Blog

  • Audio of interview confirms Biden memory lapses

    Audio of interview confirms Biden memory lapses


    Newly released audio of a special counsel interviewing then-President joe Biden confirms memory lapses that White House officials denied at the time, including a president clearly struggling to remember the year his oldest son died.

    Even after the transcript was released, Biden aides, including then-White House spokesman Ian Sams, insisted that the president did not forget the year that his son Beau died of brain cancer. The audio shows that Biden struggled to remember the year and had to be prompted by his lawyers, who were sitting in the interview with him.

    The recording of the interview was first released by Axios.

    Sams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The audio of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur is likely to fuel a growing debate among Democrats and others about whether there was a concerted effort to cover up the president’s diminished mental capacity, as well as whether that contributed to the party’s 2024 defeat at the polls. It also comes as several new books offer insight into what many behind the scenes knew.

    Biden sat for more than five hours of interviews over two days in October 2023 as part of Hur’s investigation into Biden’s retention of classified documents at his home and office from his time as vice president. Hur later cited interviews in which he described Biden as an “elderly man with a poor memory” in his final report at the end of his investigation.

    Donald Trump and his Republican allies seized on Hur’s description of Biden and demanded the audio of his interviews be released.

    Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland released the transcript of Biden’s interviews, but not the audio. Garland said at the time that the audio was covered by executive privilege, and the White House did not want it released.

    Republicans held Garland in contempt of Congress over his refusal to turn over the audio.

    News organizations, including NBC News, filed a lawsuit seeking any recordings of Biden’s interviews, and the issue was not resolved before Biden left office.

    About a month after Trump took office, the Justice Department asked the court for more time to consider the issue because the new administration’s “leadership is still in the process of being installed” in the department, according to a court filing.

    The judge agreed to an extension and ordered Justice Department attorneys to file an update on the status of the case by May 20.

    Former special counsel Robert K. Hur testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on March 12, 2024.
    Former special counsel Robert K. Hur testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on March 12, 2024.Win McNamee / Getty Images file

    Hur, who was tapped by Garland to conduct a criminal investigation after classified documents were found in Biden’s home and office, concluded there was evidence that Biden willfully retained classified information — a felony. But Hur said he did not believe he could win a conviction, in part because of Biden’s faltering memory.

    “We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” Hur wrote in his report.

    Biden’s lawyers at the time aggressively pushed back on that description, arguing that he performed well in a difficult interview and suffered the same sorts of memory lapses that witnesses often do. Biden’s aides and senior Democrats excoriated Hur for including such a description in a report where no charges were brought.

    Months later, Hur’s assessment of Biden was validated by his disastrous performance during a debate with Trump. Biden struggled to complete thoughts and sentences throughout the debate, which led to his exit from the 2024 race weeks later.



    Source link

  • Brock Purdy’s contract has a true average from signing of $45 million per year

    Brock Purdy’s contract has a true average from signing of $45 million per year



    The contract song remains the same.

    The agent supplies a number that puts the deal in the best possible light, with the biggest possible numbers. Reality arrives later.

    For 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy, his new contract — leaked at 5:00 p.m. ET on a Friday, where bad news usually goes to die — has a best-case number of $265 million over five years. That’s a new-money average of $53 million per year, tying him for seventh with Lions quarterback Jared Goff.

    But it’s not a five-year extension that kicks in come 2026. His remaining contract, with $5.346 million in salary for 2025, gets torn up and replaced with a six-year, $279.346 million contract. That’s a per-year average from signing of $45.057 million.

    Which seems more than fair for a middle-of-the-pack quarterback. And it’s OK to call him that. He’s not among the top five. It’s a stretch to put him in the top 10. For the last pick in the 2022 draft, there’s no shame in being roughly the 16th best quarterback in the entire NFL.

    In time, we’ll know much more about the true value of the deal. The key factors are these: (1) signing bonus; (2) full guarantee at signing; and (3) cash flow over the first three years.

    The structure of the deal also will show whether the 49ers are tied to the contract for one, two, or three years. (Teams rarely commit fully to more than three years of any non-rookie contract — except for the Browns.)

    The whole truth will emerge, in time. And the general rule of thumb in these matters is that, the longer it takes, the less convenient the truth will be.





