other countries? This belief in exceptionalism is both American and part of a global history. All countries have a myth of their own uniqueness. America's experience with the erosion of democratic beliefs and experiences is quite common at the level of everyday practice. Intolerance, racism and violence have always been part of modern global history, this country included. However, at the federal level, Trumpism represents a change from previous norms and administrations. It is way more disruptive. Extreme forms of populism that are oriented towards fascism are now at the helm of the most powerful country in the world. Trumpism is more anti-democratic than its predecessors, and it also exerts a big influence outside of the United States. Trumpism is toxic for democratic life here in the United States and around the world. Donald Trump has now been back in power for more than 100 days. Are things as you expected? Better? Worse? I am not shocked by the extremism of Trumpism. But the Trump administration has failed in many ways, and yet it will keep trying to degrade American democracy as much as it can. A troubling question is, how will Trump and MAGA escalate their attacks on democracy and the rule of law to remain in power? I am very pessimistic in this regard. It is always more dangerous when totalitarians rule in the face of imminent defeat. Trump has clearly not yet achieved that level of power — I emphasize "yet". This explains why Donald Trump and his administration and forces more broadly are not as bold as they could be in terms of advancing Trump's goal of destroying constitutional democracy. Where are we in the story of the Age of Trump and his return? We do not have the wisdom of hindsight that future historians will have. My own view, an educated guess of sorts, is that we are in the middle, at least, of Trump's radicalization towards fascism. The American people were repeatedly warned about the calamity that would befall the United States if Donald Trump were put back in power. Why didn't they listen to the warnings? Many people do not care about the harm that Trumpism is causing democracy. Many of the Trump followers are hardcore, diehard believers in fascism in its varied forms and the quest for total domination that is fueled by hatred. But many other Trump supporters, a majority of them, are just hoping for a better economic situation. It is dubious that Trump's policies will create that outcome. And of course, those Trump supporters have ignored or otherwise put aside many of the most troubling dimensions of Trumpism, such as racism, nativism, sexism and wanton cruelty. At some point, the Trump supporters who are not the diehards and de facto cultists will recognize that they voted against their own interests. This is part of the history of fascism and dictatorship. Unfortunately, history shows us that such realizations often come very late in the game after there has been a lot of suffering inflicted on the country. The centrists, institutionalists and other establishment voices were very wrong about Donald Trump and his MAGA authoritarian populist movement's rise to power. These errors began in 2015, continued in the years to follow, and were fully exposed when so many of these 'respectable voices' continued to claim that there was no way Donald Trump could win in 2024. Per their logic, 'the American people would never do such a thing!' Alas, here we are. What does that dynamic look like in other countries when the so-called respectable voices are so wrong? Are they discredited when the autocrat-authoritarian takes power — and with widespread popular support? One of the key problems is how Trumpism is enabled by normalization. This represents the opposite of understanding the reality and facts of what is happening. Many scholars and pundits on the center as well as the right and the left denied the fascist dimensions of Trumpism. They kept trying to locate Trump as part of an older continuity and tradition of American presidents and other leaders. Trump is separate from that democratic tradition. These pundits, scholars and other public voices had a range of responses to being so wrong. Some of them recognized their mistake, but just want to move on and not have to explain their error and how they arrived at such incorrect conclusions. Others are telling the American people not to worry that much about Trump because it won't get that bad, and that Trump is not the real problem or danger anyway. The real problem and danger is that liberal democracy itself is flawed. That, too, is not entirely correct. I have a different perspective. When I was a kid, I lived under a gruesome dictatorship in Argentina. As a historian but also as a citizen, I never forget the key difference between an imperfect democracy and a total dictatorship. It is always fascinating to observe how these normalizing views are presented from a place of privilege and far away from the obvious victims of repression and demonization. If you never interact with the victims, it is harder to notice the change. Is America now in the grips of authoritarianism? If so, what type? Moreover, why were so many in the