Progressive PAC slams RFK Jr.'s swim in contaminated river: ‘Doesn't give a damn' about grandchildren
In a new 30-second ad, 314 Action presented Kennedy's swim in Rock Creek as absurd, posting it next to two facetious headlines saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered drone strikes from a steam bath and another saying Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shot and killed another dog.
Kennedy posted photos of himself and his grandchildren swimming in Rock Creek last week on social media. Swimming has been illegal in most of D.C.'s waterways since the 1970s, largely because of contamination from the District's aging sewer system, and the National Park Service has stated 'swimming and wading are not allowed due to high bacteria levels.'
'RFK Jr. ignored 'keep out signs' and jumped into a river with his grandkids contaminated by raw sewage,' the ad by 314 Action states. 'RFK Jr. has presided over the worst measles outbreak in decades and cut billions in life-saving medical research. If RFK Jr. doesn't care about the health of his own grandchildren, he doesn't give a damn about yours.'
Shaughnessy Naughton, President of 314 Action, said Kennedy has 'turned the nation's top health office into a public health disaster' in his first 100 days as HHS Secretary.
314 Action focuses on getting Democrats with backgrounds in STEM elected to public office. Successful candidates they've backed include Democratic Reps. Janelle Bynum (Ore.), George Whitesides (Calif.) and Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
'He's not just incompetent — he's dangerous. Under his watch, we've seen the worst measles outbreak in decades, billions slashed from life-saving research, and a brutal plan to gut Medicaid for millions,' added Naughton. 'RFK Jr. will be remembered not as a leader, but as a reckless conspiracy theorist who put children, seniors, and vulnerable Americans in mortal danger.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
11 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Democrats and advocates criticize Trump's executive order on homelessness
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Leading Democrats and advocates for the homeless are criticizing an executive order President Donald Trump signed this week aimed at removing homeless people from the streets, possibly by committing them for mental health or drug treatment without their consent. Trump directed some of his Cabinet heads to prioritize funding to cities that crack down on open drug use and street camping, with the goal of making people feel safer. It's not compassionate to do nothing, the order states. 'Shifting these individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment is the most proven way to restore public order,' the order reads. Homelessness has become a bigger problem in recent years as the cost of housing increased, especially in states such as California where there aren't enough homes to meet demand. At the same time, drug addiction and overdoses have soared with the availability of cheap and potent fentanyl. The president's order might be aimed at liberal cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York, which Trump views as too lax about conditions on their streets. But many of the concepts have already been proposed or tested in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic mayors have worked for years to get people off the streets and into treatment. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for cities to clear encampments even if the people living in them have nowhere else to go. Still, advocates say Trump's new order is vague, punitive and won't effectively end homelessness. Newsom has directed cities to clean up homeless encampments and he's funneled more money into programs to treat addiction and mental health disorders. His office said Friday that Trump's order relies on harmful stereotypes and focuses more on 'creating distracting headlines and settling old scores.' 'But, his imitation (even poorly executed) is the highest form of flattery,' spokesperson Tara Gallegos said in a statement, referring to the president calling for strategies already in use in California. San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has also emphasized the importance of clean and orderly streets in banning homeless people from living in RVs and urging people to accept the city's offers of shelter. In Silicon Valley, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan recently pushed a policy change that makes a person eligible for jail if they reject three offers of shelter. Trump's executive order tasks Attorney General Pam Bondi and the secretaries for health, housing and transportation to prioritize grants to states and local governments that enforce bans on open drug use and street camping. Devon Kurtz, the public safety policy director at the Cicero Institute, a conservative policy group that has advocated for several of the provisions of the executive order, said the organization is 'delighted' by the order. He acknowledged that California has already been moving to ban encampments since the Supreme Court's decision. But he said Trump's order adds teeth to that shift, Kurtz said. 'It's a clear message to these communities that were still sort of uncomfortable because it was such a big change in policy,' Kurtz said. But Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, called parts of the order vague. He said the U.S. abandoned forced institutionalization decades ago because it was too expensive and raised moral and legal concerns. 'What is problematic about this executive order is not so much that law enforcement is involved — it's what it calls on law enforcement to do, which is to forcibly lock people up,' Berg said. 'That's not the right approach to dealing with homelessness.' The mayor of California's most populous city, Los Angeles, is at odds with the Newsom and Trump administrations on homelessness. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, opposes punishing sweeps and says the city has reduced street homelessness by working with homeless people to get them into shelter or housing. 'Moving people from one street to the next or from the street to jail and back again will not solve this problem,' she said in a statement. ___ Kramon reported from Atlanta. She is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Criminalization or support? President Trump's executive order on homelessness gets mixed reaction
