Kristi Noem claims 1 in 6 survivors of Lahaina wildfires were forced to trade sexual favors for supplies
The comments were seemingly in reference to a report on female Filipino survivors, which one of the authors called a 'gross manipulation' of the report, according to Politico.
At a review meeting for the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Wednesday, Noem said, 'After the wildfires in Maui, residents voiced concerns that every FEMA employee that they spoke with had different answers.'
'None of them had conversations that resulted in getting assistance that was helpful or any clarity in their situations,' she added. 'The situation in Lahaina was so bad that one in six survivors were forced to trade sexual favors, other favors for just basic supplies.'
The study on Filipino female survivors was conducted by Tagnawa, which states that it is a 'Filipino feminist disaster response organization' in Hawaii. The review included responses from 70 female Filipino fire survivors and found that 16 percent had engaged in 'survival sex in exchange for basic necessities post-disaster,' with 'a landlord, an employer, family members, friends and acquaintances.'
One of the authors of the report, Khara Jabola-Carolus, told Politico that the Trump administration had misinterpreted the findings.
'I'm more concerned about just the gross manipulation of using that statistic to do the opposite of what the report calls for,' she told the outlet. 'Like funding FEMA to improve their response for women's needs.'
In a May press release, DHS states that the report showed 'FEMA's horrific neglect and mismanagement under the Biden Administration.'
At the FEMA review meeting Noem said, 'This job of remaking this agency is not nearly as simple as it should be.'
'Because we're up against decades of gross mismanagement and negligence,' she added. 'The list of FEMA's failures is staggering. The scale of those failures is matched only by their longevity. FEMA has been disastrous at times, incompetent at times. And not just in the last few years but for decades.'
President Donald Trump has been eyeing the shutdown of the agency for some time. Last month, he said he wants states to stop using the agency. The Trump administration has canceled FEMA grants worth billions intended for local projects to protect communities from natural disasters.
At the same time, White House officials have praised the agency's work on responding to the floods in the Texas Hill Country, where more than one hundred people have been killed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California bill to turn lost Pacific Palisades homes into affordable housing paused after locals call it ‘a land grab'
When devastating wildfires swept through California earlier this year, many buildings were destroyed beyond repair. In fact, the Eaton and Palisades fires alone destroyed 40,000 acres of properties, and 6,800 buildings were damaged in the Palisades fire, affecting the Santa Monica Mountains. Now, the rebuilding process is leading to some conflict. Specifically, many residents of Pacific Palisades have recently expressed serious concerns about Senate Bill 549, which would create 'Resilient Rebuilding Authorities" funded by the government through property tax collection. These concerns were recently raised in a Fox 11 LA news report. These authorities would be given the power to purchase lots where homes had been destroyed by fire, and to build low-income housing on a significant percentage of those lots. However, residents of Pacific Palisades, where reports the median home listing price is $4.9 million, are not happy with what they see as a "land grab." Many have voiced opposition, and, in response, Senate Bill 549 has been put on hold until at least 2026. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) You don't have to be a millionaire to gain access to this $1B private real estate fund. In fact, you can get started with as little as $10 — here's how What would the California affordable housing bill do? Senate Bill 549 explains that existing law gives the government the authority to establish an "infrastructure financing district to finance public capital facilities or other specified projects of communitywide significance" and to "allocate tax revenues… to the district, including revenues derived from local sales and use taxes." Lawmakers now want to use this power to create Resilient Rebuilding Authorities, which would use some of the money to buy lots in Pacific Palisades and build homes for people with incomes between 60% and 30% of the median income, as well as homes that would be occupied by people with incomes below 30% of the area median and permanent supportive housing aimed at finding homes for the homeless. Governor Gavin Newsom also separately allocated $101 million in taxpayer money for the construction of more low-income housing to "accelerate the development of affordable multifamily rental housing so that those rebuilding their lives after this tragedy have access to a safe, affordable place to come home to." Read more: Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says — and that 'anyone' can do it Why is the California housing bill causing so much controversy? While lawmakers may