
Trump Dismisses Some Holocaust Memorial Council Members, Including Doug Emhoff
'President Trump looks forward to appointing new individuals who will not only continue to honor the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust, but who are also steadfast supporters of the State of Israel,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Epoch Times in an email.
Doug Emhoff, the former second gentleman, said in a statement that he was among the members who were dismissed.
'Let me be clear: Holocaust remembrance and education should never be politicized,' Emhoff
The Holocaust Memorial Council, established by Congress in 1980, oversees the museum. It consists of 55 members appointed by the president, in addition to members from the Senate, House of Representatives, and departments of Education, Interior, and State. The members usually serve for five years.
Emhoff and some other members were appointed by President Joe Biden while he was in office. Emhoff is the husband of Kamala Harris, who was Biden's vice president.
Related Stories
3/3/2025
1/27/2025
The museum, which opened in Washington in 1993 and features various exhibits that educate visitors about the Holocaust, is a nonprofit funded through private contributions and government funding. It received $67 million in fiscal year 2024 from the government.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League,
While the White House can appoint and dismiss members, dismissal should only happen 'in the most egregious situations,' he said.
Greenblatt urged officials to offer an explanation for the dismissals and to reconsider the action.
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), a member of the Holocaust Memorial Council, also decried the dismissals, calling them in a statement to news outlets 'an attempt to politicize an institution dedicated to remembering one of the worst atrocities in our history and hurts our efforts to educate future generations.'
The museum said in a statement: 'At this time of high antisemitism and Holocaust distortion and denial, the museum is gratified that our visitation is robust and demand for Holocaust education is increasing. We look forward to continuing to advance our vitally important mission as we work with the Trump administration.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare
As America faces increasing health threats from wildfire smoke, summer heat waves and rising cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the last thing we need is to reverse laws that protect U.S. air quality. Yet, that's precisely what the Trump administration intends to do by proposing a repeal of a central scientific finding that serves as the basis for the Clean Air Act — legislation that has saved millions of American lives and been responsible for monumental advancements both to our environment and public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the agency plans to end a long-held 'endangerment finding' that asserts carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases present a risk to human health. If that happens, it will neutralize the federal government's ability to combat climate change and enforce laws intended to protect America's wellbeing. One of those laws is the Clean Air Act. Enacted in 1970, it has been one of the most successful public health policies in U.S. history. It's credited with reducing six of the most common air pollutants in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent while saving over 230,000 early deaths and avoiding over 120,000 emergency room visits every year. It has reduced chronic bronchitis, infant mortality and prevented millions of cases of asthma exacerbation as well. These statistics aren't conjecture: They're sourced directly from the EPA's own website, the same agency now leading the charge to turn the clock back on these remarkable achievements. Zeldin's announcement claims that the reversal of the endangerment finding will 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations.' But the positive U.S. economic impact from the Clean Air Act alone far exceeds this figure. By reducing hospital visits, sick days and treatment of costly respiratory-related disease, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act has created $2 trillion in U.S. economic benefit as of 2020 — twice the amount Zeldin asserts the endangerment finding's repeal would create. Further, clean energy has proven itself to be a source of strong job creation. The Department of Energy found that jobs in renewable energy grew more than twice as fast as the vibrant 2023 U.S labor market. And the science couldn't be clearer: Clean air is critical to public health. 'Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems,' the EPA states. Worse, those pollutants are disproportionately burdened by communities of color. A 2024 Milken Institute of Public Health study found that marginalized communities have eight times the number of pediatric asthma cases and a 30 percent higher chance of dying early from pollution exposure. That same study attributed this inequality to the close proximity many minority communities share with industrial manufacturing facilities. Imagine what those numbers would be if the endangerment finding is reversed and the U.S. can no longer enforce Clean Air Act provisions. Zeldin referred to the EPA action as 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,' and that it would be 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.' But doing so will only cause greater sickness in America and inundate an already stressed U.S. health care system. Increased exposure to air pollution will result in higher numbers of emergency room visits, increased rates of chronic illness and heightened health care costs. The medical and environmental advocacy community agree greater exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas is a bad idea. Groups such as the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, World Wildlife Fund, along with nursing organizations and medical societies all stand in strong opposition to the EPA's proposed action. Zeldin's proposal follows another questionable deregulatory move by the EPA in recent weeks to reintroduce dicamba, a weed killer used on soybeans and cotton. Use of the pesticide was halted by a federal court last year. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to dicamba was reportedly 'linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.' But the EPA has argued it 'has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern.' The U.S. government's job is to protect America's citizens. The Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives, safeguarded our skies and proven that environmental laws and economic progress can peacefully coexist. Repealing the endangerment finding will set America on a dangerous path and put the health and welfare of every American at risk.

