Ted Lasso cast members Jason Sudeikis, Hannah Waddingham, Brett Goldstein, and Brendan Hunt joined the White House Press Briefing with Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre earlier this week to talk about the importance of mental health and encouraging people to check in with their friends, family, co-workers and others to help support and take care of each other.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Latest news
Read More
Category 4 Major Hurricane Helene approaching the Big Bend of Florida. At the same time the Pacific Category 3 Hurricane John making landfall on southwestern Mexico.
Getty Images, FrankRamspott
Thoughts on Gathering Storms
Jun 06, 2025
The North American hurricane season runs from June 1 through November 30. The season, therefore, is hard upon us, even as the federal government is not prepared for what it may bring.
For the past 45 years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has been responsible for planning and providing national emergency relief to areas in the path of or affected by catastrophic storms the season often brings. The National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), both of which are embedded in FEMA, provide critical information that FEMA used in its storm preparation process.
By now, the necessary planning and deployment of emergency equipment should have been well underway. But it isn’t.
President Trump has repeatedly stated that he intends to eliminate FEMA in its entirety. He is serious. Indeed, acting FEMA administrator Cameron Hamilton was recently fired after he told a Congressional committee that he did not believe that FEMA should be eliminated. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees FEMA, has also vowed to eliminate the agency. Accordingly, she recently told lawmakers at a Capitol Hill hearing, “There is no formalized plan” for how FEMA will handle future disasters.
An internal FEMA document prepared at the direction of Acting FEMA Director David Richardson, a Marine combat veteran and martial arts instructor with no prior experience in the kind of disaster preparation that FEMA provides, says that “the intent for this hurricane season is not well understood” and “[t]hus FEMA is not ready.” Unlike the slash-and-burn approach used by DOGE to uproot undesired components of the Federal government, it appears that the plan for FEMA is simply to let it wither away.
The assault on FEMA appears to have begun with the authors of Project 2025 who manifested unhappiness with the National Flood Insurance Program that FEMA manages. In their view, FEMA provides flood insurance “at prices lower than the actual actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance.” That “subsidy,” in turn, “only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both [the flood insurance program] and the taxpayer.”
But the flood insurance program has been in existence since 1968 when Congress created it to provide affordable insurance for those who live in areas of danger from storm-created floods. Eleven years later, at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, Congress created FEMA and thus broadened the range of available Federal disaster assistance.
Beyond that, the idea that individuals and businesses are going to build houses and employment centers in the middle of a flood zone is preposterous, assuming, as it does, risk taking of near suicidal proportions. Moreover, the authors’ approach completely overlooks the structures, housing, and others, that were built in areas that became flood zones because of environmental changes that occurred after the structures were built.
The current assault on FEMA is particularly harmful when viewed against the backdrop of last year’s storms. Hurricane Beryl, which lasted from June 28th to July 11, contained maximum sustained winds of more than 160 miles per hour, produced severe flooding across Southeast Texas and damages of $7.2 billion. Later that year, Hurricane Milton, with sustained winds of 120 miles per hour, landed in Florida with 18 inches of rainfall, 10 feet of storm surge, and spawned more than 40 tornadoes. Those hurricanes and last year’s other tropical storms produced economic losses of approximately $500 billion.
Federal help with local disasters like those has existed since 1803 when Congress provided economic assistance to Portsmouth, New Hampshire merchants who had been devastated by a fire that sprang up in their midst. Thereafter, the federal government frequently aided regions and communities that had been affected by hurricanes, floods, and other calamities.
Since its creation, FEMA has been the principal federal agency responsible for dealing with natural disasters of all kinds. It provides temporary shelters for those displaced by floods and other storms, assists with cleanup and recovery after storms have occurred, and assists in preparation for storms that have yet to occur. It is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program which, as the name suggests, provides insurance available to those in areas of danger from storm-created floods.
It is conceivable that a case can be made for dramatically reframing the services provided by FEMA or for replacing FEMA with a completely different form of disaster readiness. It is even conceivable, though highly doubtful, that disaster relief should be left to the states. But it is simply not acceptable to decide, as the President and his cohorts apparently have, that, without warning and as the hurricane season begins, everyone is essentially on their own.
That result, like many of the sudden firings and grant terminations in which this administration has engaged, is simply a cruel and shameful exercise of power. And it falls well beneath the values and motivations we have the right to expect from the leaders of this great Nation and the obligation they have had since the Nation’s founding to “provide for the general Welfare.”
