Category: Nation & World

  • The Kennedy Center drops ‘Trump’ branding as Bill Maher’s Twain Award guests are revealed

    NEW YORK — John Mellencamp, Jay Leno, and Whitney Cummings will be among the guest speakers when Bill Maher receives the Mark Twain Award for American Humor during a June 28 ceremony at the Kennedy Center.

    The center disclosed the list Monday in an email sent to members, who were offered packages ranging from $99 for a seat reservation to $1,500 and more for seating and admission to pre- and post-show receptions. The announcement also marks a notable change in how the center is identifying itself: The news came from the Kennedy Center, not the “Trump Kennedy Center,” a switch that also appears on the center’s home page.

    Last month, a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump’s handpicked board of trustees had acted illegally when they voted to add Trump’s name to the venue, which Congress in 1964 named for the recently assassinated President John F. Kennedy.

    “The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” wrote U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper.

    Although a Kennedy spokesperson suggested the venue might appeal the decision, the center received an email last week from its general counsel that laid out steps for cooperation, including the removal of Trump’s name.

    After mostly ignoring the Kennedy Center during his first term, Trump soon made the center a key part of his overall mission to purge federal cultural institutions of so-called “woke” influences. He ousted the leadership, filled the board of trustees with supporters, and presided over such signature events as the Kennedy Honors ceremony.

    In response, numerous performers canceled planned appearances at the center, including Issa Rae, Bela Fleck, and Renée Fleming.

    Maher is the 27th recipient of the Twain Award, which has previously been given to Leno, Steve Martin, and Tina Fey, among others. Trump and Maher have publicly feuded in recent years, but the HBO host is otherwise the kind of comedian that many Republicans have found palatable — a self-styled independent who regularly attacks Hollywood as “woke” and has interviewed everyone from liberal stalwarts like Jane Fonda to conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk to such “canceled” cultural figures as Woody Allen.

    Other guests expected at the Twain ceremony include the comedian Louis C.K., who has been touring regularly since allegations of sexual misconduct briefly upended his career after they were reported in 2017, and the controversial ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith, whose blunt comments on sports and beyond have led to fierce exchanges with NBA star Jaylen Brown and commentator Keith Olbermann, among others.

  • Real estate giants Compass and Zillow fight over the future of the market

    Real estate giants Compass and Zillow fight over the future of the market

    Over the past year, Zillow, the country’s largest real estate portal, and Compass, the biggest real estate brokerage in the world, have traded lawsuits and allegations of antitrust violations, all while waving the banner of consumer protection. Both companies have gobbled up competitors and become so dominant that when they shift their rules and practices, they have the power to change how homes in the United States are bought, rented, and sold.

    Zillow owns listing websites including StreetEasy and Trulia and receives about 220 million unique visitors every month. Its scale means it can dictate practices that agents say are bad for their businesses and confusing for consumers.

    Compass was already the largest real estate brokerage in the country when, this year, it bought Anywhere Real Estate for $1.6 billion, making it by far the biggest real estate brokerage in the world with about 340,000 real estate professionals. It controls brands that include Christie’s International Real Estate, Century 21, Coldwell Banker, and Corcoran. It has come under fire for pushing the practice of private listings, which go to a select group of people before they reach the public.

    The National Association of Realtors was the longtime gatekeeper of real estate listings, but the organization was found guilty of antitrust violations in 2023, and its grip on the market has loosened. Now, Zillow and Compass are rushing in to fill the vacuum, battling over who gets control of the listings.

    “We have two behemoths in the industry,” said Jonathan J. Miller, a real estate appraiser and consultant. If the leaders of these companies were to quickly change, shifting their strategy or focus, he continued, the ramifications could be enormous. “The entire market — the biggest asset class in the world — is subject to potentially significant change overnight.”

    What is the controversy around Compass’ private listings?

    Private listings have existed for decades, but they were fairly rare. Perhaps a judge or a celebrity wanted to keep their home and address private, so instead of posting the house online, their broker would call other agents and quietly invite them to the property.

    Compass, however, has taken the practice wide. It offers its buyers the ability to share online listings only on the Compass website so its own agents and their clients can see them, before bringing the homes to the larger market. Those are what it calls Private Exclusive listings.

    Websites like Zillow list how many days a home has been for sale, and a property that’s been on the market for an unusually long time might give a potential buyer pause. Compass’ Private Exclusive listings allow sellers to test their price without starting the days-on-market clock.

    Compass’ critics say the practice disadvantages both buyers and sellers. Buyers won’t know if an overpriced home has been sitting at the same price for a year, and sellers won’t have the largest pool of potential buyers. Compass, on the other hand, does benefit, its critics say. Brokerages take a cut of their agents’ commissions, so by keeping both sides of the deal in-house, the company earns more money.

    Critics liken the practice of private listings to putting tape over the odometer before selling a car. Compass disputes this, and says it isn’t obscuring any information about the home itself.

    “Sellers should have the right to decide how their homes are marketed and where they are marketed,” Compass CEO Robert Reffkin said in a statement.

    Some states, including Connecticut and Wisconsin, have passed laws restricting private listings. New York’s version is on its way to the governor’s desk.

