New York is a safer, happier city now mass deportations have begun
'Let's be clear: I'm not standing in the way. I'm collaborating,' said New York City mayor Eric Adams on Fox News earlier this year. Adams, a Democrat now running for re-election as an independent, was sitting jovially next to Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border tsar'. Homan had already begun to oversee a near-total reversal of the Biden administration's porous border policies and the mass deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States.
Adams had good reason to be friendly with Homan. However much other Democrats might complain, the migrant crackdown has been to the enormous benefit of beleaguered New York. The city has faced some of the sharpest consequences of open borders – including Tren de Aragua gang members operating openly in Times Square.
The Adams and Homan pow-wow was nevertheless a reversal. Adams, elected mayor in 2021, had campaigned for election on a promise to maintain New York's self-proclaimed status as a 'sanctuary city', a classification adopted by Leftist-controlled municipalities to declare that they will not cooperate with federal authorities in efforts to enforce immigration laws or detain and deport illegal immigrants. 'We should protect our immigrants. Period,' Adams defiantly posted to Twitter at the time, before proceeding as mayor to oversee vast benefit programmes for illegal immigrants.
Four years on, everything has changed. Absorbing about 200,000 migrants into New York City in just a few years correlated with sharply rising crime rates, inflicted billions of dollars in budget-breaking public expense, and placed a massive strain on the city's resources. By September 2023, less than two years into Adams's mayoralty, he declared that the migrant problem 'will destroy New York City'.
Shortly thereafter, he and some of his top aides were placed under investigation by the Biden administration's Justice Department over allegations that he had accepted bribes and engaged in fraud, conspiracy, and campaign finance violations. A year later, just weeks before the 2024 presidential election, those investigations yielded a criminal indictment of Adams, who pleaded not guilty and publicly maintained that the charges were politically motivated because of his changing stance on illegal immigration.
Adams found a ready ally in Trump, who crossed party lines to criticise the mayor's prosecution as a manifestation of the same 'lawfare' tactics he alleged were used against him. The Trump administration's Justice Department later dropped the charges against Adams.
But that is politics. What most Americans will care more about are the practical consequences of President Trump's policies – and New York certainly feels like it's become a safer and more pleasant city in the months since his election.
The increasingly pro-Trump mayor has used his office to assist federal authorities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and stepped up anti-crime measures, now led by police commissioner Jessica Tisch, a former counterterrorism official whom Adams appointed two weeks after Trump was re-elected last November.
Just eight days into the second Trump administration, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem donned tactical gear and joined a predawn raid in New York against illegal immigrants accused of crime and gang involvement.
When Adams appeared alongside Homan on Fox, the mayor and Trump's immigration enforcer hailed their agreement to allow federal agents to enter Rikers Island prison, where many illegal immigrant criminal suspects are believed to be held. This measure, Homan said, heralded many more axes of cooperation. In early April, Adams welcomed Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy for a city subway ride, just weeks after the latter had threatened to withhold federal funds if its crime rates did not improve.
According to the NYPD's latest weekly statistics, crime already appears to be on a downward path, with 6.14 per cent fewer criminal complaints for the most serious offences compared to the same period in 2024. For the first quarter as a whole, the department announced what it described as 'historic reductions' in overall crime, with subway crime down to its second lowest level in 27 years.
This is hardly surprising: according to NYPD data released earlier in the month, a population of about 3,200 illegal immigrants residing in city shelters accounted for nearly 5,000 arrests across 2023 and 2024, including over 500 for violent assaults. Many of those offenders are now almost certainly in detention or back in their home countries, while further criminal recruits can no longer get across the southern border.
In a sign of the changing times, several major migrant housing facilities in New York have closed, with some, including the once-iconic Roosevelt Hotel, since receiving bids for high-end redevelopment. According to the New York Legal Assistance Group, a nonprofit organisation that says it 'fights for fair and equal access to justice for those who need it most', over 250,000 foreign individuals in New York State are currently under deportation orders.
