Tuesday, April 01, 2025

MAGA doesn't care about any of us

Not even their own damn selves.


Stream this video from Coach D.




Overdraft fees?


One of the good things the government did for us was limiting that.  Now Chump and MAGA want to bring it back.


Senator Chuck Schumer's office issued this:


Schumer Exposes Final Leg Of Quiet Plan In House Financial Services & Senate Banking To Overturn CFPB Rule Limiting Excessive Bank Fees, That Would Cost New York Households More—Because Most Upstate NY Residents Have Bank Account 

Plan To Overturn CFPB Overdraft Fee Rule Would Allow Banks To Extract $5 Billion In Excessive Fees – But, WORSE, Would Open Door To Even More Fees Across NY; Schumer Announces Full Opposition, Urges NY House Republicans To Vote “NO” On Tuesday 

Schumer: Quiet Plan To Side With Big Banks Over Families Could Mean A Waterfall Of Fees That Would Drown New Yorkers With More Costs

Amidst the anti-consumer, pro-big bank effort to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer revealed and exposed the FINAL leg of Congressional Republicans’ quiet plan to raise Americans’ bank fees, that will drive up unwanted fees for millions of Upstate New Yorkers. Schumer explained that Congressional Republicans will try to seal the deal to protect financial special interests with a vote on Tuesday when the House will vote to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) overdraft fee rule that caps most big bank overdraft fees at just $5.

“Republicans’ quiet plan to side with big banks against the little guy and working families could mean a waterfall of fees for Upstate New Yorkers already struggling to make ends meet,” said Senator Schumer. “Working families have been ripped off by abusive bank fees and practices in the past, and the CFPB’s rule is about protecting hard-working families, not charging them more. So I urge my GOP colleagues to reverse course here and reject overturning this overdraft rule to put money back in people’s pockets and out of the hands of big predatory banks. If the Republicans let this one fee fly, a waterfall of fees will follow, and it is New Yorkers that will feel the brunt.”

Schumer railed against this effort because it could hurt middle-class New Yorkers the hardest, given the number of consumer bank accounts in New York, which is higher than the national average. The rule would save upwards of $5 billion in excessive overdraft fees that millions of households pay. Overturning the rule, as proposed by the Republicans, would cost households an average of at least $225 each year, but MUCH more in New York, Schumer emphasized. Schumer said that some banks take billions of dollars a year from families and seniors that can least afford it. He said the banks don’t need to charge fees like this and that this effort to let fees run wild will open the door to even more excessive bank fees across Upstate New York.

Schumer announced his opposition and is sounding the alarm on the clandestine pro-big bank GOP plan. Schumer said that the CFPB’s overdraft fee rule is designed to protect regular people from being ripped off by predatory bank fees. He urged the House Republicans to reject overturning the CFPB’s overdraft rule and to protect hard-working families instead of taking their hard-earned money to benefit big banks quietly and behind their backs.

  

Last month, House Financial Service Committee Chairman French Hill (R-AR) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) introduced Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) rule capping overdraft fees, and the Senate GOP green-lit it last week. 

The rule caps most bank overdraft fees at just $5, down from the typical $35 charge per transaction, according to National Consumer Law Center (NCLC). With these fees, banks take billions of dollars a year from families that can least afford it, and the Republican chairmen are moving to give big banks this ability, Schumer explained. Banks, which are already profitable, don’t need to charge these fees and some banks, including Capitol One and Citibank, have completely eliminated overdraft fees and they continue to cover overdrafts. However, other banks take about $1 billion a year in overdraft and nonsufficient funds (NSF) fees, and Wells Fargo is one of the biggest offenders.

The CFPB’s overdraft fee rule stops predatory practices that allow the biggest banks to earn billions in profits from the most vulnerable families and seniors. The rule doesn’t stop big banks from covering overdrafts—it caps fees for “overdraft coverage” at $5 or the bank’s costs. Banks can still offer overdraft lines of credit without any price cap, though they are required to provide the same annual percentage rate (APR) pricing disclosure that credit cards provide and to give people adequate time to repay, NCLC explained. 

Schumer explained how the rule helps everyone—especially New York families as New York is more ‘banked’ compared to other states. Schumer explained that by lowering most big bank overdraft fees from $35 to $5, consumers save $5 billion per year, reducing manipulative practices, and increasing transparency and fair competition, according to economists.

