5
#000000
#FFFFFF
supreme court of israel
‘Elon Musk Should Have to Pay For This’: Trump Admin Says It Needs $1 Billion to Combat Screwworm
"Trump and Musk’s DOGE 'saved' $15 million by cutting a program dedicated to preventing the spread of screwworm," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "Now, there’s an outbreak infecting our beef and the administration is spending $1 billion."
Jun 16, 2026
When Elon Musk's "Department of Government Efficiency" took its chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy last year, it created bottlenecks that may have hampered the fight against the screwworm infestation currently menacing the southwest while making it much more expensive.
The annual US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spending to combat the flesh-eating insects only amounted to about $15 million per year. But along with about $382 million aimed at combating animal-borne illnesses around the globe, it was terminated in March 2025 as part of DOGE's effort to root out what it described as government "waste."
But now, with the pests bearing down on Texas and New Mexico, and at least 12 infections already identified in the US as of Tuesday, the Trump administration is spending at least $1 billion to fight the outbreak.
Brooke Rollins last November: We have screwworm under control south of the border. Beef prices will come down by spring 2026.
(The screwworm has just been detected in Texas for the first time in 60 years) pic.twitter.com/ozXdI88jXk
— FactPost (@factpostnews) June 4, 2026
Last week, during a Senate hearing, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins attempted to shift blame for the screwworm outbreak onto the Biden administration, while portraying herself and President Donald Trump as proactive in response to reports last spring that the insects were rapidly climbing through Central America.
Rollins said she asked Trump for "$1 billion to build a significant facility" in Texas that would breed hundreds of millions of sterilized male screwworm flies, a method that had been used to keep them contained in South America for decades. "Without hesitation, a couple questions, he said, ‘go.’”
That facility is expected to release around 300 million sterile flies per week. But it is not expected to be fully operational until the end of 2027.
In addition to the $15 million cut to monitoring the spread of the bugs from Panama, the Houston Chronicle reported that DOGE paused plans for a facility in Mexico that the Biden administration had authorized in 2024 as part of a $165 million emergency package to fight screwworm.
Amid mass layoffs at the USDA, it reported that funding for the facility—which was supposed to produce between 60-100 million sterile flies per week—was not announced until May 2025.
While the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) still says fly production at the facility is expected to begin "as early as summer 2026," it is still listed as "under construction."
Kevin Shea, who served as administrator of APHIS under the Obama administration and retired from the agency in January 2025, told the Chronicle that efforts to contain the screwworm were put on hold at the start of Trump's second term.
“This administration came in so skeptical of the career people, they didn’t really want to listen,” he said. “The hold up in the money going to Mexico for the sterile fly facility was most likely caught up in the whole DOGE thing. It probably looked like some sort of foreign aid.”
Journalist Christopher Collins wrote in the Texas Observer on Tuesday that, additionally, “deep staffing cuts" to APHIS, which lost nearly 1,900 employees during Trump's first year back in office, eliminated "the first line of defense against incoming parasites," who are responsible for "inspecting the cattle awaiting import from Mexico to ensure no screwworms are hitching a ride."
Not joking but @elonmusk should have to pay for this right?
You broke it, why do we all have to pay for it? https://t.co/7SSgyuP0yr
— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) June 16, 2026
As the spread of screwworm across cattle country threatens to further drive up beef prices that have already increased by over 20% since Trump returned to office, critics of the administration are seizing on it to highlight the failure of the president's so-called "efficiency" initiative, which—despite the grandeur of Musk's cost-cutting claims—ended up costing taxpayers an estimated $165 billion, according to an April 2026 report from the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called the screwworm saga a prime example of DOGE's "peak incompetence."
"Trump and Musk’s DOGE 'saved' $15 million by cutting a program dedicated to preventing the spread of screwworm," she said. "Now, there’s an outbreak infecting our beef and the administration is spending $1 billion."
Reacting to the news that the government was spending at least $1 billion to confront the screwworm crisis, Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim wrote on social media, "Not joking but Elon Musk should have to pay for this right?"
"You broke it," he said, tagging the man who recently became the world's first trillionaire. "Why do we all have to pay for it?"