Across the city, signs of life are blooming again after many dismal years. In a place where 'defund the police' was once a pillar of public policy, teams of alert and highly professional NYPD officers are again a common sight on the streets and in the subway. The theatres are full. Rents are rising.
Trump, a native New Yorker, vowed during the campaign to restore the city to its former glory. It still has a long way to go, but if it has a renaissance it will be thanks to a Democrat-turned-Independent with the courage – or compulsion – to govern as a Republican in line with Trump's winning immigration policies.
Paul du Quenoy is a historian and president of the Palm Beach Freedom Institute
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘The People Will Show Me the Way'
It's an early May afternoon in Washington, D.C., and as a group of demonstrators gather outside of the Capitol protesting cuts to Medicaid, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in her congressional office, excitedly pulling bright pink, blue, and yellow yarns out of her purse. 'I am knitting a cardigan; I call it my Fruity Pebble sweater,' says Ocasio-Cortez, holding the colorful jumble against her black dress. The congresswoman has recently started knitting as an alternative to doomscrolling. 'This is a practice that forces me to slow down. In a moment like this, when there's so much chaos, it is designed to basically just wear our nervous system down raw, so we are then overwhelmed, paralyzed, and have to accept whatever new development there is going on that day.' Ocasio-Cortez is no stranger to existing in chaos — she was thrust into the national spotlight in June 2018 when she upset House Democratic Caucus chair Joe Crowley in New York's 14th congressional district primary election. The attention has brought Ocasio-Cortez her fair share of both recognition and abuse, which we talked about when we met last year at a diner in Queens to discuss her legislation to end nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes online. A lot has changed since then, especially politically. President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 race, Vice President Kamala Harris replaced him on the top of the ticket, and Donald Trump was elected for a second time. Trump's whirlwind first 100 days in office steadily chipped away at democracy as we know it, with free speech, due process, and the balance of power in the crosshairs. In that time, the Democratic Party has come under fire, accused of not being ready to meet the moment that is demanded of party leadership. But a notable exception to this narrative has been Ocasio-Cortez, whose 'Fight Oligarchy' rallies with Sen. Bernie Sanders have drawn tens of thousands of people in states like California, Utah, and Colorado. Ocasio-Cortez brings up this 'moment in history' throughout our conversation this spring. She talks about how this is a time when communities need to come together with courage rather than fear, how Democrats need to chart a path for a more inclusive future rather than constantly play defense, and how, above all, connectivity helps to avoid despair. The congresswoman has a background of community organizing, and there's evidence of that throughout her D.C. space. A gallery wall in her office features posters of political calls to action — End Evictions! Climate Justice for All! — alongside photos of rallies and protests. 'It's a way for me to bring home here,' she says. As we speak, people line up outside of her office to write on the neon Post-it notes covering her door. There are handwritten messages from people from the U.S. and abroad, thanking her, telling her different versions of 'never stop fighting' or, as it's written in Spanish, 'nunca dejas de luchar.' 'I feel very indebted to people for how powerfully people are choosing to show up, when everything about this moment would support tuning out,' Ocasio-Cortez says. 'We need Democrats that are willing to stand up and brawl and not be afraid to fight on these issues, and we need mass collectives of people organizing in the streets,' she says. 'I believe it's always been that combination that is able to stop the encroachment of authoritarianism and fascism.' The last time we met, we talked about , the bill you are co-sponsoring that would give survivors of sexually explicit deepfake AI abuse recourse to sue. Why is it more important now than ever?We saw Trump's announcement at the State of the Union for the Take It Down Act [legislation requiring platforms to remove nonconsensual deepfake porn], which passed through. But what we are still missing is victim-centered legislation that actually gives victims the power and the ability to advocate for themselves and to fight for themselves and have their day in court, and that's what Defiance does. It gives people who have been subject to nonconsensual, deepfake pornography the civil right of action so that they can pursue justice for themselves and to seek damages for this kind of sexual abuse and harm. Defiance is tremendously important, because Take It Down centers other people, right? But Defiance is about helping the disproportionately, and overwhelmingly, women and children who are affected by this. So much has changed in the world of AI even since last year. Since we last met, the outsize influence of tech billionaires in