Caroline Kennedy slams RFK Jr. as ‘predator’ before confirmation hearing
Rebecca Noble/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — In a scathing letter Tuesday, Caroline Kennedy warned senators about her cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., calling him a “predator.”
The letter was sent to lawmakers ahead of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Senate confirmation hearing for the role of secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), which is scheduled for Wednesday.
Caroline Kennedy – a former U.S. ambassador to both Australia and Japan and the last living child of former President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s uncle – called the role “an enormous responsibility, and one that Bobby is unqualified to fill.”
Caroline Kennedy wrote that she feels “an obligation to speak out” now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been nominated for “a position that would put him in charge of the health of the American people.”
“I have known Bobby my whole life; we grew up together,” she wrote in the letter, in part. “It’s no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because he himself is a predator.”
Caroline Kennedy said she watched family members follow her cousin “down the path of drug addiction,” and shared disturbing details of his alleged behavior with animals.
“His basement, his garage, and his dorm room were the centers of the action where drugs were available, and he enjoyed showing off how he put baby chickens and mice in the blender to feed his hawks. It was often a perverse scene of despair and violence,” she wrote.
She also accused Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of being “addicted to attention and power,” and said he “preys on the desperation of parents of sick children – vaccinating his own children while building a following by hypocritically discouraging other parents from vaccinating theirs.”
Caroline Kennedy further accused her cousin of “[continuing] to grandstand off my father’s assassination, and that of his own father,” saying former President Kennedy “would be disgusted” by his actions.
“The American health care system, for all its flaws, is the envy of the world,” Caroline Kennedy wrote. “Its doctors and nurses, researchers, scientists, and caregivers are the most dedicated people I know. Every day, they give their lives to heal and save others.”
“They deserve better than Bobby Kennedy – and so do the rest of us. I urge the Senate to reject his nomination,” she concluded.
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are moving to censure Democratic Rep. Al Green after his disruptions during President Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night.
By Wednesday morning, several members of the GOP conference have been circulating different resolutions to censure Green, who was ejected from the House chamber on Tuesday night after interrupting Trump’s remarks multiple times.
Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse was the first to formally introduce a resolution on the House floor on Wednesday. His measure was introduced as privileged, meaning the House must take it up within two legislative days.
“Decorum and order are the institutional grounds for the way we do business in the United States Congress, and the sheer disregard for that standard during President Trump’s address by the gentleman from Texas is unacceptable,” Newhouse said in a statement. “A Member’s refusal to adhere to the Speaker’s direction to cease such behavior, regardless of their party, has and will continue to be reprimanded in the people’s House.”
The House Freedom Caucus also said on Wednesday that it plans to introduce a censure resolution against Green.
Green’s outburst happened within minutes of Trump’s address, when the president called his electoral victory a “mandate.”
Green, an 11-term Democrat representing the Houston area, stood up and pointed his cane as he shouted, “You have no mandate to cut Medicaid.”
Speaker Mike Johnson slammed his gavel and gave a warning to lawmakers assembled to maintain decorum, telling Green several times to take his seat. As Green continued to protest, Johnson called for him to be removed.
Johnson said after Trump’s address that Green should be censured and that he would “absolutely” put a resolution on the floor after its introduction. He told reporters, “it’s a spectacle that was not necessary. He’s made history in a terrible way. And I hope he enjoys it.”
On “Good Morning America” on Wednesday morning, Johnson also defended his decision to have Green removed.
“Al Green was trying to interrupt the entire proceeding. But look, I’ll just say this. If the Democrats want a 77-year-old congressman to be the face of their resistance, heckling the president, then bring it on,” he said.
Green told ABC News late Tuesday night he’d accept any “punishment” from his heckling as he was “following the wishes of conscience.”
“There are times when it it better to stand alone than not stand at all,” Green said.
“At some point, we’re all going to have to stand up,” he added.
(WASHINGTON) — Environmental nonprofits are gearing up to challenge some of the actions President Donald Trump has issued since taking office.
There is litigation coming for the majority of the executive orders Trump has signed so far that affect the environment, conservation and decarbonizing the economy, several nonprofits told ABC News.
Environmental lawyers are also on standby for any directives issued in the future that could violate existing environmental laws, according to several sources familiar with the lawsuits already being prepared against the Trump administration.
The White House did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
How environmental groups are responding to Trump’s executive orders
Trump began his second term as president by signing a slew of executive actions, including an order that attempts to revoke action taken by President Joe Biden in the last weeks of his term to ban all future offshore oil and natural gas drilling on America’s East and West coasts, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s North Bering Sea.