James F. McHugh is a retired Massachusetts Appeals Court justice, a former board member, and a current volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Elementary students raising their hands to answer the teacher's question in a class in the robotics mechanical and electric classroom.
Getty Images, Cravetiger
AI Is a Weapon Pointed at America. Our Best Defense Is Education.
Jun 06, 2025
Foreign adversaries are already deploying artificial intelligence as a weapon against America, not just on distant battlefields, but within our social media feeds, news sources, and critical infrastructure. AI-powered disinformation campaigns designed to sow chaos and division, sophisticated cyber attacks – these are no longer future hypotheticals; they are clear and present dangers. America's most significant vulnerability in this new era isn't necessarily a lack of technology but a lack of understanding among our own citizens. An unprepared public is fertile ground for manipulation and a weak link in our national defense. To secure our future, we must urgently equip Americans with the knowledge to navigate an AI-shaped world.
This isn't just about recognizing deepfakes. National resilience requires citizens who understand the basics of how algorithms shape their information environment and can think critically about AI's influence. Furthermore, our national security apparatus itself desperately needs more AI-savvy personnel. The Department of Defense faces alarming shortages in its cyber and tech workforce – tens of thousands of critical positions remain vacant – hindering our ability to develop, deploy, and defend against AI capabilities. Simultaneously, our economic edge depends on fostering widespread innovation and adoption of AI, which is bottlenecked by a lack of skilled workers across industries. Simply put, AI literacy is now a cornerstone of both national defense and economic competitiveness.
Recent government efforts, including presidential executive orders focused on AI education, rightly acknowledge this challenge. They propose task forces, grant programs, and public-private partnerships – important signals, but ultimately insufficient. These initiatives largely rely on existing educational structures that are already strained and lack widespread AI expertise. Expecting overburdened K-12 teachers to suddenly become AI experts through optional workshops is unrealistic. We need direct intervention and sustained, expert support in classrooms nationwide, not just top-down directives filtered through slow-moving bureaucracies.
The urgency is magnified by the global race for AI dominance. Competitors like China are not waiting. They are implementing mandatory K-12 AI education, investing massively in talent development, and rapidly closing the gap. China now produces a huge share of the world's top AI researchers, and increasingly, that talent stays home. While America still attracts brilliant minds from abroad, relying on that while our own educational pipeline lags is complacent and dangerous. In the strategic competition over AI, ceding the educational foundation means ceding future leadership.
The solution must match the scale of the problem: America needs a national AI Education Corps.
This initiative would mobilize AI expertise – recruiting talented recent graduates, researchers, and industry professionals – and deploy them directly into K-12 school districts. Think of it like Teach For America but focused specifically on building AI understanding. Corps members would partner with local educators, providing intensive training, customized curriculum support, and ongoing virtual mentorship throughout the school year.
The focus would be foundational and adaptable, not just teaching students how to use today’s AI tools but fostering a deeper understanding of core AI principles, data literacy, algorithmic thinking, and ethical considerations. The goal is to create critical thinkers and adaptable learners prepared for AI’s inevitable evolution, empowering them to both defend against its misuse and contribute to its responsible development. This would be a collaborative effort, tailored to the diverse needs of local schools, not a one-size-fits-all federal mandate.
Creating such a Corps requires real investment, but the cost pales in comparison to the price of inaction – compromised national security, lost economic advantage, and a citizenry vulnerable to manipulation. Public-private partnerships can leverage corporate expertise and resources alongside federal support. Attractive incentives, from loan forgiveness to career opportunities, can mobilize the necessary talent. This isn't about building bureaucracy; it's about efficiently deploying vital expertise where it's needed most.
The AI transformation is happening now. Relying on slow, incremental changes to our education system is a recipe for falling behind. An AI Education Corps offers a bold, concrete path to rapidly build the widespread AI literacy that our national security and economic future demand. It’s an investment in our people, our resilience, and America’s continued leadership. It’s time to build it.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Keep ReadingShow less
A patient with a medical professional.
Getty Images, Halfpoint Images
Will Medicaid Cuts in the GOP Budget Hurt Millions of Americans?
Jun 05, 2025
Republican Senator Joni Ernst recently faced an unexpectedly hostile audience at a town hall in Iowa, where her constituents jeered as she defended the GOP’s proposed cuts to Medicaid—a program providing healthcare to 71 million low-income Americans, nearly 20% of the population.
