News – Page 486 – 105.7 WDNY

HHS firings, questioning safety of vaccines: How the Trump administration may be ‘attacking’ science

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — The first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term have been filled with mass firings, cancellations of research grants, university funding cuts and questions over what should be studied.

Thousands of people have been let go at federal agencies and critical research has been put on hold. Additionally, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines and antidepressant medications despite dozens of studies proving they are safe and effective.

Doctors and public health specialists critical of the administration tell ABC News they view these actions as an “attack” on science, damaging the reputation of respected agencies and by questioning what is believed to be established science.

“It’s completely unprecedented,” Steve Cohen, senior vice dean of Columbia University’s School of Professional Studies and a professor of public affairs at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, told ABC News. “It’s frankly a little unhinged. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

The White House did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

An HHS official told ABC News that framing the actions of the admiration as an “attack” is “fundamentally dishonest.”

“Further reviewing pharmaceutical products with gold standard science and common sense is not an'”attack on science’ — it’s what the American people have asked for and deserve,” the official said. ” Let’s be clear: Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine — he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability.”

Thousands of layoffs

Earlier this month, HHS began to lay off 10,000 workers as part of a massive restructuring plan.

Sources previously told ABC News that affected offices included most of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health, key offices in the Center for Tobacco Products, most of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the entire assisted reproductive technology team at the CDC.

There have also been local impacts in communities due to federal layoffs. ABC News previously reported in March, the CDC was poised to send its lead ‘disease detectives’ to Milwaukee amid an ongoing lead crisis in schools, but the entire division was cut under sweeping HHS layoffs, leaving local health officials without help they were relying on.

Erik Svendsen, the director of the division that oversaw the CDC’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention branch, previously told ABC News that what’s happening in Milwaukee is a real world example of the impact of their absence.

“Without us, there is no other unit at the federal level that is here to support them in doing what they need to do,” he said.

On Monday, officials in Milwaukee announced two additional schools are closing due to this crisis

Despite Kennedy saying some programs and employees would soon be reinstated because they were mistakenly cut, it still leaves thousands of federal employees without jobs.

Scientists have also been laid off at NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Cohen said these firings have put studies on hold and have greatly reduced the capacity of the federal government to review research.

“Scientists inside agencies, whether they’re environmental scientists or medical scientists or people focusing on vaccines or drugs, are being fired, and so some of the research capacity in Washington, in the federal government is being eliminated, and also their ability to judge proposals from universities,” he said.

“The only place I haven’t seen [firings] happen yet are the laboratories,” Cohen added.

Cuts that are currently proposed or have already been implemented include the elimination of the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV Policy, created by Brett Giroir, the former U.S. assistant secretary for health.

Giroir, who helped convince Trump in his first term to set a goal to end the HIV epidemic in the U.S., wrote in a post on social media last week that the president could ruin his legacy and mission with such cuts.

Canceling research grants, funding cuts to universities

Millions of dollars’ worth of grants have been terminated at the National Institutes of Health related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) because they do not “effectuate” the “priorities” of President Donald Trump’s administration, according to copies of termination letters sent to grant recipients and viewed by ABC News.

Dr. Harold Varmus, a cancer researcher at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City and former director of the NIH, said these terminations are “detrimental” because they may be affecting people in the middle of clinical trials, or affecting the early stages of experimental work.

Research projects focusing on minority populations have major benefits, Varmus noted.

“The purpose of health research in this country is to address problems faced by everybody and to explore every facet of a population that may affect their health,” he said. “To single out certain categories of individuals who would not be appropriate to study seems ludicrous to me … one of the great strengths of America is that we are diverse.”

Universities have also been threatened with funding cuts — or have seen funds frozen — if they don’t fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus and to end race-based programs.

Cohen believes universities are at odds with the administration because some on the political right view universities as “left wing.” By “weakening the finances of universities, they can force them to change the ideologies that they believe are being promoted in the classrooms,” he argued.

The problem with this idea, according to Cohen, is that the administration’s actions are hurting the least ideological parts of universities, such as engineering schools or medical centers. At Columbia, for example, several institutes and centers are conducting Alzheimer’s research, he said.

“Those are the places that are being attacked,” Cohen said. “It’s pretty ironic, but the greatest danger, actually, is that one of America’s fundamental economic strengths is the creativity and the innovation of our scientists, and that is now under attack by the Trump administration.”

Questioning safety, efficacy of vaccines

Kennedy has shared vaccine skepticism in the past and has continued to do so as HHS secretary.

In the wake of several ongoing measles outbreaks and over 800 cases so far this year, Kennedy has shared contradicting views about vaccines.

In a post on X on April 6, he said that “most effective way to prevent the spread of measles” is to receive the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine. However, in a post later that evening, he said more than 300 children have been treated with an antibiotic and a steroid, neither of which are cures for measles.

Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said the statements Kennedy has made in support of the MMR vaccine are “half-hearted.”

“The reason I say ‘half-hearted’ or insufficient is because each time he talks about using the MMR vaccine, he qualifies it,” Hotez told ABC News. “He then draws this false equivalency between either getting the MMR vaccine or this cocktail of interventions that would do absolutely nothing.”

Last month, HHS confirmed that the CDC will study “all the potential culprits” including whether vaccines cause autism despite numerous existing studies already showing there is no link.

Hotez said epidemiologic studies show that children who received either the MMR vaccine, or vaccines containing thimerosal — a compound used as a preservative in vaccines — are not more likely to be diagnosed autism than kids who didn’t receive those vaccines.

Additionally, Hotez said about 100 genes have been identified that are involved in the development of autism, many by the Broad Institute at Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He believes rising rates of autism diagnoses are likely due to wider testing and expanding diagnostic criteria. Hotez added that there could be an environmental exposure influencing autism genes, but that it’s not vaccines.

In 2017, he discussed with Kennedy an investigation looking at “about half a dozen chemical exposures” in early pregnancies but Kennedy “had no interest,” according to Hotez, who later documented these conversations in a book he published in 2018.