An executive order signed by President Trump purporting to protect Americans from 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' attributed to homelessness has left local officials and homeless advocates outraged over its harsh tone while also grasping for a hopeful message in its fine print. The order Trump signed Thursday would require federal agencies to reverse precedents or consent decrees that impede U.S. policy 'encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.' It ordered those agencies to 'ensure the availability of funds to support encampment removal efforts.' Depending on how that edict is carried out, it could extend a lifeline for Mayor Karen Bass' Inside Safe program, which has eliminated dozens of the city's most notable encampments but faces budget challenges to maintain the hotel and motel beds that allow people to move indoors. Responding to the order Friday, Bass said she was troubled that it called for ending street homelessness and moving people into rehabilitation facilities at the same time as the administration's cuts to Medicaid have affected funding 'streams for facilities for people to stay in, especially people who are disabled.' 'Of course I'm concerned about any punitive measures,' Bass said. 'But first and foremost, if you want to end street homelessness, then you have got to have housing and services for people who are on the street.' Kevin Murray, president and chief executive of the Weingart Center homeless services and housing agency, saw ambiguity in the language. 'I couldn't tell whether he is offering money for people who want to do it his way or taking money away from people who don't do it his way,' Murray said. Others took their cue from the order's provocative tone set in a preamble declaring that the overwhelming majority of the 274,224 people reported living on the street in 2024 'are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.' The order contradicted a growing body of research finding that substance use and mental illness, while significant, are not overriding factors in homelessness. 'Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.' A February study by the Benioff Homeless and Housing Initiative at UC San Francisco found that only about 37% of more than 3,000 homeless people surveyed in California were using illicit drugs regularly, but just over 65% reported having regularly used at some point in their lives. More than a third said their drug use had decreased after they became homeless and one in five interviewed in depth said they were seeking treatment but couldn't get it. 'As with most executive orders, it doesn't have much effect on its own,' said Steve Berg, chief policy officer for the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'It tells the federal agencies to do different things. Depending on how the federal agencies do those things, that's what will have the impact.' In concrete terms, the order seeks to divert funding from two pillars of mainstream homelessness practice, 'housing first,' the prioritization of permanent housing over temporary shelter, and 'harm reduction,' the rejection of abstinence as a condition of receiving services and housing. According to the order, grants issued under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration should 'not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm.' And the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should, to the extent permitted by law, end support for 'housing first' policies that 'deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency.' To some extent, those themes reflect shifts that have been underway in the state and local response to homelessness. Under pressure from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California legislature established rules allowing relatives and service providers to refer people to court for treatment and expanded the definition of gravely disabled to include substance use. Locally, Bass' Inside Safe program and the county's counterpart, Pathway Home, have prioritized expanding interim housing to get people off the streets immediately. Trump's order goes farther, though, wading into the controversial issue of how much coercion is justified in eliminating encampments. The Attorney General and the other federal agencies, it said, should take steps to ensure that grants go to states and cities that enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering and squatting. Homeless advocacy organizations saw those edicts as a push for criminalization of homelessness and mental illness. 'We'll be back to the days of 'One Flew Over the Cuckcoo's Nest,' 'Berg said, referring to the 1962 novel and subsequent movie dramatizing oppressive conditions in mental health institutions. Defending Housing First as a proven strategy that is the most cost-effective way to get people off the street, Berg said the order encourages agencies to use the money in less cost-effective ways. 'What we want to do is reduce homelessness,' he said. 'I'm not sure that is the goal of the Trump administration.' The National Homelessness Law Center said in a statement saying, 'This Executive Order is rooted in outdated, racist myths about homelessness and will undoubtedly make homelessness worse.... Trump's actions will force more people into homelessness, divert taxpayer money away from people in need, and make it harder for local communities to solve homelessness.' Murray, who describes himself as not a fan of Housing First, noted that key policies pressed in the order—civil commitment, encampment removal and substance use treatment—are already gaining prominence in the state and local response to homelessness. 'We all think if it came from Trump it is horrible,' Murray said. 'It is certainly overbearing. It certainly misses some nuances of what real people with mental illness and substance use are like. But we've started down the path of most of this stuff.' His main concern was that the order might be interpreted to apply to Section 8, the primary federal financial tool for getting homeless people into housing. What would happen, he asked, if someone with a voucher refused treatment? 'It might encourage more people to stay on the streets,' he said. 'Getting people into treatment isn't easy.'
