Tech billionaire Elon Musk responded to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's (D) quip about celebrating the dip in Tesla stocks, calling the former vice presidential nominee a "huge jerk."

During an interview with Fox News's Bret Baier, Musk was asked about the market drop, recent vandalism at Tesla dealerships, and criticism of his work with President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

"Think it would help sales if dealerships are being firebombed? Of course not. And Tesla customers are being intimidated all over the country and all over Europe," he told Baier. "Does that help Tesla?"

"I mean, you have Tim Walz, who’s a huge jerk, running on stage when the Tesla stock price has gone in half, and he was overjoyed," Musk continued. "What an evil thing to do. What a creep, what a jerk."

The Tesla CEO added, "Like, who derives joy from that?"

Earlier this month, during a town hall in Wisconsin, Walz said he boosts his mood by looking at the electric vehicle manufacturer's stocks. He also used the time to criticize Musk, the sweeping workforce cuts and federal funding freezes issued by the Trump administration and DOGE in recent weeks.

“There’s this thing on my phone, I know some of you know this, on the iPhone. They’ve got that little stock app,” Walz said at the time. "I added Tesla to it to give me a little boost during the day."

He later walked back the comments, contending that he was just being a "smarta--" and "making a joke."

Still, Musk railed against the Minnesota Democrat, who has seemingly reemerged as a voice for the party after losing to Trump and Vice President Vance in November.

"And it was pointed out to him that actually, you know, the Minnesota state pension fund is a major investor in Tesla. But he didn’t care," the tech mogul told Fox News. "He was so overjoyed by Tesla stock going down."

"Does that sound like a good person to you? I don’t think so," Musk said.

"Shark Tank" investor Kevin O'Leary also criticized Walz, calling the rhetoric "beyond stupid."

The back-and-forth comes as the Trump administration has vowed to get to the bottom of recent Tesla vandalism, labeling the attacks as " domestic terrorism." At least three people have already been charged, per the Justice Department.

Musk said he has faith in the president to "go after" the people pushing what he called lies about his EV company.

To show his support for his senior adviser, the president even purchased a Tesla earlier this month during a ceremony at the White House.

Медиа: image / png

The online prediction market Kalshi is increasingly leaning into political and conversational questions of the day, including the latest executive actions by President Trump since he returned to the Oval Office.

“Will Brexit happen? Will Donald Trump win the election? Will it rain tomorrow, and who’s going to win the Oscars — those are things that people can relate to,” Kalshi founder and CEO Tarek Mansour said on NewsNation's “The Hill” Thursday evening.

“We want to build a financial market that is for everyone, not for a select, elite few," he told host Blake Burman.

One question posed by Kalshi this week was about Greenland, a Danish territory that Trump has suggested could join the United States. As of Friday afternoon, nearly 35 percent of participants predicted the U.S. will acquire at least some part of the Arctic island.

“We saw billions traded on the election,” Mansour said. “Since then, the exchange has been scaling and growing at an astronomical pace.”

He predicted that it could become a "trillion-dollar market."

What is a prediction market?

On its website, Kalshi said it’s the first regulated exchange where people “can buy and sell contracts on the outcome of events,” with contract prices reflected in the view of traders.

While the New York Stock Exchange is a traditional exchange where people can buy and sell shares in companies, Kalshi says its market is based on predictions, such as, “Will interest rates rise in the next quarter?”

The market has drawn scrutiny in New Jersey.

This week, regulators ordered Kalshi and Robinhood to stop offering sports-related prediction markets to Garden State residents.

Cease-and-desist letters from the regulators say the companies are offering unauthorized sports wagering services in New Jersey.

Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son, is a strategic adviser for the exchange.

Медиа: image / png

( NewsNation) — President Trump's 25 percent tariff on imported cars is expected to raise prices for consumers and carmakers, but it could also hurt smaller companies in the vast auto supply chain.

That's because Trump's import tax will also apply to "key automobile parts," including engines, transmissions, powertrain parts and electrical components, according to the White House. Other parts may be added "if necessary."

While the U.S. auto industry is often associated with legacy brands like Ford and General Motors (GM), its network of parts suppliers is far broader.

Vehicle suppliers provide 4.8 million jobs, making it the largest manufacturing sector in the U.S., according to the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), the trade group that represents suppliers.

Trump has said his tariffs are aimed at bringing jobs back to the U.S., but experts worry they will have the opposite effect.

"[Automakers] will demand lower prices from these parts suppliers who won't be able to comply, so it's a recipe for lowering employment in the auto industry," John Taylor, an associate professor of supply chain management at Wayne State University in Detroit, said.