politics and on democracy itself has only grown. How does that affect the average person in America?There is almost no area of our lives that has not been affected by this tech-billionaire class because they're buying elections. The balance of the Senate has been shifted because of the crypto lobby dumping millions of dollars into right-wing authoritarian candidates. And it's important to note that this money is not going into just issue-lobbying alone. This isn't about crypto billionaires trying to buy favors for the crypto industry. This is about crypto billionaires trying to install and support authoritarians and fascists, because they believe that if those fascists are personally close to them, then they can control far beyond the regulation of financial instruments. They think they can really start imposing this dystopian worldview that includes everything from the subjugation of women to democracy itself. And we're seeing this play out right now in the fight over Medicaid. Beyond the Senate, Elon Musk dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into trying to buy the U.S. presidential election, and he is trying to recoup that investment by getting one of the largest tax cuts for billionaires in American history — which the Republican Party is trying to pay for through massive cuts to Medicaid, for Americans with disabilities, health care for the poor. They're trying to cut Medicaid and SNAP food assistance to pay for additional tax cuts for Elon Musk and his industries, as well. And so it's really important for people to understand that this goes beyond tech. This is about the extreme concentration of money and power. What did you think when you watched President Trump's inauguration and powerful tech CEOs Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Sundar Pichai were sitting so close to him? This is a moment in history personified. This is not just people buying favors. This is about who controls this country, and everyone else is just a formality, and that is the worldview that we are up against right now. This is the stakes of the present moment. And when Sen. Sanders and I talk about oligarchy, this really is what this is. It is beyond partisan as well. It is concentrated. It is most concentrated in the Republican Party. But it's also the power that controls our politics writ large. Your Fight Oligarchy rallies with Sen. Sanders have drawn enormous crowds. What are you tapping into that other politicians haven't been able to access?We are willing to name the problem in a way that has been challenging for [others] in the Democratic Party to confront. There's been this debate about 'Do Americans understand oligarchy or not?' And I think that's a farce. I think that's a cover for the fact that a lot of Democrats don't want to talk about oligarchy. There's a lot of Democrats that are uncomfortable with the fact that Americans feel this way, that Americans see the extreme concentration of wealth, they recognize viscerally that it is untenable and, frankly, un-American. I think a lot of folks are uncomfortable squaring that with the fact that they're having dinner parties with the very people that are — and trying to court and curry favor with — the very individuals who hold power in a way that is unsustainable in this country. And so I think it's less about the fact that Americans don't understand oligarchy, and I think it's more about the fact that people in power are uncomfortable with the degree that Americans do actually see it. Some people online joked that the Fight Oligarchy name was the FO in 'fuck around and find out.' Was that intentional?[Laughs.] I can't say that it was intentional, but I do think that hindsight is twenty-twenty. We should — I will unofficially adopt it as a part of the slogan, because we are in the 'find out' part now for sure. What does being on this tour with Sen. Sanders mean to you?It means a lot to me, personally, and also in this moment. I would not be in Congress were it not for Sen. Sanders, in a very literal way and in a figurative way. I never, ever, ever thought that someone like me could be in politics, and it wasn't until Sen. Sanders ran [for president] in 2016 and showed that grassroots, small-dollar fundraising can actually help working people and unlikely candidates run for office. Even just from his literal example and how he structured his campaign; if it weren't for that, I wouldn't have ever even considered running for office. But then, of course, in a deeper and more meaningful way, his commitment, his values, that someone who shares my beliefs can make it in American politics, can even exist in American politics is — he is a huge inspiration for why I ran in the first place. He has continued to be a friend and provided a lot of guidance and counsel on my loneliest days here, and so to be able to do this with him is something I will cherish forever. 