
Thousands of homeless students left in the lurch after Job Center closures put on hold
Job Corps is a federally funded program for young people between the ages of 16 and 24 that provides free housing, meals, basic medical care, school supplies, childcare, English language instruction, and a small allowance while students earn high school equivalency degrees and trade certifications.
The National Job Corps Association sued the DOL shortly after the announcement alleging the department's
order
to pause the program was illegal because only Congress can eliminate the program and because it would displace thousands of students and lead to mass layoffs.
In June, a US District Court judge for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction against the DOL, effectively halting the DOL's order indefinitely and allowing Job Corps's 123 centers to remain operational. But Kary and the approximately 4,500 other students nationwide who were homeless before joining the program's living and learning spaces are still at risk of displacement.
Advertisement
As part of its fiscal 2026 budget, the DOL has proposed eviscerating Job Corps, allocating it a fraction of its typical funding for the purpose of closing and demolishing the centers. Congress is expected to
begin voting
on the proposed budget
in September, though it can take months to pass.
Advertisement
Labor experts in Massachusetts say the state's workforce development system is not designed for a shake-up that would displace many of the 799 students who were enrolled at three centers in Massachusetts in May.
'Whenever we need to put students somewhere, Job Corps is front and center,' Jeffrey Turgeon, director of MassHire Central, said. 'We're losing a major tool.'
After the meeting
announcing its closure,
the Shriver Job Corps Center told students it would remain operational for the time being. Yet, a majority of students who lived at the center left the Shriver Center, opting to find alternative housing in the face of
the center's day-to-day uncertainty.
After investing months into diplomas and career certificates, students feel mixed emotions about what will come next for them.
Kary worries about leaving empty-handed if the court eventually rules that the centers must close,
or Congress approves funding cuts to the Job Corps. She started her
training
program to work in public transportation, which she said typically takes one year to complete, just a week before the DOL order.
'As nice as it is, it still feels uncertain,' Kary said. 'It's a race against the preliminary injunction and the government.'
Mohammad Niazy, 18, and Matiullah Kabir, 19, discovered a near-empty cafeteria when they arrived at the Shriver Center for class earlier this month. The two commute to campus from Harvard, MA, where
Advertisement
Niazy earned his high school diploma from the center in May. Kabir, who had already graduated from his local high school, studied computer technology at Shriver, where he started a football team and received his driver's license.
He said he was shocked when he learned that DOL ordered a pause in operations.
'It was so fast, people were not ready for this. A lot of people were living there and working. They were definitely crying, they were saying, 'Where do we go now?'' Kabir said.
Facing potential Job Corps closures, students can apply for state-run high school equivalency degrees and vocational training programs, paid apprenticeships, or community college, according to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development
(EOLWD). Governor Maura Healey's housing office had also been developing a contingency plan for displaced students leading up to the preliminary injunction, spokesperson Tara Smith said in an email to the Globe last month.
'Until the lawsuit is resolved, we continue to monitor the situation with EOLWD and other state agencies as it relates to potential next steps with affected students,' Smith added.
Until joining Job Corps, Kary, who asked to be identified by her first name because she fears harassment by the government
as a transgender woman, was in and out of homelessness. She was kicked out of her childhood home by her family when she turned 18. She crashed on friends' couches and waited in line at food banks for meals. She eventually got a job as a cashier earning $9 an hour, but it was nowhere near enough to make ends meet.
Advertisement
For four months in the winter of 2022, Kary slept every night in a tent — even in the pouring rain and freezing temperatures.
When a friend
told Kary about Job Corps's residential program, she applied as soon as she could.
'Job Corps was my only hope,' she said.
The DOL says it wants to end
the program because it is not achieving its
including the 38.6 percent graduation rate it cited in its justification for pausing the program, which comes from the 2023 program year, reflect high dropout rates during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Local politicians in Massachusetts are concerned about the impact shuttering the program would have on their communities.