The other concern is that countries retaliate with tariffs of their own, which hurts U.S. exporters, explained Jason Miller, a supply chain management professor at Michigan State University.

"We export a tremendous amount of auto parts to Mexico and Canada," Miller said.

The president's proclamation says the tariffs on vehicles will take effect on April 3, while the tariffs on parts will go into effect no later than May 3.

How does the auto supply chain work?

The average car has about 30,000 parts, including everything from the engine block and transmission to tiny nuts and bolts.

Major automakers only produce a fraction of those parts on their own. Most car components come from an expansive global network of smaller, specialized suppliers that often rely on each other. Those suppliers are classified into tiers.

A Tier 1 supplier like Indiana-based Cummins provides engines and powertrain systems directly to automakers. On the other hand, Tier 2 suppliers operate earlier in the supply chain and provide components and materials to Tier 1 companies.

The scale of the network is massive. Each automaker has thousands of Tier 1 suppliers, and each of those suppliers has hundreds, if not thousands, of their own suppliers, Miller said.

Tariffs on parts and materials like steel and aluminum increase costs at every stage of the supply chain.

Where are cars built?

Once automakers have all the necessary components, those parts get assembled into a finished vehicle. Much of that is currently done in Mexico, which has become a major manufacturing hub due to its lower labor costs and proximity to the U.S. The level of reliance varies by carmaker.

Almost 30 percent of new GM vehicles sold in the U.S. in the first two months of 2025 were built in Mexico, according to Edmunds. The same goes for nearly one in five new Ford vehicles sold in the U.S. over that period.

Trump wants more cars made in the United States, but tariffs on parts will raise the cost of domestic manufacturing, complicating the calculation for automakers considering a switch. Those who already build cars in the U.S. will also feel the pinch.

"If you're Mercedes Benz with your plant in Alabama, even though you're doing domestic assembly, your imported parts from Germany are going to be more expensive here in a few months," Miller said.

U.S.-sold Teslas, which are already built domestically, include about 20 percent parts and components from Mexico, according to government data.

Another factor to consider is that tariffs are paid by importers (U.S. companies) when goods enter the country, but a single car part can cross the border multiple times before it ends up in a finished vehicle. So, depending on how Trump structures the tax, automakers could potentially face a stacking of tariffs.

Will automakers shift manufacturing to the US?

Trump says his tariffs will bring auto jobs back to the U.S., but that's not guaranteed. Even if some jobs eventually return, it could take several years.

"The idea that all of a sudden the automakers are going to just completely rearrange their networks is completely unrealistic," Miller said.

The president's on-again, off-again strategy has only made it harder for automakers and auto parts suppliers to come up with a long-term plan.

Uncertainty generally isn't a good formula for spurring major investment. If companies don't expect the tariffs to last, they're less likely to make decisions that could have implications for years to come.

And even if more car factories were built in the U.S., Taylor noted that they would be "highly automated."

"Even the trucks running around the yard of a plant or a distribution center will be autonomous," he said.

Studies suggest that tariffs do more harm than good when it comes to employment because they protect jobs in one sector at the expense of jobs in other sectors. Part of that is because countries typically retaliate with tariffs of their own, which hurt U.S. exporters.

A 2024 paper by a group of top economists looked at Trump’s 2018 tariffs and found that "import tariffs on foreign goods neither raised nor lowered US employment in newly-protected sectors." However, retaliatory tariffs had "clear negative impacts," primarily in agriculture.

What does this mean for consumers?

If the new auto tariffs go into effect, Americans can expect higher car prices, potentially thousands of dollars more, according to some estimates.

But the pain wouldn't stop there.

"Many vehicle parts are sourced globally, which would increase repair costs for car owners," Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at Edmunds, said.

In turn, higher repair costs would push up insurance premiums since any accidents involving new parts would be more expensive.

Consumers could also be left with fewer affordable options if automakers decide some cars aren't worth selling in the U.S.

"This will be a major negative from a product variety standpoint," Miller said.

Nearly half of all the affordable vehicles sold in the U.S. are dependent on Mexico and Canada, according to Cox Automotive.

The president's auto tariffs come at a bad time for American consumers, who already owe a record $1.66 trillion in auto loan debt. Car loans recently surpassed student loans as the second-largest consumer debt category in the U.S.

New car shoppers are already taking out larger loans than ever, and last quarter, nearly one in five committed to a monthly payment of $1,000 or more, per Edmunds data.