“He apparently seems to not understand the science or doesn’t care about the science. He’s got his fixed beliefs and doesn’t want to let any of the facts or scientific findings get in the way of his fixed belief,” Hotez said. “And it’s completely irresponsible having someone like that as Health and Human Services secretary.”

Claims around antidepressant use

Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order to study the use of several medications including antidepressants and antipsychotics.

The order called for the formation of the “Make America Healthy Again” commission — to be chaired by Kennedy — with an aim to understand chronic diseases.

Among the goals of the commission is to “assess the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs.”

Dr. Joseph Saseen, associate dean for clinical affairs and a professor in the departments of clinical pharmacy and family medicine at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Colorado, said there are plenty of studies and analyses in the medical literature looking at the prevalence of SSRIs.

“We have an overwhelming amount of information,” he told ABC News. “These medicines, particularly SSRIs, are the most frequently prescribed antidepressants for patients with major depressive disorder. There is a plethora of information evaluating efficacy in a broad range of patient populations for which these medicines are indicated.”

Saseen says these medications do have side effects, just like any drug, but the benefits significantly outweigh the risks for most people in the general population who have major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.

Kennedy has also falsely linked the use of antidepressants to school shootings and claimed during his Senate confirmation hearings that members of his family had a harder time stopping SSRI use than heroin use.

Experts have said there is no evidence that equates ending the use of antidepressants to ending the use of heroin or to suggest that people on SSRIs are more likely to be violent.

Saseen said it’s reasonable to question scientific research, either to reaffirm or dispute findings, but it must be done following the scientific method.

“Question it the real way, not the cowardly way,” he said. “The cowardly way is labeling things as threats or as bad without taking a scientific approach. The key is you need to use appropriate methodologies, not vocal inflections and very triggering and polarizing words to create an uprising.”

ABC News’ Dr. Jade Cobern, Cheyenne Haslett, Will McDuffie and Sony Salzman contributed to this report.

220 lawsuits in 100 days: Trump administration faces unprecedented legal blitz

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Since Donald Trump took office 100 days ago, the president and his administration have faced an average of more than two lawsuits per day, challenging nearly every element of his agenda.

The breakneck pace of the president’s policies has been matched in nearly equal force by a flood of litigation — at least 220 lawsuits in courts across the country — challenging more than two dozen executive orders, the firing of twenty high-ranking government officials, and dozens of other executive actions.

While the Trump administration has had some victories in the courts, federal judges have blocked key parts of Trump’s agenda ranging from parts of his immigration policy and military guidelines to his effort to roll back diversity and equity initiatives.

“The administration has basically gone on a shock-and-awe bombing campaign,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “There is a huge amount of what they are currently doing that they probably could have achieved lawfully, but they have crashed through any of the existing legal guardrails in an attempt to do everything, everywhere, all at once.”

The suits have come at a steady clip — 20 in January, approximately 70 in both February and March, and about 50 so far in April — as the Trump administration has rolled out its new policies.

Approximately 60 of those cases have focused on the president’s immigration policy, with courts so far blocking the president’s attempts to remove birthright citizenship, withhold funding from sanctuary cities, remove noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin with little-to-no due process, and strip thousands of their temporary protected status. Some of those policies have earned the president rebukes from judges questioning the rationale for his unilateral immigration policy.

“It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, said of Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. “There are moments in the world’s history when people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers, where were the judges?’ In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”

Courts have also blocked the Trump administration from effectively banning transgender people from military service, limiting gender-affirming care, requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, attempting to freeze trillions in funding to states and nonprofits, and moving to block billions in foreign aid.

But in many cases federal courts have not stopped the president outright — tentatively allowing the mass firing of thousands of government employees, greenlighting a historic federal buyout, and, for now, allowing the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development. The Department of Education and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau are also undergoing massive staffing reductions as judges actively consider the legality of the Trump administration’s cuts.

The president’s supporters have decried the litigation as a “judicial coup,” while those opposing his policies have praised judges for serving as a check against the administration. But the seemingly constant conflict between the Trump administration and the judiciary could risk permanent damage to the separation of powers at the heart of the Constitution, some judges have warned.

“Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around,” wrote federal Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee who rebuked the Trump administration inaction after being ordered to return a man from a Salvadoran prison.

Acting in ‘bad faith’

In the first hundred days since Trump took office, lawyers challenging his actions in court alleged that his administration violated court orders at least six times, according to court records reviewed by ABC News.

While no judge has held members of the Trump administration in contempt of court, two federal judges have sharply rebuked the government for acting in “bad faith” during ongoing lawsuits. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — who heard arguments over the deportation of two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act — an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process — ultimately determined the Trump administration likely violated his order by failing to return the migrants to the United States.

An appeals court temporarily blocked Judge Boasberg from beginning the process of contempt proceedings, but his most recent ruling invoked the words of former Chief Justice John Marshall to describe the stakes of the Trump administration’s actions.

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the Constitution itself,'” Boasberg wrote.

Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued that Judge Boasberg’s order fell outside his jurisdiction because the flights in question had left U.S. airspace, and have insisted that a federal judge should not dictate U.S. foreign policy.

The Trump administration has also faced legal challenges for its refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native living in Maryland, to the United States after he was mistakenly deported to his home country despite an order barring his deportation there due to fear of persecution.

The administration has so far declined to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States despite the Supreme Court ordering his release, though administration officials have complied with a lower court’s order to provide regular updates about him.

The administration has rebutted orders to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States despite the Supreme Court ordering them to facilitate his release.

Judge Wilkinson, in the meantime, has condemned the Trump administration’s attempt to send alleged migrant gang members to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison.

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,” he wrote. “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

In an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, 65% of respondents said Trump’s administration is trying to avoid complying with federal court orders, and 62% said they don’t think his administration respects the rule of law.

‘It was a sham’

With the Trump administration just 100 days in, most lawsuits have not made their way through the appeals process to the Supreme Court — but the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to block some court orders on an emergency basis.

