Who's in the News? Kendall Paul
HENDERSON, Ky. (WEHT) — Kendall Paul is the CEO of Vanderburgh Humane Society who was recently featured in a viral TikTok video for the organization that garnered over 7 million views in less than a week.
VHS goes viral on TikTok; video garners over 7 million views
Paul tells us she has been with VHS for over 31 years and took on the role of CEO in 2004.
She says working with VHS has been a 'wonderful pairing' for her and provides some insight for those searching for their ideal career paths.
To view the full interview, check out the video player above.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Inside the fallout at Paul, Weiss after the firm's deal with Trump
Three months ago, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison was under attack. The global law firm had just become the target of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing the firm and its clients to be cut off from government contracts, and for firm lawyers to lose their security clearances and be restricted from entering government buildings or dealing with federal employees. Paul, Weiss wasn't the first firm to be the focus of such an executive order, but it would go on to be the first to negotiate a deal with the White House in order to get it lifted. At the time, the firm's leader Brad Karp said he was trying to save his team from an 'existential crisis.' Since then, the firm has endured. But the decision to strike a deal has led to high-profile departures among partners and drawn condemnation from Democrats and others in the legal community. After Karp made a deal with Trump, at least 10 partners in the litigation department have resigned from the firm, including several with close ties to Democrats. A group of the departing partners have joined together to start their own firm where they will continue to represent tech giants like Meta and Google, and another has jumped ship to one of the four firms that chose to fight the administration in court. While the firms that have fought Trump have been vindicated in multiple swift rulings, Paul, Weiss has been dealing with fallout in the aftermath of the deal, according to three former attorneys and five others with knowledge of the firm granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal dynamics. 'They made a calculated decision,' said Elizabeth Grossman, executive director of government watchdog group Common Cause Illinois and a former Paul, Weiss associate who helped organize alumni opposition to the deal. 'They were thinking about their bottom line… I think what we've seen is that they made the wrong decision.' Founded 150 years ago in New York, Paul, Weiss is now one of the largest and most profitable firms in the world, with more than 1,000 lawyers in offices across North America, Europe and Asia and an annual revenue of $2.6 billion. The firm touts its pro-bono work and its lawyers were frequently involved in cases challenging controversial policies during the first Trump administration. The firm's commitment to 'not adopt, use or pursue any DEI policies' and provide the equivalent of $40 million in free legal work to 'support the administration's initiatives' would become the framework used by eight other law firms to strike similar deals committing a total of nearly $1 billion in pro bono work to causes favored by the president. Being the first firm to fold meant Paul, Weiss secured a better deal than those who came later, but it also turned the firm into a lightning rod for anger at Big Law's failure to stand up to Trump. Karp and a spokesperson for Paul, Weiss declined to comment. The first major personnel blow for Paul, Weiss came at the end of May, when co-chair of the litigation department, Karen Dunn, announced that she and three of her colleagues would be leaving to start a new litigation boutique firm. Dunn has had close ties to Democrats for years and previously worked as an associate White House counsel under former President Barack Obama. She also helped former Vice President Kamala Harris prepare for her 2024 general election debate with Trump. Leaving with Dunn was Jeannie Rhee, who previously represented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit dealing with her use of a private email server and worked under special counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election. During the week between Trump's order targeting Paul, Weiss and the announcement of the deal, the firm's management committee, including Dunn and Rhee, prepared to challenge the order in court, according to three of the people with knowledge of the firm. The group, led by chair of the firm's Supreme Court practice, Kannon Shanmugam, worked on a motion asking a judge to immediately halt enforcement of the order while litigation played out, but the effort was tabled in favor of making a deal, one of the people said. A second one said that in her capacity as a member of the management committee, Dunn was involved in the conversations about making a deal with the White House. That person said Karp consulted the firm's partnership in deciding whether to make a deal, and the 'vast majority' of the more than 200 partners were in favor of it at the time. Dunn began telling lawyers inside and outside the firm of her plans to leave in the days and weeks following the deal, according to one of the people. Dunn and Rhee declined to comment. Shanmugam did not respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, five additional partners and at least eight associates, the majority of whom worked with Dunn at her previous firm and moved to Paul, Weiss around the same time as she did, have left Paul, Weiss to join Dunn and her colleagues at the fledgling firm Dunn Isaacson Rhee. Dunn and her partners have filed notices in multiple ongoing cases indicating they will continue representing big tech clients they were already representing at Paul, Weiss. 