'We need Democrats that are willing to stand up and brawl.' And also zooming out for the country, I think it's been tremendously important, too. It's not only that I'm doing this with Bernie, but that I'm doing this with every American who shows up. I had this moment on the rope line in Denver — when I first got elected, the crush of media and attention was very, very overwhelming. It was genuinely overnight. It's kind of funny, sometimes I talk to my colleagues, or sometimes I'll talk to other members, and they'll be like, 'Yeah, like the waitressing thing that's just a story, right? Like you waitressed once, right? But what were you really doing?' But it's real. I was literally bartending while I was running for office. And so it was an overnight, light-switch kind of situation. I wasn't steadily building a career or anything like that. And so overnight, I win this primary, and because of the nature of that victory, it was just this massive crush of media and attention. Of course, a lot of hate, but also a lot of support. But all of it was very overwhelming. I don't think I was able to really allow it to sink in, and, on a personal level, I wasn't really able to feel it all, because it was so overwhelming. What happened at the rally in Denver?On this tour and especially after all of these years, duking it out here in Congress, and being subject to a lot of … whatever, even within my own party — this tour has been very healing for me, personally. It is tens of thousands of people who, despite everything falling apart around us, still want to work for something. On a personal level, I'm more of a low-key person, and so sometimes [with] all the people, it can feel like a lot. But I was on this rope line in Denver, it really started to feel like — I am feeling transformed by this, and I feel like people are feeling transformed by this. It is a collective experience. And so to me, it's just to be able to do this, to do it with Bernie, to do it with people, it has been so powerful, and it has been the privilege of my life. Switching to immigration, I've been reporting on U.S.-citizen children who are being , one of whom was a four-year-old boy in active treatment for metastatic cancer. He's the second U.S.-citizen child with cancer that President Trump has deported. How do you think the public should be responding to this?Listen, I come from a background of organizing. If this president is breaking the Constitution and if he's starting to deport and force out U.S. citizens from this country, that, to me, is shut-it-down territory. We've seen collective action happen before, and mass civil resistance is one of the critical pieces that we have, and it requires both, right? We need Democrats that are willing to stand up and brawl and not be afraid to fight on these issues, and we need mass collectives of people organizing in the streets. I believe that it's always been that combination that is able to stop the encroachment of authoritarianism and fascism. President Trump recently implied he's not sure he has to uphold the Constitution, and many of the actions of his administration involve denying people due process. Beyond kids, we've also seen this in the cases of people deported to El Salvador, including Bronx resident Merwil Gutiérrez, who you've spoken about. What do we risk when we don't have proper due process for everyone in the country, U.S. citizens or not?The Constitution is the only thing that really defines us as Americans. Despite the right wing's attempts, we are not a country that is ethnically defined. We are not a country that is defined by any one person, ideology, etc., except for the Constitution. What makes America America is enshrined in that document, our freedoms. People need to understand that when the president attacks the Constitution, he is attacking our country. We all swear an oath to the Constitution. As federally elected officials, we swear an oath to uphold, to defend, to protect the Constitution of the United States. First and foremost, if the president is in any way confused about his responsibility, he should resign. Any president should resign if they don't understand that, at the core, that's what his job is. Trump knows exactly what he's doing. He wants to transform the definition of what it means to be an American — from upholding the Constitution and our freedoms — to a pledge of loyalty to him. That is what a cult of personality and authoritarian regimes are all about. While on the subject of deportations, I want to talk about the and being detained in detention centers because they've been outspoken on Palestine. What does this mean for free speech in America? This has been our concern even before this moment. I have a history and a record of opposing a lot of the slush-fund dollars that Congress was approving into ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and CBP [Customs and Border Protection], because I felt like we could see the risk of this moment happening. When you funnel tons of money and no strings and exert little to no oversight or authority into ICE and CBP, you can set up the breaking of the Constitution, using ICE and CBP as the mechanism for violating our civil and constitutional rights. And it's the same thing when it comes to Palestine. In the United States, everyone can talk about free speech as much as they want. The right wing can, as they have been, play this victim card around free speech all they want. And it's not just Republicans. In both parties, everyone was talking about cancel-culture fears. Social repercussions for saying hurtful things [were] treated as though [they were] a constitutional crisis. When the fact of the matter is the most heavily policed speech in America, no matter who is in charge, has always been the advocacy and the recognition of the humanity of Palestinians. 