Now, Americans are falling behind on their car payments at the highest rate in years.

Cox Automotive chief economist Jonathan Smoke didn't mince words on a call with reporters Wednesday.

"Lower production, tighter supply and higher prices are around the corner," he said.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's vow to “eliminate” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is raising the alarm from experts on disaster assistance, who say it could leave vulnerable communities at risk.

Noem this week said she was planning to eliminate the agency but did not elaborate on what that meant. Spokespeople for FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the disaster relief agency, did not respond to questions about whether FEMA’s services would be cut entirely or reshuffled elsewhere.

President Trump has also said he would consider “getting rid of FEMA.”

Carrie Speranza, president of the USA Council of the International Association of Emergency Managers, told The Hill that if FEMA is shut down, she would be “fearful for this next hurricane season and what that means for survivors.”

“You're talking hundreds of thousands of people that will be impacted with very little resources to help,” Speranza said.

FEMA helps support communities before, during and after disasters. This includes helping localities with coordinating during a storm, conducting some search and rescue operations and providing funding to help communities rebuild.

“The first time people see people in FEMA jackets is when we start going knocking on doors to make sure that we register people so they're eligible for individual assistance,” said Pete Gaynor, who led FEMA under the last Trump administration. “But we have been there from the beginning.”

Gaynor said that while the agency could be reformed, it should not be eliminated.

“I think we can always do a better job in the way we deliver services,” he said. “But if we're not doing it, I'm not sure who does it, because I think the thing that we're really good at is coordinating different agencies.”

“FEMA is that glue that holds it all together,” he added.

Eliminating FEMA would be “fraught with great risk, especially for those states that are not well versed in responding to and recovering from disaster,” he said.

Speranza agreed, saying that if the agency were cut, even if some of its functions remained part of the government, emergency response could take longer — and cost lives.

“If you don't have a coordinated mechanism … then it's going to take longer, and people are going to be perishing more. This is truly a life or death situation,” she said, specifically referring to search-and-rescue programs.

Gaynor said effective reform to FEMA would include a “simplified” long-term recovery system that includes incentives for states to keep costs low and making them pay for overages instead of that cost falling on the federal government.

Prior to Noem’s remarks, Trump issued an executive order that called on the Homeland Security secretary to propose changes to FEMA and ensure “state and local governments and individuals have improved communications with Federal officials and a better understanding of the Federal role.”

The order stopped short of eliminating the agency, however.

Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that the administration “doesn't have the legal ability to eliminate FEMA” because a 2006 law established it as a distinct agency. But she said she perceives ongoing changes at the agency to be “death by 1,000 cuts,” particularly citing staff dismissals.

“We should take the president at his word. He says he wants to eliminate FEMA, and I think that's a huge concern,” she said.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned in a speech Thursday that U.S. negotiators trying to end the war in Ukraine are headed for a “Russia wins, America loses” headline if they agree to a deal that achieves only “illusory peace.”

McConnell made his comments in reaction to recent events, notably President Trump’s public scolding of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House and a Kremlin statement that the Trump administration’s foreign policy pivot on the war “largely coincides with our vision.”

“When American officials court the favor of an adversary at the expense of allies … When they mock our friends to impress an enemy … They reveal their embarrassing naivete,” McConnell said in remarks Thursday while accepting the Star of Ukraine Award, the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation’s highest honor.

“Unless we change course, the outcome we’re headed for today is the one we can least afford: a headline that reads ‘Russia wins, America loses,'" he said.

“An illusory peace that shreds America’s credibility, leaves Ukraine under threat, weakens our alliances, and emboldens our enemies,” he said.

McConnell invoked failed efforts to appease Nazi Germany before World War II, quoting President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s warning that “no man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it.”

He reiterated that sending military aid to Ukraine is far less costly than becoming embroiled in a war in Europe.

And he questioned whether Trump’s advisers are fully committed to military deterrence and the principle of “peace through strength.”

“Too many of those who use it — particularly among the president’s advisers — don’t seem ready to summon the resources and national will it requires,” he said.

“We have a lot of work to do on this front. The ‘resolve of the West’ will require that we actually stand with the West. Instead of mocking European allies and partners, it’ll mean building a stronger trans-Atlantic alliance,” he argued.

Trump has repeatedly criticized other member countries of NATO for not spending more on their defense budgets, and members of the president’s national security team disparaged the military capabilities of European allies on a group chat on Signal, which included a journalist for The Atlantic.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth slammed Europe for “free-loading” on the United States’s military strength in the Red Sea, calling it “PATHETIC.”