Ernst attempted to defend the Medicaid cuts contained in what President Donald Trump has dubbed his “big, beautiful bill.” The cuts have been estimated by independent experts to slice about $880 billion over 10 years from Medicaid. The bill, she insists, will not cut anything from truly deserving Americans, it will only cut waste and fraud because there are millions receiving Medicaid benefits who are not really eligible, such as illegal immigrants, or who are otherwise undeserving.
Trump, who previously vowed never to cut Medicaid, echoed this rationale. “We’re not doing any cutting of anything meaningful,” he says. “The only thing we’re cutting is waste, fraud and abuse…We’re not changing Medicaid.” Indeed, he says, the GOP bill would “kick millions of Illegal Aliens off of Medicaid to PROTECT it for those who are the ones in real need.”
Reducing waste and fraud is undeniably important, but does this bill really do that? GOP Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, in an interview with CBS News right after the bill’s passage, attempted to explain how this legislation would crack down on waste and fraud.
“You’ve got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system,” Johnson claimed. “If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You’re cheating the system.” For this reason, the GOP bill has included a much more stringent work requirement requiring adult Medicaid recipients to prove they are working or participating in community service for at least 80 hours per month.
While incentivizing work may be appropriate in some cases, nonpartisan analyses challenge the notion that widespread fraud exists. According to Census figures, 44% of Medicaid recipients worked full time in 2023 and 20% worked part time. An additional 12% were not working because they were taking care of family at home, 10% were ill or disabled, 6% were students, and 4% were retired. Of the remaining 4%, half couldn’t find work and the remaining 2% didn’t give a reason.
So with nearly two-thirds of recipients already working, and another 22% trying to cope with family challenges or unable to work due to disability or illness, is it more important that the 6% of low-income students on Medicaid work at low-paying jobs instead of getting an education or training? Should the 4% of poor and elderly people who are retired be forced to go back to work?
Trump's rhetoric targeting “illegal aliens” also misrepresents the facts. Non-citizens account for just 0.5 to 1% of total Medicaid spending, largely because undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid, except for emergency services.
The numbers simply don’t add up here.
According to independent analyses from the Congressional Budget Office and other sources, the proposed Medicaid cuts will cause almost 10 million people to lose healthcare coverage. Those most affected will be some of the most vulnerable Americans, including: nearly 4 in 10 children, over 8 in 10 children in poverty, about half of adults in poverty, 1 in 4 adults with disabilities, half of children with special healthcare needs, and five out of eight nursing home residents.
These cuts will also place a financial strain on hospitals, especially in rural areas, due to reduced Medicaid revenue and less reimbursement for care costs. Medicaid recipients are already subject to strict income caps, which vary by state, and the caps are often so low that recipients can’t earn sufficient income to live. So in effect, Republicans are ordering Medicaid recipients to work, but apparently not for too much money—or else they will become ineligible for Medicaid. Catch 22.
Medicaid cuts to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?
While Trump’s bill seeks to cut nearly $1 billion in Medicaid benefits from the ranks of the neediest Americans, in the same “big beautiful bill,” they engineered a whopping $4 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
- Individuals making over $1 million per year will benefit from about $90,000 in tax cuts.
- Low- to middle-income Americans will receive only $90 to $1290 in tax cuts.
- The total $105 billion tax cut going to the 1.2 million households making over $1 million exceeds the total cut going to the 127 million households making under $100,000.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where Republican leadership hopes to pass it before the July 4th holiday. But opposition is building across the country, as Senator Ernst discovered during her town hall meeting. That opposition is even emerging among Senate Republicans, especially from rural states, who have expressed concerns about the impacts that Medicaid cuts will have on their own states.
Missouri’s Senator Josh Hawley has emerged as a strong critic. “Over 20 percent of Missourians, including hundreds of thousands of children, are on Medicaid,” says Hawley. “They’re not on Medicaid because they want to be. They’re on Medicaid because they cannot afford health insurance in the private market.”
GOP Senators Susan Collins from Maine, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Jerry Moran from Kansas, and several others have also raised strong objections. Other Republican Senators such as Rand Paul from Kentucky have objected to the enormous tax cuts that will add an estimated $2 trillion to the national debt. Conservative economist Oren Cass has questioned the much-hyped rationale for tax cuts, namely that in the past they have resulted in “record economic growth.”
“That’s not true,” says Cass, who was once the policy director for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. About the Trump tax cut in 2017, Cass says, “The two-year stretch that followed its passage saw slower growth than any other two-year period of the economic expansions in the 1990s and 2000s—not the kind of record anyone should be boasting about.”
