Veteran Shares Infuriating Way Trump's Cuts Led To Family 'Sleeping On The Floor'
'So like all my stuff is on a boat right now going to Japan,' said Uniter — a contractor who took a $60,000 pay cut to go to Tokyo to work as an international relations lead for the Fifth Air Force — in an interview with CNN.
Uniter added that he was 'fortunate enough' to get his car back as it was about to be loaded onto a boat before CNN's Pamela Brown noted that he also pulled his son, Johan Arva, out of school.
'I put my home up for ... rent, so we're basically sleeping on the floor right now,' Uniter said.
Uniter, a third-generation U.S. Army veteran and former diplomat, is just one of a number of veterans impacted by the firings of probationary workers, layoffs and a wider hiring freeze in the federal government.
Veterans have fumed over the cuts in recent weeks and said they've felt betrayed by Trump. The Department of Veterans Affairs has fired over 1,000 probationary workers with additional plans to cut more than 80,000 jobs at the VA, where veterans make up 25% of the workforce.
Uniter, in an interview with Baltimore's NBC affiliate WBAL, spoke from his nearly-empty home where a bed and a suitcase were on the floor.
He told WBAL that he took the job in November, one he was told he would get an exemption and was mission-critical. He said the job would've seen him going to Japan's Ministry of Defense, and checked with both U.S. Forces Japan as well as the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on whether he was 'good to go.'
But that all changed just one day prior to his family's plans to fly to Japan, when he got an email notifying him that he didn't have an exemption.
He told Brown the exemption 'just did come through' at the time of the CNN interview but, 'in lieu of everything else going on,' he doesn't expect to accept the job.
Uniter said he's started to homeschool his son, and he's thankful that he still has his pension, noting that he's not at risk of losing his home.
'But there are so many people that have lost their jobs, and they don't have the safety net that I do,' he pressed.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Banning Transgender People From Military Service
Trump Just Fired More Democratic Officials In His Unprecedented Power Grab
Trump Social Security Commissioner Suggests Anger At Janet Mills Contributed To Contract Cancellations
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
12 minutes ago
- Engadget
The UK will no longer require Apple to create backdoor access to users' data
UK officials will no longer compel Apple to create backdoor access to its users' data, according to US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. She wrote on X that she, President Trump and Vice President Vance worked closely with their "partners in the UK" over the past months. "As a result," she continued, "the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties." As The New York Times notes, the UK government issued the secret order earlier this year after amending the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016. The law gives the UK government the right to compel companies to turn over data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Reports about the mandate started to come out in February, however, and Apple pretty much confirmed it when it disabled iCloud's Advanced Data Protection feature in the UK. ADP gives users the power to to add optional end-to-end encryption to a variety of iCloud data, which means the information can't be accessed by authorities unless they have the user's device in their hands. "As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will," Apple said at the time. A bipartisan group of US lawmakers asked Gabbard to take measures to prevent what they called "a foreign cyberattack waged through political means" after the information about the mandate went public. Meanwhile, Apple filed a complained with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which "investigates complaints about the alleged conduct of public bodies in relation to members of the public," to get the order reversed. The company has yet to issue an official statement about the reversal of the UK mandate.
San Francisco Chronicle
12 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republicans say they'll sue to block California redistricting plan. Do they have a case?
Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to ask the voters to redesign California's congressional districts to enable Democrats to add House seats is drawing challenges from Republicans who claim the proposal violates the state Constitution and federal law. But the law doesn't appear to be on their side. As the Democratic-controlled Legislature prepares to vote this week on Newsom's proposed November ballot measure to change districts that were drafted by an independent commission, Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, asked the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's Office to declare the measure illegal. He said he was also prepared to go to court. 'By concocting this partisan redistricting scam, Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are openly violating the California Constitution and their oath of office,' DeMaio said in a news release. 'Any vote … on this corrupt plan would be unlawful and unconstitutional.' He argued that the state Constitution, under a ballot measure approved by the voters in 2008, allows only a bipartisan commission to draw district lines and does not permit them to be redrafted for political purposes. The National Republican Congressional Committee also said Newsom's plan would be challenged in court as well as the ballot box. Newsom 'is shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions,' Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., chair of the committee, said on X. But Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA who has written widely on election law issues, said the Legislature can ask California voters to change the state Constitution by placing an amendment on the ballot with two-thirds majority votes in each house. Newsom and legislative Democrats introduced their measure on Monday. 'If it's a constitutional amendment approved by voters, then there is no state law problem with amending the earlier constitutional amendment,' Hasen said. Newsom's November ballot measure, a response to plans by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to redraw the state's House districts and allow Republicans to pick up five seats next year, would likewise redesign California's congressional districts for the remainder of the decade to enable Democrats to add five seats to their current 43-9 majority in the state if Texas or any other state redrew its district lines. The proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act, was introduced Monday with 43 coauthors in the Assembly and 20 in the state Senate, all of them Democrats. They plan legislative votes on Thursday. The ballot proposal would temporarily suspend the state constitutional limits on redistricting that DeMaio cited. But he contended the Legislature has no authority even to ask the voters to remove restrictions they had added to the state Constitution, and that such changes could be made only by an initiative from private citizens. DeMaio said he would actually prefer a U.S. constitutional amendment establishing an independent commission to draw nonpartisan House district lines in every state. Until that happens, he told the Chronicle, Newsom and his fellow Democrats should refrain from asking Californians to 'act like a bunch of toddlers because two wrongs make a right.' Another election law professor, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who was a national policy adviser for democracy and voting rights under President Joe Biden, said DeMaio was correct that the California Constitution currently prohibits legislators from redrawing district lines. 'But that's exactly why the Legislature is proposing a constitutional amendment,' Levitt said. 'And I'm not aware of any limitation on the Legislature to propose such an amendment for the voters to consider.' DeMaio also said federal law allows changing district lines only after each 10-year census and prohibits mid-decade redistricting. But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in a 2006 case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, allowing Republican legislators in Texas to redraw House district lines in their favor. 'The text and structure of the Constitution and our case law indicate there is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature's decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own,' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a 7-2 court majority. Texas' current Republican majority, and partisans on both sides in other states, have relied on that ruling to propose off-year redistricting for their own advantage. Levitt said he'd prefer to limit the practice to once per decade. 'I wish there were such a law — and Congress could clearly pass one,' the Loyola law professor said, noting that legislation to prohibit mid-decade redistricting of U.S. House seats has been proposed in Congress for more than 20 years. 'But that's not currently where federal law stands.' Hasen of UCLA said Newsom's proposal might be challenged on other legal grounds, such as the rule limiting California ballot measures to a single subject. But he said opponents' strongest argument would probably be a political one — that the voters should reject a plan to suspend the nonpartisan redistricting program they approved 17 years ago. DeMaio appeared to agree on Monday. 'If we stop it in court, fine,' he said at a press conference in the state Capitol. 'But more than likely it will have to be stopped at the ballot box.' Also Monday, DeMaio submitted a proposed initiative for the 2026 state ballot that would ban any legislators from seeking any elected office for 10 years who voted to put Newsom's redistricting measure on the ballot. 'There is no free ride on casting a corrupt vote this week — if a state legislator votes in favor, they better be prepared to get a real job for the next 10 years,' DeMaio said.
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
For economists and CEOs, Trump is the micromanager from hell
The president — who I would ordinarily assume is too busy to micromanage our lives — has started to reach into companies and reprimand workers who, in his view, aren't doing a good job. Consider Jan Hatzius, the chief economist at Goldman Sachs, who isn't a particularly famous person, except to the CNBC set. In 2009, Arizona State University awarded Hatzius Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Hatzius may not be People's 'Sexiest Man Alive.' But still. For an economist, accuracy is sexy enough. Advertisement At least it was until last week, when President Trump asked Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon to fire Hatzius because he predicted that tariffs would increasingly strain the economy. 'Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury's coffers,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. Of course, the president is entitled to his opinion, but he went further than that. 'I think that David should go out and get himself a new Economist,' Trump noted, 'or, maybe, he ought to just focus on being a DJ, and not bother running a major Financial Institution.' Advertisement Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon is interviewed on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York on July 16. Seth Wenig/Associated Press Hatzius may turn out to be wrong about the effect of tariffs, but with a doctorate in economics from Oxford and 30 years working as an economist, he's unquestionably an expert. If I was looking to predict where the economy was going, I'd have to choose the two-time 'Most Accurate Economist' over the president. In the days after the president's post, the wholesale cost of goods 'You can fire the BLS Commissioner [ 'People are still going to experience what they're experiencing at the grocery store. They're still going to experience what they are experiencing in the job market,' she says. 'The economy is a very, very difficult thing to obfuscate. You know, who are you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying bank account?' The president has argued that the tariffs will be absorbed by other countries, but Gimbel (along with most economists) disagrees. 'There is a lot of evidence about this, and the evidence is that the US consumer pays the tariffs.... The people who are gonna get hurt by this are the people who are trying to buy bananas for their 1-year-olds at the grocery store.' Advertisement But the president's singling out of individuals doing their jobs is part of a disturbing pattern. The call for Solomon to axe Hatzius — or perhaps to step aside himself — came just a few days after Trump demanded the firing of Lip-Bu Tan, the CEO of Intel. 'The CEO of Intel is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,' the president noted on Truth Social. 'There is no other solution to this problem.' Intel's shares immediately dipped, and Tan went to the White House to try to convince the president he deserved his job. Apparently, things went well, because Trump then wrote on social media that Tan's 'success and rise is an amazing story,' and the US government is now discussing taking a stake in the company. (Though being a 'success' seems to have little connection to whether or not Tan has ties to China that might serve as conflicts, which was Trump's original allegation.) Lip-Bu Tan, chief executive officer of Intel Corp., departs following a meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 11. Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg Ordinarily, whether Tan is well-suited to run Intel would seem to have little to do with the president. Tan's background is in physics and nuclear engineering (he has a master's degree from MIT), and he joined Intel earlier this year to help the one-time king of computer chips reverse its multi-year slide. But why trust tech experts to run tech companies? Why trust economists to make economic predictions? Of course, part of what we're seeing is a broader devaluing of expertise and data. But we're also starting to inhabit a world in which the president is always watching. And what he says does more than move markets — it affects livelihoods. Advertisement If a restaurateur talks publicly about the effect of surging vegetable prices in his restaurant, beware of blowback. (On Aug. 14, the government released data Increasingly, corporate leaders — even those lower than the C-suite — may start to wonder: Should they say what they think? Write what they believe? How worried should companies be about those who don't toe the party line? In Bloomberg , Mihir Sharma Sharma might be overreacting, or not. But fear is settling in. And no one knows where the line is. That can't be good for business, largely because it silences independent thinkers, those with contrarian views, and anyone who is perceived as somehow out of the mainstream. In our new reality, expertise doesn't protect you. Obscurity doesn't protect you. Data doesn't protect you. Telling the truth — perhaps even just being who you are — may be a problem. And if the president isn't a fan of yours, beware. He may just let you know. Follow Kara Miller