'When the president attacks the Constitution, he is attacking our country.' For a very long time, this groundwork has been laid and enforced. This idea conflating that recognizing the human rights of Palestinians is somehow equal to antisemitism, those bricks and those dangerous foundations have been laid for a very long time, especially since Oct. 7, 2023. It should not come as a surprise when we also see organizations like AIPAC [pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee] and the crypto lobby going after and attacking human rights advocates and trying to unseat those in Congress, conflating antisemitism with people who just want to see Palestinian kids have their human rights protected. It all lays groundwork for this moment, because this administration has seized on that predicate. They have seized on all of those pretenses that have been laid before and say, 'OK, well, if you believe that recognizing the plight of Palestinians is antisemitic, then it shouldn't be that much more of a step further to revoke people's green cards, accuse them of terrorism, accuse them of working with Hamas,' because that is some of the discourse that has been allowed in the Democratic Party as well. You can take on that mantle, you can pretend that it's bipartisan, and what's important for people to understand is that that then becomes the predicate for attacking our Constitution. An authoritarian regime, or the Trump administration, is never going to use politically popular or overwhelmingly sympathetic targets to dismantle the Constitution. They are always going to use the people most maligned and most marginalized in order to attack and erode the rights of every American, precisely because they know that not everyone will come to their defense. After the election, you reached out to people in your district who voted for you and also voted for Trump. What did you learn about these voters?I know it's a hard pill for some people to swallow. But at the end of the day, if you are interested in the psychology of people who overlap between throwing a vote to Trump and throwing a vote to me on the same ballot, no matter what you think about it, those people believe he and I to be honest, to be direct. Honest about what we think, right? I say what I believe. They don't think I'm bullshitting them. They know that I'm fighting for them. And it's true, in terms of my relationship to these folks: You send me to Congress, and I'm going to fight for you, and I'm going to put your interests first. It's strength, too. It's also [about] where people get their information. I tend to be in the places where sometimes Trump is in terms of where they get their news. In national conversations, people see one thing, but at home, what people experience is my presence. I'm very present in New York. It's not unusual for me to be walking down the street in Jackson Heights or in the South Bronx or in Astoria, and people see me and they have eyes on me. Trump did that, too, in this last election — he had [hundreds of] rallies in the last cycle. It's something that I think sometimes gets overlooked. Polling indicates that while President Trump's approval rating has fallen substantially, Democrats aren't necessarily gaining. What should the party's leaders be doing differently? And what can voters do to influence how Democratic leaders handle Trump? It's sometimes less about party leadership and more about the party, because this is a party that selects its leaders. The Democratic Party selects its leaders, and its leaders act at the behest of the party members in the caucus. In a moment where we see Trump losing but you don't see Democrats gaining in that loss, first and foremost, it cuts directly against a lot of assumptions here about politics being zero-sum. Politics are not zero-sum. And I think one of the things that people can see, if they want to see it, in November, is that this isn't just this binary spectrum where one person's gain is another person's loss and vice versa, and also moving to the quote-unquote right, or picking up moderates, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to keep your base. We run real risks in collapsed turnout, and the trick is not necessarily always in choosing one or the other, but we actually need all of it in order to win. One of the struggles that the party has is in deciding what the party itself stands for and who it wants to be. In fact, one of the most uniting principles, which is economic populism and genuinely fighting the oligarchy in this country, is also a political third rail inside the beltway of Washington, D.C. What do you mean by political third rail? It's something that is tremendously popular with people, but a lot of our electoral system is based on appealing to the one percent. So it's a political movement that's being missed because of how the electoral system works?Right. If you depend on big money to win, it's hard to get in front of a crowd and talk about the problems with big money. Trump says he's using tariffs to try and bring manufacturing back for the American worker. Is there any part of this idea that you support?The way that they've gone about this tariff business is insane. The Biden administration used targeted tariffs. The existence and presence of tariffs, in and of itself, is not this explosive Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling kind of thing. Sometimes people have this blanket reaction, and it's like they have amnesia over the fact that President Biden did institute 100 percent tariffs on certain Chinese energy exports. So you can't look the other way when Biden does it and then act like every single tariff is bad when Trump does it. However, what Trump is doing is blowing a hole in not just the U.S. economy. The blanket nature of this — as though we're somehow going to start manufacturing mangoes in the United States of America — I mean, give me a fucking break. 