    Why do real estate agents complain about Zillow?

    When potential buyers look at a home on Zillow, they’re presented with the price, photographs, and a menu of information, including the number of bedrooms and a list of local schools. There are also big, bright buttons to click that will connect them with an agent.

    Most buyers assume that when they click those buttons, they are contacting the agent selling the home. But instead they are connected with a buyer’s agent, a person who might have nothing to do with the property, but pays Zillow a fee to be connected with potential clients. Some of those agents share their commissions with Zillow.

    Many buyers find this practice confusing. A study by Jerry Wind, a professor of marketing at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, surveyed more than 850 consumers about Zillow’s website and found that less than 1% of them correctly identified who would be contacting them when they expressed interest in a property on Zillow.

    Zillow says it’s important to connect buyers with their own broker.

    “When you go into a negotiation, you want to make sure that each party to the negotiation has somebody on their side who is advocating for them,” said Mischa Fisher, chief economist at Zillow. The listing agent’s information is available on Zillow for every property.

    Does it matter that these companies are so large?

    There has been an enormous amount of consolidation in the real estate industry. Last year, Rocket Cos., which provides mortgages, acquired Redfin, an online real estate brokerage in a deal valued at $1.75 billion. The Real Brokerage announced this spring that it plans to acquire RE/MAX in an $880 million deal.

    Many in the industry expected the Compass acquisition of Anywhere Real Estate to face antitrust scrutiny from federal regulators, but it sailed through the regulatory process. The office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, however, is investigating Compass over antitrust concerns, according to a person with knowledge of the investigation who was not authorized to speak publicly.

    James has concerns about Zillow, too. Last year, her office joined a group of states and the Federal Trade Commission in suing Zillow and Redfin, one of the largest players in the rental market, saying they had entered into an agreement to stop competing with each other.

    Zillow is also facing a class-action lawsuit alleging it incentivizes brokers who use its Flex Agent and Premier Agent programs to steer buyers toward its home loan products.

    Both Compass and Zillow have also sued each other on antitrust grounds, accusing one another of using market power to stifle competition. In the latest suit, Zillow accused Compass and Midwest Real Estate Data, a listing service, of hiding listings from buyers to shut out competition.

    The companies have all denied the allegations against them.

    “There is a huge multibillion dollar strategic power play playing out with these very large publicly traded companies, around the country and in court,” said Michael DelPrete, a real estate technology strategist who teaches at the University of Colorado Boulder. “At the end of the day, they’re fighting over content — but it’s not just content. It’s not a Star Wars movie. It’s somebody’s house.”

    This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

  • Fewer Americans say democracy is central to country’s identity, poll finds

    WASHINGTON — As the U.S. prepares for an extravagant celebration of its founding principles, fewer Americans see their country as exceptional, a new poll finds.

    The survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research highlights many Americans’ feeling of unease over the future of its representative government — particularly among young people. It presents a jarring contrast as communities around the country commemorate the nation’s 250th anniversary.

    Only about one-quarter of Americans say the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world, the new poll found, while 44% say it’s one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others. About 3 in 10 say there are better countries than the U.S., an increase from 19% in an AP-NORC poll conducted in June 2016.

    Americans remain divided about whether diversity is an essential feature of the U.S.’s identity, and agreement about other aspects of the country’s underlying character appears to be eroding, the survey found. Americans are less likely to see a democratically elected government as “extremely” or “very” important to the United States’ identity as a nation than they were just a few years ago. About two-thirds of U.S. adults now say a democratically elected government is highly important to the U.S.’s identity as a nation, down from 80% in 2021.

    “It’s not that the democracy part is not working,” said Derricka Wall, 24, of Chickasaw, Ala. ”It’s the people that are actually being put in office that is the problem.”

    Wall believes politicians have damaged America’s governing system, which was designed to ensure representation and guard against government misuse.

    America, she said, “is not what it used to be. I feel like our founding fathers would be kind of disappointed with how it is now.”

    Rising belief that democracy is not essential to American identity

    Young adults are much less likely than older Americans to believe the U.S. is special, compared with other nations, the poll found.

    About 4 in 10, 44%, of U.S. adults under 30 say there are other countries better than the U.S., compared with 22% of U.S. adults ages 60 and older.

    Fewer, too, see democracy as a key element of the U.S.’s identity. Only about half of Americans under 30 believe this, compared with 81% of those 60 and older.

    Wall said the people who established the government with co-equal branches thought they were erecting safeguards to keep any one person or group from attaining too much power. But she believes they didn’t foresee how easily those guardrails would crumble if the people in the system stopped enforcing them.

    “I feel like they would actually roll out of their graves,” she said. ”I feel they would be very disappointed in us.”

    The belief that politics isn’t working for everyday people extends beyond the youngest generations. Kent Stage, 62 and a retired senior enlisted man in the Army, is a registered Republican in Indiana. He does not think the current political system addresses the country’s problems. He’d like to see term limits on politicians and more working-class people serving.

    “I’ll trust the ambulance-chasing lawyer and a shady used car salesperson before I trust the politician,” he said.