3 minutes ago
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US
SAN FRANCISCO -- President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.'


CNBC
3 minutes ago
- CNBC
Hassett likely to be Trump's pick for Fed chief, though Warsh is more qualified, CNBC survey finds
President Donald Trump will tap his top economic advisor Kevin Hassett to be the next Fed chair, according to respondents to a special Jackson Hole Edition of the CNBC Fed Survey. But when asked who the president should pick, Hassett ranked a more distant fourth. Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, firmly led the pack when asked who the president will choose from among 11 names currently being considered. He was followed by Fed Governor Christopher Waller and former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh. But when asked who the president "should" pick, Warsh took the No. 1 spot, closely followed by Waller and former St. Louis Fed President James Bullard. Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman was in fifth after Hassett. "I think that Trump's familiarity with (Hassett) in the job that he did during the pandemic makes him a high candidate for Trump, who appreciates and awards loyalty," said Richard Steinberg, senior global market strategist with Focus Partners Wealth. While maintaining that Hassett is qualified, Allen Sinai of Decision Economics said he's concerned about Fed independence if he gets the job. "The politics of low interest rates for political reasons — a very strong view and push by the Trump administration — is a macro risk if it is seen in markets as a takeover by the administration," Sinai said. In the survey, 41% of respondents think the next Fed chair will conduct monetary policy independently of the president and 37% said it would be in coordination; 22% were unsure. Trump has campaigned hard for the Fed to cut rates, repeatedly insulting Powell, but Powell and the Federal Open Market Committee have so far resisted because of concern over potential inflation from tariffs. Bowman and Waller both dissented in July in favor of a rate cut. Survey respondents see two rate cuts this year from the Fed --- in September and December --- but also high inflation. The forecast for the consumer price index 12-month inflation rate remains at around 3% this year and 2.9% in 2026, suggesting the Fed will have to deal with above-target inflation for a while. Nearly two-thirds of respondents believe "substantial" impacts from tariffs on inflation are yet to come. "The Fed is caught between a rock and two hard places," said Richard Bernstein, CEO of Richard Bernstein Advisors. "Political pressure to cut rates and fiscal stimulus coming vs. the ongoing strength in the leading indicators of employment and inflation." As a result, Powell may not be as dovish about rate cuts as markets hope in his Jackson Hole, Wyo. speech. The Fed gathers each August for a symposium at which there are no votes but the chair traditionally delivers a keynote speech that often has indicated what's ahead. Almost 70% of respondents think the Fed chair will be neutral in his comments with 14% believing he will be dovish. Another 14% think he won't even discuss monetary policy or the economic outlook. "Powell's comments at Jackson Hole may be more balanced than the market is currently anticipating as he needs to weigh both downside risks to employment and upside risks to inflation," said Douglas Gordon, managing director at Russell Investments. Powell could discuss the Fed's effort to revisit its long-term strategy, with some expectation he addresses the Fed's controversial average inflation targeting. Respondents are divided over how to fix the central bank or whether it needs fixing at all. Just 11% say the Fed process of making monetary policy needs major reforms with 85% saying it needs either modest or little to no reform. On specific issues, a 41% plurality say the Fed should get rid of the dot plot where Fed officials anonymously indicate individual forecasts for the funds rate. But 37% say keep it as is, with another 19% saying it should be kept with individual forecasts linked to the rate outlook. When it comes to the 2% inflation target, 52% want to retain it but 44% want the Fed to adopt a range from about 1.4% to 2.7%. A 44% plurality want to eliminate the Fed's average inflation targeting, while 37% want to keep it. In average inflation targeting, the Fed takes account for prior misses in hitting its target, and could tolerate higher inflation for a while to account for inflation having run below target in previous years. Some have said this led the Fed to be more tolerant of inflation during the pandemic and slowed its decision to tighten policy.