Senator Hawley has been even more blunt about paying for tax cuts with Medicaid cuts, saying it amounts to “taxing the poor to give to the rich.” This combo, he says, is “morally wrong and politically suicidal.”
At the Iowa town hall with Senator Ernst, one upset constituent called out, "People are going to die!" from Medicaid cuts. Senator Ernst smirked and smiled, "Well, we all are going to die," she said as the audience jeered. Americans appear to be starting to see through the excuses that the president and Republican leaders are peddling. No matter how much lipstick they try to put on this pig, President Trump’s attempt to pay for tax cuts with an unprecedented level of Medicaid cuts will have the effect of making the rich richer at the expense of the poor.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
Written in the sand the date of the landing of Normandy on the same beach where the troops landed on D-day.
Getty Images, Carmen Martínez Torrón
D-Day Proclamation Day: Honoring Sacrifice, Reflecting on History
Jun 05, 2025
June 6 marks D-Day Proclamation Day, a time to solemnly commemorate the historic landings in Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944. On this day, we honor the extraordinary bravery and sacrifices of the Allied forces, whose decisive actions helped liberate Europe and turn the tide of World War II.
D-Day was a pivotal moment in history—the beginning of the Allied effort to reclaim Western Europe from Nazi control. Over 156,000 troops from the United States, Britain, Canada, and other nations stormed the beaches of Normandy in Operation Overlord, an unprecedented amphibious assault that ultimately shaped the course of the war. Though the battle came at a great cost, it remains a lasting symbol of courage, resilience, and the fight for freedom.
In 2019, the 75th anniversary of D-Day was officially recognized with a National Day of Remembrance, reinforcing the enduring significance of this historic operation. More than 80 years later, we continue to reflect on its lessons—particularly the power of strong alliances in confronting threats to democracy.
Echoes of History: Global Challenges Then and Now
As we remember D-Day, we must also recognize its relevance to the present. In 1941, America was still recovering from the Great Depression, and many questioned whether the war in Europe was our fight. Yet as Nazi Germany expanded its reach and Japan launched its infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, public sentiment shifted, and the U.S. entered World War II—a decision that changed the trajectory of history.
Today, historians and analysts draw comparisons between the geopolitical tensions of WWII and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some view Putin’s annexation of Ukrainian territories as an unsettling echo of Hitler’s expansionist moves in Czechoslovakia and Poland, while others warn of the dangers of appeasement. The lesson remains clear: failing to confront aggression early on can lead to larger conflicts with devastating consequences.
The role of the United States is again being scrutinized, just as it was in the years leading up to WWII. While early hesitation characterized U.S. involvement, history proves that American leadership was decisive in securing victory. Many argue that America’s support for Ukraine is similarly vital—both to safeguard European stability and to deter future aggression.
A Reflection on Leadership and Isolationism
Throughout history, political leaders have grappled with the balance between global engagement and national interests. In today’s America, this debate continues as discussions about U.S. involvement in Ukraine remain divisive. While some advocate for increased military and economic support, others echo the isolationist stance that was prevalent before WWII, prioritizing domestic concerns over foreign intervention.
President Donald Trump has frequently expressed frustration with the ongoing conflict, downplaying Ukraine’s sovereignty in favor of reducing U.S. involvement. His insistence that the war must end quickly—regardless of battlefield conditions—has raised concerns among American allies, who fear that such an approach could undermine Ukraine’s long-term security and embolden Russian aggression. Critics liken this stance to pre-WWII isolationism, when some in the U.S. resisted engagement in global conflicts, failing to recognize the growing threats to democracy and freedom.
Honoring D-Day: A Call for Unity and Reflection
The legacy of D-Day extends beyond the battlefield. It is a powerful reminder that democracy prevails when nations stand together. As we commemorate D-Day Proclamation Day, we honor the thousands who gave their lives to defend freedom, recognizing that their sacrifices shaped the world we live in today.
In a time of deep political and social divisions, reflecting on the bravery and unity of those who fought on June 6, 1944, serves as common ground that transcends differences. Observing D-Day is not just about remembering history—it’s about applying its lessons to the challenges we face now.
Let this solemn day remind us that democracy triumphs over tyranny, that alliances matter, and that securing a just future requires vigilance, sacrifice, and unwavering commitment. As we honor those who gave everything for a better world, may we also reaffirm the values they fought to uphold.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More