    Source link

  • Ohio Republicans introduce ‘Natural Family Month’ bill, excluding LGBTQ families

    Ohio Republicans introduce ‘Natural Family Month’ bill, excluding LGBTQ families



    More than two dozen Ohio lawmakers are supporting a bill that would designate the weeks between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day “Natural Family Month.”

    Though the bill, introduced by Republican state Reps. Josh Williams and Beth Lear, doesn’t define “natural family” in its text, critics say it is intended to exclude LGBTQ families and promote marriage and childrearing between heterosexual, monogamous couples only.

    When asked whether “Natural Family Month” will also recognize gay couples and parents with adopted children, Williams said in an emailed statement to NBC News that “the purpose of the month is to promote natural families—meaning a man, a woman, and their children—as a way to encourage higher birth rates.” 

    He added, “This is not about discriminating against other family structures, but about supporting the one most directly tied to the creation and raising of children.”

    Lear did not return a request for comment. 

    After introducing the bill earlier this week, Williams and Lear said in joint statements that the initiative is intended to promote child rearing. 

    “At a time when marriage is trending downward and young couples are often choosing to remain childless, it’s important for the State of Ohio to make a statement that marriage and families are the cornerstone of civil society, and absolutely imperative if we want to maintain a healthy and stable Republic,” Lear said. 

    As of Friday, the bill had 26 additional Republican co-sponsors.

    Dwayne Steward, the director of statewide LGBTQ advocacy group Equality Ohio, told a local queer news site that the bill is both bad policy and a “calculated act of strategic erasure.” 

    “It not only invalidates the existence of single parents and countless other caregivers, but it takes direct aim at LGBTQ+ families across our state,” Steward told the Buckeye Flame. “The so-called ‘Natural Family Foundation,’ the group pushing this legislation, has made their ideology clear: if you’re not a heterosexual, monogamous couple with children, you don’t count as a family at all.” 

    Steward, who did not immediately return NBC News’ request for comment, added, “As an adoptive parent, myself, I feel this erasure personally. This bill is not just offensive; it’s dangerous.”

    Several local news websites, including the Buckeye Flame, reported that the Natural Family Foundation, a conservative advocacy group that is against same-sex marriage and promotes families with a “clear male leader,” was involved in lobbying for the bill. The foundation did not immediately return a request for comment. 

    Last year, Ohio considered eight bills targeting LGBTQ people, according to a tally by the American Civil Liberties Union. Two of those — a provision that requires school personnel to notify parents of “any request by a student to identify as a gender that does not align with the student’s” birth sex, and a measure that prohibits certain transition-related medical care for minors — became law. 



    Source link

  • Publix recalls baby food pouches over potential lead contamination

    Publix recalls baby food pouches over potential lead contamination



    Publix, a national supermarket chain, is voluntarily recalling baby food that could be contaminated with lead, the company announced this week.  

    The company said it discovered the problem through routine testing and has pulled its GreenWise Pear, Kiwi, Spinach & Pea Baby Food pouches from its shelves, according to a news release, which said there were “no reported cases of illness” related to the product. 

    It’s the second recall of baby food for potential lead contamination in recent weeks — and in both cases, the Food and Drug Administration didn’t issue its own news release to warn the public, which safety experts and advocates said surprised them.   

    The FDA did not explain why it hadn’t issued a news release for the Publix recall or Target’s voluntary recall in March of its Good & Gather Baby Pea, Zucchini, Kale & Thyme Vegetable baby food puree. In that case, the FDA posted details about the recall in the agency’s public recall-monitoring database. 

    “The FDA is committed to ensuring that all necessary information regarding product recalls is promptly communicated to protect public health,” the agency said in a statement. 

    Publix did not respond to a request for comment. Target said that its Good & Gather recall “involved a limited amount of product, which we took immediate action to remove from our shelves.” 

    The recalls come amid heightened concern about contaminated baby food, following the 2023 recall of apple cinnamon puree pouches for children that had elevated levels of lead. And they’re also occurring as the Trump administration pledges to make baby food safer through increased testing, though some safety advocates say those promises are undermined by the deep staffing and funding cuts to federal health agencies. 

    Do you have a news tip you’d like to share about food safety or outbreaks of foodborne illness? You can message Suzy Khimm on Signal: SuzyKhimm.42 or contact NBC News securely here.