'The reality is a program like this, which no doubt costs millions of dollars just for the Devens center, is that it's not going to be replaced,' Massachusetts State Senator Jamie Eldridge, whose district includes Shriver, said.
In
'Massachusetts industries obviously depend on the kind of technical training the Job Corps provides,' Congresswoman Lori Trahan, whose district also covers Shriver, said.
Kary worries that she will not be hired for a job without her trade certification. She does not want to go to a shelter for fear of harassment but no other training programs offer housing.
Yet when she thinks about the future, she imagines a quiet life working as a train conductor, a career that she became passionate about while studying at Shriver.
Advertisement
Kary has one more non-negotiable. She has to live in Massachusetts.
'I love Massachusetts. I'd fully crawl my way out of homelessness and then be in Massachusetts,' said Kary.
'This place is end goal for me.'
Jade Lozada can be reached at

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Josh Hawley says he had 'good chat' with Trump after dustup over stock trading bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Josh Hawley is brushing off President Donald Trump's quip that he's a 'second-tier' senator after the Republican's proposal to ban stock trading by members of Congress — and the president and vice president — won bipartisan approval to advance in a committee vote. The Missouri Republican told Fox News late Wednesday that it's 'not the worst thing' he's ever been called and that he and the president 'had a good chat' clearing up confusion over the bill. The misunderstanding, Hawley said, was that Trump would have to sell his Mar-a-Lago private club and other assets. 'Not the case at all,' Hawley said on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' It was the second time in many days that Trump laid into senators in his own party as the president tries, sometimes without success, to publicly pressure them to fall in line. Earlier, Trump tore into veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa over an obscure Senate procedure regarding nominations. In a social media post, Trump called Hawley a 'second-tier Senator' who was playing into the hands of Democrats. Trump added: 'I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!' Stock trading bans gain support Stock trading by members of Congress has long been an issue that both parties have tried to tackle, especially as some elected officials have become wealthy while in elected office. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, it was disclosed that lawmakers were trading as information about the health crisis before it became public. Insider trading laws don't always apply to the types of information lawmakers receive. Hawley's legislation with the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, sailed out of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, after his support delivered a bipartisan vote over the objections of the other Republicans, who have majority control. GOP senators had been working with the White House on the stock trade bill, and some supported a broad carve-out to exclude the president from the ban, but it failed, with Hawley joining Democrats to block it. Trump also complained that Hawley joined with Democrats to block another amendment that would have investigated the stock trades of Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker emerita, and her spouse. Paul Pelosi has been a much-watched trader, but the California lawmaker's office said she personally does not own stock. Hawley said after his conversation with Trump that the president 'reiterated to me he wants to see a ban on stock trading by people like Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, which is what we passed.' The senator also suggested the Democratic leader should be prosecuted, but it's not clear on what grounds. Pelosi supports Hawley's bill Pelosi has said repeatedly that she's not involved in her husband's work on investments, strongly supports the bill and looks forward to voting for it in the House. 'The American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest — not their personal portfolios,' she said. In a joint statement, Hawley and Peters said the legislation, called the Honest Act, builds on an earlier bill and would ban members of Congress, the president, vice president and their spouses from holding, buying or selling stock. An earlier proposal from Hawley, named after Pelosi, had focused more narrowly on lawmakers. If the bill were to become law, it would immediately prohibit elected officials, including the president, from buying stocks and would ban them from selling stocks for 90 days after enactment. It also requires the elected officials to divest from all covered investments, but not until the beginning of their next term in office — shielding the term-limited president from that requirement. 'We have an opportunity here today to do something that the public has wanted to do for decades,' Hawley told the panel. 