Those appeals have led to some losses for the Trump administration — among them a 5-4 Supreme Court decision ordering the Trump administration to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for work that aid groups have already completed on the government’s behalf.

On the flip side, the Supreme Court — citing largely technical reasons — handed the Trump administration a series of temporary wins, including vacating an order blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. In that case, the justices opted to throw out the case because the case was filed in the wrong court, declining to weigh in on the merits of the issue.

The Supreme Court also handed the Trump administration a temporary win by blocking a lower court’s ruling that barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of probationary government employees without cause. The district judge who blocked the firings slammed the Trump administration for using a “sham” and “gimmick” to fire thousands of federal workers.

“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

But the Supreme Court vacated his order because the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit — a group of unions and interest groups — lacked the legal standing to bring the lawsuit.

Over the next month, the Supreme Court is set to hold oral arguments for the first time in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, which confers American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration or citizenship status.

The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to take up a legal challenge to the Pentagon’s transgender service ban after three judges blocked it from taking effect.

‘A shocking abuse of power’

Despite President Trump’s vow to restore free speech and end censorship, his administration has faced multiple lawsuits challenging his actions on the grounds they violate the First Amendment.

Four law firms have sued the Trump administration after they were targeted for their past work, with each firm arguing the Trump administration unlawfully retaliated against them and violated their First Amendment rights. Judges have temporarily blocked the Trump administration from targeting Susman Godfrey LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Perkins Coie LLP.

“The framers of our Constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power,” U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan said regarding the order targeting Susman Godfrey LLP.

At least nine law firms have already acquiesced to the Trump administration’s demands, agreeing to donate a total of $940 million in legal services to promote causes supported by the president.

After the Trump administration attempted to freeze more than $2 billion dollars in federal funding to Harvard University, the country’s oldest school cited the First Amendment in their lawsuit challenging the funding freeze, arguing the “threat of additional funding cuts will chill Harvard’s exercise of its First Amendment rights.” More than two in three Americans support Harvard in their ongoing dispute with the Trump administration, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.

“Harvard will be unable to make decisions regarding its faculty hiring, academic programs, student admissions, and other core academic matters without fear that those decisions will run afoul of government censors’ views on acceptable levels of ideological or viewpoint diversity on campus,” Harvard’s lawyers argued.

At least nine current or recent students have challenged the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke their visas or green cards, with several alleging they were targeted for their outspoken support of Palestinians. The Trump administration’s policy of revoking student visas marks the government’s most aggressive approach in more than two decades and the first time students have been targeted over their speech, according to immigration attorney Renata Castro.

“The government is looking at speech — the exercise of free speech — and using that to dig into perceived immigration violations so that they can revoke student visas,” Castro said.

The Trump administration also invoked a rarely used law — 8 U.S.C. § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i) — to justify removing noncitizens such as Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was a prominent figure during student protests at Columbia, because he and others allegedly harm U.S. foreign policy.

According to an analysis of past immigration cases conducted by political scientists Graeme Blair and David Hausman, the United States had only used that provision as a basis to remove a noncitizen two times in the last 25 years.

“The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent,” Khalil wrote in a public letter last month from an ICE detention facility in Louisiana. “At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all.”

Earlier this month, an immigration judge ruled that Khalil can be deported on the grounds that he threatens U.S. foreign policy. While he remained in ICE detention and prepared an appeal, Khalil’s wife gave birth to their child last week.

Trump’s economic policies shake norms, markets as uncertainty looms

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Few of President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in his second term carried more fanfare than April 2, which Trump previewed for weeks under the moniker of “Liberation Day.”

At a Rose Garden ceremony replete with a live band and floor-to-ceiling American flags, Trump announced the nation’s largest set of tariffs in nearly a century.

For decades, Trump claimed, other nations had erected trade barriers to shut U.S. companies out of their markets, all the while enriching themselves through access to American shoppers. As a result, factories had shuttered and workers had suffered, Trump added.

“In the face of unrelenting economic warfare, the United States can no longer continue with a policy of unilateral economic surrender,” Trump said.

The tariff announcement, he added, would forever be remembered as “the day that we began to make America wealthy again.”

Instead, the major stock indexes lost about $3.1 trillion in value the next day, suffering their biggest one-day decline since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Days later, Trump suspended a major swathe of the tariffs, sending the market to one of its largest ever single-day increases.

The policy exemplified Trump’s handling of the economy so far in his second term, some experts said. A norm-breaking decision adjusted soon afterward, leaving behind a cloud of uncertainty for consumers and business alike, while risking an economic slowdown.

It remains to be seen whether the potential pain will be outweighed by future gain, experts said, but the policy swerves may undermine those benefits as firms lack the assurance necessary to make long-term investment and hiring decisions.

“This isn’t how we normally do business. We normally like stability and predictability,” Nancy Qian, a professor of economics at Northwestern University, told ABC News. “The cycle of uncertainty is freaking people out.”

‘Challenged the rules of the global trading system’

Trump’s tariff rollout took Wall Street by surprise, but the president had repeatedly promised to make use of the policy tool during his presidential campaign.

“To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is ‘tariff,'” Trump said weeks before the election during an appearance at the Economic Club of Chicago.

As a candidate, Trump proposed tariffs of between 60% and 100% on Chinese goods, as well as across-the-board tariffs of between 10% and 20% on all imported goods.

Tariffs would hinder foreign producers and boost domestic manufacturers, reinvigorating regions left behind as the sector’s jobs moved overseas, Trump said.

In the first 100 days, Trump has taken the policy even further than he pledged, experts said.

Trump slapped 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, as well as a universal tariff of 10% on nearly all imports.

Trump also imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, the nation’s neighbors, thought to be among its closest allies. Additional tariffs have hit autos, steel and aluminum. For now, Trump has paused a far-reaching set of so-called “reciprocal tariffs” targeting about 75 countries.

“We face the stark reality of large and persistent U.S. deficits as a result of an unfair trading system,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told an audience at the Institute of International Finance in Washington, D.C. last week. “Intentional policy choices by other countries have hollowed out America’s manufacturing sector and undermined our critical supply chains, putting our national and economic security at risk.”