    The FDA does not issue news releases for all food recalls, but it generally does so in cases where it determines there is a serious risk to public health, food safety experts and advocates said. Last year, the FDA issued news releases for multiple recalls of lead-contaminated cinnamon.  

    Sarah Sorscher, director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group, said it was “concerning” that the FDA had chosen not to publicize the two recent recalls, given the serious health risk that lead poses to babies and young children, including brain damage, slower development and behavioral problems.  

    “There is no safe level of lead,” Sorscher noted. The FDA amplifying a recall can help reach more consumers, she added, especially for products like baby food that can have a long shelf life. “It increases the attention that stores and consumers give it, so that it’s more likely to be pulled off the shelf,” she said.  

    Lead contamination can happen during the manufacturing process, but it can also occur through contaminated soil used to grow produce.  

    In January, in the final weeks of the Biden administration, the FDA created a maximum level for lead in baby food for the first time. Though the standard is voluntary, it has helped push baby food companies to conduct more testing and initiate recalls, food safety experts and advocates said.   

    “Industry is taking that guidance to heart and being more proactive,” said Jennifer van de Ligt, a baby food expert who was among the FDA scientists laid off in recent weeks. “If that guidance stays in place, it should put pressure on industry to comply.”  

    The Trump administration has launched a high-profile effort to make infant formula and baby food safer under Operation Stork Speed. The administration said in March that the program would include “increasing testing for heavy metals and other contaminants in infant formula and other foods children consume.“ 

    The FDA has not provided details about this increased testing and, when asked this week, instead pointed to its new effort to review nutrients in baby formula. Meanwhile, food safety advocates and former agency staff members have raised concerns about the impact of the Trump administration’s mass layoffs on food safety issues like lead contamination. 

    In April, the agency shuttered a federal laboratory that specialized in testing food for lead and other heavy metals and terminated its staff members, only to backtrack weeks later. The FDA also stalled in publicizing food safety warnings after terminating communications and public records staff, sources said. 

    The administration additionally fired federal experts for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who worked to prevent lead poisoning in children and proposed eliminating the lead poisoning prevention program in a leaked budget draft. In a statement, a CDC spokesperson said the agency reorganization plans were being finalized but that “the work of this program will continue.” 

    Sorscher argued that there was a contradiction between the administration’s stated support for baby food safety and many of its actions. “There is what they’re saying they want to do to clean up the food supply, and what they’re actually doing,” she said. 



    Source link

  • Speaker Mike Johnson’s bluff-calling strategy reaches its limit: From the Politics Desk

    Speaker Mike Johnson’s bluff-calling strategy reaches its limit: From the Politics Desk



    Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

    In today’s edition, Sahil Kapur explains how a failed committee vote revealed the limitations of Speaker Mike Johnson’s tactics for dealing with the hard-right rebels in his conference. Plus, we have a sneak peek of Kristen Welker’s “Meet the Press” interview with former Vice President Mike Pence. And Gary Grumbach answer’s this week’s reader question on President Donald Trump’s efforts to defund public media. 

    Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

    — Adam Wollner


    Speaker Johnson’s bluff-calling strategy reaches its limit

    By Sahil Kapur

    House Speaker Mike Johnson’s run of (relative) smooth sailing came to an abrupt end Friday when he faced his first tangible setback on a massive party-line bill for President Donald Trump’s agenda — a failed vote in the House Budget Committee.

    Until now, Johnson had been successful at steering the plan through the narrowly divided House. There was the original budget framework that the House adopted in February, followed by the Senate-approved blueprint that the lower chamber passed in April, despite strong reservations from the hard-liners in Johnson’s conference. That allowed the House to actually begin drafting the specifics of the legislation. And this week, Johnson and his leadership team managed to get 11 House committees to approve their portions of the broader package.

    The legislation was then sent to the Budget Committee, on the assumption that some revisions would be still needed to send it to the full chamber next week ahead of Johnson’s Memorial Day Weekend deadline. 

    Throughout the process, Johnson often called bluff on the persistent gripes of a group of far-right spending hawks, forcing them to take votes and assuming they would not be willing to stand in the way of Trump’s agenda. It’s a strategy that proved successful time and again. 

    But on Friday, four conservatives on the Budget Committee had enough, following through on their pledge to block the measure from reaching the House floor. They slammed the bill for using budget gimmicks to trigger its benefits right away and postpone its painful cuts for years. And they noted that the multitrillion-dollar package would blow up the national debt.  