news media and political class afraid to use the 'f-word,' i.e., fascism, when it was readily apparent years ago that Donald Trump and his anti-democracy movement fit that definition. In my own work, I describe the Age of Trump and this version of authoritarian populism as 'wannabe fascism.' Wannabe fascism is an incomplete version of fascism, it is characteristic of those who seek to destroy democracy for short-term personal gain but are not fully committed to the fascist cause. As I explain in my books, the more we know about past fascist attempts to deny the workings of democracy, the more alarming these wannabe fascists appear. There have been many public discussions of the so-called authoritarian's playbook and how Donald Trump and his agents are following it very closely. What are some specific examples? Some of them are learned in the ways of fascism, others, like the leader himself, are intuitively antidemocratic, but the effects are the same, namely, the irrational rule of a leader who would like to rule as a king or dictator. The examples are many and they range from deportations for racist/and or other authoritarian ideological reasons, attacks against the press, attempts to destroy the independence of universities, the replacement of legality with manipulations of the law in the name of the leader and the attacks against idea and the practice of anti-racism and in favor of diversity. And last but certainly not least, are the events of Jan. 6 and the larger attempt to usurp democracy. Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat recently warned that the speed of Donald Trump and his forces' attacks on democracy and civil society is more like a coup than autocratic capture. Do you agree? My friend and colleague Professor Ben-Ghiat is absolutely right! This is not a gradual process. It is unclear, yet, exactly what type of authoritarian end goals they want or will be able to reach. Do they want a full-on fascist dictatorship? An elected populist autocracy? Traditional tyranny? What is clear is that Donald Trump and his MAGA forces and their allies want to leave constitutional democracy behind. I don't want to be too strict with path dependency. But was there a moment(s) when Trump's return to power could have been stopped? Or was this democracy crisis and now the rise of naked fascism and authoritarianism more probable than not? What I focus on is that the architects and visionaries who did the intellectual work never faced justice for their role in the events of Jan. 6 and the larger attempt to nullify the results of the 2020 election. This is a key ingredient of the success of Trumpism. Without the link between history and justice, democracy cannot properly function or expand. The opposite happened, and we can now see the horrible consequences of these mistakes. The news media and free press are supposed to function as the Fourth Estate and the guardians of democracy. How would you assess the American mainstream news media's performance in that regard? The mainstream American news media continues to normalize Trumpism when it is labeled or framed as a 'conservative' or 'center-right' movement. Trumpism is radical and revolutionary. We are witnessing a new ultra-right populist phenomenon in the form of Trumpism and MAGA that is close to fascism. The extremism must be emphasized when discussing it so that the American people understand the dire reality that they are facing. The American news media need to put more history and context into their discussions of the Age of Trump and the attacks against democracy. This would also involve interviewing and otherwise featuring more scholars and other real experts. In your conversations with colleagues in higher education, what is the environment like now, given the Trump administration's attacks? There is, of course, the desired and planned chilling effect. There are attacks on media and universities, legal firms, judges, and others across civil society and the country's democratic and governing institutions. As I see it, what is even more troubling and deeply concerning is how the American people, the majority, are becoming increasingly numb to the abnormal behavior of Trump and his allies. Expert voices and others who have a trusted platform must continue to sound the alarm to wake the American people up from their complacency about Trumpism and the extreme danger it represents to the nation. Going beyond language and concepts, what are some practical, day-to-day things that the average American can do to defend democracy and civil society? It is critically important to be informed and alarmed about the extreme dimensions of Trumpism. In practice, we all need to continue reading independent media accounts of what is going on. We need to defend the independence of institutions and the separation of powers. I think it is important to oppose anti-democratic attempts by defending key dimensions of democracy and not giving up out of frustration and exasperation. This involves voting but also convincing others to do so. It also involves clearly and peacefully expressing one's own positions in conversations, in the streets and on