Keep Reading
Show Less
Abortion Bans Not Only Harm Patients, But Cost US Economy $140 Billion: Analysis
States that deny people's bodily autonomy limit "their ability to pursue the education and career options that are right for them, and to build financial stability," said the Institute for Women's Policy Research president.
Jun 16, 2026
Reproductive rights advocates and experts have long highlighted the dangers of abortion bans to people's health, but amid a wave of new state-level restrictions in the wake of Roe v. Wade's reversal, some have also recently emphasized the economic impact, as detailed in an analysis published Tuesday by the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
"IWPR's latest estimates show that states with the most restrictive abortion policies could cost the national economy nearly $68 billion annually in lost earnings, up from $64 billion in last year's estimate," according to the analysis. "Historically, legal abortion access has increased women's labor force participation and earnings. IWPR's analyses suggest that abortion restrictions continue to erode those gains nationwide, reducing women's labor force participation and earnings potential while weakening state and national economies in the process."
"Those losses—amounting to billions of dollars—could otherwise support what families actually need: affordable healthcare, caregiving, higher wages, business growth, and new jobs that strengthen local communities and state economies," the report notes. "This $68 billion estimate reflects only the impact of the most severe restrictions, including total bans and six-week gestational bans, that were in effect in 16 states in 2025."
The publication points out that "many other states may not have banned abortion outright, but still impose barriers that make abortion care harder to access, like waiting periods, mandated counseling, or targeted regulations on abortion providers that delay or deny care altogether. When accounting for all state-level restrictions on abortion access, combined with the federal funding prohibitions and the absence of federal protections, the annual average economic cost now exceeds $140 billion nationwide."
The overall figure is nearly $7 billion more than IWPR's estimate from last year. Putting that figure into context, the report explains that $7 billion "could fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for about 1 million American families with children for an entire year. This is a striking figure considering the so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill's' cuts to the program, which are projected to reduce or eliminate benefits for many low-income households."
Removing barriers to reproductive care on a national scale "could mean nearly 325,000 more women participating in the labor force each year, with the largest increases concentrated in states with some of the most restrictive abortion policies," IWPR estimated. For example, in Alabama, Kentucky, and Louisiana, their labor force participation could be over 1.3% higher, while in Mississippi, it could be up 1.5%.
If more women joined the workforce thanks to policies allowing reproductive freedom, IWPR projected that "national gross domestic product (GDP) could rise by 0.5%, and the economic gains would be largest in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and West Virginia, which rank poorly on both abortion protections and per capita GDP. These states could potentially see their GDP grow by nearly 1% annually."
Like previous analyses, the publication also acknowledges that "Black and Latina women are more likely to experience the consequences of restrictive abortion policies and confront additional economic and structural barriers to accessing care that their White counterparts do not—even as abortion restrictions harm all women and the economy more broadly."
IWPR president and CEO Jamila K. Taylor stressed in a Tuesday statement that "this is fundamentally about human rights and economic justice."
"We know that legal access to abortion care increases women's autonomy to be able to participate in the labor force, which supports the stability of our entire economy," Taylor said. "When states deny people their bodily autonomy, they're also limiting their ability to pursue the education and career options that are right for them and to build financial stability for their family and community. Abortion restrictions don't just harm those who may become pregnant—they harm everyone."
President Donald Trump delivered mixed messages during the last campaign cycle: bragging about being the one to appoint the justices who helped reverse Roe with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, but also suggesting that he wasn't in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion and that the issue doesn't really matter to Americans.
Since returning to the White House, the Republican and his allies in Congress have taken steps to reduce access to reproductive healthcare, and although the right-wing Supreme Court last month declined to restrict access to mifepristone, at least for now, Trump's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing the medication, which is commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care.
Reproductive rights advocates have sounded the alarm over the FDA review. In response to reporting on it earlier this month, Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson called it "a politically motivated farce."
"Mifepristone is safe and effective. We know it, the FDA knows it, and the more than 7.5 million people who've used mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage care over the past 25 years know it too," Johnson said. "But the Trump administration is bulldozing the overwhelming body of medical research and evidence to try to make it harder for everyone, everywhere to get an abortion. It's time for every American to take this threat seriously."