Медиа: image / jpeg

A federal judge in Washington state on Thursday blocked enforcement of President Trump’s order to bar transgender troops from serving openly in the military, the second judge to halt the policy from taking effect nationwide.

In a 65-page ruling, Judge Benjamin Hale Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington said the Trump administration had offered no evidence to support removing transgender service members, who served without issue under the Biden administration, from the military.

“The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,” Settle, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and a retired captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, wrote in his decision. “The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting ‘the military’s’ new judgment reflected in the Military Ban—in its equally considered and unquestionable judgment, that very same military had only the week before permitted active-duty plaintiffs (and some thousands of others) to serve openly.”

“Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center.” Settle wrote. “But there is none.”

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., similarly blocked implementation of Trump’s order last week, ruling the policy is “soaked in animus.” The Pentagon is appealing that decision.

On Monday, a third federal judge in New Jersey temporarily blocked the military from separating two transgender Air Force members in a more limited ruling.

Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the groups representing the plaintiffs in each case, said Thursday in a statement that the harms associated with Trump’s ban on trans military service “are gut wrenching.”

“In each of these cases, the government did not even attempt to claim that any evidence supported its position. There is no reason to discharge individuals who are serving capably and honorably,” Minter said.

Медиа: image / jpeg

President Trump spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Friday for the first time since Carney was elected earlier in the month amid tensions between the two nations.

“It was an extremely productive call, we agree on many things, and will be meeting immediately after Canada’s upcoming Election to work on elements of Politics, Business, and all other factors, that will end up being great for both the United States of America and Canada,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

The conversation came a day after Carney, who replaced former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, delivered a speech declaring the U.S. was “no longer a reliable partner.”

“It is possible that with comprehensive negotiations, we could reestablish an element of confidence, but there will be no going backwards,” Carney said.

Trump has for months taunted Canada by suggesting it should be annexed and join the United States as the 51st state, which Canadian leaders have rebuffed.

The president has also imposed sweeping tariffs on Canada, complaining about the trade imbalance between the two nations. That has prompted talk of retaliatory measures from Canada, raising the prospect of a broader trade war.

Trump earlier in the month imposed a 25 percent tariff on all imports from Canada, a move he later walked back with exemptions for goods covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement signed in 2020.

Trump on Thursday had warned Canada and the European Union against working to do “economic harm” to the U.S. in response to the president’s widespread tariffs.

Медиа: image / png

Arthur Laffer, a prominent economist, warns in a new report that President Trump's looming 25 percent tariffs on foreign-made vehicle imports could lead to a dramatic increase in sticker prices and threaten the U.S. auto industry.

Laffer penned a 21-page analysis concluding that automakers would be in a better position if Trump were to stick to policies with Canada and Mexico outlined under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The agreement was signed by the president in his first term.

He estimates that Trump's latest tariff plan could, on average, add $4,711 to the cost to buy a vehicle.

The research comes just days after Trump announced the U.S. will levy 25 percent tariffs on all passenger vehicles, light trucks and some automobile parts — including engines, transmissions and electrical components — starting April 3.

"Without this exemption, the proposed tariff risks causing irreparable damage to the industry, contradicting the administration’s goals of strengthening U.S. manufacturing and economic stability,” Laffer, whom Trump has lauded in the past, wrote in his analysis.

“A 25 percent tariff would not only shrink, or possibly eliminate, profit margins for U.S. manufacturers but also weaken their ability to compete with international rivals," he added.

The White House has described the move as a potential boon to American auto manufacturers, even though many vehicles made in the U.S. are built with parts from other countries.

“For the most part, I think it’s going to lead cars to be made in one location,” Trump said Wednesday of the impact.

The United Auto Workers union said it supported the administration's tariff agenda, offering a full backing for the “aggressive” push to boost production in the U.S.

The Hill has reached out to Laffer for comment.

Updated at 1:26 p.m. EDT.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Attorney General Pam Bondi knocked CNN over a segment on her decision not to investigate the government officials involved in a Signal group chat that included sensitive information and was leaked to a prominent journalist earlier this month.

During the CNN segment, legal analyst Elie Honig said Bondi had been "MIA" and questioned her objectivity in leading the Department of Justice (DOJ).

"There is no indication that she’s going to open an investigation here," Honig said. "And by the way, when she was up for a confirmation as AG, remember, one of the concerns is, would she be able to exercise independence?"

Bondi was asked about the discussion during an appearance Thursday on Fox News.

