Connect with us

Business

The new head of the CDC has no training in medicine and once helped Peter Thiel develop man-made islands floating outside U.S. territory

Published

on



President Donald Trump has picked Jim O’Neill, a former investor and critic of health regulations serving under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to take control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, following a tumultuous week in which the agency’s director was forced out.

O’Neill, Kennedy’s deputy at the Department of Health and Human Services, will supplant Susan Monarez, a longtime government scientist who had been the CDC director for less than a month.

Monarez’s lawyers said she refused “to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts.”

O’Neill takes over as acting director of an agency that has been rocked by firings, resignations and efforts by Kennedy to reshape the nation’s vaccine policies to match his long-standing suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of long-established shots.

An HHS spokesperson said Friday that O’Neill would continue to serve as deputy of the department but did not provide details on his new role.

A former associate of billionaire tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel, O’Neill previously helped run one of Thiel’s investment funds and later managed several of his other projects. Those included a nonprofit working to develop manmade islands that would float outside U.S. territory, allowing them to experiment with new forms of government.

He has no training in medicine or health care and holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in humanities.

A Washington insider on a team of outsiders

O’Neill has kept a markedly lower profile than Trump’s other top health officials, who all joined the administration as Washington outsiders. He’s also the only one with experience working at HHS, where he served for six years under President George W. Bush.

Those who know him say he’ll likely be tasked with trying to calm the situation at CDC — though it’s unclear what, if any, independence he’ll have from Kennedy.

“Jim O’Neill is a health care policy professional and I don’t think anybody can accuse him of being an RFK Jr. sock puppet,” said Peter Pitts, a former FDA official under Bush. “The question becomes whether the role of CDC director becomes a strictly paper tiger position, where the person only does what they’re told to by the secretary.”

O’Neill is not closely associated with Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement and its efforts against food dyesfluoride and ultraprocessed foods.

He was also not a major critic of public health measures during the pandemic, unlike Food and Drug Administration chief Marty Makary and other Trump officials. Although O’Neill did use social media to criticize FDA efforts to stop the prescribing of unproven treatments for COVID-19, including the anti-parasite drug ivermectin.

O’Neill has pushed for less regulation

O’Neill has long-standing ties to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, including Thiel, one of Trump’s leading supporters from Silicon Valley. Like Thiel, O’Neill has expressed disdain for many parts of the federal bureaucracy, saying it hinders advances in medicine, technology and other areas.

During Trump’s first term, O’Neill was vetted as a possible choice to lead the FDA, although his past statements about the agency raised alarms among pharmaceutical and medical technology executives.

In particular, O’Neill proposed doing away with FDA’s 60-year-old mandate of assuring new drugs are both safe and effective in treating disease. In a 2014 speech, O’Neill suggested drug effectiveness could be established after they hit the market.

Trump ultimately nominated Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA official and supporter of the agency’s regulatory approach, as commissioner.

Refusal to break with Kennedy on vaccines

After being nominated to the HHS post, O’Neill voiced his support for the federal government’s traditional system for overseeing vaccines — including the role of the CDC — while refusing to criticize Kennedy’s views on the topic.

“I support CDC’s recommendations for vaccines,” O’Neill told Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy at a confirmation hearing in June. “I think that’s a central role that CDC has. It’s mandated in law.”

In follow-up questions, ranking Democrat Ron Wyden pressed O’Neill on statements by Kennedy downplaying the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to prevent measles and other diseases.

“Secretary Kennedy has not made it difficult nor discouraged people from taking vaccines,” O’Neill responded.

High-stakes vaccine decisions ahead

Within weeks, O’Neill could be asked to sign off on new recommendations from a CDC panel that Kennedy has reshaped with vaccine skeptics. The group is scheduled to meet next month to review vaccinations for measles, hepatitis and other conditions that have long been established on the government schedule for children.

Traditionally, the CDC director signs off on recommendations from the panel. But Monarez was ousted after, among other things, she refused to automatically sign off the committee’s recommendations, according to Dr. Richard Besser, a former CDC acting director who spoke to her.

As an acting official, federal law limits O’Neill to no more than 210 days heading the agency before he must step aside or be formally nominated to the post.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, who served twice as acting CDC director, says there are essentially no limits on the powers of the acting agency chiefs, beyond the time constraints.