NBC News
13 minutes ago
- NBC News
The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Friday! In today's edition, Sahil Kapur notes that a looming Obamacare deadline is dividing Republicans on Capitol Hill. Plus, Kristen Welker breaks down the political fallout thus far from the Jeffrey Epstein saga. And Scott Bland answers this week's reader question on Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. — Adam Wollner The next big health care fight that's splitting Republicans By Sahil Kapur After passing President Donald Trump's sweeping megabill that included steep cuts to Medicaid, Republicans have another big health care fight on their hands. GOP leaders are facing growing calls from their members to extend a bucket of funding for the Affordable Care Act that is set to expire at the end of this year as some look to avert insurance premium hikes and millions of Americans losing their health coverage. But the cause faces opposition from conservatives who detest Obamacare and don't want to lift a finger to protect it. Some argue it'd be too expensive to continue the premium tax credits, which cost over $30 billion per year and were initially adopted as part of a Covid-19 response. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that about 5 million Americans will lose their insurance by 2034 if the money expires. The divide: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who represents a swing district that Trump lost in 2024, said that Congress should continue those ACA tax credits in order to avoid price increases. 'I think we gotta be doing everything to keep costs low across the board — health care, groceries, energy, all of the above. So I am currently working on addressing that as we speak,' he said. But Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said he 'absolutely' wants that funding to end. 'It'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Can't afford it,' he said. 'That was a Covid-era policy. Newsflash to America: Covid is over.' For now, top Republican leaders are keeping their powder dry about whether — or how — they will take up the issue. 'I think that goes to the end of the calendar year, so we'll have discussion about the issue later. But it hasn't come up yet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said when asked about an ACA subsidy extension. 'But it's on the radar.' A midterm warning: Veteran GOP pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward recently released a memo warning that extending the health care tax credits is broadly popular, even with 'solid majorities of Trump voters and [s]wing voters.' They warned that the GOP will pay a 'political penalty' in the competitive districts in the 2026 midterm elections if the funding expires on schedule. Analysis by Kristen Welker The Jeffrey Epstein saga is the political headache that won't go away for President Donald Trump, as the drip-drip of new reporting on his past relationship with the convicted sex offender and repeated attempts to deflect have only fed the story. It's the first time we've really seen Trump's base break with him to this degree. Even though the impulse to rally around their leader remains as each new story breaks, no matter how Trump tries to change the subject, the calls for his administration to release more information from the Epstein files are only growing louder. The issue transcends politics — it's a devastating reminder of the victims of the crimes committed by Epstein and those who enabled him. As far as how it's playing out on Capitol Hill, Democrats and even some Republicans are trying to hold the Trump administration's feet to the fire. Both parties believe the GOP could pay a political price on the issue as they look to defend their congressional majorities in next year's midterms. That includes Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., one of our guests on 'Meet the Press' this Sunday. 'People will become apathetic again. They'll say, we elected President Trump. We gave him a majority in the House and the Senate, and they couldn't even release evidence of an underage sex trafficking ring. They couldn't even bring themselves to release that. I thought we were the party of family values, and I guess we're not,' Massie said this week on the 'Redacted' podcast. And Democrats, including Rep. Ro Khanna of California — another one of our guests this Sunday — argue the issue has salience on multiple fronts. They note it divides Trump and his base while also making a relatively popular appeal for transparency, one piece of a broader Democratic line of attack that the administration isn't being open with the American people. While it's unsurprising that Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of how the Trump administration is handling the Epstein files, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll, 71% of independents disapprove, too. And Republicans are about evenly divided, with 40% approving and 36% disapproving of the administration's handling of the issue. The political cost for Republicans isn't clear yet. Will it depress the enthusiasm of voters Republicans are scrambling to motivate to turn out with Trump not on the ballot? Will it force the party onto the defense at a time where it needs to be cementing public sentiment about its landmark tax cuts and spending bill, which Democrats are already weaponizing as a key midterm issue? Could Democrats overplay their hand if it overshadows their message on the most important issue to many voters, the economy? We'll discuss this and more on this Sunday's 'Meet the Press.' In addition to Khanna and Massie, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., will also be joining us. Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on Republicans' attempts to draw new congressional maps in Texas. 'Is it legal what Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans want to do for Trump?' To answer that, we turned to senior politics editor Scott Bland. Here's his response: Redistricting happens every decade after the decennial census, so that each state has representation in the House of Representatives reflecting its official population and each district in a state has the same number of people in it. But this isn't the first time someone has moved to change the maps mid-decade. In fact, this isn't even the first time it's happened in Texas. In 2002, Texas Republicans gained full control of the state Legislature, and they decided the following year to draw a new map to replace a court-drawn one that had been imposed for that decade — and to increase the GOP advantage in the state. 'I'm the majority leader and we want more seats,' Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters at the time. What flies in Texas doesn't necessarily fly everywhere, though. Colorado Republicans also tried to redraw maps in their state in 2003, but the state Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution forbade revisiting the maps more than once per decade. While Democrats are eager to fight back against the GOP's effort to draw more red seats in Texas, such obstacles could stand in their way. As New York Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs told Politico this week, 'I understand those in New York who are watching what's happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage.' But, he added, 'The [state] Constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years.'