"Yeah, there's a reason why their ratings are plummeting, because they're putting people like that on TV," she said. "We could care less what they say."

Fox News host Laura Ingraham said to Bondi, "this is not a concern of yours — inspector general, you know, idea of inspector general investigation or congressional investigation down the road. You are completely confident that this was ... a mistake and nothing more than that?"

"We are, and ... all of our intelligence officials who were on it are confident of that as well," the attorney general responded, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.

Bondi has spoken about the administration's desire to crack down on leaking of classified information and has sought to dismiss the significance of leaked Signal chat.

“First, it was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released," she told reporters this week. "And what we should be talking about is, it was a very successful mission."

Her deflection comes after The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently included in the chat where top Trump administration officials discussed Yemen strike plans, released the messages to the public Wednesday.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Ontario Premier Doug Ford argued the Trump administration's looming tariffs will carry harsh impacts for American businesses and consumers while lauding Canada’s plan for retaliation against the additional taxes.

Ford told reporters that the Great White North can push back with “$65 billion of tariffs that we have on the table that we can launch towards the U.S. — we have to run through every tariff and minimize the pain for Canadians, maximize the pain for Americans.”

“I feel terrible for the Americans, but it’s one person, it’s President Trump that’s creating this chaos," he added.

The Ontario premier said Trump launched an early “attack” with his threat to levy 25 percent tariffs on auto imports and parts from Canada this week. That comes in addition to reciprocal tariffs the administration said will begin April 2.

“We have two options here: Either we roll over as a country and he runs us over 15 times and gets what he wants, or we feel a little bit of pain and we fight like we’ve never fought before,” Ford said.

His rhetoric now echoes Trump’s approach to global tariff policies with compromise to short term convenience for long-term gains.

“This will be the Golden Age of America! Will there be some pain? Yes, maybe (and maybe not!),” the president wrote on Truth Social last month.

“But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid," he continued at the time. "We are a country that is now being run with common sense — and the results will be spectacular!!!”

Ford’s tariff strategy was recently tested as Canada imposed a tax on energy imports to three American states. The effort was later recanted after the premier met with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Despite that withdrawal, Ford confirmed the nation would oppose the dissection of stable trade agreements.

“I’ve spoken with Prime Minister [Mark] Carney. We agree Canada needs to stand firm, strong and united,” Ford wrote in a Wednesday post on the social platform X.

“I fully support the federal government preparing retaliatory tariffs to show that we’ll never back down," he said.

Carney on Wednesday lashed out at the Trump administration over the new tariffs on foreign-made cars, calling them a "direct attack" and vowing to "defend our workers." The two leaders are expected to speak by phone Friday.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Office of Budget Management (OMB) Director Russell Vought shared his support for workforce reductions at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) while applauding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his leadership of the agency.

“No, it’s fantastic,” Vought said late Thursday when asked about the layoffs on Fox Business's "Kudlow."

“I talked with Secretary Kennedy about an hour ago, and he is really excited about what they’ve unveiled today, the extent to which they’ve [reorganized] the department, the number of people that they’re able to let go and be able to find efficiencies at HHS. And so, it’s really exciting what you’re seeing,” he added.

Vought, a co-author of the conservative Project 2025 agenda, has been a staunch advocate and strategic partner in the Trump administration’s plans to reduce the size of the federal government.

HHS employs around 91,058 people, and Kennedy has identified a way to cut up to 20,000 workers, or nearly a fourth of the workforce.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl," Kennedy said in a statement announcing the layoffs. "We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic."

Democratic lawmakers have vehemently opposed the cuts, citing concerns for public health.

“It is a catastrophe for the health care of every American,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said of the effort.

Early in Vought’s confirmation process, leaders called out his intent to inflict a conservative mandate through government entities.

“He’s the wrong man. ... He seems to care little about the needs of American families; at the wrong place ... at powerful OMB, where his decisions will be felt in every corner of the country; with the wrong agenda — the horrible Project 2025,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said from the floor ahead of the confirmation vote.

Overall, Kennedy confirmed that HHS’s 28 divisions will be consolidated down to 15, and 10 regional offices will become five. He also announced the creation of a new Administration for a Healthy America, which the former independent presidential candidate said will coordinate chronic care and disease prevention programs.

Медиа: image / jpeg

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended the administration's decision to cut 10,000 jobs at the department on Thursday, confirming that essential employees would remain part of the staff.

“We're not cutting front-line workers, we're cutting administrators, and we're consolidating the agency to make it more efficient,” Kennedy said Thursday on NewsNation’s “Cuomo.”