“President Trump has taken strong action to address these imbalances and the negative impacts they have on Americans,” Bessent added.

Qian, of Northwestern University, said Trump’s policy accurately identifies a challenge facing the U.S. economy, as trade partners erect barriers that make it more difficult for some American companies to sell abroad than it is for their foreign competitors to sell in the U.S.

The on-again, off-again approach to tariffs undermines the policy objective, however, since businesses and investors lack the confidence necessary to build up domestic manufacturing or adjust strategy abroad.

“What manufacturers need is what markets need: stability,” Qian said.

Trump’s tariffs elicited retaliatory measures from some countries, including China. The world’s second-largest economy slapped 125% tariffs on U.S. goods and placed export restrictions on some minerals crucial to domestic electronics and weapons industries.

“Trump’s tariffs challenged the very premise of the rules of the world trading system,” Robert Lawrence, a professor of trade and investment at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, told ABC News. “He has done a lot more than he said he would do.”

Consumer sentiment this month dropped to a level lower than any point during the Great Recession. A slew of Wall Street firms, meanwhile, have raised their odds of a U.S. recession within the next year, forecasting a potential drop-off of consumer spending and business investment.

For its part, the Trump administration has largely refused to rule out the possibility of a recession. Trump has vowed to strike new agreements with many U.S. trade partners, predicting the U.S economy may suffer short-term pain but will ultimately flourish under a more favorable set of international rules.

“We have been ripped off by every country in the world practically. And friend and foe,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on April 23. “We’re not doing that anymore.”

The fight against inflation

During the campaign, inflation consistently ranked as a top issue of concern to voters – and a majority of them favored Trump to best handle the problem, surveys showed.

Trump vowed to address the issue, saying he would lower prices on “day one.”

Prices would come down as a result of increased energy output, which would reduce costs for the production and transport of goods and in turn lower prices, Trump said.

Inflation has eased since Trump took office, meaning prices have risen at a slower pace than they had been at the end of the Biden administration. Consumer prices increased 2.4% in March compared to a year earlier, registering a pace slightly higher than the Fed’s target of 2%.

Overall prices have not fallen, however, experts told ABC News. In fact, some prices have climbed significantly. Egg prices are 60% higher than where they stood a year ago. Bird flu has continued to decimate the egg supply, lifting prices.

To be sure, the price of oil has dropped nearly 20% since Trump took office. However, experts attributed the trend to an anticipated drop in demand as investors worry about a global recession, instead of the spike in output promised by Trump.

The current level of inflation may offer false reassurance, experts added, since tariffs are widely expected to raise prices over the coming months.

“We are not yet applying the tariffs to the maximum degree and that of course reduces the impact seen in the data so far,” Felix Tintelnot, a professor of economics at Duke University, told ABC News.

Earlier this month, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell raised the possibility that Trump’s tariffs may cause what economists call “stagflation,” which is when inflation rises and the economy slows.

If the Fed raises interest rates as a means of protecting against tariff-induced inflation under such a scenario, it risks stifling borrowing and slowing the economy further. On the other hand, if the Fed lowers rates to stimulate the economy in the face of a potential slowdown, it threatens to boost spending and worsen inflation.

A day later, Trump sharply criticized Powell, urging the central bank to lower interest rates and saying Powell’s “termination cannot come soon enough.”

Since Trump took office, he has criticized Powell on multiple occasions, despite a longstanding norm of political independence at the central bank. The Fed is an independent government agency established by Congress.

“It’s a fundamental feature of our economic system that we have an independent Fed,” Lawrence said. “Trump’s threats are deeply concerning.”

In theory, the removal of Powell could undermine the Fed’s capacity to fight inflation, since it may make the central bank more likely to follow Trump’s preference for lower rates, Lawrence said.

Trump appeared to soften previous attacks on the Federal Reserve last week, saying he has “no intention” of firing Powell.

After making those remarks, Trump continued to pressure Powell.

“I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates,” Trump said. “This is a perfect time to lower interest rates.”

22 people killed, 3 injured in restaurant fire in China

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(LONDON) — At least 22 people have been killed and three others were injured in a fire at a restaurant in northern China on Tuesday afternoon, according to Chinese state media.

The blaze broke out at around 12:25 p.m. local time on Tuesday in the city of Liaoning, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency and national broadcaster CCTV.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has urged all-out efforts to treat the injured, assist victims’ families and investigate the cause of the fire, Xinhua and CCTV reported.

Investigators have not yet discovered the cause of the fire but, according to the Associated Press, images from the scene showed huge flames spurting from the windows and doors of the two- or three-story building.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Most Americans oppose Trump 3rd term, taking control of Greenland and Canada: POLL

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — Most Americans take President Donald Trump at his word when he talks about sending American citizens to foreign prisons, serving a third term as president and trying to take control of Greenland and Canada — even as sweeping majorities oppose each of these potential actions.

About 7 in 10 adults in this ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll think Trump is serious when he talks about sending American citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to prisons in other countries (71%) and the United States trying to take control of Greenland (68%).

Fewer, but still a broad 62%, say the same about his serving a third term, even though the Constitution prohibits him from running again. A slim majority, 53%, think Trump is serious when he talks about the United States trying to take control of Canada.

That doesn’t mean most people think these are good ideas: The survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Americans by wide margins oppose these proposals. At the high end, a vast 86% oppose the United States trying to take control of Canada. Eighty percent oppose Trump serving a third term, 76% oppose trying to take control of Greenland and 66% oppose sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.

See PDF for full results.

For his part, Trump insisted in an interview last week that he wasn’t trolling about trying to take control of Canada and Greenland. He also has said he is not joking about running for a third term; upping the ante, Trump 2028 merchandise appeared for sale on the Trump Organization’s website last Thursday.

Unsurprisingly, these proposals are especially well received by the 39% of Americans who approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. One, indeed, reaches majority support — sending U.S. citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to foreign prisons, backed by 59% of Trump approvers.

