White House taps nominees for VA's top benefits, technology roles
President Donald Trump has nominated Karen Brazell to serve as the next Veterans Affairs Under Secretary for Benefits, putting the senior advisor in charge of processing and management for nearly $200 billion in financial aid to millions of veterans.
The post is one of the top leadership roles at the department, but was unveiled quietly on Monday through official nomination correspondence with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Brazell would be the permanent replacement to Josh Jacobs, who stepped down from the role at the start of the new administration in January.
Currently, Margarita Devlin is serving as the Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, and performing the duties of the vacant under secretary role.
Brazell was named a senior advisor to Secretary Doug Collins earlier this year. She previously worked in the department as principal executive director and chief acquisition officer for VA's Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction during the first Trump administration.
Trump's pick for VA watchdog role promises independence, impartiality
In that role, she oversaw department contract administration and supply chain management, managing a budget over $30 billion and supervising more than 1,700 employees.
Her new role will hold significantly more responsibility, with a staff of more than 30,000 Veterans Benefits Administration employees and a portfolio of dozens of different department benefits programs.
Brazell is an Army veteran who also worked as a defense contractor and a Defense Department employee.
Her role as a senior advisor to Collins is likely to draw scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who have been critical of department moves in recent months to dismiss probationary employees and look for significant cuts to the VA workforce.
White House officials also nominated Alan Boehme to serve as Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Information and Technology, the replacement for Kurt DelBene. Boehme previously worked as Chief Technology Officer for the H&M Group, a fashion and design company.
Senate officials have not scheduled a confirmation hearing date for either of the new nominees.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MedTech Europe calls for medtech tariff and export restriction exemptions
MedTech Europe has issued a statement calling on European policymakers to exempt medical technologies from any trade tariffs or export restrictions. In response to the European Commission's (EC) conclusion of a public consultation on proposed EU countermeasures impacting trade with the US, MedTech Europe expressed deep concern over a draft package that 'targets a broad range of finished medical devices, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices, and a variety of essential components used in their manufacture'. The trade body's overall request was that medical technologies be included and prioritised in a 'zero for zero' tariff agreement on industrial goods or as part of any negotiated settlement that seeks to eliminate tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic. The EC's consultation, which was announced on 8 May and closed on 10 June, was launched to gather input towards finalising proposals for the adoption of countermeasures against the Trump's administration's imposition of tariffs on the bloc. Upon launching the consultation, EC president Ursula von der Leyen said: 'Tariffs are already having a negative impact on the global economies. The EU remains fully committed to finding negotiated outcomes with the US. 'At the same time, we continue preparing for all possibilities, and the consultation launched today will help guide us in this necessary work.' President Trump's initial announcement of tariffs for many countries and regions worldwide on 2 April has been marked by continued flip-flopping. The EU was originally facing 20% blanket tariffs on all imported goods from 9 April; however, the White House walked back its plans on the date, instead choosing to enact a 90-day pause on the imposition of tariffs. Trump has since threatened to raise tariffs on the EU to 50% if no deal is reached by the end of the pause period on 9 July. According to reports by German newspaper Handelsblatt, the EU was willing to accept a flat fee of 10% tariffs. However, in a statement shared with Reuters, the EC dismissed the claims, stating: "Negotiations are ongoing, and no agreement has been reached at this stage. The EU has from the start objected to unjustified and illegal US tariffs.' In concluding remarks, MedTech Europe stated: 'Patients must not become collateral damage in a trade dispute. Safeguarding their access to the technologies they depend on must remain a shared priority.' On 11 June, leading players from the medtech industry convened on Capitol Hill alongside the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) to advocate for the elimination of tariffs on medical technologies. After the Trump administration's announcement of a 90-day pause on the imposition of tariffs for most countries, barring China, AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker voiced similar hopes as MedTech Europe, restating his previous request that a 'zero for zero' tariff deal on medtech with all of the US's key trading partners be struck. Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis. Request a free demo for GlobalData's Strategic Intelligence "MedTech Europe calls for medtech tariff and export restriction exemptions" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Politico
15 minutes ago
- Politico
30 days and then what on birthright citizenship?
The Supreme Court has preserved the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover preventive health services like colonoscopies and HIV prevention drugs at no cost to patients. It's the fourth time in the past 13 years that the high court has rejected major challenges to the 2010 health law. This time around, the vote was 6-3, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion for a cross-ideological majority. Three of the court's conservatives dissented. The case centered on a panel of experts known as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The Affordable Care Act authorized the task force to specify health screenings and other preventive services that insurers must cover without charging patients copayments, deductibles or other cost-sharing. Tens of millions of Americans rely on those services, including cancer screenings, heart disease medications and the drug, known as PrEP, that prevents the transmission of HIV. Opponents of the ACA who object to the HIV drug argued that the task force — which is chosen by the secretary of Health and Human Services — was unconstitutionally appointed. The task force members, the opponents argued, wield so much power that they amount to 'principal officers' under the Constitution's appointments clause and must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, reasoning that the members are not principal officers because the health secretary can ignore their recommendations, fire them and replace them. 'Task Force members issue preventive-services recommendations of critical importance to patients, doctors, insurers, employers, healthcare organizations, and the American people more broadly. In doing so, however, the Task Force members remain subject to the Secretary of HHS's supervision and direction, and the Secretary remains subject to the President's supervision and direction,' Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. 'The structure of the Task Force and the manner of appointing its officers preserve the chain of political accountability that was central to the Framers' design of the Appointments Clause.' Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The Trump administration surprised many when it revealed earlier this year that it would continue the Biden administration's defense of the Obamacare provision. But it shifted the focus of the federal government's legal argument. The Biden Justice Department had argued in lower courts that free preventive care was crucial for the health of millions of American patients. The Trump DOJ, on the other hand, focused during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in April on preserving executive power and fending off judicial and legislative encroachments. Health policy experts and patient advocates who expressed relief that the Trump administration opted to defend Obamacare remain concerned that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials will now deploy that power to reshape what services must be covered by insurance without copays. 'They really pointed out how much authority they think their Secretary wields, which is kind of foreboding given who the Secretary is and his ideas about science and health,' said Andrew Twinamatsiko, the director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Somebody could be fairly concerned that there could be weaponization of the task force.' And, while this case focused solely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the decision could also empower Kennedy to overhaul other advisory panels at HHS.