    Stage, who is also a former Marine, believes public servants make self-serving choices for their families “while mine and yours still got to hit the old grindstone.”

    Many feel it’s harder to get ahead in the U.S.

    The survey also finds widespread cynicism about America as the land of opportunity. About half of U.S. adults, 51%, say the American Dream — the idea that if you work hard, you’ll get ahead — once held true but does not anymore. About one-third say it “still holds true” while 15% say it never held true.

    Jack Hermanson, a 27-year-old software developer in Denver, said his belief in the American Dream changed when he saw his engineer husband struggle to find a job. “That really shattered my impression that if you work hard, you get what you deserve,” Hermanson said.

    Only 22% of Americans under 30 say the American Dream still holds true, compared with 46% of Americans ages 60 and older.

    Angela Toombs, 31, works at a senior living facility in Atlanta where her clients talk about how easy it was to buy a house while working their first regular jobs in their 20s and are incredulous about the obstacles facing Toombs’ generation. Toombs recently gave up her own apartment to rent a room in order to save money.

    Skepticism about the American Dream is more widespread among Democrats and independents, compared with Republicans. Most Republicans, 57%, say the American Dream still holds true, compared with about one-quarter of independents and 17% of Democrats.

    Republicans are also much likelier than Democrats to see the U.S. as exceptional. About half of Republicans say the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world, compared with only 7% of Democrats.

    Quintin Sharpe, 28, lives in a resort town on Lake Geneva in Wisconsin. A financial planner who is Republican, he said the American Dream remains accessible and he is proud of the country. “It’s been a great experiment.”

    “The opportunity is there for those who want to work for it,” he said. Sharpe believes the country is “a meritocracy, and the best ideas, the best work ethic, those with the best succeed regardless of race, skin color, any of those factors.”

    He and his wife will celebrate the country’s 250th anniversary watching the fireworks over the lake.

    Divides on whether diversity is essential to U.S.

    Just over half of U.S. adults — 56% — say a shared American culture and set of values are “extremely” or “very” important to the country’s identity, down from 65% in 2017. Younger Americans are less likely than older ones to say a singular set of values is important to U.S. identity.

    But Americans remain sharply divided on the centrality of welcoming diverse perspectives: About half of adults, 51%, say the ability of people to come from other places in the world to escape violence or find economic opportunities is “extremely” or “very” important to American identity, while 55% say this about the mixing of cultures and values from around the world.

    Only about 4 in 10 Republicans see the mixing of cultures and values from around the world as central to the country’s identity, compared with 76% of Democrats.

    Rose Nunez, 70, of San Antonio, Texas, was a small-business owner but now is a caregiver for family members. Nunez, who tends to vote for Democrats, said there is an unease and tension that are just beneath the surface, especially focused on Hispanics. She said some people have started carrying their papers showing their immigration status in case they are challenged.

    “It is hard to celebrate when the feelings towards immigrants and communities of color are so strong,” she said of the upcoming America 250 celebrations.

    She said even citizens are questioned now. If it gets to a point where being naturalized is challenged, “guess what, my mom would be leaving. She’s been living in this country since she was maybe 4 years old. She’s 93.”

  • Israel and Iran appear to pause strikes after trading fire for the first time since April ceasefire

    DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Israel and Iran appeared to back away from further strikes Monday, hours after they traded fire for the first time since the U.S. agreed to a ceasefire with Tehran two months ago. Both countries warned that they were ready to launch retaliatory attacks if provoked.

    The renewed hostilities raised concerns that the Middle East could plunge back into a full-scale war.

    Since the U.S. and Israel began striking Iran on Feb. 28, the war has shaken the global economy, driven up energy prices around the world, and made many basics, including food, more expensive. Officials have been unable to turn the April ceasefire into a deal to permanently end the conflict.

    The new attacks prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to call for an immediate stop to fighting between Israel and Iran.

    Soon after, the Iranian military’s joint command issued a statement that said it was halting offensive strikes. The statement said further “aggression and hostile acts” by Israel and its supporters, including in southern Lebanon, would be met with “much more severe and crushing measures than before.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking in a videotaped statement, implied that the current round of fighting was over. But he also warned that if Iran “makes the mistake and returns to attacking us, we will respond with force.”

    Netanyahu said Israel is continuing to operate in Lebanon against the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah, and that Israel “has full right to self-defense, and we will exercise it to the full extent necessary.”

    Meanwhile, the Lebanese Health Ministry said an Israeli airstrike on the village of Zefta killed seven people Monday, including a Syrian child. Eight people were wounded. Another strike on the coastal city of Tyre killed five and wounded eight, some of them members of the Lebanese Red Cross, the ministry said.

    Both countries lift restrictions

    Both countries lifted restrictions they had imposed as safety precautions. The Israeli military said most schools in Israel that closed Monday would reopen. Iran’s official Mizan news agency reported that the Islamic Republic had lifted airspace restrictions affecting civilian flights.

    During the truce, Iran has maintained its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz — a crucial passage for the world’s oil and natural gas whose closure was the primary reason global fuel prices skyrocketed. Israel has continued to strike Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, and pushed deeper into that country.