“Now that the word is out on Tuesday’s vote, you’ll see the banks, lobbyists, and the people that want to protect the banks’ ability to charge excessive fees start to scramble, and devise a plan to defend it. But it’s indefensible. Who is for excessive bank fees?” Schumer said. “Show me a politician that wants to run an ad on increasing all your bank fees. I am blowing the lid on this disastrous plan and so what happens next? Watch them try to run away from this issue, while siding with big banks over working families and the middle class.”

Schumer warned that other fee increases and gaps in consumer protection could soon follow with:

  • ATM fees 
  • Minimum balance fees for checking and savings accounts
  • Outlandish cashier’s check fees
  • Notary fees 
  • Account “inactivity” fees
  • The removal of $8 cap on credit card late fees
  • No more Fair Credit Reporting (excluding medical bills from consumers credit score)
  • Selling consumer data without consent
  • No regulator for consumers to report predatory products


And that's while I ignore the attacks on Chuck.  Because at the end of the day he's fighting for the American people.


Rashida Tlaib might join him -- provided the overdraft fees targeted residents of Gaza. 


But, as she makes clear every day, she doesn't give a damn about this country.  


"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):


Not even their own damn selves.


Stream this video from Coach D.




"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):


Tuesday, April 1, 2025.  The security breach becomes a plural and much bigger than most are realizing and no one seems to be noticing the people working for Donald  Chump who are trying to minimize the breach -- guess what, I'm not talking about MAGA, I'm talking about freaks on the left. 


Let's start with the security breach.  Alison Durkee (FORTUNE) reports on a new poll:


The CBS News poll asked Republicans about how they feel about Trump’s top officials using Signal to discuss military plans. Jeffrey Goldberg, CEO of The Atlantic, reported this week on a group chat he was mistakenly added to, in which Trump’s Cabinet members were discussing detailed military operations over the encrypted messaging app. A 60% majority of Republicans said the Trump administration discussing operations on Signal with a journalist present is a “serious” matter, and a 56% majority think it’s not appropriate to use Signal to discuss military plans. That’s lower than the 76% of respondents overall who believe the use of Signal is inappropriate, and is in line with a YouGov poll earlier this week that found a 56% majority believe the Signal chat episode is a “very serious” problem.


76% of all respondents oppose the usage of Signal to discuss military planning.  This is a major issue.


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s reckless treatment of classified information has left the majority of voters thinking that he should resign, according to a poll published Monday.

A poll by J.L. Partners for the Daily Mail found that 54 percent of voters believed that Hegseth should resign over his involvement in the recent Signalgate scandal.

While all of the senior Trump officials who were members in the nonsecure group chat failed to notice the presence of Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic, as they discussed a strike against the Houthis, it was Hegseth alone who sent details about the timing of the attacks—definitionally classified information.

Twenty-four percent of respondents said they weren’t sure what he should do, while only 22 percent said he should remain in his post. 



Again, this is a major issue.  


For most Americans.  

For most.  

We'll get to the freaks in a moment.  But for the average Americans, it's an issue.   The security breach has already resulted in questioning during two Congressional hearings -- the Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. 


When we say "the security breach," we refer to the Chump administration inviting journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into what should have been a private and secure communication about the US being on the verge of dropping bombs on Yemen.  

But that's stilly.  That pretends that's the only security breach.  The Chump administration has had one security breach after another.


February 25th, for example, THE JERUSALEM POST reported:


The CIA is conducting an internal formal review to assess any potential damage caused by an unclassified email sent to the White House that discussed possible layoffs, using names and initials that had the potential to expose undercover officers, a source familiar with the matter told CNN on Monday.

The email, sent in early February, was part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) plan to cut the workforce and spending of the federal government.

The Trump administration’s continuous efforts to audit federal organizations threaten to jeopardize the government’s most sensitive work, CNN reported, citing current and former US officials familiar with internal deliberations.

Earlier this month, in an effort to comply with Trump’s executive order aiming to reduce the federal workforce, the CIA sent an email listing all employees who had been with the agency for two years or less – including officers preparing for undercover operations – over an unclassified email server.

Now, the agency is unsure if several employees listed in the email should be reassigned, sources said to CNN, as the risk that their identity has been compromised and exposed to foreign government hackers may be too high.