In addition to the new cuts, HHS is looking to remove an additional 10,000 through severance packages, buyouts and early retirements. Kennedy, in a video shared to social platform X, acknowledged “this will be a painful period for HHS."

The move would cut a fourth of the department’s workforce, resembling similar reduction in forces at the Department of Education, Department of Veteran Affairs and other agencies in line with President Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to cut down on "wasteful" spending and overhaul the workforce.

“We have over 100 comms departments. You have 40 procurement departments. We have dozens of IT departments, dozens of HR departments, none of them talk to each other,” Kennedy told host Chris Cuomo.

“And what we're trying to do now is to streamline the agency, to eliminate the redundancies and to focus the mission so that everybody who is at HHS is going to wake up every morning and say, ‘What am I going to do today to Make America Healthy Again,’ and we're going to make it easier for those who are not cutting scientists,” he added.

Some have objected to Kennedy's leadership of the department, citing the former independent presidential candidate's lack of experience in the medical field and anti-vaccine rhetoric.

Former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she is concerned about the job cuts and their effect on public health amid funding deductions for research grants through the National Institutes of Health.

“I’m worried on a lot of fronts,” Sebelius said during The Hill’s “Health Next Summit.”

“The kinds of cuts that were just announced are devastating and will set science back and set research back," she added.

Медиа: image / jpeg

European institutions are beginning to target "scientific asylum" seekers from the U.S., advertising jobs for those who fear funding cuts and ideological restrictions from the Trump administration.

President Trump has frozen large swaths of federal funding and ordered a halt to things that don't comply with his political positions, including programs involving diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) research that focuses on the transgender community and climate change initiatives.

Universities and researchers are among those affected as federal grants are limited or withdrawn. Trump has also used federal research funds to target universities that he believes did not act harshly enough when responding to pro-Palestine protests on campus.

Significant government layoffs at agencies including NASA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have also put scientists who relied on the stability of federal jobs on the hunt for new work.

Experts have warned that the reduced funding and limitations could create a brain drain and cause the U.S. to lose a generation of scientists and the work they would otherwise produce.

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, based in Belgium, is one university that has started to actively recruit American researchers, portraying itself as a safe haven. So is the Pasteur Institute in Paris, which is recruiting Americans in fields like infectious disease research.

The Netherlands announced on Thursday that it was launching a fund to attract researchers, which would be open to those of all nationalities.

Aix-Marseille University in France set up a program that will fund more than two dozen U.S. researchers for three years. The school said it has already had about 100 applicants, including scientists from Yale, Stanford and NASA.

Медиа: image / jpeg

A growing number of Republican state lawmakers are introducing legislation that would treat abortion as murder in a push to give legal rights to fetuses.

Since the beginning of this year, Republican lawmakers have introduced bills in at least 10 states, including Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Iowa, Idaho and North Dakota, that aim to charge pregnant women with homicide if they seek out or receive an abortion.

While several of these bills have already failed to pass and the others are likely to meet the same fate, the influx of legislation shows more Republicans seeking to take a new step in restricting abortion rights: legally recognizing fetal personhood.

“That is, of course, something that the movement had always wanted, but it hadn’t really been achievable in the same way that it is now with Roe v. Wade gone,” said Mary Ziegler, law professor at the University of California, Davis.

In addition to abortion, some of the legislation calls for amending state law to classify the destruction of zygotes, embryos or fetuses as homicide.

All of the states where they have been introduced, with the exception of North Dakota, allow the death penalty for homicide cases.

The bills' GOP sponsors have argued that fetuses are "as human as we are" and should be legally treated as such.

Democrats, meanwhile, have sounded alarms about the legislation.

“We are seeing just how much they’re interested in controlling women’s bodies in this bill,” Iowa state Rep. Jennifer Konfrst (D) said of Iowa’s H.B. 453.

Democratic lawmakers told The Hill that the bills could threaten the future of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Konfrst added that there are also concerns among Iowa Democratic lawmakers about how H.B. 453, if passed, would impact certain forms of birth control such as intrauterine devices.

They aren't alone in opposing the push for the legal shift.

A 2024 poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist found that the overwhelming majority of Americans — 84 percent — do not believe women who have had an abortion should face penalties, fines or jail time.

A number of Republican lawmakers have also voted against the bills, contributing to their failure to pass even in deep-red states where other anti-abortion measures have succeeded. Abortion has been restricted in all 10 states where legislation has been introduced this year, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Oklahoma state Rep. Cyndi Munson (D) observed that the Republicans introducing the legislation appear to be pushing a personal agenda versus a party or caucus one.

“I think there are Republicans that are growing more weary of these types of bills, because they starting to feel the consequences of their actions, because their polling has gone down,” she said.

“I think they are realizing that this is not a political issue anymore, and it's not an issue that is bringing people to the polls even for them.”

The bills are contentious even within the anti-abortion movement, where the "bigger, richer" anti-abortion groups have been speaking out against legislation of this kind for as long as lawmakers have been introducing it, according to Ziegler.

Students for Life of America, for instance, opposes such bills because they fail to address a “predatory industry” that exploits vulnerable women to make money and prosecute pregnant people who could have been coerced into abortion, a spokesperson said.

“Maybe instead of wasting our time on a circular firing squad and debating who can hand out the most prison sentences to prove that they are the most anti-abortion one out there, maybe get to work and elect 100 percent pro-life champions ... who will stand with us to pass substantial legislation,” Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, said in a recent episode on her podcast.

Many other anti-abortion organizations have taken a similar line.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America "does not support legislation to criminalize women and qualify them for the death penalty,” Kelsey Pritchard, the group's political affairs communications director, told The Hill. “No state pro-life law criminalizes women and that’s not changing as not a single one of these bills has passed out of committee.”

The bills introduced this year are far from the first that have sought to treat abortion as homicide: Similar legislation has been introduced in state legislatures for years, at least since the 2010s, according to Ziegler.

“What’s important about them is not that they’re new but they aren’t going away, and they seem to spreading, despite what looks sort of like pushback from some of the better funded anti-abortion [groups]," Ziegler said.

Three of the bills — in Indiana, Oklahoma and North Dakota — have failed to pass this year. And Georgia's H.B. 441, which would modify state law to allow women to be charged with homicide for receiving an abortion, appears poised to fail as well.

“We’re already past the crossover point where one bill has to pass one chamber to go to the other, and it didn’t get heard in committee,” Georgia state Sen. Sally Harrell (D) said.

She added that if the bill passed, it would likely interfere with IVF access in the state — a procedure Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Lt. Gov. Brian Jones and the Speaker of the state House, all Republicans, have expressed support for.

But while none of the legislation is likely to pass in the near future, the push to classify abortion as homicide also does not seem as if it will end any time soon. After Oklahoma’s S.B. 465 failed to pass the state Senate last month, an abortion abolitionist group hinted that lawmakers should expect to see a similar, if not identical, bill reintroduced in the future.

“We abolishioners will not rest until we have effected the abolishment of human abortion,” Alan Marcicle, part of the Abolitionist Society of Tulsa, told Oklahoma Voice.

Ziegler said the purpose of introducing and reintroducing these bills could be to build more support for granting fetal personhood and criminalizing abortion.

“This is more of long-term fight rather than something you’re going to see yield immediate results,” Ziegler said.

Медиа: image / jpeg

The Trump administration announced plans Thursday to get rid of roughly a quarter of staffers at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), prompting a flurry of warnings from Democrats, former officials and policy experts over the potential consequences for the health of Americans.

In a press release Thursday morning, the HHS said it would be reorganizing the department and cutting about 10,000 jobs in the process through layoffs. The department will seek to cut an additional 10,000 employees through buyouts, early retirement and the administration’s “Fork in the Road” offer.

Removing 20,000 employees from the 82,000 HHS workforce represents a reduction of about 24 percent.

In an email to the American Federation of Government Employees union seen by The Hill, a representative from the human resources office said the workforce reduction would primarily affect employees in “administrative positions including human resources, information technology, procurement, and finance.”

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. On social platform X, Kennedy acknowledged “this will be a painful period for HHS.”

Democratic lawmakers in both the House and Senate were swift in their condemnation of the announcement.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) held a press briefing Thursday afternoon along with fellow Democratic Sens. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) responding to the planned layoffs.

“Today's announcement is not just a restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services. It is a catastrophe for the health care of every American,” Markey said.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, and Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) called on Republicans to prevent the “devastating” cuts.

“It’s beyond time for Republicans in Congress to hold this Administration accountable for the consequences of these short-sighted actions. Republicans have a responsibility to help us stop these catastrophic cuts from going into effect,” they said in a joint statement.

“We call on Chairman [Brett] Guthrie [R-Ky.] to hold a hearing on these cuts immediately. There is zero sense in having a routine hearing on user fees next week before understanding the Trump administration’s plan to gut the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] by cutting 3,500 public servants.”