Half of those in his base, 49%, support the United States trying to take control of Greenland. Forty-three percent in this group like the third-term idea; taking control of Canada lags, even among Trump approvers, at 29%.

Kidding me?

Notably, too, Republicans, conservatives and Trump approvers are most likely to say he’s not serious about any of these proposals. On the other side of the political spectrum, Democrats, liberals and Trump disapprovers are far more apt to think he means it.

Just 35% of Republicans think Trump is serious about taking over Canada, compared with 75% of Democrats. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans think he’s serious about a third term, compared with 88% of Democrats. And while more Republicans — just shy of six in 10 — think he’s serious about taking control of Greenland and sending U.S. prisoners abroad, again, these go much higher among Democrats.

On each item:

Third term

Opposition to a third term is substantial even among some of the key support groups that elected Trump last fall, including white men without four-year college degrees (74% of whom oppose another Trump term), white evangelical Protestants (70%), conservatives (67%) and Republicans (60%).

Wishful thinking may be a factor for some: Among Republicans who think Trump is serious about a third term, support for the idea rises to 60%. That compares with 24% among Republicans who don’t think he’s serious. On the other hand, a vast majority of Democrats (88%) think he’s serious about a third term; nearly none of them (3%) support it.

Canada/Greenland

When it comes to Canada and Greenland, perceptions of Trump’s intentions are associated with broader approval of his handling of U.S. relations with other countries — which has a strong partisan flavor. Among people who approve of his handling of international relations — 51% and 30%, respectively — support trying to take control of Greenland and Canada. Among those who disapprove of Trump’s work on international relations, support for these actions drops to 4% in the case of Greenland and 3% for Canada.

Notably, in partisan terms, 45% of Republicans support trying to take control of Greenland. That drops to 27% who support trying to take control of Canada.

Deporting Americans

As reported Friday, 47% of Americans support sending undocumented immigrants who are suspected members of a criminal group to El Salvador prisons without a court hearing. Fifty-seven percent in this group also support shipping out U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes, while 41% oppose it.

At 32% overall, support for sending convicted Americans to foreign prisons peaks in especially Trump-friendly groups, including 59% of those who approve of his work in office, 58% of people who call themselves very conservative and 57% of Republicans. Support drops to 30% of independents and 12% of Democrats.

Methodology

This ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 18-22, 2025, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,464 adults. Partisan divisions are 30%-30%-29%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

Consumer gloom amid Trump’s tariffs expected to have worsened in April

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(NEW YORK) — A new survey of consumers on Tuesday is expected to show attitudes worsened in April, casting further gloom over the economy as President Donald Trump’s tariffs set off warnings of price increases and a possible recession.

A reading of sour consumer sentiment would mark the fifth consecutive month of decline, leaving the Conference Board gauge at its lowest level since the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell this month joined a growing set of policymakers and analysts who’ve cautioned about a possible outcome that bodes poorly for consumers: accelerating price increases alongside a sluggish economy.

A slew of companies have already announced plans for price hikes in response to the tariffs, including bargain retailers Temu and Shein.

Meanwhile, recession fears are mounting on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs earlier this month hiked its odds of a recession from 35% to 45%. JPMorgan pegged the probability of a recession this year at 60%.

Trump earlier this month paused so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on most U.S. trade partners, but the White House also raised its cumulative tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%.

An across-the-board 10% tariff applies to nearly all imports, except for semi-conductors, pharmaceuticals and some other items. Those levies come on top of specialized tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos.

Even after the suspension of some tariffs, U.S. consumers face the highest average effective tariff rate since 1909, the Yale Budget Lab found.

In recent days, Trump has voiced mixed messages about the prospect of a de-escalation in the trade war with China.

Trump last week said that tariffs on China would “come down substantially.” Days later, however, Trump urged Boeing to “default China” in response to a Chinese order that airlines reject deliveries of the U.S.-based aerospace company’s planes.

“This is just a small example of what China has done to the USA, for years,” Trump said in a post on social media.

Despite flagging consumer sentiment and ongoing market turmoil, key measures of the economy remain fairly strong.

The unemployment rate stands at a historically low level and job growth remains robust, though it has slowed from previous highs. Meanwhile, inflation cooled in March, putting price increases well below a peak attained in 2022, data showed.

The sturdy data offers little reassurance, some economists previously told ABC News.

Measures of the economy like inflation and hiring are released a month after the data is gathered, and they often reflect slow-moving shifts in business or consumer behavior, the economists said. As a result, such measures can prove outdated, especially when the economy is in flux.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, could weaken if shopper sentiment sours. In theory, a slowdown of spending could hammer some businesses, prompting layoffs that in turn further shrink consumer appetite.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago earlier this month, Powell acknowledged the “solid condition” of the U.S. economy, but he cautioned about signals of a potential slowdown. For instance, Powell noted a “sharp decline in sentiment” among businesses and households.

“Life moves pretty fast,” Powell added.

Trump voters are confident in how he’s handling the economy — but some have concerns about prices, tariffs

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump nears the 100th day of his second presidency, polling shows Americans largely disapproving of his handling of the economy, tariffs, and recent stock market turmoil.

But his 2024 voters largely say they’re still confident in his handling of the economy, and they overwhelmingly stand by their vote for Trump.

“I believe Trump will turn things around; I’m glad he’s president,” said Jessianna Bartier, 53, of Ohio. “With Biden, I felt there was so much waste. He was causing a lot of damage economically,” she said, and she had felt depressed by the former president’s efforts. “Trump has definitely got his work cut out for him.”

According to a new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, only 39% of Americans approve of how Trump has handled the economy; fewer approve of his handling of tariffs on imported goods or recent stock market turmoil. Seventy-one percent of Americans said that Trump’s handling of tariffs will contribute to inflation in the United States, although 59% think tariffs will create more manufacturing jobs.

But among Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, 87% approve of how he is handling the economy, while 78% approve of his handling of tariffs. A softer 71% said they approve of his handling of recent turmoil in the stock market.