'I say what I believe. [Voters] don't think I'm bullshitting.' You have been fighting against Republican cuts to Medicaid. Can you talk about how these cuts will affect people?Medicaid is one of the largest insurers in the United States of America. One in five people get their insurance in whole or part or in part from Medicaid, and that's before we even talk about Medicare. If you buy your insurance off of a health exchange, even if you're buying a private health insurance plan off of an Obamacare or state exchange, you will be affected, because Medicaid expansion affects ACA coverage. Medicaid expansion affects people with disabilities, people who are looking for work, whose job doesn't cover health insurance, whose job doesn't pay enough for them to have health insurance. Out of every 10 babies born today, four of [those births] will be covered by Medicaid. We are talking about a massive devastation of our social safety net. And for all of this conversation that Republicans talk about with [Medicaid work requirements for] quote-unquote, able-bodied men — they are very literal in that —people with mental health issues, I think they would consider them able-bodied. We are talking about one of the biggest revocations of health insurance and health care in the United States of America. It is tremendously dangerous. Why do you think Republicans are pushing for this? Who benefits from it? The whole reason we're here is [because] they're talking about waste, fraud, and abuse. I've been sitting through a lot of these debates. The only time the Republicans brought up a number of alleged waste, fraud, and abuse is $50 billion. Even if you believe them, then why did they put $850 billion as the number for their cuts? Where's that other $800 billion coming from if you said the waste-fraud-abuse number was $50 billion? And the reason for that is because this is not a health-care-cut bill. This is a bill where they have an assignment — they are trying to give trillions of dollars in collective tax cuts to billionaires, and they have to pay for it. And so the thing that they have identified to pay for it is one of the largest areas of expenditures in the United States, which is health care. Elon Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency has made significant, broad sweeping cuts to federal agencies, and the destruction of the social safety net has been a long-term goal of Republicans. How can Democrats rebuild it after this assault has caused so much harm, and are you scared of what you're seeing happen to democracy?When it comes to social safety net, I am very concerned, because one thing we see in terms of patterns is that Republicans will gut something, and then when Democrats are in the majority, we're not able to get the votes to bring it back at one hundred percent. For the last 30 years, we've experienced death by a thousand cuts — the slow erosion of our everyday quality of life. I genuinely do believe that an important response to all of this stuff getting decimated is rethinking our social safety net entirely. Making it more inclusive, making the middle class not feel cut out from these kinds of supports, saying, instead of how do we just try to climb our way back to what was, what if we just expand Medicare? What if we either lower the age of Medicare to include everybody, let everyone buy into it, or if the party is not there yet, what if we lower the age of qualifying for Medicare to 50, or even lower? So that people can understand that we're not just constantly trying to stop bleeding, but that we actually have an ambitious vision for this country. That kind of offense is the only thing that's going to get us back to the place that we need to be. Do you listen to music or watch any TV shows to wind down?I have had the Bad Bunny album on repeat. I love that he's bringing salsa back. Rauw Alejandro is doing that, too. I'm a big salsa person. It's such a nice outlet. I like it because the lyricism is so dramatic. Everyone's breaking up, everyone's got the love of their life. It's so funny. As a Puerto Rican, the album is very cathartic, and it's very political. It speaks to a lot of what's happening to us and our people right now. Did you see that this morning Bad Bunny announced that he's going on a world tour and he's not going anywhere in the United States, other than his residency in Puerto Rico?We just don't have figures like that anymore. I think about the Civil Rights Movement, and I think about people like Harry Belafonte and all of these artists who really did risk everything, risk their careers and their popularity in order to support and take part in people's movements, and to use their art, a whole album about that. It's more rare now, or at least it feels that way; I wasn't around then. The pressures