“I was told, ‘You’re the director. Do what you need to do,’” Schuchat said.

Dueling health roles

Both of O’Neill’s roles at HHS and CDC are demanding, full-time jobs that would be extremely challenging for one person to do simultaneously, Schuchat said.

“But if the goal is to have an acting CDC director fulfill a predetermined decision about vaccines, it’s a different story,” Schuchat said.

It won’t help O’Neill that there was an exodus this week of four veteran CDC center directors, leaving the agency with few leaders who have a background in medicine, science or public health crisis management, she added.

___

AP Medical Writer Mike Stobbe contributed to this story from New York

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

4 times in 7 seconds: Trump calls Somali immigrants ‘garbage’

Published

on



He said it four times in seven seconds: Somali immigrants in the United States are “garbage.”

It was no mistake. In fact, President Donald Trump’s rhetorical attacks on immigrants have been building since he said Mexico was sending “rapists” across the border during his presidential campaign announcement a decade ago. He’s also echoed rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler and called the 54 nations of Africa “s—-hole countries.” But with one flourish closing a two-hour Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Trump amped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric even further and ditched any claim that his administration was only seeking to remove people in the U.S. illegally.

“We don’t want ‘em in our country,” Trump said five times of the nation’s 260,000 people of Somali descent. “Let ’em go back to where they came from and fix it.” The assembled Cabinet members cheered and applauded. Vice President JD Vance could be seen pumping a fist. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sitting to the president’s immediate left, told Trump on-camera, “Well said.”

The two-minute finale offered a riveting display in a nation that prides itself as being founded and enriched by immigrants, alongside an ugly history of enslaving millions of them and limiting who can come in. Trump’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations have reignited an age-old debate — and widened the nation’s divisions — over who can be an American, with Trump telling tens of thousands of American citizens, among others, that he doesn’t want them by virtue of their family origin.

“What he has done is brought this type of language more into the everyday conversation, more into the main,” said Carl Bon Tempo, a State University of New York at Albany history professor. “He’s, in a way, legitimated this type of language that, for many Americans for a long time, was seen as outside the bounds.”

A question that cuts to the core of American identity

Some Americans have long felt that people from certain parts of the world can never really blend in. That outsider-averse sentiment has manifested during difficult periods, such as anti-Chinese fear-mongering in the late 19th century and the imprisonment of some 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Trump, reelected with more than 77 million votes last year, has launched a whole-of-government drive to limit immigration. His order to end birthright citizenship — declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens despite the 14th Amendment — is being considered by the Supreme Court. He has largely frozen the country’s asylum system and drastically reduced the number of refugees it is allowed to admit. And his administration this week halted immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations.

Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump, and he has slightly higher marks on it than on his overall job approval. According to a November AP-NORC poll, roughly 4 in 10 adults — 42% — approved of how the president is handling the issue, down from about half who approved in March. And Trump has pushed his agenda with near-daily crackdowns. On Wednesday, federal agents launched an immigration sweep in New Orleans,

There are some clues that Trump uses stronger anti-immigration rhetoric than many members of his own party. A study of 200,000 speeches in Congress and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration between 1880 and 2020 found that the “most influential” words on the subject were terms like “enforce,” “terrorism” and “policy” from 1973 through Trump’s first presidential term.

The authors wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Trump is “the first president in modern American history to express sentiment toward immigration that is more negative than the average member of his own party.” And that was before he called thousands of Somalis in the U.S. “garbage.”

The U.S. president, embattled over other developments during the Cabinet meeting and discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoys, opted for harsh talk in his jam-packed closing.

Somali Americans, he said, “come from hell” and “contribute nothing.” They do “nothing but bitch” and “their country stinks.” Then Trump turned to a familiar target. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an outspoken and frequent Trump critic, “is garbage,” he said. “Her friends are garbage.”

His remarks on Somalia drew shock and condemnation from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.

“My view of the U.S. and living there has changed dramatically. I never thought a president, especially in his second term, would speak so harshly,” Ibrahim Hassan Hajji, a resident of Somalia’s capital city, told The Associated Press. “Because of this, I have no plans to travel to the U.S.”