    The U.S. military continues to impose a blockade on Iranian ports. U.S. Central Command said its forces on Monday fired on and disabled a Palau-flagged oil tanker, the M/T Marivex, in the Gulf of Oman after the ship attempted to breach the blockade.

    Officials in India said the tanker’s crew of 24 Indian sailors were all reported safe after a fire broke out on the vessel. It was the seventh commercial vessel the U.S. military has disabled to enforce its blockade, which began in mid-April.

    Diplomats race to save the ceasefire

    Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed concern Monday over the surge in violence. In a post on X, Sharif urged all parties to “exercise restraint and give peace a little more chance.”

    Two regional officials said Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, and Qatar had all urged the Trump administration to pressure Israel to halt strikes on Iran and Beirut.

    Those countries also pushed for Iran to stop attacking Israel, the officials said. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

    Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations said Monday that Iran and the U.S. are still working to negotiate a peace deal. After speaking at a U.N. Security Council meeting, Amir Saeid Iravani told the Associated Press he was hopeful that “very soon” the two sides would reach “a conclusion.”

    Explosions sound in Tehran and central Israel

    Iran launched waves of attacks on Israel on Monday, and Israel launched strikes on central and western Iran.

    Iranian state media reported at least 15 people were wounded after explosions sounded in Tehran and other cities. There were no immediate reports of fatalities.

    The semiofficial Fars and Mehr news agencies said Israeli strikes hit a petrochemical factory in the city of Mahshahr. They did not elaborate on any damage. The Israeli military confirmed the strike on the plant, saying it targeted sites that produce materials for ballistic missiles. Israel said it also targeted truck-based missile launchers.

    Israel said its strikes were in response to an Iranian missile attack. Tehran warned Sunday that it would retaliate after Israel struck Beirut’s southern suburbs without warning. When Israel struck back, Iran fired again.

    Explosions could be heard in central Israel as air defenses sought to intercept incoming Iranian fire. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard said it had targeted two military bases in Israel.

    Iran blamed the United States for the escalation.

    “No one believes that the Israeli regime would take any action without coordination with the United States,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei told journalists in Tehran.

    Tensions appear to grow between Trump and Netanyahu

    Trump and Netanyahu launched the war in a closely coordinated attack, with Israeli officials proudly boasting of unprecedented “shoulder to shoulder” cooperation.

    The conflict reached 100 days on Monday, and the two leaders have moved in opposite directions, with tensions sometimes spilling out into the open.

    Netanyahu appears to have openly defied Trump with the strike Sunday in Beirut and subsequent attacks in Iran. Trump has voiced his displeasure with Israel, including belittling Netanyahu by declaring to the Financial Times that “I call all the shots.”

    Their differences appear to be rooted in each leader’s domestic considerations. Netanyahu faces elections this fall and is under public pressure to strike back against ongoing Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel. He also is wary of appearing too subservient to Trump.

    The U.S. president also faces elections — for Congress in November — and is eager to end a war that has jolted the global economy and raised prices for consumers.

  • Birthright citizenship is constitutional. But some Americans have always had to prove themselves worthy.

    Birthright citizenship is constitutional. But some Americans have always had to prove themselves worthy.

    As the Supreme Court considers President Donald Trump’s effort to narrow birthright citizenship, the administration has cast the issue as a defense of the value of U.S. citizenship rather than simply a change in immigration policy. In court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that automatic citizenship “demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship,” and Trump later called the current system “STUPID” on Truth Social.

    But the current fight is about much more than constitutional wording. It is the latest chapter in a long history of deciding that some people born in the United States still must prove they deserve to belong.

    That is not a new problem in American history. Birthright citizenship has long been one of the clearest places where the United States has worked out the boundaries of national belonging. On paper, the 14th Amendment seemed to settle the question after the Civil War. Anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction was a citizen. But almost immediately, that promise ran into a familiar problem: many Americans were willing to defend universal principles only until those principles extended to people they considered outsiders.

    That tension came into full view in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Wong was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents. When he returned to the United States after a trip abroad, officials detained him and argued that his birth on American soil did not make him a citizen after all. The logic was plain enough. His parents were Chinese, Chinese immigrants were racially excluded from naturalization, and anti-Chinese officials insisted that the children of such immigrants could not truly belong either. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. It affirmed that birth in the United States, not the race or legal status of one’s parents, established citizenship. But the case mattered precisely because it revealed how badly exclusionists wanted a different outcome. They wanted citizenship to depend on lineage, not principle.

    Wong Kim Ark clarified the constitutional rule, but it did not end the effort to define the nation more narrowly. That effort moved simply moved elsewhere. Lawmakers could not easily strip citizenship from people born here, but they could still shape the nation by trying to restrict who could enter in the first place.

    The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 did exactly that. It used national-origins quotas to privilege immigrants from northern and western Europe while sharply restricting others and effectively excluding most Asians on explicitly racial grounds. The law did not abolish birthright citizenship but rather worked around it. It sought to preserve a preferred vision of the nation by controlling the people who might one day reproduce it. Immigration control became a way to manage the future population of the nation.

