Utah homeless advocates worry about loss of federal funding
'Our fundraising and grant-writing efforts are going to have to ramp up pretty significantly,' said Lauren Navidomskis, executive director of Lantern House, a 330-bed homeless shelter in Ogden that serves individuals and families.
Kristen Mitchell, founder and executive director of Youth Futures Utah, which operates shelters for homeless youth in Ogden, Cedar City and St. George, worries about the future of some $750,000 in funding that comes through the federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Like Navidomskis, she also worries about the future of funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which amounts to $25,000 to $50,000 a year for Youth Futures.
'We have some pretty intense uncertainty about our federal funding,' Mitchell said.
The funding hasn't been cut — not yet, anyway. The administration of President Donald Trump, though, has frozen distribution of the money as it reviews spending. This has spurred jitters and calls by Mitchell for the public to donate and to reach out to Utah's federal delegation to urge approval of Runaway and Homeless Youth Act funding.
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act funding alone accounts for around 17% of Youth Futures' annual budget of $4.5 million, and the potential loss of the money, if not offset by other revenue, worries Mitchell. Services could be trimmed, meaning some homeless kids would potentially have to fend for themselves.
Before Youth Futures opened its first facility in 2015, Mitchell said, homeless kids would seek shelter in caves, abandoned buildings, sheds, parks or homes of drug dealers. 'It's tragic the things that these kids have to turn to to survive,' she said.
Lantern House and Youth Futures, both privately operated nonprofit agencies, aren't alone in their unease about future funding under Trump, whose administration is focused on slashing government spending. In conversations with leaders from other Utah organizations that aid the homeless, Mitchell also senses uncertainty.
'They're calling me, going, 'Have you heard anything? What have you heard? What are you seeing?'' she said.
Likewise, the funding freeze is causing concern among organizations around the country that aid the homeless and others in need. Nearly 50 U.S. House Democrats signed a letter sent Monday to FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, calling on them to restore FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program funding.
'EFSP plays a critical role in combatting hunger and homelessness in our country, working to lift children and families out of desperate circumstances. We demand that you take immediate action to ensure that full funding for EFSP, as appropriated by Congress, resumes without further disruption,' reads the letter, sent by Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio.
The FEMA program 'provides critical support to local organizations, filling gaps to respond to urgent needs or where other sources of funding fall short,' the letter continues.
Navidomskis said about half of Lantern House's annual $3 million budget comes from federal and state funds. If federal funding is cut, though, that could reduce money coming from the state, as well, as state leaders reallocate funds to recipient agencies to help them contend with the loss of support from Washington, D.C.
Lantern House, the largest shelter in Utah in terms of bed count, provided 3,300 people with 97,000 shelter nights between them in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2024. It served around 120,000 free meals to 4,200 people.
Mitchell describes Youth Futures as 'sitting in a sort of limbo position' as federal authorities review spending. The agency has 53 beds for homeless youth at its three locations and serves around 700 people per year. 'We just don't have answers. We don't know,' she said.
That uncertainty is prompting the turn to the public for donations to help offset any federal funding cuts. 'I'm trying to get ahead of possible concerns. I'm trying to diversify my funding, receive more just unrestricted funding to help us cover any possible delays or cuts or freezes,' Mitchell said.
Meantime, Navidomskis said the number of people Lantern House serves and the severity of issues many of them face continue to rise.