want to build affordable housing in Pacific Palisades, residents are not so sure they want this to happen. Jessica Rogers, Pacific Palisades Residents' Association president, wrote a letter expressing her objections to lawmakers, which over 2,300 other local residents signed onto. "[Lawmakers are] asking for a land grab," Rogers said. "This is a rebuild, this is not a politicians get to decide a pet project on what they're going to decide in the Palisades. This is residents of this community get to decide what happens in our rebuild phase, period." Rogers also stated that while there was some affordable housing in the area in the past, residents don't want more of this housing built because they don't want things to change — they want their neighborhood back the way it was. "We had some low-income housing, and we had affordable housing," Rogers explained. "We want what we had on January 7 [the day of the Palisades Fire]. Nothing more, nothing less." Another resident was also upset about the idea of the government coming in and making sweeping changes without the consent of those who already lived there. "It does sound quite a bit like Big Brother deciding what's good for all of us," commented Aileen Haugh, another local resident. "It's irritating to think that other people [not local residents] are going to make decisions of what gets built and how it gets built." Misinformation may have also played a role in stoking opposition, as the LA Times reported that Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star, had shared information on social media about his opposition to the bill, who claimed that the government was focused on dense reconstruction and wouldn't be abiding by local zoning rules. The LA Times has also said that some of the other posts opposing the legislation were based on prejudiced views towards affordable housing and distrust of the government, as well as fears that the character of Pacific Palisades would change. Some even floated the conspiracy that the fires were set on purpose to replace the wealthy community with one where homes were more affordable. Regardless of whether the objections are based on conspiracy theories or fact, however, lawmakers have taken notice, and the controversial bill has now been put on pause. "I appreciate the input of the folks who have weighed in about the bill, and along with legislative colleagues have decided that it would be best for us to pause the bill until next year to give us more time to see if we can get it right," State Senator Ben Allen said in a recent statement. "For me to feel comfortable proceeding, the bill will have to be deeply grounded in community input, empowerment, and decision-making, including the support of the impacted councilmembers." What to read next Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Accredited investors can now buy into this $22 trillion asset class once reserved for elites – and become the landlord of Walmart, Whole Foods or Kroger without lifting a finger. Here's how Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Solve the daily Crossword
Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
Networks bury explosive Russiagate revelations after they hyped the hoax
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii now serving in the Trump administration. She ran for president as a Democrat in 2020. If the parties and election results were reversed, and a Republican congresswoman had joined the Kamala Harris administration, the liberal media elites would have found her courageous and fascinating, like a Liz Cheney-style figure. So, when Gabbard released new documents showing the Obama administration manufactured intelligence to frame incoming President Donald Trump as the illegitimate beneficiary of Russian collusion in the 2016 election, the media treated it like toxic waste. Any press event designed to please Trump was automatically dismissed as the craven act of a loyalist kissing up to the Big Boss. The nightly newscasts of ABC and NBC skipped it. CBS gave it 41 seconds. The next day, CBS and NBC reported on Gabbard suspiciously on the morning shows. NBC's Garrett Haake denounced "Tulsi Gabbard attempting to rewrite the history of Russia's 2016 election interference, accusing former President Obama without evidence of manipulating intelligence." She brought evidence, and they still scream "without evidence." When Team Trump releases old documents, it's partisan. It's weaponized. It's a desperate distraction. When the Democrat elites and the media conspired to release damaging allegations about Trump, it's presented to the public as nonpartisan, as democracy in action, and anything but a distraction. It's the main event. It's bait for the Emmys, the Peabody Awards and the Pulitzer Prizes. For Democratic politicians, the media engage in damage control. For Republicans, their goal is damage. Damaging Republicans is what "trusted, fact-based, independent journalists" do. Scratch a journalist, and they'll tell you it's so politically clumsy (and Trumpy) for documents to be released on television in the White House briefing room by a Trump official. When the Democrats conspired to ruin Trump, they leaked it quietly to those "independent" journalists, who then