    Now comes the moment of truth. And the limits of the slim House Republican majority, where the party has just three votes to spare, are about to test Johnson’s prowess like never before. 

    The hard-liners are demanding that the spending cuts to Medicaid, clean energy funding and other programs take effect sooner. That means imposing political pain on vulnerable GOP lawmakers ahead of the next presidential election — perhaps even before the 2026 midterms — and putting swing districts at risk.

    But if Johnson fails to meet their demands, are the hard-liners willing to sink the bill entirely? Or was their vote Friday more of a symbolic protest to gain negotiating leverage? Surely, they’ll be hearing from Trump if they persist. (Before Friday’s committee vote, Trump called out GOP “GRANDSTANDERS” on Truth Social.)

    The speaker is also feeling the squeeze from another corner of the conference. At least four New York Republicans are threatening to bring down the entire bill on the House floor unless party leaders expand the state and local tax (SALT) deduction that the current legislation sets at $30,000. That demand has caused consternation among other Republicans, who largely represent districts where SALT isn’t heavily used.

    And even if Johnson steers the package through the chamber, Senate Republicans have already put the House on notice that the legislation won’t pass the upper chamber without major changes.

    Up next: The House Budget Committee is set to reconvene Sunday at 10 p.m. ET to vote again on the bill.


    Pence says it’s a ‘bad idea’ for Trump to accept a Qatari jet for use as Air Force One

    By Bridget Bowman

    Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that President Donald Trump should not accept a luxury jet from Qatar to use as the next Air Force One, telling NBC News’ “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker that the move would raise security and constitutional concerns.  

    “First we’ve got to remember who Qatar is. We’ve got a military base there. I have members of our immediate family that have deployed to the region,” said Pence.

    “But Qatar has a long history of playing both sides,” Pence said in the exclusive interview at his home in Indiana. “They support Hamas. They supported Al Qaeda. Qatar has actually financed pro-Hamas protests on American campuses across the United States.”

    Pence added that accepting the plane as the next Air Force One “is inconsistent with our security, with our intelligence needs. And my hope is the president reconsiders it.”

    Pence added that there are “very real constitutional issues,” noting the part of the Constitution that bars public officials from accepting gifts from a foreign government. 

    “I think it’s just a bad idea, and my hope is the president will think better of it,” Pence said.

    Watch the clip here →

    And check out the full interview with Pence on “Meet the Press” this Sunday.


    ✉️ Mailbag: Trump vs. Congress (and the courts)

    Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week’s question comes from Polly Moore:

    “How can Trump defund programs established by Congress, such as public TV and National Public Radio?” 

    To answer that, we turned to legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach. Here’s his response: 

    President Donald Trump has been attempting to defund programs established by Congress, but he’s hitting roadblocks almost every time. Because here’s the thing — there are legal ways to defund programs established by Congress.  

    It happens every year when the budget process gets underway, with input from both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress. But Congress, by law, has to be involved in that process. It’s when they’re not, and when a program is stripped down beyond its congressionally mandated levels, that we start seeing legal action being taken. 

    And that legal action has been fast and furious. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have all sued over the Trump administration’s attempts to defund or dismantle their organizations that were created and funded by congressional appropriations.  

    But it hasn’t been an easy road. As it stands today, an appeals court has temporarily blocked a lower court’s order that would have restarted funding and brought back employees of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, while appeals are underway.



    🗞️ Today’s top stories

    • ⚖️ SCOTUS watch: The Supreme Court dealt a blow against the Trump administration’s attempt to send Venezuelans it says are gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador, saying the detainees must have a proper chance to raise legal objections. Read more →
    • ✈️ Foreign trip recap: Trump is returning to Washington after a diplomatic tour of the Middle East, where he pitched American business and secured investment pledges but failed to reach long-promised peace deals in Gaza and Ukraine. Read more →
    • 🤝 Deal or no deal: Trump told reporters on Air Force One before his flight back to the U.S. that his special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, has submitted a formal proposal for a nuclear deal with Iran. Read more →
    • 🤝 Deal or no deal, cont.: Russia and Ukraine sat down to hold their first direct peace talks since the early months of the war, agreeing to a deal to swap 1,000 prisoners each. Read more →
    • 👀 Comey re-enters the chat: The Department of Homeland Security and Secret Service are investigating a social media post by former FBI Director James Comey that several U.S. officials interpreted as calling for Trump’s assassination. Read more →
    • ⛴️ Tariff impact: Businesses have begun ramping up shipments to the U.S. from China after Trump paused some of his tariffs on imports from that country, creating a surge in demand that could lead to supply chain bottlenecks in the coming months. Read more →
    • 🔵 Garden (State) party: The New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial primary is hitting it’s final stretch, with Rep. Mikie Sherrill seen as the front-runner. Read more →
    • 🔴 Clearing the way: Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost suspended his campaign for governor one week after the state Republican Party followed Trump’s lead in endorsing Vivek Ramaswamy. Read more →
    • 🗳️ 2028 watch: California Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking a tougher stance on homelessness ahead of a potential bid for president. Read more →
    • Follow live politics updates →