Furthermore, among 2024 Trump voters, 74% think his economic policies will put the U.S. economy on a stronger foundation for the long term; at the same time, 45% of those voters think it’s very or somewhat likely that his economic policies will cause a recession in the short term.

An overwhelming 96% of those who voted for Trump believe how they voted was the right thing to do.

Bartier, a former flight attendant, now works as a bartender and lives in Ohio. She said she used to be a Democrat but became Republican as she “started dating more mature men.” She said she has always voted because “my voice matters.”

Bartier said her family is struggling financially at the moment, because her fiance lost his job and her own income is “definitely not enough.”

But she’s optimistic that Trump will be able to strengthen the economy.

She has mixed feelings about Trump on some issues, saying she appreciates his border crackdown but is at odds with his views on LGBTQ issues and abortion.

But on tariffs, she said she feels they may cause challenges at first but will be effective later on — although the recent stock market turmoil does give her pause.

“I think the tariffs are, in the short term, going to hurt us economically; but in the long term, [they’re] going to bring back jobs to America,” she said. She acknowledged feeling uncertain about how the tariff news impacted stocks: “Do I like seeing the Dow go down on itself? No.”

“[Trump’s] gonna do what he’s gonna do. He’s kind of a rogue agent,” Bartier added.

Anthony Romano, 64, a retired purchasing agent who lives by himself in Philadelphia, said he feels positive about Trump but has some concerns about the stock market.

“Overall I think he’s doing a really good job,” Romano said, but he added that it “seems like the stock market has been crashing — it’ll put a lot of stress on people.”

Stocks have fluctuated in the wake of what some experts described as continued uncertainty over the White House’s tariff policies and announcements. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the White House is “setting the fundamentals for a strong dollar, a strong economy, a strong stock market”.

Romano said he’s still confident in the president, citing Trump’s experience as a businessman.

“I have my trust in him; he knows what he’s doing,” he said.

Another of Trump’s voters who took the poll, Deborah Williams, 71, of Nevada, considers herself an independent politically and said she just retired from running a home-based business. Her husband, 78, has a part-time job and earns minimum wage.

She said she’s keeping an eye on the economy, especially given their dwindled income, and is “cautious about where I’m spending my money these days,” including with travel.

On tariffs, she has mixed feelings. She’s concerned they could impact prices and may be being done too bluntly, but called Trump’s philosophy behind them “a noble idea.”

“I want America to be the tough kid on the block again,” Williams said, and she does not want think Americans should be paying for or subsidizing other countries’ expenses. “Trump’s my man for doing that at this point,” she said, adding later, “He has the opportunity to put our economy back together by playing hardnose with some of these people we import from.”

The poll only asks respondents for their first names; some respondents contacted by ABC News declined to share their last name.

Irene, 63, who works for the library and local government in a northern New Jersey town, told ABC News that she has mixed feelings over how the Trump administration has rolled out tariffs.

“I’m kind of favorable for the tariffs, because I think we have been taken advantage of by different countries,” she said. “It’s just that, maybe he’s going a little overboard or too fast with all of this. And the tariffs are going to affect a lot more than they were originally going to.”

She hasn’t felt any impact on her or her family’s finances yet. Asked what she hopes to see from the White House going forward, she said she was hoping for the economy she felt America had during the first Trump administration.

“I look back to when he was in the office the first four years, and I just felt like the economy was in better shape,” she said, mentioning interest rates and gas prices. “I was kind of hoping we could get somewhere towards that point.”

She also told the poll she feels a recession is somewhat likely, and she hopes it does not impact the jobs she holds or her finances.

“But I’m at the point where I’m trying to get in a better financial position, just in case that recession should happen, it won’t hit me as hard,” she said.

That has not caused her to rethink how she voted for Trump in November: “I’m still behind my vote because I definitely didn’t have a good feeling about the Democrats,” she said.

The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 18-22, 2025, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,464 adults. Partisan divisions are 30%-30%-29%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

Results have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, including the design effect. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

ABC News’ Gary Langer and Christine Filer contributed to this report.

‘Unprecedented’: How Trump has pushed the limits of presidential power in his first 100 days

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — One hundred days ago this week, just hours after taking the oath of office and reveling before a crowd of thousands at Capital One Arena, President Donald Trump signed the first executive orders of his second term.

With the stroke of his pen, he maintained he could freeze environmental and other agency regulations Congress had authorized. With another, he withdrew the U.S. from an international climate agreement.

“You’re witnessing the dawn of the golden age of America,” he told the roaring crowd. “That’s what it’s going to be.”

Overall, he’s issued more than 130 executive orders and even more memorandums, declared at least eight national emergencies and engaged in a showdown with the courts that has prompted debate on whether a constitutional crisis is underway.

Driving much of his action is a legal theory advocated by conservatives that the Constitution gives a president nearly unquestioned control over the federal government.

Trump and his top officials also contend that he’s simply working to implement the agenda that Americans voted for in November.

But other constitutional and legal experts who spoke with ABC News call it unparalleled overreach.

“This really is unprecedented,” Elizabeth Goitein, the senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, told ABC News.

“We’ve seen really broad theories of executive power advanced in previous administrations,” Goitein said. “There’s been a steady trend over the last few decades towards increasingly broad views of executive power, especially after 9/11. But this is unprecedented and it’s different in kind, not just in degree.”

Trump, in a recent interview with Time to mark 100 days, disagreed.

“Well, I don’t feel I’m expanding it,” Trump told the magazine when asked about amassing presidential power. “I think I’m using it as it was meant to be used.”

Trump’s ‘government by executive order’

Nearly every day since Jan. 20, Trump has signed executive actions in the Oval Office, often in front of television cameras. He’s signed the greatest number of executive orders in his first 100 days of any president going back 88 years.

“He’s trying to do government by executive order on a whole range of issues,” said David Schultz, a constitutional law expert at Hamline University.