didn't want to mention they received dirt from PR firms like Fusion GPS, that were paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign to distribute false information, like the junk contained in the "Steele dossier." The networks briefly touched on the Hillary connection when it came out, and quickly moved on, like that was a trifling matter. There's no need to obsess over the nasty sausage they were making. Leftist journalists use anonymous sources to disguise the very partisan nature of the leakers, and there was a ton of surfing on anonymous sources in the tidal wave of anti-Trump journalism. The broadcast networks easily lapped up slime from "mainstream" sources like The New York Times or The Atlantic. These broadcast "institutions" are not about to unravel a Russian-collusion narrative that they relentlessly promoted during Trump's first term. We counted 2,284 minutes of Russiagate coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts alone from 2017 to 2019. Even if then-FBI Director Robert Mueller never indicted Trump for collusion, it was a very persistent black cloud over everything Team Trump was trying to accomplish in his first term. In the first months of 2017, it was the dominant Trump story. When Trump held a press conference that February and denounced the press, NBC's Chuck Todd tweeted, "This not a laughing matter. I'm sorry, delegitimizing the press is un-American." He later added, "Press bashing may feel good to folks but when it's done by people in power, it's corrosive. Take off your partisan hats for a second." The networks don't take off their partisan hats for a second. They pretend only their critics look like partisans. The networks didn't want to focus on Trump's accomplishments in his first term, and not just because successes in making conservative public policy aren't "accomplishments" in their eyes. They wanted Trump to be best known for selling out America to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and laying out the scenario that the end of his presidency could occur at any moment. Their wishful thinking is often defined as "news." It doesn't sound like the "nightly news." Its sounds like a nightly narrative, carefully constructed for political effect. It was a major part of Trump's evening news coverage being around 90% negative every month. The broadcast networks easily lapped up slime from "mainstream" sources like The New York Times or The Atlantic. There's any number of "gems" from the media's anti-Trump collusion campaign. On ABC's "The View" in 2017, co-host Sunny Hostin was mourning Hillary Clinton's defeat: "What cost her the election, in my humble opinion is Russia's hacking," and racism – she cited what CNN's Van Jones called a "whitelash." On ABC's "This Week" in 2018, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg proclaimed, "We don't know if Putin is his handler, his hero or his co-conspirator, but it's obviously where his loyalty lies as opposed to lying with the American people." Now, when Trump accuses Obama of treason in the Russia matter, "The View" co-host Joy Behar demanded to know: "Why can't Obama sue Trump for defamation of character?" But Behar and Hostin have repeatedly accused Trump of treason over the last five years. There it is again: when we call you treasonous, it's not defamatory.
CNN
a day ago
- CNN
Exclusive: ‘A more vulnerable nation': FEMA memos lay out risks of plan to cut $1B in disaster and security grants
Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow The Federal Emergency Management Agency has proposed cutting nearly $1 billion in grant funding that communities and first responders nationwide use to better prepare for disasters and to bolster security for possible terror or cyberattacks. The proposed cuts, which still require approval from the White House budget office and Congress, would zero out funding for more than half of FEMA's emergency management and homeland security grant programs, according to internal memos and two FEMA officials familiar with the plans. This comes amid an overhaul of the disaster relief agency at the hands of the Trump administration, which seeks to drastically shrink FEMA's footprint and shift more responsibility for disaster preparedness, response and recovery onto states. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, has looked at slashing grant funding as part of that effort. In one memo signed by acting FEMA Administrator David Richardson, the cuts are described as a way to 'focus on appropriate spending for the Agency's core mission in emergency management.' But the memos – signed by Richardson and approved by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem – also acknowledge in stark terms the potential risks of eliminating the programs. The loss of one program that helps communities plan and train for disasters would 'leave state and local governments more vulnerable to catastrophic incidents,' one memo states. Ending another that bolsters transportation infrastructure and terrorism protections would 'contradict the administration's commitment to a safer and more secure country,' the memo says. Terminating the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) – the largest FEMA program on the chopping