    That’s all From the Politics Desk for now. Today’s newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Ben Kamisar.

    If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at [email protected]

    And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.





    Source link

  • Mike Pence says it is a ‘bad idea’ for Trump to accept a Qatari jet for use as Air Force One

    Mike Pence says it is a ‘bad idea’ for Trump to accept a Qatari jet for use as Air Force One



    Former Vice President Mike Pence said Friday that President Donald Trump should not accept a luxury jet from Qatar to use as the next Air Force One, telling NBC News’ “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker that the move would raise security and constitutional concerns.

    The Trump administration plans to accept the Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the Qatari royal family to be used as a new Air Force One for Trump’s travel, with the plane then slated to be transferred to Trump’s presidential library after he leaves office. The plan to accept the jet has drawn criticism, including from some of Trump’s GOP allies.

    “First we’ve got to remember who Qatar is. We’ve got a military base there. I have members of our immediate family that have deployed to the region,” said Pence, who served as Trump’s vice president during his first term.

    “But Qatar has a long history of playing both sides,” Pence said in the exclusive interview at his home in Indiana. “They support Hamas. They supported Al Qaeda. Qatar has actually financed pro-Hamas protests on American campuses across the United States.”

    Pence added that accepting the plane as the next Air Force One “is inconsistent with our security, with our intelligence needs. And my hope is the president reconsiders it.”

    “Others have observed, there are profound issues — the potential for intelligence gathering, the need to ensure the President of the United States is safe and secure as he travels around the world,” Pence said later. Some aviation experts have said it could take years to convert the jet into a new Air Force One, and the changes could cost over $1 billion.

    Pence added that there are “very real constitutional issues,” noting the part of the Constitution that bars public officials from accepting gifts from a foreign government.

    “I think it’s just a bad idea, and my hope is the president will think better of it,” Pence said.

    Pence suggested that if the Qatari government wished to make a gift to the U.S., it could direct $400 million, the current value of the plane, to “infrastructure on their military base.” 

    Pence has had a complicated relationship with the president since leaving office, though he has continued to tout the accomplishments of the Trump-Pence administration. Pence drew Trump’s ire when he certified Trump’s 2020 election loss on Jan. 6, 2021, while Trump falsely claimed that election was stolen.

    A former Indiana governor and congressman, Pence challenged Trump for the GOP presidential nomination in the most recent election, but he ended his campaign after he failed to gain traction in 2023.



    Source link

  • U.S. citizen children sent with deported parents face major hurdles trying to return, advocates say

    U.S. citizen children sent with deported parents face major hurdles trying to return, advocates say



    Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Denisse Parra Vargas’ three children — two of them American citizens and one born in Mexico — in Texas last week and, because authorities deported their mother, sent them out of the United States too.

    The administration has responded to blowback from the children’s expulsions and those of other U.S. citizen minors, including a child with cancer and one recovering from a rare brain tumor, by saying the mothers were in the U.S. illegally and chose to take their children with them. The families and their attorneys vehemently disagree that the mothers had a choice.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested in an interview April 27 on “Meet the Press” that the children’s situations are easily fixed.

    “If those children are U.S. citizens,” he said, “they can come back into the United States if there’s their father or someone here who wants to assume them.”

    While attorneys, advocates and researchers agree that U.S. citizens generally have the right to return, they said suggestions that the children can just easily come back to the U.S. gloss over the barriers and difficulties of what that would entail.