“Your predecessor was in that position, as were the five officers before them. Now the host country and adversaries know this person going to this position in the embassy is agency,” said one former CIA officer to CNN, speaking hypothetically.

“They now assume the predecessors were the same [and] work backward and find out their collective footprint. The position is now burned," the former CIA officer added in the report. 



Do we get it?  Do we get how serious that was?

Maybe not.  David Corn ignored this story.  This is the man who was all over the story of the Bully Boy Bush administration outing undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.  But several undercover agents being outed by Alien Musk was apparently not interesting enough to David or anyone else. Even now, David doesn't seem interested in it although he is covering the Signal story.

That's too bad because, again, this goes to pattern.  And in less than three months, the Chump administration has a repeated pattern of not grasping what security means.  


Last night, Jen Psaki discussed the emerging news that Michael Waltz had done "multiple other" threads have taken place on Signal.



There are so many issues here including legal ones and competence ones but, as US House Rep Jason Crow noted with Jen, there's also "the risk, the ongoing risk that's posed to our service men and women."

Remember for when we get to the freaks.  We're working our way towards those losers.



While all eyes are on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's attack plans posted on Signal, there was another dangerous leak from the Trump administration, according to a new report.

The media is largely focused on the Signal chat scandal, but according to Rolling Stone, there is another leak that should be spoken about.

"Reports that Donald Trump’s top national security officials accidentally shared their Yemen attack plans with The Atlantic in real-time drove the news in official Washington in recent days," the report states. "But it wasn’t the only damaging leak of information held by the administration this week."

The report continues, "Two Trump administration spreadsheets — which each include what numerous advocates and government officials say is highly sensitive information on programs funded by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — were sent to Congress and also leaked online."

The outlet further reports that, "The leak, which sent a variety of international groups and nonprofits scrambling to assess the damage and protect workers operating under repressive regimes, came after the organizations had pressed the Trump administration to keep the sensitive information private and received some assurances it would remain secret."


There are so many issues to this story.  Issues like qualifications, accountability, and honesty.  As former US Senator Clair McCaskill points out, Pete Hegseth's ability and desire to lie is something to behold.



On the issue of lying to the American people, Tara Suter (THE HILL) reports:


Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) said on Sunday that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe “lied repeatedly” about messages in a Signal group chat in which top members of the Trump administration discussed an attack on Yemen.

“Intelligence officials told your committee this week that no classified information was shared. Do you believe that directors Ratcliffe and Gabbard were truthful when they testified before your committee?” NBC News’s Kristen Welker asked Bennet on “Meet the Press.”

“No, I think they lied repeatedly to our committee and to the House committee. Kristen, let me try to make this as simple as I can,” Bennet replied. “I think the American people know this. If this material was not classified, literally nothing that I’ve ever heard as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee over all these years is classified.”

Earlier this week, Bennet labeled the Signal incident disrespectful to rank-and-file intelligence officers during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

“This sloppiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable. It’s an embarrassment. Do better. You need to do better,” he said Tuesday.


Outing agents, Intel conversations not being secure, on and on and on.  It is a pattern not a "glitch."  And it's a pattern because this is what happens when people with little to no Intel experience are put in positions that they are not qualified for.


The way the government is supposed to work is this -- a president nominates someone to a post.  The Senate vets the nominee.  If the nominee is not qualified, the Senate doesn't confirm them.  

But that's not how it worked in January, February, March or possibly even now in April.

Instead of doing their jobs, many Republicans were just rubber stamps and they were rubber stamps for people so woefully unqualified that Chump's administration will probably go down as both the biggest joke in US history and as the saddest reflection on the US Senate.  Some will argue 'I was threatened!  I was threatened!'  

Oh.  Then you: Call the authorities, call the authorities.

You certainly don't vote to confirm the nominee.

In fact, being threatened means you vote NO on that nominee.

"We don't negotiate with terrorists."  Various administrations have declared that throughout the last 100 years.


