Latest news with #FederalAdministration
Reuters
30-06-2025
- Reuters
Swiss government says it was affected by cyberattack on health foundation
FRANKFURT, June 30 (Reuters) - Switzerland said on Monday that a cyberattack on the non-profit health foundation Radix that involved data being stolen and encrypted had also affected the federal administration. In a statement, Swiss federal authorities said that Radix's customers include various federal offices and that data have been published on the dark web in the wake of the attack, without specifying the data. Authorities are trying to determine the specific units and data affected by the attack, the statement said, adding that the attackers did not break directly into state-run data systems.
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Would you have more kids if it meant less potholes? Vance, Duffy don't get it.
As a parent of a young child, I feel fairly confident in saying that no one who is on the fence about having more kids is basing that decision on federal investments in road construction. Investments in child care as infrastructure? Absolutely. Give me more of that. But better roads, bridges, and tunnels? I fail to see how that's convincing anyone to expand their family. And yet, last week, investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein was the first to publish an internal memo from newly sworn-in Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy — a former Wisconsin congressman, father of nine, and, apparently, now an architect of America's fertility policy. Opinion: Malcolm X understood what was wrong about Snoop Dogg's show celebrating Trump The memo instructs the Department of Transportation to prioritize funding for communities with 'marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.' It also calls for special attention to 'family-specific difficulties,' like ensuring transportation is accessible for families with young kids. The DOT has yet to publicly comment on the memo, so it's unclear what impact this directive will actually have on American families. But, hypothetically, it could influence programs like the Federal Administration's Capital Investment Grant—meaning funding for things like commuter rail, light rail, and public transit could slow while federal dollars shift toward rural roads and highways. If this is just a political move meant to reward rural communities that overwhelmingly voted red, that at least politically, I can understand. But if this instruction is meant to genuinely incentivize folks to have more kids? Then this administration fundamentally misunderstands the animating reasons behind our record low birthrate. Cost of living. Lack of support. Student debt. Job insecurity. The gig economy. Compared to our parents, the astronomical cost of buying a house. Climate change. These are the reasons I hear when people explain why they're delaying or forgoing kids — it's not potholes. I have yet to meet a parent who said, 'We were going to stop at one, but then they repaved Main Street.' I get it, this administration is extremely pro-birth. During the 2024 election, a clip from a 2021 podcast clip went viral where now Vice President JD Vance said adults who don't have children should lose their voting rights, arguing they shouldn't be accorded 'nearly the same voice' in democracy. 'Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of those children,' he added in the same episode. More recently, at last month's March for Life rally, he declared, 'I want more babies in the United States of America. I want more happy children in our country, and I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them.'And he's not alone. Opinion: I hope MAGA fans enjoy life under billionaire Elon Musk's new world order As recently as 2022, Elon Musk, the father of 12, had similarly suggested that childless adults should lose voting rights. Musk has become the most famous face of a growing pro-natalist movement — a revived push to organize American public policy around childbearing — and he has often warned that the human population is on the verge of collapse. While you'll never catch me calling myself a pronatalist, especially given it's roots in a range of ideologies, including racism, nativism, neoliberalism, effective altruism and longtermism, I am pro-policies that make being a parent easier and more appealing. I just don't think those policies include imposing abortion bans, defunding family planning, or attacking accommodations for pregnant workers and working mothers. Nor does it mean pitting communities against one another. Above all, I don't think it means funneling public funding toward communities with 'birth rates higher than the national average.' I promise you, no one is having another baby because their commute got five minutes shorter. But revoking resources from struggling communities might keep folks from growing their families. Channeling public resources away from struggling communities won't lead to more babies — it will only deepen existing disparities. Letters: I'm relieved our new president will not be responsible for the price of eggs Because if history tells us anything, it's that when families feel financially secure and supported, they grow. And when despair rises, the birth rate falls. If Sean Duffy, Elon Musk, JD Vance, and their allies really want to boost the birthrate, they should focus less on rewarding certain communities and more on making every community a place where families can thrive. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: On having kids, Musk, Duffy, Vance don't take the high road | Opinion