Following Trump’s lead, his administration has carried out a dramatic purge of what Congress had set up as independent agencies, firing tens of thousands of employees, even those with civil service protections. He’s also sought to wipe out diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government.

Trump signed an order to diminish the Department of Education, with the ultimate goal of wiping away the agency established by law. He’s tried to effectively end birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment and has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

To move forward with his immigration and economic policies, Trump has declared national emergencies that Goitein, an expert on presidential emergency powers, said are unjustified.

Despite border crossings being down, Trump invoked the 1798 wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants his administration alleged to be gang members, affording them little to no due process.

He invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to impose sweeping tariffs on virtually all U.S. trading partners. Though it is Congress, not the president, that has the power to impose taxes and regulate trade — and the emergency power used by Trump makes no mention of tariffs.

At times, he’s used the power of the presidency to pursue retribution on political opponents. Seemingly contrary to his promise to end the “weaponization” of government and the justice system, he’s signed orders targeting specific law firms that took on clients or cases he disagreed with politically. He directed the Justice Department to investigate Chris Krebbs and Miles Taylor, two officials from his first term who’ve criticized him or challenged his 2020 election falsehoods.

Trump’s harshest critics say some action verges on authoritarianism, noting his open respect for “strongman” leaders, including China’s President Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

“Sometimes you need a strongman,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity last September while campaigning.

Pushback from the courts — but not from Congress

“Our Framers were envisioning that if a president tried to do things like this, Congress would step in,” said Schultz. “And right now, it looks like partisanship is more powerful than checks and balances.”

Despite having Republican majorities (albeit narrow ones) in the House and Senate, Trump has opted to largely go it alone on his agenda in his first 100 days. Republicans on Capitol Hill, so far, appear uninterested or unwilling to seriously challenge him.

“We’re all afraid,” GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the few Republicans to be critical of Trump, told her Alaskan constituents last month. Murkowski added that “retaliation is real.”

While congressional pushback has been minimal, a clear clash is underway between the Trump administration and the courts as various groups and individuals challenge his policies.

Trump has berated judges who ruled against him as “radical left” and called for District Judge James Boasberg’s impeachment. He and Vice President JD Vance openly floated the idea of not abiding by lower court orders — “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Trump posted on social media — though later said they would comply with decisions from the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement in rebuke of the rhetoric — and though he didn’t mention Trump by name, the context was clear.

In a major escalation of the administration’s standoff with the courts, the FBI last week arrested a Milwaukee judge, Hannah Dugan, and accused her of obstructing immigration agents. An attorney for Dugan said she will “defend herself vigorously and looks forward to being exonerated.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, when asked about the incident, left open the possibility of the Justice Department taking more action against federal judges or even Supreme Court justices if they were obstructing the arrest of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

“He thinks he can either ignore or bully his way through,” Schultz said of Trump’s posture toward the judiciary. “And so far, he’s got a mixed record at best in terms of being able to do that.”

Several legal experts and presidential scholars who spoke to ABC News expressed concern that the courts will become inundated by Trump’s moves as his second term continues, and the system of checks and balances will continue to break down.

“The separation of powers is probably the most important protection that we have against presidents becoming kings,” said Goitein. “If this is the new normal, then we can say goodbye to democracy.”

Police raided the wrong house, now a family wants the Supreme Court to let them sue

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

(WASHINGTON) — A police SWAT team bursts into a home with little warning, only to quickly realize that it’s the wrong address and the occupants inside are innocent victims of the officers’ mistake.

The scenario has played out in American communities for years — sometimes resulting from bad intelligence, others from inadvertent officer errors — often leaving property damaged and families traumatized.

Legal immunity for cops can mean little restitution.

A major case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday could clear a path for some victims of wrong-house raids to sue for damages under an exception to immunity under federal law.

“It’s just a simple matter of fairness,” said Patrick Jacomo, an attorney with Institute for Justice, a nonprofit legal advocacy group litigating the case.

The plaintiffs — Trina Martin, her teenage son Gabe, and ex-partner Toi Cliatt — have spent seven years seeking to sue the FBI for damages after agents mistakenly raided their Atlanta home in 2017.

“I thought someone was breaking in, and it was so chaotic that I thought they had a mission, and the mission was to kill us,” said Martin in an interview with ABC News Live.

Toi Cliatt, who scrambled out of bed at the sound of flash-bang grenades exploding in his living room, described seeking shelter in a closet before the agents detained him.

“They threw me down on the floor and they were interrogating me, and they were asking me questions. And I guess the answers that I was responding to them with didn’t add up,” Cliatt said. “And that’s when I realized that they were in the wrong place.”

“The lead officer came back and he gave us a business card and he apologized and then he left,” said Martin.

The couple said their home sustained $5,000 of damage from burned carpet, broken doors and fractured railings. The emotional trauma is harder to quantify. “It’s countless,” Cliatt said.

Martin’s 7-year-old son Gabe, who sought cover under his bed in terror during the incident, says the experience dramatically altered his life.

“I see the world differently now. I didn’t really have a childhood growing up because of that,” said Gabe, now 13. “So, it really kind of changed me as a person.”

The FBI denied the family’s claims for restitution. The Trump administration, which is defending the agency at the Supreme Court, argues sovereign immunity shields the government from damages claims.

“Cops are human and they make mistakes. And a lot of times the mistakes that are being made are because there’s not enough due diligence, there’s not enough research going into it,” said Anthony Riccio, former First Deputy Superintendent of Chicago Police Department. “The result of it can be devastating for the family impacted.”

Most law enforcement agencies don’t keep track of wrong house raids or publicly report data, legal experts say. Civil Rights advocates estimate hundreds of cases of wrong-house raids nationwide each year; most victims are not compensated for the physical or emotional harm that often results.

“We have a right to be safe in our homes, and when officers are acting bad — for lack of a better word — then individuals have the right to hold them accountable,” said Anjanette Young, a Chicago social worker whose apartment was mistakenly raided by police in 2019.