Omar called Trump’s “obsession” with her and Somali-Americans “creepy and unhealthy.”

“We are not, and I am not, someone to be intimidated,” she said, “and we are not gonna be scapegoated.”

Trump’s influence on these issues is potent

But from the highest pulpit in the world’s biggest economy, Trump has had an undeniable influence on how people regard immigrants.

“Trump specializes in pushing the boundaries of what others have done before,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a civil rights law professor at Ohio State University. “He is far from the first politician to embrace race-baiting xenophobia. But as president of the United States, he has more impact than most.” Domestically, Trump has “remarkable loyalty” among Republicans, he added. “Internationally, he embodies an aspiration for like-minded politicians and intellectuals.”

In Britain, attitudes toward migrants have hardened in the decade since Brexit, a vote driven in part by hostility toward immigrants from Eastern Europe. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right Reform U.K. party, has called unauthorized migration an “invasion” and warned of looming civil disorder.

France’s Marine Le Pen and her father built their political empire on anti-immigrant language decades before Trump entered politics. But the National Rally party has softened its rhetoric to win broader support. Le Pen often casts the issue as an administrative or policy matter.

In fact, what Trump said about people from Somalia would likely be illegal in France if uttered by anyone other than a head of state, because public insults based on a group’s national origin, ethnicity, race or religion are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws. But French law grants heads of state immunity.

One lawyer expressed concerns that Trump’s words will encourage other heads of state to use similar hate speech targeting people as groups.

“Comments saying that a population stinks — coming from a foreign head of state, a top world military and economic power — that’s never happened before,” said Paris lawyer Arié Alimi, who has worked on hate speech cases. “So here we are really crossing a very, very, very important threshold in terms of expressing racist … comments.”

But the “America first” president said he isn’t worried about others think of his increasingly polarizing rhetoric on immigration.

“I hear somebody say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct,’” Trump said, winding up his summation Tuesday. “I don’t care. I don’t want them.”

___

Contributing to this report are Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Linley Sanders in Washington, John Leicester in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Omar Faruk in Mogadishu.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly three-quarters of Trump voters think the cost of living is bad or the worst ever

Published

on



President Donald Trump and his administration insist that costs are coming down, but voters are skeptical, including those who put him back in the White House.

Despite Republicans getting hammered on affordability in off-year elections last month, Trump continues to downplay the issue, contrasting with his message while campaigning last year.

“The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “The word affordability is a Democrat scam.”

But a new Politico poll found that 37% of Americans who voted for him in 2024 believe the cost of living is the worst they can ever remember, and 34% say it’s bad but can think of other times when it was worse.

The White House has said Trump inherited an inflationary economy from President Joe Biden and point to certain essentials that have come down since Trump began his second term, such as gasoline prices.

The poll shows that 57% of Trump voters say Biden still bears full or almost full responsibility for today’s economy. But 25% blame Trump completely or almost completely.

That’s as the annual rate of consumer inflation has steadily picked up since Trump launched his global trade war in April, and grocery prices have gained 1.4% between January and September.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance pleaded for “patience” on the economy last month as Americans want to see prices decline, not just grow at a slower pace.

Even a marginal erosion in Trump’s electoral coalition could tip the scales in next year’s midterm elections, when the president will not be on the ballot to draw supporters.

A soft spot could be Republicans who don’t identify as “MAGA.” Among those particular voters, 29% said Trump has had a chance to change things in the economy but hasn’t taken it versus 11% of MAGA voters who said that.

Across all voters, 45% named groceries as the most challenging things to afford, followed by housing (38%) and health care (34%), according to the Politico poll.

The poll comes as wealthier households are having trouble affording basics, while discount retailers like Walmart and even Dollar Tree are seeing more higher-income customers.

And in a viral Substack post last month, Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager for Simplify Asset Management, argued that the real poverty line should be around $140,000.

“If the crisis threshold—the floor below which families cannot function—is honestly updated to current spending patterns, it lands at $140,000,” he wrote. “What does that tell you about the $31,200 line we still use? It tells you we are measuring starvation.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Apple is experiencing its biggest leadership shakeup since Steve Jobs died, with over half a dozen key executives headed for the exits

Published

on



Apple is currently undergoing the most extensive executive overhaul in recent history, with a wave of senior leadership departures that marks the company’s most significant management realignment since its visionary co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs died in 2011. The leadership exodus spans critical divisions from artificial intelligence to design, legal affairs, environmental policy, and operations, which will have major repercussions for Apple’s direction for the foreseeable future.