social networks. History demonstrates that the worst thing we can do vis-à-vis wannabe dictators is being silent and apathic. What are some books, articles, creative work, films, movies, etc. that you recommend to those Americans who are trying to make sense of Trump's rise to power and the ascendant authoritarianism and fascism in this country? I would recommend novels such as "It can't happen here' or the recent movie about Trump and his relationship to Roy Cohn. The works of Hannah Arendt on totalitarianism and obedience are essential readings as well, especially her classic book On the Origins of Totalitarianism. I would also recommend the analysis of Nazi language by Viktor Klemperer, 'The Language of the Third Reich.' I also believe that the works of Latin American writers such as Jorge Luis Borges or Roberto Bolaño are of key importance in understanding the logic of fascism. I would recommend movies like the Argentines' 'The Official Story' and 'The Secret in their Eyes' to understand how important it is to know the links between history and legality when confronting propaganda, demonization and violence. I also think the second season of the Star Wars series 'Andor', starring Diego Luna, offers an excellent portrayal of the authoritarian manipulation of the truth through lies and propaganda. It is really well done and quite entertaining as well! The graphic novel "Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi is also an excellent representation of how the Iranian dictatorship distorts the lives of an entire population. The novel focuses on the life of a young woman who resists in her own way. As different from the United States as all these cases are, there are still troublesome connections. The United States is becoming more and more like those real and fictional contexts where fascism and dictatorship are part of the picture, and a government wants its people to be less diverse and less tolerant of others. As you see it, what is the most disturbing aspect of Trump's return to power during these first four months? For fascists, what the leader wants is more legitimacy than legality, because while the former was the result of a cult of heroism and leadership principle, the latter was regarded as artificial and even boring. For example, this meant that everything Hitler wanted was legitimate and beyond the rule of law. This was the rationale for Jan.6 and Trump's arguments that he is above the law and that the courts should not have co-equal power to interfere with his actions as president. These actions take place in the context of lies and propaganda; one helps the other. Fascists, and wannabe fascists, imagine that all actions in defense of the law and democracy are part of a conspiracy against them. Donald Trump and his allies' abuse of the law fits an old autocratic pattern, one that has been given a new life in America. I hate applying sports analogies to politics, especially given a situation as serious as the Age of Trump. But who is 'winning right now? Trump and his 'team'? Or the other team? (the institutions and democracy, the 'Resistance,' civil society and the norms, etc.) Donald Trump and his 'team' started very aggressively, but they also made many mistakes. These mistakes include their approach to the economy and the rule of law. The apparent corruption will also not be forgotten by many American citizens. The apparent corruption and using public office to make money embodies the heart of the extremist politics of Trumpism and other forms of extreme populism and wannabe fascism. At this point, it is too soon to conclude how well Trump and his 'team' are playing the 'game.' There is another side to this 'game' that must be included. The other 'team' is those Americans who believe in democratic institutions and if they are going to go on the offense and get involved in the 'game' instead of mostly looking the other way.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pete Hegseth removed Harvey Milk's name from a U.S. Navy ship to send a message
June is nationally recognized as Pride Month — a yearly celebration of the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals to the rich tapestry of American history. The Pentagon, however, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, is marking Pride Month by offering a one-finger salute to the LGBTQ community. It's part of a larger effort to whitewash the accomplishments and, arguably, the humanity, of women and minorities in the U.S. military. Earlier this week, reported that Hegseth ordered the renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk. Milk was a gay rights trailblazer, the first openly gay man to win elected office in the United States. A year after winning a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, Milk and the city's mayor, George Moscone, were murdered in City Hall by a disgruntled ex-supervisor. Milk had previously served in the U.S. Navy and was commissioned as an officer in 1951, before receiving a 'less than honorable' discharge in 1955 after questions were raised about his sexual orientation. The timing of the announcement, during Pride Month, reports was