While Trump immediately vowed to reverse the ban when it was signed on Jan. 6, that could prove difficult. The law Biden invoked, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, was written so a presidential action under its authority is permanent — providing legal precedent to ensure it stands, several environmental lawyers told ABC News, describing Trump’s move as illegal.
“We’ll see them in court at some point,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I think we will prevail on this.”
Trump’s vow to revoke the ban is an attempt to fulfill his campaign promise to increase fossil fuel production, Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, the nation’s largest public interest environmental law firm, told ABC News.
In doing so, he is ignoring a large swath of U.S. coastline communities who would prefer for drilling to decrease, said Joanne Spalding, director of the environmental law program at the Sierra Club.
“People in Florida don’t want drilling. People in California don’t want drilling,” Spalding told ABC News. “There’s lots of places where people are not interested in having that activity on their coastlines.”
Existing environmental laws could also serve as roadblocks as Trump aims to increase the amount of federal land that will be subject to drilling, the experts said.
Separately, groups criticized Trump’s planned 10-to-1 deregulatory freeze, which would require the federal government to repeal 10 existing rules, regulations or guidance documents in order to adopt a new one, as “completely arbitrary,” Spalding said.
That order is “almost verbatim” to a two-for-one deregulatory freeze issued in 2017 that “never amounted to anything,” Hartl said.
“A lot of what we’ve seen, even in the first two weeks, have been almost just copy-and-paste activities from executive orders that we saw in the first Trump administration,” he said.
What worries conservation nonprofits the most
The potential dismantling of several federal agencies that conduct important work for conservation is a concern for environmental groups.
The Office of Management and Budget Office’s move to suspend federal financial aid programs could be a warning sign for federal agencies that conduct environmental work that does not align with Trump’s agenda, Hartl said.
“Right now, the biggest threat to the environment is Trump’s across-the-board attempt to simply dismantle the federal government,” he said.
In addition, the presence of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and DOGE head Elon Musk’s buyout offer to millions of federal employees could severely disrupt the conservation work of several agencies, he added.
“If you don’t have people working at the EPA, it’s pretty hard to keep the air clean, the water clean,” Hartl said. “If you don’t have folks working at the National Park Service, how are you going to run your national parks? How are you going to protect endangered wildlife?”
In addition, the potential defunding of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Act — both by enacted by Biden — poses serious setbacks for decarbonizing the country’s economy and moving toward a net-zero economy by 2050, environmental advocates said. Both are “the most important pieces of legislation ever in addressing global climate change,” Spalding said.
As part of his executive actions, Trump temporarily suspended the disbursement of funds from the IRA. Sankar said that has worried NGOs because the money is intended to advance the development of a clean energy economy as well as improve public health and support communities that bore the brunt of the impact of the fossil fuel economy.
“We are looking at and developing lawsuits aimed at ensuring that the money flows to the intended recipients,” he said.
Several lawsuits challenging the authority of DOGE are also being prepared, according to the groups.
Lessons learned from the 1st Trump administration
Many of Trump’s declarations are relatively symbolic or declare an intention but don’t necessarily constitute any actual action, environmental law experts said.
“Trump likes just holding up his signature, and that’s the main reason we we see him doing these flurry of executive orders,” Hartl said, adding that a lot of Trump’s actions were not effective during the first term.
Along with the executive orders comes rumor and speculation about what they actually can achieve, which makes it difficult for nonprofits to take immediate action, Sankar said.
Because of this, environmental groups may be more selective this time around about which executive actions they actually decide to take to court — especially since nonprofits don’t have endless resources to challenge every order, Spalding said.
“We’re always very choosy about our litigation to make sure that we have the best claims with the clients who are most clearly affected,” Sankar said.
This time around, environmental lawyers will be more savvy about responses, Spalding said.
“We’ll continue to focus on those priorities and make sure that we’re engaged every step of the way during the regulatory rollback process,” she said.
(LAS VEGAS) — To Cherie DeVille, one of the adult entertainment industry’s most popular stars, pornography — and its easy accessibility online — is a fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment.
“This isn’t a whim or something that I’m going to do for a week. I love this job,” said the former physical therapist turned sex worker who has millions of followers on social media. “It’s very good business for me.”
To parents with young children, like Dawn Hawkins of Virginia, America’s multibillion-dollar porn juggernaut is a social poison infiltrating families via the internet.
“How are we going to teach our children healthy intimacy and boundaries and consent when what they’re viewing across multiple platforms is sharing really the opposite message,” said Hawkins, who wants stricter controls for sexually-explicit content.
The age-old debate over the widespread availability of pornography in America will enter a new phase this spring as the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether states can legally require websites hosting adult content to perform electronic age verification of all users.
A green light for online age checks could dramatically alter how millions of U.S. adults access sexually explicit content on their phones, tablets, and computers and potentially build a more stringent safety barrier for children than what currently exists.
