RFK Jr.'s Top Ranks Rocked by Personality Clashes
Kennedy's chief of staff, Heather Flick Melanson, and his deputy chief of staff for policy, Hannah Anderson, are no longer working for the secretary, according to people familiar with the matter. The departures came Tuesday after months of personality clashes between the two women and Kennedy's longtime aide Stefanie Spear, who was press secretary for his presidential campaign and now serves as deputy chief of staff and a senior counselor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump signs executive order making it easier to remove homeless people from streets
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday making it easier for local jurisdictions to remove homeless people from the streets. The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees' that limit jurisdictions' abilities to relocate homeless people. It also redirects federal resources so that affected homeless people are transferred to rehabilitation and substance misuse facilities. It also directs Bondi to work with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to fast-track federal funding to states and municipalities that crack down on 'open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders.' 'President Trump is delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America,' Leavitt said in a statement Thursday. 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need.' Advocates for the homeless condemned the executive orders with some saying that it will make homelessness worse for communities. 'These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice. They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals,' said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, in a press release. The National Homelessness Law Center said the order 'deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness' in a statement on Thursday. The group said the order will expand the use of police and institutionalization in response to homelessness, while increasing the number of people living in tents, cars and on the streets. The order comes a month after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Oregon city that ticketed homeless people for sleeping outside. Justices rejected arguments that such 'anti-camping' ordinances violate the Constitution's ban on 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The case had been watched closely by city and state officials who have struggled to respond to a surge in homelessness and encampments that have cropped up under bridges and in city parks across the nation. It was also followed by people who live in those encampments and are alarmed by efforts to criminalize the population rather than build shelters and affordable housing. Homelessness in the US soared to the highest level on record last year, driven by a lack of affordable housing, a rise in migrants seeking shelter and natural disasters, which caused some people to be displaced from their homes, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. More than 770,000 people experienced homelessness in 2024, an 18% increase from 2023. It was the largest annual increase since HUD began collecting the data in 2007 (excluding the jump from 2021 to 2022, when the agency didn't conduct a full count due to the Covid-19 pandemic). As a candidate, Trump railed against the nation's homeless crisis, telling supporters during a September campaign rally it was 'destroying our cities.' 'The homeless encampments will be gone,' Trump said in remarks from North Carolina. 'They're going to be gone. Oh, you have to see, you have to – some of these encampments, what they've done to our cities, and we've got to take care of the people.' CNN's Shania Shelton contributed to this report.
CNN
39 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump signs executive order making it easier to remove homeless people from streets
Poverty Donald Trump FacebookTweetLink President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday making it easier for local jurisdictions to remove homeless people from the streets. The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees' that limit jurisdictions' abilities to relocate homeless people. It also redirects federal resources so that affected homeless people are transferred to rehabilitation and substance misuse facilities. It also directs Bondi to work with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to fast-track federal funding to states and municipalities that crack down on 'open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting, and track the location of sex offenders.' 'President Trump is delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America,' Leavitt said in a statement Thursday. 'By removing vagrant criminals from our streets and redirecting resources toward substance abuse programs, the Trump Administration will ensure that Americans feel safe in their own communities and that individuals suffering from addiction or mental health struggles are able to get the help they need.' Advocates for the homeless condemned the executive orders with some saying that it will make homelessness worse for communities. 'These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice. They represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals,' said Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, in a press release. The National Homelessness Law Center said the order 'deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness' in a statement on Thursday. The group said the order will expand the use of police and institutionalization in response to homelessness, while increasing the number of people living in tents, cars and on the streets. The order comes a month after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Oregon city that ticketed homeless people for sleeping outside. Justices rejected arguments that such 'anti-camping' ordinances violate the Constitution's ban on 'cruel and unusual' punishment. The case had been watched closely by city and state officials who have struggled to respond to a surge in homelessness and encampments that have cropped up under bridges and in city parks across the nation. It was also followed by people who live in those encampments and are alarmed by efforts to criminalize the population rather than build shelters and affordable housing. Homelessness in the US soared to the highest level on record last year, driven by a lack of affordable housing, a rise in migrants seeking shelter and natural disasters, which caused some people to be displaced from their homes, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. More than 770,000 people experienced homelessness in 2024, an 18% increase from 2023. It was the largest annual increase since HUD began collecting the data in 2007 (excluding the jump from 2021 to 2022, when the agency didn't conduct a full count due to the Covid-19 pandemic). As a candidate, Trump railed against the nation's homeless crisis, telling supporters during a September campaign rally it was 'destroying our cities.' 'The homeless encampments will be gone,' Trump said in remarks from North Carolina. 'They're going to be gone. Oh, you have to see, you have to – some of these encampments, what they've done to our cities, and we've got to take care of the people.' CNN's Shania Shelton contributed to this report.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