block, providing more than $500 million to prepare major cities for catastrophic emergencies – would create 'a less secure nation, especially at the border and in some of the nation's most targeted cities, including Miami, Washington DC, and Dallas,' the memo states. The agency also plans to eliminate funding for the Next Generation Warning System initiative, which is designed to modernize and improve the nation's public alert and warning capabilities for severe storms and other emergencies, after pausing the program earlier this year. According to the memo, FEMA staff had suggested that instead of terminating the program, the money could be allocated 'to high-risk flooding areas including Texas and New Mexico.' But Richardson signed off on eliminating it earlier this month. Among the other impacts from the potential cuts, as outlined by FEMA, would be 'undertrained firefighters,' 'poor wildfire readiness,' more risk at '120 critical United States ports' and less homeland security training for cities hosting World Cup games. Axing another program 'could increase the risk of terror attacks on passenger rail,' the memo says, and cutting off a violence and terrorism prevention program 'results in a more vulnerable nation.' DHS said the memos referenced in this story are 'cherry-picked,' but acknowledged the department is looking to cut 'unaccountable programs.' 'Secretary Noem and this Administration are focused on ending waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government - and FEMA is no exception,' a DHS spokesman said in a statement to CNN. 'For years, taxpayer dollars have flowed to bloated grants, political pet projects, and groups with questionable ties. That ends now.' This comes after FEMA shut down the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, halting more than $600 million intended to help communities prepare for natural disasters, prompting 20 states to sue the agency. Due to the ongoing litigation, the memos state, FEMA will address the future of the BRIC program at a later date. The cuts to disaster and security grants could have wide-ranging consequences for communities that depend on these funds. The National League of Cities, an advocacy group representing cities, towns and villages across the US, 'strongly opposes' the proposed cuts, according to a statement provided to CNN by a spokesperson. 'Reducing or eliminating these programs would severely undermine the preparedness of our first responders and compromise the ability of local governments to effectively ensure the core capabilities necessary for prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts,' the NLC spokesperson wrote. Congress allocated a total of more than $4 billion this fiscal year for FEMA to support these national preparedness programs, which state and local governments, emergency management agencies, and fire and police departments depend on for essential staffing, equipment, and training. But in recent months, the disaster relief agency, at the direction of DHS, has largely halted the selection of new grant recipients so it could review the programs. That has left emergency managers across the country waiting for FEMA to issue Notices of Funding Opportunities, or NOFOs, which allow local jurisdictions and organizations to apply for grants and are now more than two months behind schedule. 'We've been ghosted by FEMA,' a North Carolina official recently told CNN, expressing frustration over the lack of guidance on whether states can expect funding in the coming months. Now federal and state emergency managers are increasingly concerned that large portions of this year's funds will go unspent, as the funding streams expire unless allocated by the end of September. At a hearing on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Richardson told concerned lawmakers, 'We're getting the NOFOs out the door as we speak.' The acting FEMA chief did not mention the looming cuts he had authorized in the memo he signed days before the hearing, though he criticized the agency's grant programs. 'A lot of the grants sound good, and then you dig into them, and they're not so good,' Richardson said, citing resilience projects 'used for things like bike paths and shade at bus stops.' During Wednesday's hearing, Rep. Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, pressed Richardson about the status of UASI funding, emphasizing its importance for protecting Las Vegas from potential terror threats. Richardson responded: 'What I can commit to is that we've been doing due diligence on all of the grants.' He did not mention the program's potential termination. Responding to CNN's new reporting Thursday, Titus said the plan to cut UASI is 'deeply irresponsible and endangers our public safety.' 'These grants played a significant role in the response to the Harvest Festival shootings and are critical to protecting the public in all major cities and at big events such as the Super Bowl, Formula One races, and golf tournaments,' Titus said in a statement to CNN. 'I implore Secretary Noem to administer these public safety grants as Congress directed and ensure that our first responders and emergency personnel have the tools they need to address future threats in our communities.'