Keep Reading
Show Less
In Senate Race, Michigan's El-Sayed Hammers Message on Medicare for All
The former public health official has centered the government-run healthcare proposal in his campaign.
Jun 16, 2026
In his first TV ad of the US Senate primary race in Michigan on Tuesday, former Detroit health official Abdul El-Sayed emphasized his top three priorities as he vies to represent working people across the state.
"This campaign will take on the powerful with three simple ideas," he said in the ad. "Money out of politics, money in your pocket, and Medicare for All."
The ad, featuring longtime Medicare for All advocate and early El-Sayed supporter Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), marked only the latest time the candidate placed front and center the proposal to improve and expand the existing Medicare program to the entire US population, providing a government-run healthcare system that resembles those in other wealthy countries.
Today, we're going up on TV with our new ad, "Chorus."
This movement is powered by Michiganders and pro-worker champions. And our momentum is undeniable.
Michigan, we're going to get money out of politics, put money in pockets, and pass Medicare for All.
WATCH: pic.twitter.com/SM9eGH3Pm1
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) June 16, 2026
El-Sayed made the case for the program—supported by more than 100 members of the Democratic caucus in Congress as well as 78% of Democratic voters—in a video he posted on social media Monday, asking Michigan voters to imagine being diagnosed with cancer—only to realize they'll have to drive three hours to get the nearest cancer center, like many residents who don't live near one of Michigan's two nationally designated, comprehensive cancer treatment facilities.
"That's the reality for too many people who live in rural communities across our state," said El-Sayed, who wrote a book called Medicare for All: A Citizen's Guide in 2021. "Distance becomes an access issue, above and beyond all of the challenges with health insurance... And to make matters worse, with Medicaid cuts and [Affordable Care Act] cuts, all the reimbursements that should go into keeping those hospitals and clinics open, well, they're dwindling away."
Medicare for All, he said, would be "a lifeline" for people who are "traveling way too long to get the care they need."
A single-payer healthcare system that expanded the existing program, he said, would mean that everyone "reimburses at the same level, meaning it doesn't matter who you are, when you walk into a healthcare center, you're going to bring the full freight of Medicare payments to that hospital. It means that those hospitals that otherwise would have shut down get to stay open."
Imagine you’re diagnosed with cancer. And then you find out the cancer center is 3 hours away. And it’s the middle of winter.
Distance quickly becomes an access issue.
The solution? Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/9MiJz5aKXh
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) June 15, 2026
El-Sayed also shared an exchange he had at a campaign event with a woman who said she had lost her daughter to cancer and had lost her income due to her need to become her child's full-time caregiver because in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, she had limited access to cancer care.
"Part of the reason that communities like this don't have healthcare is because you guys have two twin challenges," said El-Sayed. "One is the brokenness of our multiclass healthcare system. And one of them is distance."
"A lot of people ask me, 'Why are you so passionate about Medicare for All?'" he said. "Well part of it is, I want people to have healthcare when they need it. But part of is also for you, healthcare access isn't just health insurance. It's having a place to get the healthcare when you need it."
This is one of hundreds of stories I’ve heard from Michiganders about what can happen when someone simply gets sick in a country where healthcare is not guaranteed.
Pass Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/g63BiKRVHT
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) June 12, 2026
El-Sayed is one of several progressive candidates pushing to bring Medicare for All to the center of US politics, six years after Sanders debated Democrats including former Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Joe Biden on the proposal on debate stages during the 2020 election.
At the time, Biden, who ultimately won the nomination and the presidency, dismissed Medicare for All as "unrealistic" and too expensive—despite studies that have shown it would save an estimated $650 billion per year. One organizer told Common Dreams in 2024 that during the Biden administration, the movement for Medicare for All became "quiet."
As Common Dreams reported last week, more than 325 organizations signed an open letter arguing that—as working families across the US struggle to keep up with rising costs of housing, groceries, gas, and other essentials while also facing the Republican Party's cuts to Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and Medicaid—right now "is the time to organize" for Medicare for All.