South Korea must rethink its one-sided courtship of North Korea
One of President Lee Jae Myung's earliest moves since taking office was to halt loudspeaker broadcasts at the DMZ. File photo by Jin-hee Park/EPA July 25 (UPI) -- Earlier this month, South Korea's National Intelligence Service quietly and abruptly suspended its decades-long radio and television broadcasts targeting North Korea. The decision -- made just 10 days after the inauguration of NIS Director Lee Jong-seok --marks a significant and sudden break from a 50-year tradition of information outreach to the North. When questioned by the press, the agency simply responded, "We cannot confirm." Though the suspension is being presented as a gesture of goodwill aimed at reviving inter-Korean dialogue, the Lee Jae Myung administration's increasingly unilateral and unquestioning approach to North Korea deserves serious scrutiny. NIS broadcasting to the North dates to 1973, when it formally took over operations from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The radio programs -- such as Voice of the People and Echo of Hope -- have long served as a vital source of uncensored information for North Korean listeners. In the 1980s, the South also began television transmissions, adapted to North Korea's PAL system. Many defectors have testified that these broadcasts were their first exposure to the realities of life in the South. It is no surprise, then, that 38 North, a Washington-based North Korea monitoring outlet, described the suspension as a "major victory" for Pyongyang in its battle against outside information. These broadcasts continued for decades across all administrations -- liberal and conservative alike -- regardless of the state of inter-Korean relations. Even the progressive governments of Kim Dae-jung, Roh Moo-hyun, and Moon Jae-in never halted them. Like the West German broadcasts that relentlessly reached across the Berlin Wall during the Cold War, South Korea's airwaves played a quiet, but strategic, role in informing and inspiring hope in the North. That this effort was shut down without a single explanation or public discussion is as shocking as it is unprecedented. "Unconditional," even "blind," affection for North Korea is not an unfair characterization. President Lee Jae Myung did pledge to pursue inter-Korean reconciliation during his campaign. Since taking office, he has acted swiftly to make good on that promise. One of his earliest moves was to halt loudspeaker broadcasts at the DMZ. In response, Pyongyang immediately turned off its own propaganda speakers the following day. Though the move was unilateral, North Korea's mirrored response sparked cautious optimism. On July 8, South Korean civic groups -- most notably the Korean War Abductees' Family Union -- also announced a voluntary suspension of leaflet launches across the border, which North Korea has long condemned. This, too, was not a spontaneous civilian decision. It was facilitated through active persuasion by the Unification Minister nominee, vice ministers and several lawmakers. The initiative was undertaken without prior consultation with the North, yet it succeeded in calming a volatile issue. North Korea had previously retaliated by sending balloons filled with garbage and equipped with GPS trackers into the South. Many residents of border towns welcomed the decision as a measure to ease their suffering. But recent steps have raised the stakes. On July 9 -- just one day after the leaflet suspension -- South Korean authorities repatriated six North Korean fishermen rescued from coastal waters in the East and West Seas. After repairing one of the wooden boats in which they had arrived, the navy and coast guard escorted the men to the Northern Limit Line, where a North Korean patrol vessel and a presumed tugboat were waiting. Earlier, South Korean military and maritime authorities rescued four North Korean individuals aboard a drifting vessel in the East Sea on May 27, and two more from a separate boat in the West Sea on March 7. The wooden boat used in the July 9 repatriation was the same vessel rescued from the East Sea. The boat from the West Sea, however, was deemed beyond repair and ultimately abandoned. Demonstrating an unusual level of dedication, the Lee Jae Myung government undertook repairs of the damaged North Korean vessel to ensure the safe return of its passengers. The July 9 repatriation marked 43 days since the East Sea group was rescued and 124 days since the West Sea group's rescue. The government stated that all six expressed a clear desire to return home, and that Pyongyang's persistent silence had delayed the process. Eventually, Seoul issued a final notification via the United Nations Command, complete with coordinates for the handover point. Still, this was a highly sensitive move. North Korean defector repatriations carry heavy political and ethical risks, especially when the individual's intent is unclear. The 2019 case of two North Korean sailors -- who were forcibly returned via Panmunjom despite reportedly expressing a desire to defect -- ignited international outcry and legal consequences. It took until February 2025 for a South Korean court to issue suspended sentences against officials involved in the incident, which became a national controversy over human rights. In this latest case, the government has emphasized that the fishermen's return was voluntary. But the lack of North Korean cooperation and the unilateral nature of the move mean that the possibility of another human rights controversy cannot be ruled out. Despite that risk, the administration went forward -- using even the United Nations Command as a channel -- without receiving any reciprocal response or goodwill gesture from Pyongyang. All of this raises a difficult, but essential, question: Is South Korea pursuing reconciliation or merely indulging in an unrequited romance? With the simultaneous suspension of long-standing radio and TV broadcasts, public skepticism about the administration's true intentions is growing. This does not mean the public opposes peace. On the contrary, most South Koreans understand the need for engagement. But many are now asking whether the government is moving too fast, offering too much and asking too little in return. A policy of "watching and waiting" for Pyongyang's response before taking the next step may be wiser than a flurry of unilateral gestures. Peace on the Korean Peninsula must be built on mutual trust and reciprocity -- not on blind, one-sided affection. It's time to reexamine this approach before goodwill turns into strategic naïveté.