'And that is to ban members of Congress from profiting on information that frankly only members of Congress have on the buying and selling of stock.' During the committee hearing, tensions flared as Republicans sought other approaches. Republicans fail to exempt Trump from stock trading ban GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida proposed one amendment that would exempt the president, the vice president, their spouses and dependent children from the legislation, and the other one that would have required a report on the Pelosi family's trades. Both were defeated, with Hawley joining the Democrats. 'We are one step closer to getting this bill passed into law and finally barring bad actors from taking advantage of their positions for their own financial gain,' Peters said in a statement. One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said the overall bill is 'legislative demagoguery.' 'We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure,' Johnson said. 'So I don't see the necessity of this.' GOP's Grassley 'offended' by Trump's personal attack Trump's post criticizing Hawley comes after a similar blowback directed Tuesday night at Grassley. In that post, Trump pressured Grassley to do away with the Senate's longtime 'blue slip' custom that often forces bipartisan support on presidential nominations of federal judges. The practice requires both senators in a state to agree to push a nominee forward for a vote. Trump told Grassley to do away with the practice. 'Senator Grassley must step up,' Trump said, while claiming that he helped the senator, who was first elected in 1980, to win reelection. Grassley earlier Wednesday said he was 'offended' by what the president said. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Los Angeles Times
13 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Virginia Giuffre's family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole' her
The family of Virginia Giuffre, who was among Jeffrey Epstein's most well-known sex trafficking accusers, said that it was shocking to hear President Trump say the disgraced financier 'stole' Giuffre from him and urged that Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell remain in prison. Giuffre, who had accused Britain's Prince Andrew and other influential men of sexually exploiting her as a teenager trafficked by Epstein, has been a central figure in conspiracy theories tied to the case. She died by suicide this year. Her family's statement is the latest development involving Epstein, who took his own life in a New York jail in 2019 while facing federal sex trafficking charges, and the Republican president, who was his one-time friend. Trump denied prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes and said he cut off their relationship years ago, but he still faces questions about the case. Trump, responding to a reporter's question on Tuesday, said that he got upset with Epstein over his poaching of workers and that Epstein had stolen Giuffre from his Palm Beach, Florida, club. 'It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been 'stolen' from Mar-a-Lago,' the family's statement said. 'We and the public are asking for answers; survivors deserve this,' it continued. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noted the president was responding to a reporter's question and didn't bring up Giuffre himself. 'The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees,' she said. The family's statement comes shortly after the Justice Department interviewed Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 on sex trafficking and other charges and is serving a 20-year sentence in Tallahassee, Florida. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell in a Florida courthouse, though details about what she said haven't become public. Maxwell's lawyers have said she testified truthfully and answered questions 'about 100 different people.' They have said she's willing to answer more questions from Congress if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony and if lawmakers agree to satisfy other conditions. A message seeking comment about the Giuffre family's statement was sent to Maxwell's attorney Thursday. A Trump administration official said the president is not currently considering clemency action for Maxwell. Giuffre said she was approached by Maxwell in 2000 and eventually was hired by her as a masseuse for Epstein. But the couple effectively made her a sexual servant, she said, pressuring her into gratifying not only Epstein but his friends and associates. Giuffre said she was flown around the world for appointments with men including Prince Andrew while she was 17 and 18 years old. The men, including Andrew, denied it and assailed Giuffre's credibility. She acknowledged changing some key details of her account. The prince settled with Giuffre in 2022 for an undisclosed sum, agreeing to make a 'substantial donation' to her survivors' organization. The American-born Giuffre lived in Australia for years and became an advocate for sex trafficking survivors after emerging as a central figure in Epstein's prolonged downfall. Her family's statement said she endured death threats and financial ruin over her cooperation with authorities against Epstein and Maxwell. Catalini writes for the Associated Press.