'Paul, Weiss used to be the gold standard for litigation,' said Bryson Malcolm, founder of legal recruiting firm Mosaic Search Partners. 'I think that reputation is waning.' Earlier this month, Paul, Weiss lost another recognizable name when the former chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Damian Williams, decamped to Jenner & Block, a much smaller firm by annual revenue. That firm had also been targeted by an executive order but successfully fought the administration in court instead of making a deal — something Williams seemed to allude to in the announcement of his move. 'I've seen firsthand how this firm expertly tackles the toughest cases and lives its values,' Williams said in a press release. 'I'm excited to join a team with an extraordinary depth of legal talent that doesn't shy away from hard fights — and delivers results that matter.' Williams declined to comment. Paul, Weiss has also lost one of its two former Obama Cabinet secretaries to retirement since the deal. Former Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson retired last month to take a position as co-chair of Columbia University's board of trustees. Meanwhile, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch remains at the firm. Johnson and Lynch did not respond to requests for comment. Trump's stated reasons for initially targeting the firm were the hiring of Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor for the Manhattan district attorney's office who previously investigated Trump's hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, Rhee's work on a civil lawsuit against individuals involved with the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and an allegation that the firm was engaging in racially discriminatory hiring practices. (In a firm-wide email following the deal, Karp wrote, 'While retaining our longstanding commitment to diversity in all of its forms, we agreed that we would follow the law with respect to our employment practices.') The threat of future investigation hangs over all the firms that struck deals. Sixteen House Democrats sent letters to Paul, Weiss and the eight other deal-making firms in April, seeking details of the agreements and suggesting that they may violate state and federal criminal laws against bribery. 'We would never do anything to compromise our ability to advocate zealously on behalf of our clients, and we certainly reject any suggestion that any element of the agreement is contrary to law,' Karp wrote in a response letter obtained by POLITICO. Meanwhile, all the firms that have fought Trump's orders have so far won in court. Four federal judges have struck down Trump's executive orders aimed at firms Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey as unconstitutional. The Justice Department has not taken steps to appeal those rulings and the window of time for them to do so will soon close. Despite those legal victories, some observers caution that it may be too soon to tell if the threat to firms that fought back has truly passed. Trump's orders are no longer in effect, but federal agencies can still come up with alternative reasons to steer contracts away from disfavored firms and their clients. And companies seeking government approval for mergers may prefer to use Paul, Weiss or another deal-making firm to represent them in that process over one that fought that administration. 'If it's being done without saying that it's being done, it's super hard for courts to police,' said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who studies law and public policy. There may be more departures to come for Paul, Weiss. The nature of profit distribution at large firms gives partners an incentive to stay through the end of the fiscal year and the process of moving firms for partners is more lengthy and complicated than simply finding a new job willing to hire them. 'It's a very financially unattractive time to leave and you need several months to make the move anyway,' said a partner at a separate firm granted anonymity to speak candidly about the industry. And while top talent walks out the door, it may prove harder for Paul, Weiss to attract the next generation of lawyers. 'Students are plugged in in a way that they've never been before and they're tracking all this,' Malcolm said. 'I don't really see a situation where a student would choose Paul, Weiss over any of its peers that didn't have a similar fallout. Even if you're just thinking pragmatically and you're not really tied to the morality of it all, it's just very clear Paul, Weiss is not a safe option compared to the others.' According to numbers obtained by POLITICO, Paul, Weiss' acceptance rates for this year at their major offices including New York and Washington are in line with their typical acceptance rates over the past five years 'Ultimately we're a talent business,' said the partner at the separate firm. 