    There are many hurdles that families would need to overcome for their U.S. citizen children to be able to return, according to Mich P. González, co-founder of Sanctuary of the South, an immigration and LGBTQ civil rights cooperative. His group and its member organizations has been assisting two families whose mothers were deported from Florida and their children, including three U.S. citizens, who were sent with them.

    González said ICE often confiscates identification documents when deporting people. For example, the 2-year-old U.S. citizen daughter of the Honduran mother González represents had her passport taken away before she left, he said. That means the family would have to get the necessary paperwork from the U.S. to prove the child was born there.

    In many cases, U.S. citizen children don’t have passports in the first place, which are required when returning to the U.S. from a foreign country by air. Children younger than 16 arriving from Canada or Mexico, if they don’t have passports, must have original birth certificates or other specific documents to return to the U.S.

    “They don’t have passports, the two children only have their birth certificates,” said Naiara Leite Da Silva, the attorney representing Parra Vargas. “Not sure if mom has the original or a copy, but she only has the birth certificates, so it would entail a long and convoluted process before they could potentially come back.”

    Finding an authorized guardian who is a U.S. citizen and can travel with the child can also be difficult, González said. Families would have to come up with the money to cover the costs of flying their children back to the U.S. or covering the cost of a guardian at a time when they may be financially strained, attorneys said.

    One of the biggest complications right now, according to González, is any potential risk for the U.S.-based guardian to travel outside the country to go get the child. The administration has ratcheted up the power of border authorities to determine who should be admitted back into the country, even those with legal immigration status.

    “You can risk being stranded outside the United States,” González said. 

    Activists and attorneys said that the nation’s focus should be on whether the children should have been expelled in the first place.

    They argue that the parents may have had options for remaining in the U.S. had they been given a chance to consult with an attorney. In some of the recent cases, attorneys have pointed out that parents could have at least settled the question on whether their children should remain in the U.S. and with whom, before their deportation.

    Leite Da Silva said the Parra Vargas’ family “strongly opposes the government narrative that it was the family’s choice to keep the children with them … they never had the choice of leaving their children in the United States.” Because of that, she refers to the children as “forced expatriates.”

    She said Parra Vargas was “entrapped” because the family alleges they were told to come in for an asylum interview where they would get work authorization papers, and they were told to bring the children with them. According to the attorney, once they were at the appointment and were told they were to be deported, they weren’t allowed to communicate with family members who were in the Pflugerville processing center parking lot and who were legal residents and could have kept the children.

    In response to questions from NBC News, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated via email that if an immigrant in the country illegally is subject to detention, they “will almost assuredly be detained.” DHS had previously stated that Parra Vargas had a deportation order after she failed to appear at a 2019 immigration hearing.

    McLaughlin repeated DHS’ previous statements that parents illegally in the country can “take control of their departure” and leave using an app created by the administration and that the administration is offering those who leave $1,000 and a free flight.

    ICE adopted procedures during the Obama administration — Trump border czar Tom Homan was acting ICE director at the time — to give families time to decide what to do about their citizen children, said Sirine Shebaya, executive director of the National Immigration Project. She added that one of the mothers deported from Florida had said she didn’t want her U.S. citizen children to have to leave the country.

    The parents’ decision to keep their child with them or send them back to the U.S. is not so easily reached.

    Parents have to consider whether leaving them behind, sending their child back to the U.S. or even the act of traveling without their parent could further traumatize their child, González said.

    One of the children sent out of the country when her mother was deported to Mexico is 11 and is recovering from a brain tumor.

    “Think about yourself when you were 11. Now think if you had a brain tumor and think about whether you could get to another country without your parents. Would that be feasible for you? We should not be asking kids to do something like that,” said Rochelle Garza, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and president of the Texas Civil Rights Project.

    Advocates and attorneys are working to petition for humanitarian parole to get the family members who are not citizens back in the U.S. with the girl.

    In general, people who have been deported are not allowed to return to the U.S. for a stretch of time from three years to 10 years, depending on how long they were in the U.S. without legal authorization.

    Generally, parents are more willing to allow older U.S. citizen children, more so than younger children, to remain in the U.S., said Wendy Cervantes, director of immigration and immigrant families at the Center for Law and Social Policy, an anti-poverty group.

    In some of those cases, older children become guardians to younger siblings.