The decision will come at a time when hardcore porn is booming business and easier to obtain than ever before, with the rapid proliferation of adult film studios, live camera websites, social media platforms, and online networks of amateur creators. Many sites have no paywall or age verification gateways.
“It’s not a matter of if my kids are going to be exposed to pornography. It’s a matter of when. It’s definitely going to happen,” said Hawkins, a mother of 5 who also heads the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which has led an effort to crack down on the porn industry.
Hawkins and many national parent organizations have voiced growing concern in recent years that software filters and parental controls on personal electronics – installed by manufacturers and long considered the primary line of defense for families – have not been effective at keeping explicit content from kids.
More than 70% of men and 40% of women say they’ve consumed sexually explicit content in the past year, according to a recent study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. American teens have reported similar levels of exposure in studies reviewed by ABC News.
Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
“As long as we’re prioritizing adults’ access to this content and not also prioritizing children’s safety, we are going to destroy the next generation,” said Hawkins. “We are just asking that the pornography companies put a fence around it and make sure that those accessing this content are of age.”
Nineteen states have recently passed laws mandating that sites containing sexually-explicit material harmful to children require all users to upload a copy of their digital or government ID, or perform a biometric scan, in order to verify that they are over 18. Legislators say the measures are common sense steps similar to age checks at brick-and-mortar stores.
“It’s possible to prove your age entirely on your own cell phone. So, no personal data need ever leave the palm of your hand,” said Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, an industry trade group that sells technology to adult websites.
Third-party apps — used widely by porn sites across Europe — can make the verification process fast, free, and secure for consumers, Corby said.
“The simple case might be using a driver’s license. So you would be redirected to an agency’s website, and then once you’ve done a photo of your I.D., you do a selfie. And then we check that the two match,” Corby said. “We just tell that website that you’re over 18 – not your name, not your face, and not even your actual date of birth. Just that you were over 18.
“Another option works in a very similar way to facial estimation, but in fact, it’s based on how you move your hands,” added Corby, demonstrating the biometric scan technology for ABC News.
The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, says online age-verification requirements are unconstitutional, infringing on adult rights by putting privacy at risk and impeding access to legal content.
Decades of Supreme Court precedent have upheld the constitutionality of pornographic material and adults’ right to access it. In two separate cases, the court previously ruled that the government can’t mandate age verification of users online before allowing them to see explicit material.
“Whenever the government is passing a law in the name of protecting kids, I think there are serious questions to be asked about whether what it’s really doing is saying this speech is bad for everyone,” said Vera Eidelman, an ACLU attorney. “And that’s exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against.”
Industry advocates say the onus should remain on parents and technology companies, which they claim have the capacity to install smarter content filters and other safety monitoring controls on devices used by kids.
“Kids are going to do what they’re going to do. You know, you don’t ban alcohol because kids can get a fake ID or because they can drink from their parents’ liquor cabinet,” said Ken Fields, an adult film actor who opposes electronic age verification laws. “You do the best you can to try to keep that from happening within reason without infringing on the legal rights of legal adults and citizens.”
The Texas law at issue before the Supreme Court applies to websites with more than one-third of sexually-explicit content harmful to children. It does not apply to search engines or social media sites. Critics say it could also limit teenagers’ access to public health and sexual health resources unrelated to porn.
“I think their heart is in the right place. The execution is not there,” said Nick from Colorado, an attendee at the AVN Expo in Las Vegas last month, the nation’s annual adult entertainment convention. “There’s a way to do it, it’s just not the way it’s being done.”
Several participants, who all declined to share their last names, told ABC News they worried about a loss of anonymity when surfing to adult websites. “If you do absolutely upload your driver’s license, who gets it? So where does that information go?” said Meredith from Tennessee.
“There’s a lot of ways you can get shamed, whether it’s at work or other places,” said Brett from Florida. “It’s more of a privacy concern than anything else.”
During Supreme Court oral arguments last month in a major test case from Texas, a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the states’ efforts to limit kids’ exposure to sexually explicit material, despite long standing precedent opposing overly burdensome requirements on adults, including electronic age checks.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
“It’s going to be a massive amount of monetary loss, and I think you’re going to see an explosion of illegal, unethical porn because they don’t care and they won’t comply,” said DeVille. “I do not care what you think about porn. This should terrify you because this is a massive government overstep in one of our most cherished things in the United States.”
To Hawkins, a favorable decision would be a sigh of relief.
“The burden can’t only be on parents,” she said of the need to keep children away from pornography. “Something like demanding age verification on these nefarious websites is such a simple, commonsense measure that that would drastically help protect kids from exposure.”