'It may not be something you feel now, but it could be something you feel three or four years from now.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Rand Paul Takes Swipe at Elon Musk Over 'Big Not So Beautiful Bill'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Senator Rand Paul took a swipe at Elon Musk's large family over President Donald Trump's top legislative proposal, which he is calling the "Big not so beautiful bill." Both Musk and Paul have expressed frustration with the bill as it stands, with Paul's dislike being focused on its impact on government debt. Paul posted on X: "The legislation, as currently written, would pay someone like Elon Musk $1000 per child, and we know how prolific he is . . . No offense, Elon, but Is [sic.] that a wise use of our $$?" How about this: tweak the Big not so beautiful bill so it doesn't add so much to the debt? The legislation, as currently written, would pay someone like Elon Musk $1000 per child, and we know how prolific he is . . . No offense, Elon, but Is that a wise use of our $$? — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 28, 2025 Paul did not expand on this post. The budget bill as it stands brings the Child Tax Credit (CTC) up to $2,200. This is not directly paying people to have children but is a tax incentive for people making under $200,000 a year. The libertarian senator from Kentucky may also have been referring to the children's savings program portion of the bill, which would give every child born in America between 2025 to 2028 $1,000 in an investment account. This is putting money directly to a child's account, not to their parents, so would not necessarily benefit Musk, who is father to at least 14 children, directly. Newsweek has contacted Paul via email for comment outside of working hours. From left, Senator Rand Paul talks with reporters in Russell building on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Washington DC; Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition, March 9, 2020, in... From left, Senator Rand Paul talks with reporters in Russell building on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Washington DC; Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition, March 9, 2020, in Washington DC. More Left: Tom Williams, Right: Susan Walsh, File/Left: CQ Roll Call via AP Images, Right: AP Photo Why It Matters Paul and Musk have been reposting each other's comments about the impact of the bill on national debt, so Paul's comment on X may have been an effort to highlight how the bill would add billions to the national debt, rather than an insult. The bill as it stands is not popular with American voters. According to a poll conducted by The Tarrance Group, which Paul has also shared, 58 percent of people agree with Musk's assertion that the budget is a "pork-filled spending bill that will massively increase the budget deficit and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt." The Trump administration says the bill is needed to address voter priorities. It seeks to permanently extend $3.8 trillion in expiring benefits while funding Trump's mass deportation efforts with $350 billion in national security spending. Not that we should govern by poll, but it is very clear people don't want this extreme amount of debt and reckless spending — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 28, 2025 What To Know Senator Rand Paul has been one of the most outspoken Republican voices against the "Big Beautiful Bill," as it stands. The bill passed a procedural vote in the Senate on June 28, with Paul and another Republican senator, Thom Tillis, voting against it. Paul has said he would be open to voting for the bill if it did not increase the debt, but it currently stands to add over $4 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Tax cuts in the budget bill are also expected to provide more tax benefits to the rich than the working or middle class. It will extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts that resulted in reducing taxes significantly more for the top 0.1 percent, per analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, and Brookings Institution. The White House says that the bill "delivers for the American worker" and will deliver a "Blue-Collar BOOM." It highlights measures such as a 15 percent tax cut for Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 per year, and no taxes on overtime or tips. Trump has also said that revenue generated from global tariffs will offset the reduction in tax revenue. The tax cuts in the bill as it stands are expected to add $4.6 trillion in debt, and tariffs are expected to generate up to $3.1 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation, and the Yale Budget Lab. Another Republican and libertarian legislator, Representative Thomas Massie, has criticized the "omnibus" nature of the bill, as it contains everything from tax credits to AI regulation in one package. Paul has agreed with this sentiment, saying on X: "Break up the bills so we can vote on individual matters, not a bunch of things at once." What People Are Saying Senator Rand Paul on X: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to negotiate if the White House strips the massive $5 TRILLION, long-term debt ceiling increase and replaces it with short-term extensions tied to real spending reforms. Fiscal responsibility isn't a talking point. It's a principle." I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to