Young’s case has become one of the most high-profile examples of the problem. Body camera video from the incident captures the 49-year-old handcuffed naked and bewildered in her living room just after 7 p.m. on a Thursday evening.

“You got the wrong house. I live alone!” she is heard on tape pleading with the cops. “Tell me what’s going on!”

Young says it took officers 40 minutes to realize they had the wrong address. They left her without any remedy, she said.

“I’ve been diagnosed with major depression and PTSD, and as a clinician myself, I understand what that means,” she said. “Time does not cure it. It is something that you live with and you have to learn how to manage it.”

A 2023 review by Chicago’s inspector general found that officers had committed at least 21 wrong-house raids over a four-year period. Young sued the city of Chicago and received a nearly $3 million settlement in 2021, but other victims aren’t so lucky.

“The problem with the Anjanette Young case was the information given to the officers was fictitious. A paid informant provided fictitious information in order to get money from the police department,” said Riccio. “When the officers showed up to execute the warrant, they were in the house for seconds before they realized, this is bad information.”

The impacts can be severe.

An Austin, Texas, police SWAT team responding to a gunfight, blew up the front door of Glen and Mindy Shields’ home in 2023 causing thousands of dollars in property damage. The suspect lived across the street. The city denied any wrongdoing and — as is often the case — claimed immunity.

When cops showed up outside Amy Hadley’s home in South Bend, Indiana, in 2022, her teenage son emerged with his hands up as some officers began to openly question whether the suspect lived there. They raided the home anyway. Police later said they had indications the suspect had posted to Facebook from inside.

“Police not only have things like qualified immunity to protect them, but in a case where the police work for the federal government, they have entire doctrines that effectively act like federal immunity,” said Jaicomo.

Trina, Toi and Gabe now hope the Supreme Court will help them pierce that shield.

Congress carved out an exception for federal law enforcement immunity from civil liability suits in 1974 for victims of “assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, or abuse of process” by an officer.

The government denies the exception applies to the Martin case.

“What the Martins are looking for in this case is to be made whole for the mistake that was made by the FBI, but much more broadly than that is to ensure that they might be one of the last families that this happens to in America,” Jaicomo said.

The case comes as advocates for victims of police misconduct and mistakes say President Donald Trump is rolling back guardrails on law enforcement.

The Trump Justice Department has put a freeze on federal civil rights investigations into cops and vowed to reconsider consent decrees with police departments found to have engaged in a pattern of misconduct.

That includes agreements with the cities of Louisville and Minneapolis for police reforms agreed to after the 2020 police killings of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd in their respective cities.

“The Justice Department had in recent years been really taking a close look, at where things are going wrong, where you see a pattern of constitutional violations. And what the Trump Justice Department appears to be doing is backing away from that process,” said ACLU legal director Cecilia Wang.

Anjanette Young says communities don’t need to wait for the feds.

In Illinois, she’s lobbying state and local officials for strict new rules on search warrants to prevent cops from raiding the wrong house, including new steps to vet intelligence on a suspect’s location; requiring a 30 second wait after knocking before breaking down a door; and, mandatory use of tactics least intrusive to someone’s home and property.

“It’s not okay to harm people and then not fix the harm,” Young said.

Retired Chicago police officer Riccio agrees. “Whether that’s repairing the damage or providing them with some sort of compensation for what they’ve experienced, yeah, absolutely,” he said.

The Martins say that kind of restitution is the exception rather than the norm. Now, they hope the nation’s highest court will change that.

“For seven long years it felt like they were turning their backs on us,” Martin said. “I felt unheard, and it was easier to just give up, you know? And I didn’t want to give up.”

Funeral director trashed over 6,500 bodies of pets, used fake ashes to defraud customers out of $650,000: Officials

April 29, 2025 by WDNY Radio

Funeral director trashed over 6,500 bodies of pets, used fake ashes to defraud customers out of 0,000: Officials

Funeral director trashed over 6,500 bodies of pets, used fake ashes to defraud customers out of $650,000: Officials — Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office

(PITTSBURGH) — A funeral home director has been charged after allegedly throwing out the bodies of thousands of pets and giving owners the ashes of other animals, collectively charging them over $650,000 in the process, prosecutors said.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday announced on Monday that Jacob Vereb — owner of Vereb Funeral Home and Eternity Pet Memorial in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — has been charged with improper disposal of “thousands of dogs and cats” for which owners paid for cremations, burials, returns of ashes, and other services, stealing over $650,000 from customers between 2021 and 2024,” according to a statement from the Pennsylvania’s Attorney General’s Office.

“Vereb took money in exchange for private cremation services, then disposed of many of the pets at a landfill and provided customers with ashes of other, unknown animals,” officials said.

The funeral home, which also worked with human remains, was only alleged by authorities to have defrauded customers who brought in their pets but the investigation identified more than 6,500 victims from Allegheny, Armstrong, Washington and Westmoreland counties, officials continued.

”This case is disturbing, and will cause devastation and heartache for many Pennsylvanians,” Attorney General Sunday said. “Our pets are members of our families, and this defendant betrayed and agonized pet owners who entrusted him to provide dignified services for their beloved cats and dogs. I commend our investigative team for a comprehensive review of voluminous records which uncovered this long-running pattern of theft and deception.”

Due to the vast numbers of people affected, the Office of Attorney General has launched a website to engage with victims where victims can provide their contact information, share victim impact statements, and receive updates on the criminal case. The website will also help concerned citizens to determine if they are victims in this case, officials said.

“Nearly a dozen veterinary practices and businesses worked with the Office of Attorney General to confirm that Vereb collected at least $657,517 in fees from pet owners who were promised a private cremation for their pet, but did not receive the actual ashes of their pet,” the Attorney General’s Office said. “Eternity Pet Memorial received the pets directly from consumers or through area veterinarians.”

Vereb, 70, was charged on Monday with felony counts of theft by deception, receiving stolen property, and deceptive business practices after surrendering Monday afternoon and was arraigned on the charges. He was released on his own recognizance, officials said.

The investigation is currently ongoing.

+ More