    That narrowing of belonging did not stop at the border. During the Great Depression, Mexican repatriation campaigns pushed hundreds of thousands of people of Mexican descent out of the United States, including many U.S. citizens. As historian Adam Goodman argues, the long history of expulsion in the United States has always been about power: the power to determine who may remain, who can be removed, and who gets cast as outside the nation in the first place.

    That history is worth dwelling on because it makes something painfully clear. Even formal citizenship has not always guaranteed a person’s recognition as fully American. In moments of panic and xenophobia—such as when the U.S. forcibly removed and incarcerated Japanese-American citizens during World War II—race and presumed foreignness could override legal status.

    The United States also developed a more selective politics of inclusion. During the Cold War, the country welcomed many refugees, but it did so unevenly and strategically. As historians like Carl Bon Tempo have shown, this process was shaped by foreign policy goals, domestic political pressures, public attitudes toward newcomers, and changing ideas of American identity. For example, refugees fleeing communist regimes like Hungary and Cuba were often easier to recognize as worthy because their stories served a larger ideological purpose for the United States. Their flight to the U.S. helped tell a flattering story about the United States as a refuge of freedom standing against communism. On the other hand, asylum claims of those fleeing right-wing regimes such as El Salvador and Haiti, were denied en masse. The United States distinguished between the refugees it wanted and the refugees it preferred not to see.

    That is the longer history behind the present fight. American policy has repeatedly distinguished between the people imagined as rightful members of the nation and those treated as suspect, alien, or disposable. Sometimes exclusion worked through immigration restriction. Sometimes it worked through expulsion. Sometimes it worked through selective refuge. But the basic logic remained recognizable across time. Belonging was never simply given. It was sorted, ranked, and politically constructed.

    And that is still the case. In my current work as a fellow at the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), I study how immigration debates continue to function as debates over nationhood and belonging.

    On one level, Americans still describe the nation in civic terms. In PRRI’s 2025 American Values Survey, 93% said that believing in individual freedoms is important to being truly American, 91% said believing in the Constitution, and 89% said accepting people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds. Those are the kinds of answers Americans like to give about themselves. They describe a nation rooted in principle, rights, and pluralism.

    But the same survey points to another vision of the country, one that is narrower and more exclusionary. Seventy-five percent of Americans polled said speaking English is important to being truly American. Fifty-four percent said being born in America. And 57% said believing in God, with 43% explicitly saying being a Christian. Those numbers matter because they show that civic ideas of membership still coexist with older assumptions about inherited religious and cultural belonging. The nation may be described in universal terms, but many Americans still imagine it in more bounded ways.

    OLD IMAGE — DO NOT USE — Made By History sponsors. FOR USE ON MADE BY HISTORY STORIES ONLY.Inquirer Staff

    That same tension appears in immigration attitudes more broadly. PRRI found strong support for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements. But it also found that 37% of Americans support detaining undocumented immigrants in internment camps until they can be deported, and 32% favor deporting undocumented immigrants to foreign prisons without allowing them to challenge their deportation in court. Those are not just policy preferences. They reveal how easily legal exclusion and coercive state power remain available when migrants are cast as outside the circle of national concern.

    That is why the present debate over birthright citizenship matters so much. The Supreme Court case may seem technical or narrowly constitutional. The irony is that the legal principle itself is not especially ambiguous. Wong Kim Ark settled the matter more than a century ago.

    What remains unsettled is the political desire to narrow the boundaries of belonging. Again and again, Americans have used citizenship and immigration law to distinguish between those whose presence affirms the nation and those whose presence is treated as a problem. The country remains divided over a deeper question. Is the United States really a civic nation, or will it reserve full belonging for those who fit more narrow criteria of who Americans are supposed to be.

    E. Kyle Romero is an assistant professor of history at the University of North Florida where he writes and teaches on the history of U.S. foreign policy, immigration, and humanitarianism; he has previously served as a postdoctoral fellow at the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College, and is currently a fellow at the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington, D.C.

    Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Inquirer editors.

  • Kennedy shows minimal engagement with vast health portfolio

    Kennedy shows minimal engagement with vast health portfolio

    WASHINGTON — Shortly after the World Health Organization declared the Ebola outbreak in Africa a public health emergency, a reporter asked Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. if he was worried about the virus. Six Americans had already been exposed. His response was brief: “Yeah, we’re working on it.”

    In the nearly three weeks since, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed travel restrictions to keep the virus from coming to the United States, Kennedy has made no public comments about the spreading outbreak. He has received few briefings about the virus from CDC scientists, although he speaks daily to the acting director, according to people familiar with his response.

    Kennedy’s approach to the crisis reflects his broader management of the Department of Health and Human Services, which affects the health of 340 million Americans and provides healthcare to 40% of the population through Medicare and Medicaid.

    Kennedy has shown little interest in managing the details of work in his department, according to multiple colleagues. Instead, they say, he is single-mindedly focused on his top priorities, including food recommendations and pesticide exposures, and hunting for evidence to support his long-held beliefs that vaccines are harmful.