The ACA was passed more than 16 years ago, and many Democratic candidates continue to run on promises to "protect" the program from Republican attacks.
But the GOP's efforts to gut the program have contributed to an ongoing healthcare crisis, with premiums, the uninsured rate, and the number of people relying on high-deductible "catastrophic" insurance rising this year.
In Michigan last week, the director of the United Auto Workers Region 1A in southeast Michigan told The Detroit News that El-Sayed's stance on healthcare helped him emerge as "the clear winner" as the influential union was weighing whom it would endorse in the three-way Democratic primary race.
El-Sayed is facing state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8)—who recently claimed that public support "isn't there yet" for a government-run healthcare program—and US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), who has expressed support for a "public option" but has not introduced legislation for such a system. El-Sayed noted at a recent debate that both of his opponents have taken donations from the for-profit health insurance industry.
At town halls, on his "We Can Do Better" listening tour, and on his social media accounts, El-Sayed has centered the demand for Medicare for All, denouncing opponents of the proposal who have claimed it would be unaffordable for the US—despite the fact that Republicans in Congress last week advanced a proposed Pentagon budget that exceeds $1 trillion.
"It's a funny thing, nobody ever asks the general who's drawing up war plans in Iran, 'General, how are you gonna pay for that?'" said El-Sayed at a recent event. "I happen to believe that rather than sending our money over there, or fighting foreign wars over there... I would rather end this dumb-ass war in Iran, abolish [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and spend our money on healthcare here at home."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'This Has to Be Stopped': Alarm As Trump's Crypto Firm Set to Get Federal Banking Privileges
"For the first time in history, a president is leaning on a bank regulator to give his private enterprise the implicit backing of the federal government," said one critic.
Jun 16, 2026
Critics expressed alarm on Tuesday amid a new report suggesting that President Donald Trump's cryptocurrency firm is about to get federal banking privileges.
As reported by NOTUS, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the coming weeks is expected to approve a national trust bank charter for World Liberty Financial, the crypto startup founded by members of the Trump family and the family of Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
Were it to receive the charter, NOTUS explained, World Liberty Financial would receive "significant legal and financial benefits," including being able "to settle financial transactions akin to Venmo or PayPal on the World Liberty Financial platform, through which the Trump family could receive a cut."
David Wachsman, a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial, dismissed concerns about conflicts of interest, telling NOTUS that "none of [the company's] leadership or employees work for the US government," even though the president and his entire family stand to personally benefit from the charter's approval.
Corey Frayer, director of investor protection for Consumer Federation of America, told NOTUS that here was simply no precedent for a sitting president being granted such privileges for a company he founded by a comptroller whom he personally appointed.
"For the first time in history, a president is leaning on a bank regulator to give his private enterprise the implicit backing of the federal government," Frayer explained. “It’s outrageous."
Diana Henriques, a veteran financial journalist best known for her extensive coverage of the Ponzi scheme run by disgraced financier Bernie Madoff, also expressed horror at the prospect of the OCC carrying out the president's bidding.
"The guardrails continue to fall," Henriques wrote. "It is functionally impossible to regulate a bank owned by the president. Yet it can imperil the entire banking system if it runs off the rails. For heaven's sake, this has to be stopped."
Derek Martin, vice president at Focal Point Strategy Group, wrote that there is "no other way to interpret" the NOTUS report "than Trump using the government to advance his own firm's interests."
"World Liberty Financial's entire brand—and reason for existence, basically—is 'We are affiliated with Trump,'" Martin added. "This is just the latest way they're leveraging it."
Government watchdogs for months have been raising alarms about the president having his own cryptocurrency firm, which has received massive investments from foreign governments since its founding in 2024.
According to NOTUS reporter Jeff Stein, Trump has reported personally earning $57 million from World Liberty Financial so far, a number that could get significantly higher if the firm is granted its charter.
An analysis published by Forbes last month estimated that Trump has nearly tripled his wealth since returning to office, going from a net worth of $2.3 billion in 2024 to $6.5 billion in 2026.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular