Kristi Noem hospitalized under alarming circumstances — was a lab visit with RFK Jr. the main reason?
Kristi Noem
, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, was admitted to the hospital on Tuesday, just one day after touring a high-level biohazard lab with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and
Senator Rand Paul
. The timing has raised questions, but officials say it was an allergic reaction. Still, the situation is raising eyebrows in political circles.
The visit was initiated in response to concerns about the lab's safety culture. The timing has sparked speculation and calls for transparency.
What happened during the lab visit?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted a picture of them both at a biosafety facility that had been temporarily closed because of safety concerns.
The Health and Human Services Secretary posted a photo of himself at the
Integrated Research Facility
in Frederick, Maryland, with Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Noem, captioning the photo, "With @Sec_Noem and @SenRandPaul inspecting the biological hazard labs at Fort Detrick.'
Live Events
With
@Sec_Noem
and
@SenRandPaul
inspecting the biological hazard labs at Fort Detrick.
pic.twitter.com/Mt9rqo5Iq7
— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy)
June 16, 2025
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at DHS Tricia McLaughlin told the Daily Beast that Noem was taken to the hospital by ambulance on Tuesday because of a "allergic reaction."
'She was transported to the hospital out of an abundance of caution. She is alert and recovering,' he stated, as per a report.
ALSO READ:
Trump about to fire Tulsi Gabbard? Explosive reports reveal why he's furious and done with her
Could the allergic reaction be linked to the tour?
The allergic reaction's source is still unknown, and there is no proof that the incident was anything more than an odd coincidence.
Fort Detrick's Integrated Research Facility investigates viruses that are "causing high-consequence disease," including SARS-CoV-2 and Ebola, according to its website.
One of its focal points is to alleviate significant public health incidents associated with emerging or reemerging infectious diseases or biological warfare assaults.
The MAHA Institute announced on X that Noem, Paul, and Kennedy visited the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases biosecurity laboratory at Fort Detrick on Monday, as per a report by the Daily Beast.
Why was the lab already under scrutiny?
In April, the lab was placed on indefinite work stoppage by Kennedy's department. When the safety stand-down occurred, an NIH spokesperson told WIRED that it "follows identification and documentation of personnel issues involving contract staff that compromised the facility's safety culture."
Fox News was informed by an unnamed HHS official that the incident was caused by a "lover's spat" between researchers at the facility, in which one of them allegedly poked holes in the other's PPE.
Kennedy declared in May that because of the hazardous pathogens being handled at the Integrated Research Facility, the FBI was looking into a possible "deliberate criminal act" there.
FAQs
Was Kristi Noem's hospitalization related to the lab visit?
There is no confirmed link, but the close timing has raised concerns. Officials say it was simply an allergic reaction.
Why is Fort Detrick's lab under the spotlight?
The lab works with dangerous pathogens and had recently paused work due to serious safety concerns, including the possibility of sabotage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court delivers big blow to transgender rights as it okays Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for kids
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a state law banning gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors , a stunning setback to transgender rights . The top court upheld Tennessee's ban on transgender puberty blocker and hormone therapy treatments for minors in a 6-3 decision in a major win for the 24 states with similar laws on the books. The Tennessee law barred hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for those under the age of 18. The case, United States v Skrmetti , was filed last year by three families of trans children and a provider of gender-affirming care. The court was divided on ideological lines, with the six conservatives in the majority and the three liberals in dissent. Two dozen Republican-led states have enacted laws restricting medical care for transgender youth, and the case will have repercussions for the prohibitions across the country. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the Tennessee law does not constitute a form of sex discrimination that would violate the Constitution's 14th Amendment. ALSO READ: Your health plan might get costlier in US as Trump's tariffs is pushing insurers to hike premiums Live Events "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the majority opinion. "The Court's role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' (of the law) but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees," Roberts said. "It does not. Questions regarding the law's policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." Republican President Donald Trump has since taken office and he signed an executive order in January restricting gender transition procedures for people under the age of 19. While there is no US-wide law against gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youth, the Trump order ended any federal backing for such procedures. ALSO READ: A list of 'safest' countries to seek shelter as World War III fear looms Trump, in his inauguration speech, said his government would henceforth only recognize two genders -- male and female -- and he issued his executive order a week later restricting gender transition procedures for minors. "Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children," the executive order said. "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end." Trump's order said it would now be US policy that it would "not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another." ALSO READ: Kristi Noem's hospitalisation linked to her visit with RFK Jr to a controversial biohazard lab for Ebola, SARS-CoV-2? The order bars funding for gender transition under the Medicaid health insurance program for poor families, the Medicare scheme used by retirees, and Defense Department health insurance that covers some two million children. According to a study by UCLA's Williams Institute, an estimated 1.6 million people aged 13 and older in the United States identify as transgender. (With AFP inputs) Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
The Hindu
27 minutes ago
- The Hindu
As Trump changes tune, Vance steps in to defend the U.S. President's Iran policy
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance stepped in to defend Donald Trump's Iran policy on Tuesday (June 17, 2025) after the President ruled out a call for a ceasefire and dramatically escalated his anti-Iran rhetoric, triggering speculation that the U.S. would get directly involved in Israel's war against Iran. 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' Mr. Trump wrote in a social media post, after saying that he was not looking for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, but an end to the conflict. In a direct threat to Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mr. Trump said 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin'. Israel launched the war on June 13, three days ahead of a scheduled talk between Iran and Mr. Trump's negotiation team in Muscat, Oman. Even after the war started, Mr. Trump had said he was open to a deal with Iran. But when the crisis escalated following Israeli strikes and Iran's counterattacks with ballistic missiles and drones, Mr. Trump demanded on Tuesday (June 17, 2025) an 'unconditional surrender' from Tehran. His posts came amid reports in the U.S. media that Israel was pressing Mr. Trump to join the war. During the election campaign, Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance repeatedly criticised the wars launched by previous American Presidents. Mr. Vance, a vocal critic of America's 2003 Iraq war, wrote in a social media post that Mr. Trump has been 'amazingly consistent, over 10 years, that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.... The president has made clear that Iran cannot have uranium enrichment. And he said repeatedly that this would happen one of two ways--the easy way or the 'other' way.' Within Mr. Trump's rightwing MAGA base, there is opposition to America's entanglement in yet another war in West Asia. 'Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican Congresswoman and a vocal advocate of President Trump, wrote in a social media post on June 16. 'The neocon warmongers are all about fighting a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, fighting Iran for Israel, and protecting Taiwan from China,' she said on Wednesday (June 18, 2025). Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host and a popular conservative voice, called Mr. Trump complicit in the act of war. 'I have yet to see a single good argument for why Iran needed to enrich uranium well above the threshold for civilian use,' Mr. Vance said, referring to Iran's enrichment of uranium to 60% purity. The 2015 nuclear agreement signed between Iran and world powers, including the U.S., allowed Iran to enrich uranium at a lower level for civilian purposes. Iran had been fully compliant with the terms of the agreement until Mr. Trump, in his first term as President, unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the agreement. Iran restarted uranium enrichment beyond the allowed threshold after the U.S. reimposed sanctions on Tehran. Mr. Vance's comments came amid reports that Israeli officials were pushing Mr. Trump to join the war. Israel is running low on defensive arrow interceptors, a U.S. official told The Wall Street Journal. 'The U.S. has been augmenting Israel's defences with systems on the ground, at sea and in the air... now there is concern about the U.S. burning through interceptors as well,' said the official. According to another report, Israel is asking the U.S. to join the war because Israel lacks the bunker buster bombs that could destroy Iran's most fortified nuclear plant in Fordow. 'The president has shown remarkable restraint in keeping our military's focus on protecting our troops and protecting our citizens. He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the President,' Mr. Vance said. 'And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.'
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Elon Musk's X sues New York over requirement to explain handling of problematic posts
Elon Musk's X sued Tuesday to try to stop New York from requiring reports on how social media platforms handle problematic posts — a regulatory approach that the company successfully challenged in California. New York's law, which Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul signed late last year, is poised to take effect later this year. X maintains that the measure impinges on free speech rights and on a 1996 federal law that, among other things, lets internet platforms moderate posts as they see fit. New York is improperly trying 'to inject itself into the content-moderation editorial process' by requiring 'politically charged disclosures' about it, Bastrop, Texas-based X Corp. argues in the suit. 'The state is impermissibly trying to generate public controversy about content moderation in a way that will pressure social media companies, such as X Corp., to restrict, limit, disfavor or censor certain constitutionally protected content on X that the state dislikes,' says the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan. Also Read | Elon Musk's xAI to raise $5 billion despite weak investor demand New York Attorney General Letitia James' office said in a statement released Wednesday that it was reviewing the complaint and will 'stand ready to defend the constitutionality of our laws.' The law requires social media companies to report twice a year on whether and how they define hate speech, racist or extremist content, disinformation and some other terms. The platforms also have to detail their content moderation practices and data on the number of posts they flagged, the actions they took, the extent to which the offending material was seen or shared, and more. Sponsors Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Grace Lee, both Democrats, have said the measure will make social media more transparent and companies more accountable. Also Read | Donald Trump open to being on good terms with Elon Musk: 'I guess I could' The law applies broadly to social media companies. But X is among those that have faced intense scrutiny in recent years, and in a 2024 letter to an X lobbyist, the sponsors said the company and Musk in particular have a 'disturbing record' that 'threatens the foundations of our democracy.' The lawmakers wrote before Musk became, for a time, a close adviser and chainsaw-wielding cost-cutter in Republican President Donald Trump's administration. The two billionaires have since feuded and, perhaps, made up. Since taking over the former Twitter in 2022, Musk, in the name of free speech, has dismantled the company's Trust and Safety advisory group and stopped enforcing content moderation and hate speech rules that the site followed. He has restored the accounts of conspiracy theorists and incentivized engagement on the platform with payouts and content partnerships. Outside groups have since documented a rise in hate speech and harassment on the platform. X sued a research organization that studies online hate speech — that lawsuit was dismissed last March. The New York legislation took a page from a similar law that passed in California — and drew a similar lawsuit from X. Last fall, a panel of federal appellate judges blocked portions of the California law, at least temporarily, on free speech grounds. The state subsequently settled, agreeing not to enforce the content-moderation reporting requirements.