    Deeply mistrustful of career civil officials, the secretary has surrounded himself with a close circle of handpicked advisers and stacked agencies with political appointees aligned with his views. While major posts have sat vacant and a wave of veteran health experts and scientists have departed, Kennedy has remained isolated from much of the department’s top staff.

    He rarely engages with members of Congress, colleagues said, unless he is asked to testify. He has made just one known visit to the CDC, after a gunman opened fire on its headquarters and killed a police officer last August.

    This examination of Kennedy’s leadership style is based on the accounts of a dozen people who have had direct contact with him as secretary, as well as other health department employees, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.

    Kennedy and the department did not directly address questions about his leadership style.

    The secretary’s detachment from much of the work of the agency, along with the administration’s deep staff cuts and his attacks on career staff, have driven down morale, they say. It’s a dynamic that could threaten the department’s ability to protect Americans in a crisis, according to public health experts and former secretaries.

    Critics say one of the most urgent problems is Kennedy’s failure to act more swiftly to address a leadership vacuum. There is no surgeon general. About half of the 27 institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health are run by acting directors. The acting chief of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases was recently fired, as was the nation’s top drug regulator.

    The leader of the Food and Drug Administration quit last month under pressure over tobacco policy. Kennedy fired the CDC director last August; it is now run on an acting basis by Jay Bhattacharya, who has another huge job as director of the NIH.

    “You would never accept a major corporation operating this way,” said Michael T. Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, who has advised health secretaries of both parties.

    “If the CEO lacked deep expertise in the company’s business and the leaders of its most important divisions were missing, investors would revolt,” Osterholm said. “Here, the stakes are much higher. The mission is protecting the health and safety of the American people, and we’re confronting serious disease threats without permanent leadership in some of our most important public health agencies.”

    To address the management gaps, the White House and Kennedy initiated a shake-up in February, elevating Christopher Klomp, a department official and former healthcare executive, to serve as the secretary’s chief counselor and smooth out operations. In a statement, Courtney Spencer, who left the Labor Department two weeks ago to become Kennedy’s top spokesperson, said the health department was “aggressively recruiting top talent to fill every remaining vacancy,” adding, “Nothing has slowed our ability to execute.”

    Kennedy’s allies say that while his management style may be different from that of his predecessors, he is leading in other ways by taking stands on matters of importance to Americans, including healthy eating and tackling chronic disease.

    “You do not come to Washington to challenge powerful interests, disrupt decades of business as usual, and demand accountability to make friends,” Mehmet Oz, director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a close ally of Kennedy’s, said in a statement provided by the health department. “You do it to deliver results.”

    Other advisers say Kennedy is also running into the realities of Washington, including a Congress that has refused to confirm some of President Donald Trump’s nominees.

    “Very predictably, you get into governing, you get into a toxic political environment, and a situation where there’s trillions of dollars of interest and you have the burden of having to do policy,” Calley Means, a close adviser to Kennedy, said at a recent forum hosted by Harvard University. “Nobody executes perfectly.”

    A remote presence

    Kennedy keeps a low profile at the health department’s headquarters, a hulking building that faces the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol.

    When he is in town, he exercises at his gym before work, then usually arrives at about 10 a.m. and leaves by 4 p.m., his colleagues say. He spends much of his day in closed-door meetings, according to those who work with him, and has little direct engagement with his staff.

    Every Tuesday at 10:30 a.m., the chiefs of the department’s 13 operating divisions gather in the secretary’s suite to update leadership on their activities. At the outset of his tenure, Kennedy was rarely there, either virtually or in person, according to three people familiar with his schedule. Since Klomp’s elevation, he now shows up once a month. But when he does attend, he often appears disengaged and spends the time scrolling on his phone, according to people in attendance. Several described him as “checked out.”

    Once, when he arrived to the meeting 15 minutes late, Kennedy offered a self-deprecating apology, according to one person in the room: “Thank you for putting up with my dysfunctional self.”

    Health department officials did not respond to a request for comment about the meeting or Kennedy’s remark.

    His lack of interest in matters that are not high on his priority list has meant that he has not engaged at critical moments, colleagues said.

    When measles killed two children in Texas early last year, Demetre Daskalakis, who led the response but has since left the agency, asked repeatedly to brief Kennedy but was rebuffed, he said.

    Susan Monarez, who briefly served as Kennedy’s CDC director before she was fired, had little direct interaction with the health secretary until she ran afoul of him on vaccine policy. She later told senators that during a series of tense meetings with the secretary, she was “directed to only work with the political appointees that he had put in place at CDC, and not to speak or work with the career scientists.”

    In the current Ebola crisis, Kennedy has left the department’s response to Bhattacharya, a health economist with no prior experience in public health even though he is leading the CDC. Bhattacharya, who also led the response to a recent outbreak of hantavirus, wrote an opinion essay published in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday saying that while the “risk to the American public remains low, Ebola is dangerous.”

    A White House spokesperson, Kush Desai, said the agency’s “rapid and comprehensive response” to the Ebola outbreak proved that “under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS continues to safeguard the health and wellness of the American people.”

    Spencer, the HHS spokesperson, said the health department had “executed an immediate and coordinated response” under Kennedy’s leadership.

