Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

No simple solution for paid leave issue

No simple solution for paid leave issue
Getty Images

Adkins is graduate student journalist for Medill on the Hill, a program of Northwestern University in which students serve as mobile journalists reporting on events in and around Washington, D.C.

On Wednesday, October 25th the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the need for guaranteed paid leave to better support American workers and families.


At the hearing, experts told a Senate committee that a federal mandate to provide paid leave could do more harm than good to employers and employees, alike.

“There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all policy that works for every business, or every industry,” said Elizabeth Milito, Senior Executive Counsel with the National Federation of Independent Business. Milito went on to say that the National Federation of Independent Business opposed leave requirements due to the cost and rigidity of a federal mandate.

“Flexibility is so important because parental leave for the birth of a new child is one thing that is relatively predictable,” she said. “But most leaves are not predictable, and you need access to those benefits quickly.”

Rachel Greszler, research fellow in economics at the conservative Heritage Foundation said her sister could not meet the demands of her paid leave application process when caring for her daughter undergoing cancer treatment. Personal discussion with her employer is how her family kept their jobs in an unpredictable time. Greszler also testified that if a federal regulation over paid leave would place a similar burden on the employee, it would prevent special circumstances like this.

Paid leave accessibility has increased in recent years with bipartisan support, but only for certain types of leave. The 2023 National Bureau of Labor Statistics report indicated paid sick leave was accessible to 86% of union workers and 77% of non-union workers, but family leave was only accessible to 23% of union workers and 27% non-union workers.

“Imposing a one-size-fits-all paid leave program could actually limit employers’ ability to offer paid leave policies that meet the unique needs of their workforce, or significantly diminish existing employee-provided paid leave altogether,” said Sen. Mike Crapo.

As of this year, 13 states have mandated paid family and medical leave, plus the District of Columbia. In the state of Oregon, there is a policy that allows for 16 total weeks of leave where 12 of those weeks can be paid, for reasons such as family leave for a newborn child, medical leave, funeral leave, sick leave or safe leave for domestic abuse. This is an extension of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, which only requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave.

For farmer and small business owner, Ben Verhoeven, Oregon’s policy is helping him save money and increase retention. Oregon’s program is funded with taxes collected per paycheck, from both employers and employees. “Paid family leave costs me less per year than truck repairs, and has a much greater effect on the lives of the people I work with,” said Verhoeven.

While this works for his business, those that want to pursue their own paid leave program must file a $250 application fee and await approval to opt-out. Other state policies, such as New Hampshire’s, require employers to opt-in, instead.

“The issue of flexibility that’s indisputable,” said committee chair Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR. “We want to recognize that different parts of the country are different.”

Both Wyden and Senator Mike Crapo, R-ID, said for any federal policy to work well, it would have to provide flexibility for different types of businesses and different types of leave.

“Let’s continue this conversation and find a path to the action of actually making things happen on our watch,” said Wyden.

A testimony is delivered about a cancer patient’s lack of support during paid leave requests for treatment, by Rachel Greszler, Senior Research Fellow, Budget And Entitlements, Grover M. Hermann Center For The Federal Budget The Heritage Foundation. (Kelly Adkins/MEDILL NEWS SERVICE)

Read More

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Summary

On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.

Background: What Is ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.

Keep ReadingShow less
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Way into future, RPA Airmen participate in Red Flag 16-2 > Creech ...

MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border

FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.

Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.

Getty Images, ablokhin

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.

Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less