However, Guthrie and Buddy Carter (Ga.), chair of the Health subcommittee, welcomed the news in a joint statement.

“For decades, HHS and its sub-agencies have grown significantly, creating redundancies and—in some cases—conflicting objectives. It is critical that the department is in a position to accomplish its core and essential mission to support all Americans,” they said. “We look forward to working with Secretary Kennedy to protect patients, support innovations, and improve the health and wellbeing of the American people.”

Murray, who sits on the Senate Health Committee, called it a “great day for snake oil.”

“Do you know what Trump and RFK Jr. are doing about the measles outbreak? They are ripping away funding Congress already provided to respond to the outbreaks. They're stopping public health work in its tracks, even as this outbreak is threatening to spiral out of control. What are they doing about the opioid crisis or maternal death rates or bird flu for that matter? More cuts and don't forget mass firings,” Murray said.

Baldwin warned of the impact these mass firings would have on the U.S.’s research capability, recounting a recent meeting she had with the son of a man who has ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

“Dewey begged us to protect the lifesaving research being done at the NIH so his dad could see him walk across that stage and get his diploma,” Baldwin said. “I say this because when we talk about staffing cuts at our nation's health department, we aren't just talking about some imaginary person sitting around pushing papers. We are talking about people who support lifesaving research to find cures to ALS or Alzheimer's disease or cancer.”

Former Biden administration health officials also spoke out forcefully against the cuts.

“It’s hard to make sense of the HHS cuts announced this morning,” former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement on X. “Who’s going to inspect our nursing homes? Who’s going to inspect for lead those imported toys that our kids put in their mouths?”

“This has the makings of a manmade disaster,” he added. “Downgrading services for our elderly and our disabled, downgrading services for our mental health, downgrading our strategic preparedness and response capabilities – how can that be good for the health of any American?”

Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, former administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), cautioned that any cuts to health agencies should be done with “incredible care and consideration.”

“When you take a wrecking ball to an agency like CMS, you’re taking a wrecking ball to the people who are out across the country ensuring our parents and grandparents can get safe, affordable care as they age. You’re taking a wrecking ball to cancer patients who need a new, innovative treatment to be covered. You’re taking a wrecking ball to mothers and newborns who are both at the most critical points of their lives,” Brooks-LaSure said in a statement.

Tom Frieden, who served as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under former President Obama, wrote on X, “Infectious diseases don’t occur in a vacuum, and chronic diseases play critical roles in how infectious diseases spread and how to control them. That’s why CDC’s mission is protecting Americans from health threats of ALL kinds.”

“It’s hard for many people to see the importance of what CDC does because when it succeeds, there isn’t an outbreak. Your neighbor doesn’t overdose. Your cousin stops smoking or your child doesn’t start. Your grandmother doesn’t develop cancer,” Frieden wrote.

“Cuts to this work would put us all at greater risk.”

Health care organizations and policy think tanks recognized the potential benefits of an organizational review but were wary of the cuts.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the major health policy group KFF, said on X that this move was “not just a reorganization.”

“It's also a slashing of the federal workforce, which will ultimately affect government services and lead to delays in getting help for both the pubic and health care providers,” Levitt said.

“Large government agencies like HHS tend to sprawl over time, as offices and staff get added to respond to new priorities. There is a benefit to occasional reorganizations of HHS. But, this is also about big staff and program reductions,” he added.

“A lot of what HHS employees do is behind the scenes oversight, to prevent fraud and abuse and ensure health care programs provide the services promised. Reductions in the federal workforce could result in more wasteful spending down the road.”

Wayne A. I. Frederick, interim CEO of the American Cancer Society and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, acknowledged the Trump administration’s desire for improved efficiency but echoed calls for careful and considerate cuts.

He said the changes would “touch all points of the cancer continuum, from prevention to research, to treatment access and survivorship care, and could disrupt our nation’s ability to develop early detection tests and treatments for the more than 200 diseases we know as cancer.”

Stephen C. Jameson, president of the American Association of Immunologists, warned a major reduction at the HHS would endanger the U.S.’s dominance in biomedical research.

“Diminishing NIH’s workforce undermines America’s leadership in science and technology and will have negative consequences for the economy," Jameson said in a statement, adding that "every U.S. state benefits from NIH funding, which supported more than 400,000 jobs and generated close to $95 billion" in economic activity across the nation in fiscal 2024.

“This is not the time to decrease our support for research. As other countries ramp up investment, we risk falling behind.”

Медиа: image / jpeg