But apparently if you're online MAGA (a group that astroturfs and doesn't not have the membership it would hope) and threaten a sitting US senator, the Republican response is to piss your panties and vote for whatever way they tell you to.  These were not voters objecting to a nominee and telling the senator that if they confirmed the nominee then they would vote for the senator again.  Telling your elected official that they will lose your vote if the do A or B is not a threat.  It's part of the negotiation process in our democracy.  Remarks to the senator and/or their family of physical harm qualifies as a threat.  And the way you respond to threats is to stand up to them, not to cave.  It's amazing to grasp how scared and frightened Republicans in the Senate were.  This is the same crowd that insists they raise their children strictly and they lay down the law and blah blah blah.  No, they really don't.  Faced with a threat, they chose to cave.
 

They didn't help the country.

And the media isn't helping the country by not addressing this two month pattern of the country's national security being compromised under Donald Chump and his appointees.

As noted above, Waltz has done other Signal chats.  Here's Shane Croucher (NEWSWEEK) reporting on it:


U.S. national security adviser Mike Waltz used the Signal messaging app to host other sensitive discussions with Cabinet members, The Wall Street Journal has reported, citing two unnamed officials.

Among those discussions were threads on brokering peace between Russia and Ukraine, and military operations, according to the Journal.

[. . .]

The use of apps such as Signal to discuss sensitive information raises serious questions about the security of communications at the highest levels of government, with potential implications for intelligence sharing by America's allies.

There is also the issue of government records preservation—a requirement of federal law—with the use of apps like Signal, where messages can be automatically deleted over time.

Lat's note this from Senator Chris Coons' office (issued Friday):


WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, led a letter to the Acting Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the Department of State calling for an investigation into senior Trump administration officials for mishandling attack plans and other sensitive information through an unsecure messaging group chat, thereby putting U.S. servicemembers and intelligence officers at risk. The letter comes in response to a series of articles in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg detailing conversations by high-ranking Trump administration officials about military strikes conducted in Yemen in a Signal group chat in which Goldberg was included.

The letter details concerns that multiple cabinet officials potentially violated laws and regulations related to the handling of national security information and the retention of federal records, including the precise timing of missile strikes and information about intelligence gathering.

In the letter to the inspectors general, the senators expressed grave concern “over potential violations of the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act, as the article outlines policy debates between the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and senior White House officials—discussions that should be preserved as official government records… the use of a messaging application with auto-delete functions raises further questions about whether these records were improperly destroyed.”

The senators also highlighted how a report to the Department of Justice has been yet to be filed regarding this breach, despite the legal requirement to address leaks of classified material.

“We note that classified information is designated as such because its release would significantly damage U.S. national security and put at risk our national security personnel,” the senators wrote. “As such, this information can only be shared in a sensitive compartmented facility and such operational information is classified at least the SECRET level or higher based on the Department of Defense’s own guidance. Disclosing classified information on an unsecured messaging group chat, which contained an uncleared individual, could be a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 798. We are unaware of any report to the Department of Justice associated with this event, which is a standard practice when classified information is leaked to the media.”

“This report, if accurate, indicates multiple violations of law and policy by a host of elected and confirmed officials responsible for national security issues,” the senators added. “Given that this was an accidental disclosure, it also raises the potential that the officials involved in this chat may be conducting other potentially classified and unlawful conversations on this messaging application.”

In addition to Senator Coons, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Gary Peters, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee; Jeanne Shaheen, Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Brian Schatz, Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations (SFOPS); and Patty Murray, Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair.

You can read the full text of the letter here.



From last night's THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW on MSNBC, here's Rachel addressing those developments and others. 






It is unending.  No one is in charge.  No one is responsible.  No one seems to know what secure means.  Emil Guillermo (INQUIRER) observes:


Someone should be fired for SignalGate, and if it were up to me I’d say the sights are on at least three, maybe even four people.

And Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)  agrees with me. She thinks everyone on that chat, in terms of our national security, was in dereliction of duty. Except for the inadvertently included reporter, of course.


If you think that’s harsh, consider how the Trump administration uses national security as a pretext to bolster its policy of harassing, rounding up and deporting even legal immigrants with green cards or student visas.

The recent cases of student protesters at Columbia University, a graduate student at Tufts and the cases involving legal green card holders from the Philippines and Colombia, all show an alarming hardline.

With that attitude toward immigrants, how can the Trump administration be lax on national security when its top officials are caught talking about secret war information on Signal, an encrypted but hackable public app.

And yes, we should call it Signalgate.

The neologism is appropriate. Every scandal needs to compare with Watergate. When top-level advisors – primarily Pete Hegseth, the Fox weekend anchor-turned-defense secretary; Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence; and Michael Waltz, national security advisor – show their inexperience and discuss on a non-secure platform the specifics of an attack on Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, there’s got to be accountability.


Indeed there does.  And the American people -- regardless of whether they identify as Democrats or Republicans or independents or Libertarians, are outraged by this scandal -- even if they only grasp the above aspect of it.  


Those troubled by the way I worded that should grasp that the national Green Party or its ridiculous Jill Stein have not uttered a single word while Socialists of the DSA and PA ilk are apparently represented by Rashida Tlaib who has refused to call out the leak.  


 Refused?  


That's not fair, she's attacked those calling out the leak and insisting that the issue is the people targeted in Yemen.  And COMMON DREAMS and other craplets have picked upon that.  It's no longer about putting troops at risk or failure to observe proper regulations for handling secure information, it's ow just about anything else but that.  And for COMMON DREAMS, it's been that way since March 25th.  Craplets.  Not news outlets.  Not news sources.  CRAPLETS.

As per usual, Rashida is not concerned with Americans or with America but she is concerned about people overseas.  Maybe it's time for a Go-Fund-Me to help her go work in the part of the world that she actually gives a damn about?  


Similarly, in the last 8 days, despite a ton of Tweets every day, WSWS (the SEP outlet) has refused to Tweet about this security breach in the last eight days  and that's also true of PFSL.  So apparently Socialists don't care about nationals security.  Remember that when they ask for your votes.  Apparently they're all happy -- the Socialists and the Greens -- with Chump and his idiots mishandling secure information.

JACOBIN published no article (DSA bible), PSFL took a pass as well.  WSWS wanted to tell Americans -- in their only article -- that the point was being missed, this was about Yemen.  

That's right, according to the freaks, it's the 78% of Americans that have it all wrong.

 

I'm really concerned about Justice "Democrats" more than ever.  The Socialists -- that's what they are -- don't deserve to be in Congress if they're not going to protect this country.  That does mean protecting the military.  Whether Rashida thinks Yemen should have been hit or not, she should damn well know that the US military follows orders. 


I'm sick of these people who want to look at crimes in the US -- and the security breach was a crime -- and ignore it to on and on about something outside of the US.  You can focus on both, you actually can.  The refusal of Justice 'Democrats' to do so goes to the fact that they don't belong in the US Congress. 


The mishandling of information also involves Hegseth and the tramp he rode in on.

Tramp he rode in on?



I saw that photo Friday.  

That's how she goes overseas?  A forty-year-old woman who is not named Madonna thinks it's appropriate to travel overseas representing the US government in a shirt so tight that it gaps open and shows her black bra at various spots.  That blouse is inappropriate.  At forty her boobs were not growing.  She should have known how to purchase a blouse with the same boobs she'd had for probably 24 years at least.  Her failure to do so made her a joke.  

She needs to learn to dress appropriately when she's representing our country.   She and her husband also need to learn that she doesn't have a security clearance and no one has confirmed her for a Cabinet level position.  Evan Williams (TAG 24 NEWS) notes:


A report from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) alleged that Hegseth's wife attended two meetings with foreign military counterparts, despite lacking expected security clearances for access to classified national security information.

While there are no hard and fast rules about such meetings, they are high-security events, and it is generally expected that all attendees have necessary security clearances.

Rauchet, a former Fox News producer, attended a meeting between Hegseth and his British counterpart, John Healey, shortly after the US cut off military intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

She also attended a February NATO meeting in Brussels, in which discussions were also held over support for Ukraine and ongoing negotiations.

The WSJ report came less than a week after The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that he had been included in a top-secret Signal group chat in which classified information was shared about then-impending strikes in Yemen.

"That’s not normal at all," Delaware Senator Chris Coons told MSNBC's The Weekend when asked about Rauchet's presence. "On some of those trips, our spouses come along with us, but they are not allowed in any secret, sensitive, classified meeting with foreign heads of state, with foreign officials."


Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Washington, D.C. — Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-02), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee, sent a letter to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. demanding answers about the plans he announced last week to gut staffing levels and reorganize the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In their letter, Murray, DeLauro, and Baldwin press Kennedy for more information about his plans to gut the Department—warning of how it will jeopardize Americans’ health and well-being and urging him to fulfill the administration’s promise of transparency and detail the Department’s plans. Thus far, the Trump administration has shared only the most high-level details about its massive reorganization plans and significant staffing reductions across HHS—all without so much as consulting Congress.

“Authoritatively stating that these drastic changes will improve the health of Americans without any explanation insults the American public and defies logic,” write the lawmakers. “If these actions were actually intended to improve the Department’s ability to carry out its mission to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, you and the Department should be eager to provide additional detail and justification for them. Instead, the Department has operated with a complete lack of transparency—far less than previous administrations of both parties—and is withholding information from Congress and the American public. The obvious conclusion is the Department is intentionally hiding information because its actions will worsen the health and well-being of Americans. We insist that you begin operating the Department under the ‘radical transparency’ you pledged you would in your sworn testimony before the Senate.”

The top Democratic health appropriators in each chamber note that the Department’s plans fly in the face of the funding bill Congress passed and the President signed just weeks ago, writing: “Just two weeks ago, Congress passed and the President signed a full-year fiscal year 2025 appropriations bill that provided funding to specific agencies and operating divisions within the Department to carry out specific authorized activities, programs, and functions. The Department’s announced reorganization completely disregards how Congress appropriated funding. The reorganization seeks to illegally eliminate agencies Congress explicitly appropriated funding for and illegally move functions and programs for which Congress explicitly appropriated funding for one agency to carry out to other agencies it did not. The magnitude of staff reductions and reorganizations will also very likely prevent the Department from executing its responsibilities under the law.”

They detail other sweeping actions the Department has taken that weaken HHS’ ability to protect Americans health and set back ongoing lifesaving work—and note that if the steps are truly in the American public’s interest, the administration should be eager to share more details: “The Department has taken the unprecedented step of terminating thousands of grants, including for communities to combat infectious diseases like measles and bird flu, and to discover treatments and cures for Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and other devastating diseases. The Department has paused funding for grants and prevented organizations from legally drawing down already awarded funds. The Department has imposed gag orders and already delayed billions in funding for lifesaving research at NIH. The Department has attempted to illegally cap and cut funding for research institutions in obvious contravention of annual appropriations law. The Department has been unwilling to provide even basic information about these actions to Congress.”

“The American people deserve to know what is happening to the federal workforce and agencies tasked with carrying out the Department’s tremendous responsibilities and the taxpayer dollars appropriated to carry those responsibilities out,” the lawmakers conclude, before demanding answers to a series of straightforward questions about the Department’s reorganization and staffing plans—with answers requested by April 4.

Full text of the letter is available HERE and below:

Secretary Kennedy,

We write with extreme concerns about significant staffing reductions and reorganizations at the Department of Health and Human Services (the “Department”), amidst other unprecedented actions taken by the Department over the last several weeks, which put American’s health and well-being at risk. The stunning lack of transparency surrounding these changes leaves us deeply concerned about what the administration is hiding. Moreover, several actions taken or proposed by the Administration appear to violate federal law.

Last week the Department announced it was implementing an unprecedented and disruptive reorganization that includes significant staffing reductions and office closures. This will degrade the Department’s capacity and expertise across a wide range of issues that will impact communities and individuals across the country. In the past, the Department has always worked closely with Congress on reorganizations, including those that were orders of magnitude smaller than what it is now being proposed. The Department has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to share even basic information with Congress (including the Committees on Appropriations) and the public about its actions or to provide any justification for them. Authoritatively stating that these drastic changes will improve the health of Americans without any explanation insults the American public and defies logic. If these actions were actually intended to improve the Department’s ability to carry out its mission to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, you and the Department should be eager to provide additional detail and justification for them. Instead, the Department has operated with a complete lack of transparency—far less than previous administrations of both parties—and is withholding information from Congress and the American public. The obvious conclusion is the Department is intentionally hiding information because its actions will worsen the health and well-being of Americans. We insist that you begin operating the Department under the “radical transparency” you pledged you would in your sworn testimony before the Senate. 