of the industry are to be as broad as possible. When you have someone who does something gutsy like that, first of all, people come through for it, and it's super compelling. Speaking of tours, do you know what you want to do with the momentum from your Fight Oligarchy rallies? I think there are different ways of looking at politics. Some politicians look at voters and electorates and try to make predictions. I really do believe, even despite all of this, I really do believe in people. I believe in our collective conscience. So, I don't have any master plan, but I believe that the people will show me the way. More from Rolling Stone 'Children Will Die:' Democrats Raise Alarm About GOP Efforts to Cut Medicaid Cory Booker: 'People Want to Know You Give a Shit' Bernie Sanders: Americans Know What 'Oligarchy' Means, They Aren't 'Dumb' Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration threat to end Harvard contracts puts research at risk
May 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers. The administration announced on Tuesday that it is in the process of reviewing its contracts with Harvard in preparation for their termination. The move may cost the United States a generation of top researchers, Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff in the American Council of Education's government relations department, told UPI. "We're going to lose grad students or post-docs that might have been educated in those federally funded labs," Spreitzer said. "The undergrads are going to lose the opportunity of working alongside those researchers and learning from their work." Harvard has contracts partnering with government departments including NASA, Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration. Dozens of these contracts have been entered into, extended or otherwise updated since President Donald Trump took office. Harvard University did not respond to requests for comment from UPI. One of the largest contracts Harvard holds with the government is a $15 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is described in the Federal Procurement Data System as a "task order for human organ chip enabled development of radiation countermeasures." It was entered into on July 26. Another of its largest contracts is a $10.6 million contract with the National Institutes of Health for tuberculosis research. Harvard holds more than one contract with the government related to this work. "They want to do more with less," Spreitzer said of the Trump administration. "They're making decisions based on budgetary impacts but that's layered on top of some of the regulatory actions that they are taking, which is really, again, slowing down or completely stalling the scientific process." The Trump administration has cut research funding grants to several universities, many of them Ivy League schools. It has also made cuts to programs in the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others that offer grant opportunities to universities. Since World War II, the U.S. government has leaned on universities to expand its research capabilities, leading to innovations in health, technology, economics and other disciplines. Spreitzer, who has been an advocate for higher education for 20 years. In that time she said she has interacted with nearly every federal agency, said the partnership has advanced the interests of the government and delivered value to U.S. taxpayers. "Right now we are at this historical inflection point where the federal government is rethinking their partnership with our institutions of higher education," she said. "It's been a very profitable and very important partnership that's helped the entire United States. Whether you're talking about new drugs or medical research or the innovative products that might be spun out and have created jobs." The rethinking of the partnership between the government and universities goes beyond contracts and grants. It is also proposing a lower cap on its reimbursement to universities for indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs. These are overhead expenses that an institution has that are not related to specific projects, such as government-funded research. Prior to the current Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health reimbursed an average of 27% to 28% of direct costs to universities to help cover indirect costs. These rates were negotiated with some institutions being reimbursed at rates more than 50%. There has not been a cap on most reimbursements since Congress removed them in 1965. In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a new policy to cap these reimbursements at 15%. The American Council on Education filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed cap, warning that it would greatly disrupt research across the country. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy from instituting a rate cap policy. The injunction succeeds a temporary restraining order Burroughs granted against the administration, shielding all institutions of higher education from rate caps. "It would have a huge impact on our institutions," Spreitzer said. "They've also made huge cuts in some of the fellowship programs. Whether it's the fellowship program for the next generation of NSF scientists or whether it's the Fulbright program -- those have all been suddenly stopped."