negotiate if the White House strips the massive $5 TRILLION, long-term debt ceiling increase and replaces it with short-term extensions tied to real spending reforms. Fiscal responsibility isn't a talking point. It's a… — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 16, 2025 Daniel Hornung, former President Joe Biden's deputy director of the National Economic Council, told The Guardian: "It's really striking that this bill is both as fiscally irresponsible as it is and regressive. People making less than $50,000 a year will actually see their incomes go down, and it's really to finance tax cuts for largely high-income people." The White House, in a June 24 statement: "President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill lowers tax rates to keep more money in Americans' pockets—PREVENTING THE LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY." What Happens Next The budget bill just passed a procedural vote in the Senate without a single Democrat vote, or Senators Paul or Tillis. It still needs to pass another simple majority vote in the Senate, with Vice President JD Vance potentially needed as a tiebreaker. Then, it will return to the House for a final vote before it can be approved by the president.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Woman in $23K Debt Asks ChatGPT for Help—the Result Is Eye-Opening
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A woman desperate to pay off her $23,000 in credit card debt has made a major dent in the money owed, after using AI to help her change her habits. Jennifer Allan, 35, a realtor and content creator living in Delaware, told Newsweek she has "struggled with money my whole adult life." "Not because I don't make enough, but because I was never taught financial literacy. I avoided budgeting and I figured if I just kept working harder, I could out-earn the problem. That worked... until it didn't," she said. Things "unraveled" after her daughter was born, after a traumatic start which involved the NICU along with general postpartum recovery and everything else that comes with becoming a parent to a newborn. "I shut down emotionally, and I used credit cards to keep our life afloat. We weren't living lavishly. We were just surviving. But the debt piled up while I wasn't looking," she said. Eventually, Allan knew she had to make a change—and she used AI to give her the "momentum" she needed. After being inspired by online 30-day challenges, she decided to challenge herself to "use ChatGPT every day for 30 days to help me pay off debt—whether that was brainstorming side hustles or just giving me a little structure." And it paid off. Each day, the bot would suggest one challenge for Allan to save or earn money, from cancelling one subscription, selling items on Facebook Marketplace, filing for any unclaimed money, and even searching for coins in old purses and between couch cushions—which earned Allan over $100. A major win for Allan was the bot suggesting she look through every app and account—and between a brokerage account she wasn't aware she had, and finance apps such as Venmo, Allan discovered more than $10,000. Jennifer Allan speaking in a video about her finance challenge. Jennifer Allan speaking in a video about her finance challenge. TikTok @_jenn.allan In June, Allan shared a clip to her TikTok account @_jenn.allan, revealing she had hit day 30 of her challenge—and over the past month, had paid off $12,078.93 "I'm super, super happy with that. I've essentially paid half of my debt off," she told the camera, revealing one aspect of the challenge was to create a meal plan for the rest of the month based only on the food she had in her pantry. She had saved almost $600 in a month, having previously spent around $800 a month on groceries. TikTok users had a big reaction, one calling it "so impressive," and another writing: "I might need to do this as a single mom, that would be life changing money in savings." Allan is now planning to take up another challenge, this time changing the prompt to pay off the remainder in 30 days. "It wasn't some big financial hack," Allan told Newsweek. "It was the act of facing it every day—of tracking it, talking about it, looking at it every day. I stopped being afraid of my numbers. I built a debt tracker. "I started sharing my journey publicly. And for the first time in my life, I didn't feel ashamed. I felt empowered, like I could conquer anything." Read more 5 unexpected things you should be using ChatGPT for, according to AI expert 5 unexpected things you should be using ChatGPT for, according to AI expert Allan's situation is far from unique: household debt across the United States hit $18.2 trillion dollars in the first quarter of 2025, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For anyone else struggling with debt and considering making a similar change, Allan advised: "Don't wait until you feel ready or 'smart enough' to start. You don't have to know all the answers—you just have to stop pretending it's not happening." She suggested finding a way to "make it fun," explaining: "For me, using AI gave me a sense of structure without judgment, and TikTok allowed me to hold myself accountable because [the] community I had built was showing up every day waiting for the next task." Do you have a similar monetary dilemma? Let us know via life@ We can ask experts for advice, and your story could be featured on Newsweek.