intentional — a punitive and mean-spirited slight at the estimated 80,000 LGBTQ+ service members in the U.S. military. While refusing to confirm the renaming, Department of Defense spokesperson Sean Parnell issued a statement saying, 'Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' It's not hard to read between the lines here: 'Gay service members can't be warriors and aren't tough enough to serve in the military.' It's a broadside so juvenile and homophobic it's something one might expect to hear in a fraternity house rather than the halls of the nation's military. Hegseth's assaults on diversity are not limited to just the LGBTQ+ community. The USNS Harvey Milk is part of the Navy's John Lewis-class of oiler ships, which are named for civil rights leaders and activists (Lewis, a former member of Congress, was, of course, a prominent civil rights activist). According to CBS News, the Navy is also considering renaming other Lewis-class oilers — including the USNS Thurgood Marshall, USNS Ruth Bader Ginsburg and USNS Harriet Tubman. Marshall and Ginsburg were Supreme Court justices (Marshall was the first Black man to serve on the Supreme Court) and Tubman was a legendary Black abolitionist. There's no word on whether two other Lewis-class ships, the USNS Earl Warren and USNS Robert F. Kennedy, will be renamed. But both men are white, so it seems unlikely. Hegseth's move to erase the contributions of nonwhite, female members of the armed forces has been a recurrent theme since he took office. Before Trump nominated the former 'Fox & Friends Weekend' host to become the head of the Department of Defense, Hegseth waged rhetorical war against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and what he termed military 'wokeness.' In his 2024 book, 'The War on Warriors,' Hegseth railed against 'feminism, genderism, safetyism, climate worship, manufactured 'violent extremism,' straight-up weirdo s---, and a grab bag of social justice causes that infect today's fighting force.' They are, he argues, 'anathema to everything the American military stands for.' After taking office, Hegseth said, 'The single dumbest phrase in military history is our diversity is our strength.' Since then, he has reinstated a ban on transgender service members. He ended a program, signed into law by President Trump in 2017, to increase leadership roles for women in the military. He fired a host of female military leaders, including Admiral Linda Fagan, the first woman to lead the U.S. Coast Guard. His tenure also saw the dismissal of Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the second Black man to hold the job. Considering Hegseth's criticisms of DEI, the implication of these firings is that women and minorities who rose up the ranks did so because of racial preferences, not because of their accomplishments or years of service. Another of Hegseth's first moves as secretary was an order to remove any mention of diversity from the Pentagon's website, which led to the embarrassing deletion of a webpage honoring former Army veteran Jackie Robinson, among others (the page was restored after a public backlash). In all, more than 26,000 images have been flagged for removal from the department's website, and the total could reach as high as 100,000. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of those removed detail the accomplishments of women and minorities. Hegseth has also ordered the nation's prestigious military academies to stop taking into account race, gender and ethnicity in their admissions practices, and has ordered the academies to purge educational materials focused on what he calls 'divisive concepts.' Unless one believes that only white men are capable of serving with distinction, it's difficult to see how any of this makes the military stronger or more lethal. In an era when America's military advantages lie in information technology and virtual control of the modern battlefield, America needs a broad array of individuals to make up the military of the 21st century, not just Hegseth's retrograde vision of interchangeable white male trigger-pullers. Hegseth's message to a generation of future military leaders is that if you're a woman (who make up 18% of active service members) or Black (also around 18% of the active force) or gay or a member of some other minority group, you are not welcome. Hegseth's moves, while strategically misguided, also run counter to the core values of the institution he runs. For the past 75 years, the military has been a catalyst for racial equality in American society. In 1948, President Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military, well before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the discriminatory legal doctrine of 'separate but equal.' Parnell, the spokesperson, has said that Hegseth's goal is to create 'a colorblind, merit-based culture' at the Pentagon. But acknowledging only the accomplishments of white, male service members and removing the names of gay, women and Black civil rights activists suggests that the Pentagon under Hegseth's leadership only sees those who look like him. This article was originally published on