On Thursday, Apple announced Lisa Jackson, its VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives, as well as Kate Adams, the company’s general counsel, will both retire in 2026. Adams has been Apple’s chief legal officer since 2017, and Jackson joined Apple in 2013. Adams will step down late next year, while Jackson will leave next month.

Jackson and Adams join a growing list of top executives who have either left or announced their exits this year. AI chief John Giannandrea announced his retirement earlier this month, and its design lead Alan Dye, who took charge of Apple’s all-important user interface design after Jony Ive left the company in 2019, was just poached by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta this week.​

The scope of the turnover is unprecedented in the Tim Cook era. In July, Jeff Williams, Apple’s COO who was long thought to succeed Cook as CEO, decided to retire after 27 years with the company. One month later, Apple’s CFO Luca Maestri also decided to step back from his role. And the design division, which just lost Dye, also lost Billy Sorrentino, a senior design director, who left for Meta with Dye. Things have been particularly turbulent for Apple’s AI team, though: Ruoming Pang, who headed its AI Foundation Models Team, left for Meta in July and took about 100 engineers with him. Ke Yang, who led AI-driven web search for Siri, and Jian Zhang, Apple’s AI robotics lead, also both left for Meta.

Succession talks heat up

While all of these departures are a big deal for Apple, the timing may not be a coincidence. Both Bloomberg and the Financial Times have reported on Apple ramping up its succession plan efforts in preparation for Cook, who has led the company since 2011, to retire in 2026. Cook turned 65 in November and has grown Apple’s market cap from about $350 billion to a whopping $4 trillion under his tenure. Bloomberg reports John Ternus has emerged as the leading internal candidate to replace him.​

Apple choosing Ternus would be a pretty major departure from what’s worked for Apple during the past decade, which has been letting someone with an operational background and a strong grasp of the global supply chain lead the company. Ternus, meanwhile, is focused on hardware development, specifically for the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch. But it’s that technical expertise that’s made him an attractive candidate, especially as much of the recent criticism about Apple has revolved around the company entering new product categories (Vision Pro, but also the ill-fated Apple Car), as well as its struggling AI efforts.​

Now, of course, with so many executives leaving Apple, succession plans extend beyond the CEO role. Apple this week announced it’s bringing in Jennifer Newstead, who currently works as Meta’s chief legal officer, to replace Adams as the company’s general counsel starting March 1, 2026. Newstead is expected to handle both legal and government affairs, which is essentially a consolidation of responsibilities among Apple’s leadership team, merging Adams’ and Jacksons’ roles into one.​

Alan Dye, meanwhile, will be replaced by Stephen Lemay, a move that’s reportedly being celebrated within Apple and its design team in particular. John Gruber, who’s reported on Apple for decades and has deep ties within the company, wrote a pretty scathing critique about Dye, but in that same breath said employees are borderline “giddy” about Lemay—who has worked on every major Apple interface design since 1999, including the very first iPhone—taking over.

Meanwhile, on the AI team, John Giannandrea will be replaced by Amar Subramanya, who led AI strategy and development efforts at Google for about 16 years before a brief stint at Microsoft.

Hitting the reset button

All of the above departures cover critical functions for Apple: AI competitiveness, design innovation, regulatory navigation, and operational efficiency. Each replacement brings specialized expertise that aligns with the challenges Cook’s successor will inherit.

The real test will be execution across multiple fronts simultaneously. Can Subramanya accelerate Apple’s AI development to match competitive threats? Will Lemay’s design leadership maintain Apple’s interface advantages as AI reshapes user interaction? Can Newstead navigate regulatory challenges while preserving Apple’s privacy-first approach?

What’s certain is the company will look fundamentally different in 2026—and the executive team that grew Apple into a $4 trillion behemoth is departing. The transformation could be as profound as any since Jobs handed the reins to his COO at the time, Tim Cook, 14 years ago.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.