    “I’ve seen cases where families are broken up and the older kids stay here and they might stay with an uncle or an aunt and in some cases if they are close to being 18, they actually are the ones left to care for other children, to keep the house that maybe was purchased (by the parents) and they become these super young adult caregivers,” Cervantes said.

    A look into the ‘de facto deported’

    With younger children who are forced to live in their parents’ homeland either by U.S. government policy and their parents’ decisions, a return to the U.S. could be years away. And much can happen in those years.

    U.S. citizen children who have been deported can face some immediate setbacks when they get to their parents’ home country, said Victor Zúñiga González, a professor of sociology at the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, who has studied the migration of U.S.-born children to Mexico and Central America for nearly three decades.

    In addition to adjusting to language and cultural issues, U.S.-born children could have their school enrollments delayed by lack of documentation to establish their legal Mexican citizenship, which is needed to attend school. Mexico grants citizenship to children born abroad to Mexican parents, but official certification is required, a process that Zúñiga said takes less time in the U.S. than in Mexico.

    Parents can face similar issues in other countries, Cervantes said. In Guatemala, requirements for notarized school documents — a process that differs than in the U.S. — can delay school enrollment.

    The population of U.S.-born children living in Mexico between 2000 and 2015 doubled, according to Erin Hamilton, a University of California Davis sociology professor.

    In her study of U.S.-born children living in Mexico in 2014 and 2018, she found 1 in 6, or about 80,000 to 100,000, were there because one or both of their parents were deported, which she and her research colleagues termed “de facto deported.”

    Hamilton found the “de facto deported” children were more likely to be economically disadvantaged than U.S.-born children who migrated to Mexico for other reasons. They also were less likely to be enrolled in primary school and 70% children had no health insurance, compared to 53% of the other U.S.-born children.

    Garza, the civil rights commission chair, asked whether “we really want to have the conversation that it’s OK to remove certain U.S. citizens from the country … creating this fiction that they can come back if they want to.”

     




    Source link

  • How a Journalist Helped the Black Women Soldiers of the 6888

    How a Journalist Helped the Black Women Soldiers of the 6888



    When Tawanda Scott Sambou was assigned to find a story for a CNN series commemorating the 75th anniversary of World War II, the first thing she asked herself was, “What role did Black women play in the war?”

    She thought she was coming to a dead end in her search until she came across a documentary on the all-women, majority-Black 6888th Battalion. “I was so intrigued,” said Sambou, who is now a senior producer at NBC News. “I just thought, ‘Wow, people don’t know about this troop, this unit. I would really love to share their story.’”

    The 6888’s story is not often told. In 1945, Army officials reported that unreliable mail delivery to U.S. soldiers was hurting morale, so the 6888th Battalion traveled to Europe to sort through a backlog of mail in the millions. Not only did they create their own system to handle the backlog, but they also did it quicker than the Army expected.

    And yet, these 855 women were mostly forgotten in history.

    “For the Six Triple Eight unit, there were no celebratory moments for them,” Sambou said. “It was as if they didn’t exist.”

    That is, until Sambou’s CNN team ran its story on the 6888 in 2020. Four years later, Tyler Perry turned the battalion’s story into a Netflix film starring Kerry Washington. But the women’s long-overdue federal honor came 77 years later, in 2022, when the 6888th Battalion was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for their service. The ceremony was held at the Capitol in April.

    “Moments like this remind me of why journalism matters,” Sambou said. “Seeing these women get recognized finally, after all these years, you would think it shouldn’t take that long, but we finally got there.”

    Sambou hopes her reporting and the national recognition the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion has received will help bring more awareness to their role in winning World War II. She sees her work as a public service.

    “What I’d love for young journalists to recognize is the responsibility that we have every day when we decide what stories get to be told and who gets to tell them,” she said. “It’s a responsibility, and it’s also a privilege that we should not take for granted.”



    Source link

  • Nvidia says it is not sending GPU designs to China after reports of new Shanghai operation

    Nvidia says it is not sending GPU designs to China after reports of new Shanghai operation



    Nvidia said it won’t be sending graphics processing unit plans to China following a report that the artificial intelligence chipmaker is working on a research and development center in Shanghai in light of recent U.S. export curbs.

    “We are not sending any GPU designs to China to be modified to comply with export controls,” a spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC.

    The Financial Times was the first to report the news, citing two sources familiar with the matter. CEO Jensen Huang discussed the potential new center with Shanghai’s mayor, Gong Zheng, during a visit last month, the FT reported.