    But key vacancies inside the health department have made the response more challenging, people familiar with the situation said.

    The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, responsible for pandemic preparedness and for standing up field hospitals and quarantine facilities in Kenya, is currently run on an acting basis by John Knox, a former Los Angeles firefighter who founded the group Firefighters4Freedom during the pandemic to fight vaccine mandates.

    As the Ebola outbreak has spread, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a tacit rebuke of Kennedy’s move last year to withhold funding from an international vaccine alliance, suggesting the State Department was taking back management of the U.S. relationship with the alliance.

    “We are going to reengage,” Rubio told lawmakers last week. “We need to drive this to an outcome.”

    A daunting portfolio

    Under any circumstances, the Department of Health and Human Services is difficult to run. It has 13 operating divisions covering a vast array of issues, such as child welfare and pandemic preparedness. Past secretaries from both political parties say there are three main ingredients for success: understanding the work of the divisions, strong crisis communication, and muscular coordination with state, local, and international health leaders.

    Tommy G. Thompson, who as health secretary to President George W. Bush faced complaints about his management of the 2001 anthrax crisis, spent a week at each one of the operating divisions at the outset of his tenure, and made frequent trips to Capitol Hill to advocate for the department. In an interview last year, he said he “would strongly suggest” Kennedy do the same.

    “The department is so vast and so complex,” Thompson said, “and you have to be prepared.”

    Kathleen Sebelius, a former Kansas governor who resigned as President Barack Obama’s health secretary after the flawed rollout of the healthcare.gov website, said she met with the division chiefs regularly, likening them to her cabinet.

    “My goal was to really be informed by the scientists, to make sure that NIH was at the table, that FDA was at the table, that our global health people were at the table,” Sebelius said in an interview. “I was really schooled by the people who had been there before and who knew what the hell they were doing.”

    Kennedy, by contrast, has delegated broad authority to Stefanie Spear, a longtime adviser who has been with him since his days as an environmental lawyer and functions as his protector and defender, according to people who know them.

    Spear runs meetings for the secretary, accompanies him on official trips, and keeps a list of his policy projects on a private spreadsheet to which his policy team has no access. There are more than 50 items on the list, one person who has seen it said.

    All requests for the secretary’s decisions and meetings go through Spear. When Kennedy is asked a question, his frequent response is “just run that by Stefanie.”

    Colleagues say that her tight control has slowed department operations.

    After Kennedy promised Congress that the FDA would investigate the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, the agency proposed updating a set of sophisticated databases of electronic records it needed for the research. But the project was delayed for months by Kennedy’s office, according to two people with detailed knowledge.

    When a gunman opened fire on the CDC last August, Kennedy was fishing with Native American leaders in Alaska. Health department officials wanted to get a statement out to the news media. But it was held up for hours, several said, while Spear sought approval from the White House.

    Frustration with Spear, who served as Kennedy’s communications director during his campaign and oversees his public comments, has fueled some key departures.

    Kennedy is on his third top spokesperson; the first two quit in frustration, according to people familiar with their decisions. The secretary has also run through two chiefs of staff; he fired the first one, and the second was pushed aside in favor of Klomp.

    In a statement, Kennedy praised Klomp and Spear as “two of the most effective leaders in government.” He said Klomp had ”been instrumental in driving operational excellence, strengthening accountability, and ensuring HHS delivers results for the American people,” and that Spear “keeps our team focused on results and ensures the president’s and my priorities get across the finish line.”

    Klomp has moved quickly in the search for a new CDC director, with a nominee now awaiting Senate confirmation, as well as for other top leaders for the agency. He also brought in a new team of policy advisers to the secretary and instituted daily meetings between Kennedy and the leaders of the “Big Four” agencies: FDA, CDC, NIH, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to three people familiar with the department’s operations.

    He has also sought to address low morale by starting a regular newsletter in which Kennedy addresses employees as “the dedicated professionals of HHS.”

    The secretary, however, has been out of the loop on some key decisions. When Tracy Beth Hoeg, the FDA’s top drug regulator, was fired by FDA leaders in May, the secretary did not learn of it until after it happened, according to three people familiar with the events.

    There is no question that Kennedy is changing the national conversation around health in America, especially healthy eating. While his vaccine agenda has so far been stymied by court decisions, he has scored “wins,” as he likes to call them, notably by flipping the food pyramid, persuading medical schools to revamp nutrition education, and convincing some food makers to abandon artificial dyes.

    He travels often and makes aggressive use of his platform to promote his priorities, including on social media and The Secretary Kennedy Podcast, which began in April. Last week, he made stops in Wisconsin to spotlight the work of dairy farmers and faith-based groups working in addiction recovery, and New Hampshire to announce an effort to combat Lyme disease.

    Colleagues say he also makes visits to Scottsdale, Ariz., where his son and daughter-in-law live, and Florida, where he stays at the Palm Beach mansion owned by Oz.

    After Memorial Day, the public got a glimpse of him there. Kennedy posted video of himself, in a suit and tie, capturing two black racer snakes on Oz’s patio. One of them bit him.

    This article originally appeared in the New York Times.