The Hill
13 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals court scrutinizes Trump's emergency tariffs as deadline looms
An appeals court on Thursday scrutinized President Trump's assertion that emergency powers justify his worldwide tariffs. Thursday's high-stakes oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit came one day ahead of Trump's deadline for dozens of countries to strike trade deals or face higher 'reciprocal' duties. To justify the sweeping moves, Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law authorizing the president to issue certain economic sanctions in an emergency to counter an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' 'It's just hard for me to see that Congress intended to give the president in IEEPA the wholesale authority to throw out the tariff schedule that Congress has adopted after years of careful work and revise every one of these tariff rates,' said Judge Timothy Dyk. 'It's really kind of asking for an extraordinary change to the whole approach,' continued Dyk, an appointee of former President Clinton. Presidents have invoked other statutes to impose tariffs, but Trump in February became the first president to attempt to do so by invoking the emergency law. 'Why is that?' pressed Judge Jimmie Reyna, an appointee of former President Obama. 'Has there been no national emergency?' The Justice Department argues that IEEPA has for decades been among the 'most powerful tools' a president can use to protect national security, foreign policy and the economy. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, said Congress has long given presidents 'broad discretion' to deal with national emergencies and that IEEPA is a tool that lets Trump to put pressure on trading partners. 'Congress wanted to provide broad and flexible authority in the context of emergencies, and I think you have to read the phrase 'regulate importation' in the context of an extraordinary delegation of power to the President that can be checked by Congress in specific cases,' Shumate said, pointing to specific language also used by President Nixon to impose tariffs in 1971. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, an appointee of the second former President Bush, asked if it amounts to a 'bargaining chip.' 'Exactly,' Shumate replied. Trump first used IEEPA in February to announce levies on Canada, China and Mexico — pointing to the fentanyl crisis as the emergency — but, in April, the president expanded to a 10 percent global baseline tariff, with higher rates for some countries. The expansion, deemed 'Liberation Day' by Trump, was attributed to an emergency over trade deficits. The lawsuit was brought by 12 Democratic-led states and five small businesses. The administration appealed after the U.S. Court of International Trade invalidated the levies, and the Federal Circuit has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect until deciding the case. Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, began his argument with a warning that the government believes Trump can do 'whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants,' so long as he declares a national emergency. The tariffs amount to a 'breathtaking claim to power' not asserted by any president in 200 years, and one with 'staggering' consequences, Katyal said. The plaintiffs argue IEEPA can't be read to endorse tariffs. But even if that reading is possible, the plaintiffs point to a series of decisions from the Supreme Court's conservative justices holding that the executive branch must have clear congressional authorization to carry out matters of significant economic and political significance. 'This is not an elephant in a mouse hole,' said Katyal, invoking a phrase the justices often use to explain the principle, known as the major questions doctrine. 'This is a galaxy in a keyhole,' he continued. Though Katyal, a high-profile Supreme Court advocate who served as solicitor general under former President Obama, garnered sympathy with his concerns, several judges took issue with the plaintiffs' position that trade deficits aren't a valid emergency because they have existed for decades. Those judges suggested the challengers were sidestepping how Trump's tariff order additionally points to recent consequences of the deficits, like a hollowed-out U.S. manufacturing base and undermined critical supply chains. Moore, the chief judge, at one point chastised the states' attorney for claiming Trump had only talked about it in a single sentence. 'I will walk it back,' Benjamin Gutman, Oregon's solicitor general, conceded. The arguments come on the eve of the cutoff Trump established for nearly 200 countries to strike a deal to avoid higher rates on goods. Trump reached agreements with South Korea and the European Union this week setting tariffs at 15 percent, and last week, he reached similar deals with Japan and the Philippines. Trump on Thursday announced Mexico's tariffs would be extended at current rates for another 90 days, while other countries have until Aug. 1 to make a deal with the president or face the heavier rates. Nearly 100 people, mostly attorneys, filled the second-floor courtroom Thursday where 11 of the Federal Circuit's 12 active judges weighed Trump's tariffs. Judge Pauline Newman, the nation's oldest federal judge at 98, did not participate; she was suspended by her fellow judges from hearing new cases over concerns about her mental fitness, which she has challenged in court. However, she was seated in the public gallery for the arguments along the aisle in the second row. Ahead of the hearing, Trump on Truth Social wished his lawyers 'good luck in America's big case.'