    The center will assess ways to meet U.S. restrictions while catering to the local market, although production and design will continue outside China, according to the report.

    AI chipmakers such as Nvidia have been hit with major China roadblocks since 2022 as the U.S. began cracking down on sending advanced chips to China because of concerns of possible military use.

    Last week, the Trump administration said it would replace restrictions put in place under President Joe Biden with a “much simpler rule that unleashes American innovation and ensures American AI dominance.” Nvidia said last month that it would take a $5.5 billion charge tied to selling its H20 GPUs in China and other countries.

    Huang has previously commented on the significance of China, which is one of the company’s major market after the U.S., Singapore and Taiwan. He told CNBC this month that getting shut out of the world second-largest economy would be a “tremendous loss,” estimating that China’s AI market could hit $50 billion over the next two to three years.

    “We just have to stay agile,” Huang told CNBC’s Jon Fortt, in an interview alongside ServiceNow CEO Bill McDermott. “Whatever the policies are of the government, whatever is in the best interest of our country, we’ll support,” he added.



    Source link

  • Military commanders will be told to send transgender troops to medical checks to oust them

    Military commanders will be told to send transgender troops to medical checks to oust them



    WASHINGTON — Military commanders will be told to identify troops in their units who are transgender or have gender dysphoria, then send them to get medical checks in order to force them out of the service, officials said Thursday.

    A senior defense official laid out what could be a complicated and lengthy new process aimed at fulfilling President Donald Trump’s directive to remove transgender service members from the U.S. military.

    The new order to commanders relies on routine annual health checks that service members are required to undergo. Another defense official said the Defense Department has scrapped — for now — plans to go through troops’ health records to identify those with gender dysphoria.

    Instead, transgender troops who do not voluntarily come forward could be outed by commanders or others aware of their medical status. Gender dysphoria occurs when a person’s biological sex does not match up with their gender identity.

    The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details of the new policy. The process raises comparisons to the early “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which at times had commanders or other troops outing gay members of the military who — at the time — were not allowed to serve openly.

    Active-duty troops will have until June 6 to voluntarily identify themselves to the Defense Department, and troops in the National Guard and Reserve have until July 7.

    The department is offering a financial incentive to those who volunteer to leave. They will receive roughly double the amount of separation pay than those who don’t come forward.

    Initially, officials said the Defense Department would begin going through medical records to identify anyone who did not come forward voluntarily. That detail was not included in the new guidance released Thursday.

    While the department believes it has the authority to review medical records, it would rather go through a more routine health assessment process, the defense official said. Traditionally, all service members go through a health assessment once a year to determine if they are still medically able to serve.

    A new question about gender dysphoria is being added to that assessment. Active-duty troops who do not voluntarily come forward would have to acknowledge their gender dysphoria during that medical check, which could be scheduled months from now.

    A unit commander could expedite the health assessment.

    Under the new policy, “commanders who are aware of service members in their units with gender dysphoria, a history of gender dysphoria, or symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria will direct individualized medical record reviews of such service members to confirm compliance with medical standards.”

    The defense official said it is the duty of the service member and the commander to comply with the new process. The department is confident and comfortable with commanders implementing the policy, and it does not believe they would use the process to take retribution against a service member, the senior defense official said.

    It comes after the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Trump administration could enforce the ban on transgender people in the military while other legal challenges proceed. The court’s three liberal justices said they would have kept the policy on hold.

    Officials have said that as of Dec. 9, 2024, there were 4,240 troops diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the active duty, National Guard and Reserve. But they acknowledge the number may be higher.

    There are about 2.1 million total troops serving.

    In a statement, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said earlier this month that about 1,000 troops already have identified themselves and “will begin the voluntary separation process” from the military. That can often take weeks.

    Trump tried to ban transgender troops during his first term, while allowing those currently serving to stay on. Then-President Joe Biden overturned the ban.

    The new policy does not grandfather in those currently serving and only allows for limited waivers or exceptions.

    Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allege that troops with gender dysphoria don’t meet military standards. Hegseth has tied his opposition to a campaign to rid the department of “wokeness.”

    “No More Trans @ DoD,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X. In a recent speech to a special operations conference, he said: “No more dudes in dresses. We’re done with that s—.”



    Source link