'I don't think the homeless issue is getting better. I think there's more awareness and there seems to be a little bit more investment from our higher-level philanthropic giving that can drive some evidence-based change,' she said. 'But from the day-to-day perspective, it still feels like a very, very heavy task and load to lift.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
How the Hunter Biden cover-up continues to this day
In the same week that Hunter Biden burst back onto the public stage to play the victim and lash out at Democrats, we also heard from his one time protector turned reluctant nemesis, Special Counsel David Weiss, with similarly self serving and disingenuous testimony to Congress. Weiss, the former US Attorney in the Bidens' home state of Delaware who presided over the troubled five year investigation into the former First Son, told the House Judiciary Committee that there just wasn't enough evidence to justify charging Hunter under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). His investigators 'couldn't put together a sufficient case,' he said in June testimony released last week. Advertisement That's pretty rich, considering that those very IRS investigators complained bitterly about the obstruction and slow walking they faced on Weiss' watch every time they pursued an investigative trail that led to Joe Biden and the lucrative foreign lobbying Hunter did in his father's name. That's why IRS Supervisory Special Agent Gary Shapley and Special Agent Joseph Ziegler blew up their successful careers and became whistleblowers. Hunter's business model during his father's vice presidency and beyond revolved around foreign lobbying — including for the corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma that was paying him a million dollars a year, Chinese government-linked firms BHR and CEFC, and an oligarch client in Romania. Advertisement In fact, the very first email this newspaper published from Hunter's infamous laptop was from a Burisma executive, thanking him for arranging a meeting with his father the previous night. It wasn't just any old meeting, either. Hunter had invited VP Biden to a private dinner at Georgetown restaurant Cafe Milano in April 2015 to meet his partners from Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan, as his former 'best friend in business' Devon Archer told Congress. In their upcoming tell-all book, 'The Whistleblowers v the Big Guy,' Shapley and Ziegler point out that, along with that Burisma bombshell, emails and communications they recovered from the laptop showed that Hunter's relationship with DC lobbying shop Blue Star Strategies was tied to his position on the Burisma board and that the firm had been hired 'to influence U.S. government officials on Burisma's behalf.' Advertisement 'These connections raised red flags about potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act FARA and any comprehensive warrant would naturally include references to individuals who may have been involved, even tangentially.' And so, when their team drafted a search warrant related to potential FARA violation, Weiss' top U.S. Attorney Lesley Wolf ordered them to remove all references to 'Political Figure 1,' the DOJ pseudonym for Joe Biden. 'Please focus on FARA evidence only. There should be nothing about Political Figure 1 in here,' Wolf wrote in an August 2020 email, according to their whistleblower testimony to Congress. Advertisement Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Whenever their investigations might lead to Joe Biden they found subpoenas were denied, interviews were canceled or not allowed, and Hunter's lawyers were tipped off before search warrants could be executed. Prosecutors cited bad 'optics' or questioned whether the 'juice was worth the squeeze' For instance, Shapley testified that Wolf refused to approve a search warrant for a guest house Hunter had been staying in on Joe's palatial Delaware estate as part of FARA-related evidence collection. When they discovered incriminating WhatsApp messages Hunter wrote to a business partner at Chinese energy company CEFC on July 30, 2017, citing his father, the investigators were blocked from using phone location data to confirm that Joe really was in the room. 'I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled,' Hunter wrote, demanding $10 million. 'I am very concerned that the Chairman has either changed his mind and broken our deal without telling me or that he is unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.' Advertisement Hunter also threatened that his father would retaliate if the Chinese did not do as he commanded: 'I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction.' Here was Hunter explicitly claiming his father was involved in his business negotiations. Apart from the fact that Joe claimed that he knew nothing about his son's overseas business dealings, Shapley and Ziegler decided there were serious tax implications to the conversation, but they were blocked from pursuing them. They weren't even allowed to find out if Hunter had sent the message from Joe's house. 'The message was clear,' Shapley and Ziegler write in 'The Whistleblowers v. the Big Guy.' 'Although we were investigating Joe Biden's son — who, it seemed, had often involved his father in his shady overseas business dealings — none of our materials were supposed to mention Joe Biden. Advertisement 'Even when we needed material that might be in one of Joe Biden's homes or storage units, we couldn't mention him. The document might leak to the press, and that would make the Biden campaign look bad. 'And in the summer of 2020, there was nothing that the leadership of the FBI wanted less than to make Joe Biden look bad. Doing so might help elect Donald Trump for a second time.' How different was the way the FBI handled Donald Trump compared to Joe Biden. Whether it was the fake Steele Dossier the FBI treated as if it were legitimate evidence, or the raid on Mar a Lago, there was no concern about the 'optics' of investigating a sitting president or presidential candidate when it was Trump. Advertisement As for FARA, the once little-used law against lobbying the US on behalf of foreign interests has been selectively used to target Trump allies and Democrat enemies. For example, Paul Manafort, former chairman of Trump's 2016 campaign, was charged with FARA. So, too, was Gal Luft, the original Hunter Biden whistleblower, who told FBI and DOJ officials in a March 2019 secret meeting in Brussels that Hunter and his uncle Jim Biden were on the payroll of the Chinese. His accurate information was buried and then, one week before Republicans took back the House in 2022, Luft was charged with FARA and other violations. He is currently languishing in jail in Cyprus while Hunter escaped scot free. Advertisement In the last days of his presidency, Joe issued a uniquely tailored pardon for his son, stretching back 11 years and covering Hunter's conviction on gun charges and guilty plea on felony tax evasion charges that Weiss was forced to press after the sweetheart plea deal he'd stitched together with Hunter's lawyers fell apart in the wake of Shapley and Ziegler's revelations. In the end, Weiss forced the IRS to remove Shapley and Ziegler from the investigation as soon as he suspected Shapley had blown the whistle. The Office of Special Counsel last year determined that the IRS had illegally retaliated against the pair by removing them from the investigation after they made protected disclosures to Congress about DOJ interference in the probe. All the obstruction and interference and slow walking past statutes of limitation happened under the benign leadership of David Weiss. So spare us his mealy mouthed justifications for squibbing what should have been the most consequential political corruption investigation in history.
CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Sen. Chris Van Hollen on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," July 27, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with Sen Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 27, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: And we're joined now by Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who is one of those appropriators we were just speaking about with the budget director. You just heard everything he laid out. There were no specifics on when these clawbacks could be coming, but they're on the table. He says they don't want to shut down. He didn't seem to say they want, you know, a continuing resolution. Do you know what's coming? SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Not really. The one thing we know, and you asked Russ Vought about this, was he says that the process is too bipartisan right now, meaning that they want to use this process just to ram through the agenda and the overall agenda we saw when they passed the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill, which was beautiful for billionaires, but not really for anybody else, which is to provide tax cuts for very wealthy people at the expense of everybody else. And I do want to say Margaret, I heard him deny that that bill increased the deficit and debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just said it increased our debt by 3.5 trillion before added interest. MARGARET BRENNAN: He's using an accounting gimmick in regard to the benchmark. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: As- and Republicans have called out this accounting gimmick, so when-- MARGARET BRENNAN: --And it was accepted-- SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, they sort of unilaterally imposed it, it was not accepted by Democrats, and it was a departure from previous efforts. But you know, then they come back and they say that they want to cut these important programs, NIH and other things to reduce the deficit, when, in fact, what they're doing it for is to help try finance those tax cuts for very wealthy people. MARGARET BRENNAN: So it's just heading us towards pretty unchartered territory and very unclear whether we will be able to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats are going to be blamed if there's a shutdown, don't you think? I mean, how do you sidestep this? SEN. VAN HOLLEN : We certainly don't want a government shutdown. And I think everybody has heard Russ Vought say that they want a less bipartisan process. What that tells me is they're willing just to use their powers to try to shut down the government if they don't get their way. And what's ironic about this Margaret is you have Russ Vought calling for these deep cuts to education NIH, when he has asked for an increase for his OMB budget. He asked for a 13% increase for his OMB budget. He's asked for more people to join the OMB staff, while he's talking about RIFing people at other departments, like the Department of yeah- getting rid of firing people at the Department of Veterans Affairs and other important priorities. So it's hard to take the OMB Director seriously when he says that they didn't increase the debt and when he says he wants to cut things except for his own budget and staff. MARGARET BRENNAN: But if they do head towards a government shutdown, why would there be any benefit unless it is to prioritize funding certain agencies and de-prioritizing other agencies. Well, that goes back to the executive, doesn't it, that authority? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, that ultimately, though you need, for example, four Republican senators to stand behind what he's calling for. And what they've called for is sort of just a double cross on the process, right? That's what the so-called rescissions, is just a Washington name for double cross. They support one thing, one day, President even signs off, and then they come back and say they changed their mind. And what we're asking is for four Republican senators just to publicly declare that when they say they're going to fund the Veterans Affairs Department that they actually mean it. MARGARET BRENNAN: That they won't later agree to claw that money back. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Exactly MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. So one of the things the Trump administration is clear and did get clawbacks of is foreign assistance. However, there's an exception. In June, the administration announced it would give $30 million to this Israeli-backed organization called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the GHF, I know you're familiar with it. It delivers aid through armed military contractors who stand behind the Israeli military in four designated zones that Gazans then have to get themselves to in order to receive the aid. The State Department says they're sending this money. Have they? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: To my knowledge, they have, although we've asked for the details, we haven't gotten them. In fact, just today, I'm sending a letter to Secretary Rubio, signed with 20 of my colleagues, calling for more information, but also calling for defunding this. American taxpayers should not be spending one penny to fund this private organization backed by mercenaries and by the IDF that has become a death trap. Over 1000 people have died from being shot and killed as starving people crowd to try to get food at just these four sites. MARGARET BRENNAN: The- just to be clear here, the State Department says they're going to send $30 million. Reuters had reported that there were documents they obtained showing 7 million had already been sent to these, what you call, armed mercenaries. But the Trump administration says this is the best way, this is the only way, to keep money- to keep food out of the hands of Hamas, which financially benefits off reselling it to desperate starving people. Is there another way to feed desperate starving people? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Yes. And this is a- a big lie, the claim that when the UN organizations were delivering food to Palestinians civilians, that it was being systematically diverted to Hamas. I want to say loudly and clearly, this is a big lie. Trump is-- MARGARET BRENNAN: The systematic part of that. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: The systematic, but that is their claim. They claim that essentially, large amounts of aid are being diverted to Hamas. What we know now, from testimony of American officials, Cindy McCain, and just this week, high level Israeli military officials, is that there's no evidence to support that. AID, USAID, just released a report saying there's no evidence to support that. So what the Netanyahu government did was scrap a delivery system that was working at delivering food and assistance in favor of this other effort. That was a pretext, this claim that Hamas was systematically diverting food. The real goal of this other effort is to use food as a weapon of war and population control. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a violation of international law. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Yes, it is. MARGARET BRENNAN: That's a human rights abuse. Senator Lindsey Graham was on "Meet the Press" this morning, and I want to ask for your reaction to something he said, because he was very strong in his words. He said, because the ceasefire talks fell apart, Israel is reassessing. He said to expect a full military effort by Israel to take Gaza down, quote, "like we did in Tokyo and Berlin. They're going to do in Gaza what we did in Tokyo and Berlin, take the place by force, start over again, present a better future." The United States is a huge supporter of the State of Israel. Is there anything that could prevent what he says is about to happen? SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, the United States should make very clear that it's unacceptable to use U.S. weapons to target or indiscriminately fire on civilians and civilian infrastructure. So-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Because this sounds like an occupation. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, we also know, just this week, members of the Netanyahu coalition, in fact, government ministers, called for essentially erasing Gaza, and they said, it will become a Jewish state, statelet. And part of- so- this was one of the-- MARGARET BRENNAN: Netanyahu did say he didn't agree with his statement. SEN. VAN HOLLEN: Well, here's the problem though, Margaret, we continually see that Netanyahu, at the end of the day, does cater to his most far right wing of his- of his government, people like Ben Gvir, people like Smotrich. That is what has allowed him to stay in power, and so at the end of the day, he takes the most extreme positions. MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator Van Hollen, thank you for your time today. We'll be right back with a lot more "Face the Nation." Stay with us.
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
What's Trump's approval rating? Latest polls on job performance, immigration
A string of recent polls shows President Donald Trump's approval rating has remained largely steady over the last week, even as a new Gallup survey gave him his lowest numbers of his second term. Aggregations of recent approval polling from the New York Times and RealClearPolitics place Trump's approval between 44% and 45%, respectively, with a 53% to 42% disapproval. See last week's polling: Trump approval drops in new poll as more Americans oppose immigration policies In a July 25 poll from Emerson College, the president had a 46% approval rating and 47% disapproval. That's a one-point increase on both counts from the survey's June results. "About six months into the second Trump administration, the president's approval rating has stabilized in the mid-40s," the poll's executive director, Spencer Kimball, said in statement. "While his disapproval has steadily increased about a point each month since the inauguration and now stands at 47%." In a Gallup poll released a day prior, the president's approval rating was significantly lower, coming in at 37%. The pollsters called it the lowest mark of his second term and only a few points higher than his all-time-low rating of 34% at the end of his first term. Both polls showed what has long been a deep divide between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to Trump and his policies, especially over immigration, foreign policy and the economy. Here's a round-up of some of the last week's polls. Emerson College poll Trump notched his highest single-issue approval rating on immigration, the poll said, with 45% approving and 46% disapproving of Trump's policies. The highest disapproval numbers were on the economy, with a 41% approval rating and 51% disapproval. That continued to sink with Trump's tariff policy, with 36% approving while 50% disapproved. Trump's support – both on overall job performance and on specific issues – was fueled by Republican respondents in the poll. Just 10% of Democrats said they like the president's job performance, compared to 87% of Republicans and 38% of independents. The difference support was widest by party on immigration, with 12.9% of Democrats approving compared to 80% of Republicans. More: 16% of voters approve of Trump's handling of Epstein files, poll shows The survey of 1,400 registered voters was conducted July 21-22 and has a margin of error of ±2.5 percentage points. Gallup poll The poll marks a 10-point drop from the 47% approval rating Americans gave Trump at the beginning of his second term in January. About 29% of independent voters said they're pleased with Trump's job performance in the new survey, the lowest Gallup has tracked with the group in either of Trump's two terms. It's a 17-point decline from the 46% the president enjoyed among independents at the start of his second term earlier this year. Trump's ratings on some of the most significant issues facing the country also faltered, according to Gallup pollsters. He received the strongest support for his handling of the conflict with Iran, at 42% approving, followed by foreign policy at 41%. The president's handling of Iran – where U.S. troops bombed three nuclear sites last month – earned Trump the greatest support from independents, at 36%, while the federal budget gave him the lowest at 19%. The survey of 1,002 Americans was conducted July 7-21, and has a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Fox News poll Trump's support was lowest on issues of inflation and tariffs, with 36% of respondents backing the way Trump has approached two central forces in America's economy. He received his highest ranking for border security, with 56% of respondents approving and 44% disapproving. Along party lines, support was highest among Republicans, with 88% backing the president. Thirty-seven percent of independents and 7% of Democrats agreed. The survey was conducted by Beacon Research/Shaw & Co. Research. 1,000 registered voters were surveyed July 18-21, and the poll has a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