Congress has an obligation to assess how changes the Department is haphazardly implementing will impact our constituents and the American public. It is our duty to ensure the Department is carrying out its tremendous responsibilities under the law that touch the lives of nearly every American, and this reorganization clearly violates the law. Just two weeks ago, Congress passed and the President signed a full-year fiscal year 2025 appropriations bill that provided funding to specific agencies and operating divisions within the Department to carry out specific authorized activities, programs, and functions. The Department’s announced reorganization completely disregards how Congress appropriated funding. The reorganization seeks to illegally eliminate agencies Congress explicitly appropriated funding for and illegally move functions and programs for which Congress explicitly appropriated funding for one agency to carry out to other agencies it did not. The magnitude of staff reductions and reorganizations will also very likely prevent the Department from executing its responsibilities under the law.

In addition to the announced reorganization and staffing reductions, the Department has taken a series of other unprecedented and harmful actions over the last several weeks that raise similarly grave concerns. Last month, the administration fired thousands of employees serving in their probationary period across the Department. The Department has offered deferred resignation benefits and voluntary retirement to virtually all of its employees. The Department has taken the unprecedented step of terminating thousands of grants, including for communities to combat infectious diseases like measles and bird flu, and to discover treatments and cures for Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and other devastating diseases. The Department has paused funding for grants and prevented organizations from legally drawing down already awarded funds. The Department has imposed gag orders and already delayed billions in funding for lifesaving research at NIH. The Department has attempted to illegally cap and cut funding for research institutions in obvious contravention of annual appropriations law. The Department has been unwilling to provide even basic information about these actions to Congress.

Earlier this month, reports emerged of significant planned reductions at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The Department has now announced it plans to reorganize SAMHSA. We are deeply concerned about the impacts this will have on communities across the country trying to address substance use and mental health crises facing millions of families. After opioid overdose deaths reached a record high of nearly 112,000 from August 2022 to August 2023, we are finally making progress, and the trend of overdose deaths is shifting downward. Significant staff reductions and reorganizations will undermine SAMHSA’s ability to work with communities and make life-saving opioid-reversal drugs available. Communities across the country are also grappling with a mental health crisis, particularly among youth. Undercutting SAMHSA’s ability to work with states and communities to address this issue will only set us backward—putting mental health care further out of reach for those who need it. Additionally, we are concerned that staff firings will impact the work of the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, which has seen a steady increase in contact volume since it launched in 2022. If laying off staff or restructuring SAMHSA will have a positive effect on addressing the substance use and mental health crises affecting communities and families across the country, we think you would be eager to explain the steps you are taking. Despite requests by staff, we have not received any information about these planned staffing reductions and its effects on SAMHSA programs, and the Department has provided no information about planned reorganizations and how they will affect the administration of critical substance use prevention and treatment and mental health programs.

Earlier this month, there were also reports of planned layoffs at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). We are concerned about the impact these reductions will have on addressing healthcare workforce shortages, preventing and treating HIV/AIDS, supporting community health centers, and modernizing our organ donation and transplantation system. The Department has not provided the number of probationary employees that were fired who were working on these efforts or justification as to how these layoffs will best make use of the discretionary funding increases that Congress provided to HRSA in recent years. As the Department plans further staffing reductions at HRSA, we expect you would relish the opportunity to describe how staff layoffs will advance our shared goal of training more nurses and connecting the more than 100,000 Americans on organ donation waiting lists to lifesaving organ donations. Instead, questions have been met with silence, despite multiple requests for additional information. The Department is now planning to implement a reorganization of HRSA and again, has provided no information about how that will be implemented to improve the health and well-being of Americans.

There have also been significant changes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To date, the Department has not provided any information on staffing reductions at those agencies, other than strictly the number of probationary employees who were fired. Those agencies are tasked with detecting and responding to dangerous diseases to keep Americans safe and supporting biomedical research into lifesaving treatments and cures for diseases. The Department owes it to the American public to describe how laying off scientists, researchers, fellows, and staff at CDC will keep Americans safe from infectious diseases such as measles, avian flu, and tuberculosis. The Department owes it to the American public to justify how laying off scientists, grant administrators, and other staff at NIH will provide hope to patients suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and other devastating diseases, including rare diseases for which NIH clinical trials offer their only hope. The Department owes it to the American public to justify how firing scientists and career staff across the Department to make room for political appointees and fringe conspiracy theorists with no scientific background is an acceptable and appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.