  • Israel says Iran launched missiles at it in first such bombardment since fragile ceasefire

    JERUSALEM — Iran launched missiles at Israel in the first such bombardment since a fragile ceasefire took effect in early April, raising the possibility of a return to heavy fighting and complicating mediation efforts to end the war.

    Iran’s state broadcaster confirmed the launches, and Iran closed its western airspace to brace for a possible response. Tehran had warned of retaliation after Israel struck Beirut’s southern suburbs without warning earlier Sunday in defiance of Washington’s request days ago to stand down. Israel said the Iranian-backed Hezbollah fired at northern Israel earlier in the day.

    “Should these acts of aggression be repeated, the responses will be broader in scope and will encompass all American and Zionist targets throughout the region,” Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said in a statement that referenced attacks in Lebanon and on Iran’s coast and vessels around the Strait of Hormuz.

    Sirens sounded in several areas of Israel, sending millions running for shelter. Israel’s military said it intercepted the missiles, and multiple explosions were heard in the north. Less than an hour later, the military said people could leave areas reinforced against missile attacks.

    “Iran has made a grave mistake,” Israel military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said. The military’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, said it will “strike the enemy with determination as soon as the order is given.”

    But Israel’s public broadcaster, Kan, said U.S. President Donald Trump told it that he doesn’t think Israel needs to respond further. And Trump told the Financial Times: “I call all the shots. He (Netanyahu) doesn’t call the shots.”

    U.S. official: Netanyahu to hold off attack ‘for the time being’

    A senior U.S. official said Trump had called Netanyahu to urge him not to retaliate immediately for the Iranian missile attack. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private phone call, said that Trump believed he had convinced Netanyahu to wait.

    Trump “got Bibi to hold off for the time being,” the official said. The official would not offer any other details of the call, and there was no immediate comment from Netanyahu’s office.

    Iran had warned that an attack on Beirut would renew full-scale war across the Mideast, even as Pakistan and other mediators try to restart talks between Tehran and Washington.

    “U.S. forces across the Middle East remain vigilant and ready,” the U.S. Central Command posted on X shortly before the missile launches. The U.S. Embassy in Israel later directed employees and family members to shelter in place.

    Israel’s attack on Beirut came a few days after the Lebanese and Israeli governments agreed to a ceasefire in U.S.-hosted talks, though Hezbollah rejected the deal. The strike on a residential building killed two people and wounded 20, Lebanon’s health ministry said.

    “The army will continue to act in all of Lebanon,” the Israel military spokesperson said.

    Israel’s strikes and ground invasion in Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah, and the militant group’s resistance to disarming, have complicated an overall deal to end the war in the Middle East.

    Iran says any deal must include an end to fighting in Lebanon.

    Trump told a Fox News Channel reporter that he wanted the Iranians to stop firing missiles and return to the negotiating table. He also said that Israel’s strikes earlier Sunday were not coordinated with the U.S. and “I’m not happy about it.”

    Israel last week had announced it would strike the southern suburbs of Lebanon’s capital, but urgent talks via Washington halted that on the condition that Hezbollah stop targeting Israeli border towns.

    Hezbollah, which claimed responsibility for firing at Israel earlier Sunday, wants the direct talks between Lebanon and Israel to end. Instead, it supports Iran’s stance that an overall ceasefire deal between Tehran and Washington include the situation in Lebanon.

    Netanyahu, who seeks reelection later this year, is under heavy domestic pressure to respond to both Iran and the Hezbollah threat, which has paralyzed life for thousands of residents along Israel’s northern border.

    But Trump has made clear he does not want to see the war resume.

    Trump said earlier Sunday in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he would like to see a “more surgical attack on Hezbollah.” He also said he was “not demanding” that Lebanon be part of an overall ceasefire deal in the Iran war.

    Iran continues to assert its grip on the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. continues its blockade of Iranian ports, with shipments of oil, natural gas and fertilizer affected and the global economy in pain.

    Iran since the ceasefire took effect has launched missiles and drones at Gulf nations and said it was targeting the U.S. military presence. After its launches against Israel, Iraq’s Civil Aviation Authority announced that the country’s airspace would close for 72 hours and Syria’s aviation authority announced a 12-hour airspace closure.

    All flights from Tehran’s main international airport were suspended, the civil aviation authority said, according to the official Mizan news agency.

    Diplomacy continues before and after missile launches

    Pakistan’s interior minister, Mohsin Naqvi, was in Tehran on Sunday delivering a message to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei from Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. There were no details on the message’s contents.

    Khamenei has not been seen in public since he was named the Islamic Republic’s ruler after his father was killed on Feb. 28 as Israeli and U.S. strikes sparked the war.

    Pakistani authorities have said Islamabad, with support from regional countries including Qatar, Turkey and Egypt, is working to help bridge differences.

    In Cairo, the Egyptian and Qatari foreign ministers discussed “proposed elements” of a potential agreement between the U.S. and Iran, the Egyptian foreign ministry said, without details.

    And after Iran’s missile launches at Israel, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke with counterparts in France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Egypt and Turkey as well as Pakistan’s army chief, Iran’s state TV said.