We are also very concerned that the Department’s plan to dissolve the Administration for Community Living (ACL) will have a detrimental impact on the needs of some the country’s most vulnerable populations. ACL helps to ensure seniors and people with disabilities maintain their independence and participate fully in their communities. Carelessly shoving the administration of these activities into other operating divisions, already overwhelmed due to mass firings, will not help make Americans healthier; in fact, preventative programs administered by the thousands of community-based organizations that partner with ACL have significantly reduced health care costs for individuals at higher risk. These critical programs include nutrition services for older adults, which reduce hunger and encourage socialization; research and resource centers for people with disabilities and their caretakers; family caregiver support and respite care; and prevention of elder abuse and neglect. Dismantling ACL without any thought for the critical work it does shows a disregard for the needs of seniors and people with disabilities.

The American people deserve to know what is happening to the federal workforce and agencies tasked with carrying out the Department’s tremendous responsibilities and the taxpayer dollars appropriated to carry those responsibilities out. Congress is owed the same. Finally, we remind you of your legal obligation (per section. 713 of P.L. 118-47) to ensure that no federal funds are used to prevent federal employees from communicating with members of Congress.

To that end, we encourage you to begin operating the Department with the transparency you claim to. At the very least, that means directing your staff to provide the same level of information to Congress as previous administrations of both parties have provided – and to respond to basic inquires and requests for information and to maintain periodic briefings which you have cancelled. In addition, below we have included several questions, many of which have been submitted multiple times to the Department. This is information that should be readily available because it is surely information that was considered prior to making such significant changes at the Department.  

We request responses to the following questions by April 4, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

  1. Provide the following:
    1. The organizational structure of the Department on 1/20/25.
    2. The planned organizational structure of the Department after the proposed reorganization that reflects any offices eliminated or moved relative to the structure as of 1/20/25.
    3. A table displaying all programs funded in fiscal year 2024 by Operational Division (as is routinely provided in annual Congressional Justifications) with a crosswalk of where they were funded in fiscal year 2024 to where they will be funded after the proposed reorganization.
    4. The total expected reduction in staffing at the Department relative to 1/20/25 by operational division and subcomponent (e.g. NIH institute, CDC center, HRSA bureau, etc.) including separately the number of probationary employees terminated, the number of employees who took deferred resignation or other voluntary separation, and those subject to Reductions in Force (RIF). Please also include a list of probationary employees that were fired and then rehired.
  1. For each impacted agency, operational division, or office in place as of 1/20/25, describe in detail how proposed reorganizations and staffing reductions will improve the ability of the Department to carry out its authorized and funded activities, and how it will enhance the health and well-being of Americans.
  1. For each impacted agency, operational division, or office in place as of 1/20/25, provide a justification for whether or not the proposed reorganization includes any reprogramming or transfer of funds.
  1. How will the Department execute fiscal year 2025 appropriations given the recently passed fiscal year 2025 appropriations bill provided funding under a different organizational structure? Specifically, for each program, activity, or function that the Department plans to administer under a different operational division than where it was funded by Congress in fiscal year 2025, describe how the Department would execute those appropriations. For new offices the Department plans to create, including a new “Administration for Healthy America,” describe which appropriations from which Department or agency plans to fund those new activities.
  1. Regarding probationary employees who were terminated:
    1. How many had a veteran’s preference?
    2. How many received an “Achieved Outstanding Results” performance review in their last 12 months?
  1. Provide a list of new political appointee positions created, or planned to be created under this reorganization, since 1/20/25.
  1. How many employees who were terminated, subject to RIFs, or who otherwise separated from the Department, worked on the Organ Procurement Transplantation Network modernization effort? How many worked on the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline?
  1. For the National Institutes of Health, provide the number of probationary employees who were terminated, the number of employees who took deferred resignation or other voluntary separation, and the number expected to be subject to RIFs, by Institute, Center and Office (ICO) and job series, including:
    1. The number of scientists working in the Intramural Research Program, including a breakdown by ICO.
    2. For terminated employees, the number the Acting NIH Director requested to have reinstated.
    3. The number of employees who were reinstated by ICO.
  1. Provide a list of all grants and contracts that have been terminated since 1/20/25 by agency, Operational Division, and Office, including a justification, and any office involved in identifying it for termination.
  1. Provide a list of all grants and contracts that have any kind of stop payment indicator associated with them, including grantees who are unable to draw down funds.

###





The following sites updated:



Posted by at