By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — When the White House fired Susan Monarez as director of the premier U.S. public health agency, it was clear to two of the scientific leaders at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the political meddling would not end and it was time to quit.

Related Articles

Former MLB star Mark Teixeira announces bid for US House seat in Texas

Mystery surrounds $1.2 billion Army contract to build huge detention tent camp in Texas desert

What to know after the US deports more migrants to Africa

Fed official sues Trump over attempt to fire her, challenging his power over the independent agency

Japan’s chief trade envoy postpones US trip as Tokyo calls for faster action on its tariffs deal

“We knew … if she leaves, we don’t have scientific leadership anymore, ” one of the officials, Dr. Debra Houry, told The Associated Press on Thursday.

“We were going to see if she was able to weather the storm. And when she was not, we were done,” said Houry, one of at least four CDC leaders who resigned this week. She was the agency’s deputy director and chief medical officer.

The White House confirmed late Wednesday that Monarez was fired because she was not “aligned with” President Donald Trump’s agenda and had refused to resign. She had been sworn in less than a month ago.

Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., declined during an appearance on “Fox & Friends” to directly comment on the CDC shake-up. But he said he continues to have concerns about CDC officials hewing to the administration’s health policies.

“So we need to look at the priorities of the agency, if there’s really a deeply, deeply embedded, I would say, malaise at the agency,” Kennedy said. “And we need strong leadership that will go in there and that will be able to execute on President Trump’s broad ambitions.”

A lawyer for Monarez said the termination was not legal — and that she would not step down — because she was informed of her dismissal by staff in the presidential personnel office and that only Trump himself could fire her. Monarez has not commented.

Dr. Richard Besser, a former CDC acting director, said that when he spoke with Monarez on Wednesday, she vowed not to do anything that was illegal or that flew in the face of science. She had refused directives from the Department of Health and Human Services to fire her management team.

She also would not automatically sign off on any recommendations from a vaccines advisory committee handpicked by Kennedy, according to Besser, now president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which helps support The Associated Press Health and Science Department.

Houry and Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who resigned as head of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said Monarez had tried to make sure scientific safeguards were in place.

Some concerned the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a group of outside experts who make recommendations to the CDC director on how to use vaccines. The recommendations are then adopted by doctors, school systems, health insurers and others.

Kennedy is a longtime leader in the anti-vaccine movement, and in June, he abruptly dismissed the entire panel, accusing members of being too closely aligned with manufacturers. He replaced them with a group that included several vaccine skeptics and then he shut the door to several doctors organizations that had long helped form vaccine recommendations.

Recently, Monarez tried to replace the official who coordinated the panel’s meetings with someone who had more policy experience. Monarez also pushed to have slides and evidence reviews posted weeks before the committee’s meetings and have the sessions open to public comment, Houry said.

HHS officials nixed that and called her to a meeting in Washington on Monday, Houry said.

When it became clear that Monarez was out, other top CDC officials decided they had to leave, too, Houry and Daskalakis said.

“I came to the point personally where I think our science will be compromised, and that’s my line in the sand,” Daskalakis said.

Monarez’s lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abbe David Lowell, said in a statement that when she refused “to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted.”

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.

“The March on Washington was more than inspiration; it was an act of defiance, a refusal to accept exclusion as fate. Yet here we are, generations later, asking why that promise is still just out of reach.”

The Civil Rights March on Washington, D.C. on August. 28, 1963 (The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration)

More than 60 years have passed since that humid summer day when the Lincoln Memorial became a stage for American resolve—hundreds of thousands asserting their right to quality jobs, freedom, equality, dignity, and opportunity. The March on Washington was more than inspiration; it was an act of defiance, a refusal to accept exclusion as fate. Yet here we are, generations later, asking why that promise is still just out of reach.

To honor 1963, let’s start by naming the truth: economic insecurity and racial injustice in America are not accidental. They are structures built to last, designed and maintained by rules, decisions, and policies at every level. That structure, with its deep foundations and clever rebrandings, is still standing.

How does this system operate, and what does it produce? An analysis by the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies outlines a litany of disparities.

The federal minimum wage in 2025 stands at $7.25, unchanged since 2009 and far less than the inflation-adjusted minimum wage demanded by marchers six decades ago, which would have been $21 in 2025 dollars. 

Employment structure tells its own tale. Despite high workforce participation, too many Black workers are concentrated in lower-paying service jobs, while white workers are vastly overrepresented in management and professional ranks. The system doesn’t need to say “no”—it simply arranges the options so an equal “yes” is out of reach.

The wealth gap has also worsened since 1963. As of the last quarter of 2024, the average white household held about four times the wealth of Black households, and five times the wealth of Latino households. This is not a natural difference—it is the end result of decades of public and private policies shaping who gets access to wealth-building tools, homeownership, and capital. Year after year, the divide widens, making it ever harder for those born with fewer resources to catch up, no matter how hard they work.

And consider childhood opportunity. Black children are 3.5 times more likely than white children to be in “chronically underfunded” schools, and twice as likely to be in districts failing to meet adequate funding altogether. The practical effect is that these children are asked to chase opportunity while starting a proverbial race several paces behind. 

If this weren’t enough, recent federal actions have sharpened the edge. The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” signed into law just last month, took a wrecking ball to key supports relied upon by millions of families. SNAP was cut by $186 billion—about 20 percent—with Black and Latino households twice as likely as white families to be food insecure. Medicaid cuts, eligibility restrictions, and changes to the Child Tax Credit hit hardest where the need is greatest.

Those changes to the Child Tax Credit, for example, will render 2 million U.S. citizen children in mixed immigration status families ineligible for the payment. The ripple effects of these choices are profound, shaping not only what families bring home but what they dream is possible for their children.

And not to mention, these cuts will lead to job reductions in the public sector, a field that has historically provided Black Americans with a pathway to better, more equitable job opportunities and allowed them to build a modicum of wealth. Black employees make up nearly 20 percent of the overall federal workforce, with even higher rates in some of the agencies that are being particularly targeted for cuts.

For example, the workforce of the Department of Education, which is subject to an executive order to facilitate its closure, is over one third (36 percent) Black. The bill that there is nothing beautiful about will also scale back enforcement at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), exposing Black and Brown workers to further racism and hostility—and lessens protections and accountability—in the private sector. 

Additionally, provisions of the bill will shift billions of dollars worth of costs to state and local governments, forcing them to either cut services to their residents or reduce their workforce. Again, this reduction in state and local government jobs will disproportionately target Black households. For instance, 22 percent of Black women in the labor force held government positions in 2022, a higher rate than any other racial or gender group, with a significant portion of these being at the state and local level.

These persistent gaps are not just the detritus of a forgotten past; they are manufactured by way of structural economic deprivation, a social construct created to normalize and enable systemic limitations on the ability of lower income people and communities to access financial, health, education and social resources that build and sustain wealth, thereby all but ensuring a socio-economic strata with individuals, families and communities living perennially in or near poverty. This is why, for example, policy decisions about minimum wage, job protections, or benefits consistently shape that work is dignified with fair pay and stability for some and denied to others.

We have a long way to fully dismantle the generational economic insecurity created by the systems and structures of law and policy. However, we cannot begin that process while still not addressing the root of the problem; we cannot solve that which we do not measure. 

The True Cost of Economic Security (TCES) measure, an economic tool created by the Urban Institute and commissioned by the National True Cost of Living Coalition, is a data-driven assessment of what families really need not just to survive, but to thrive. It counts the actual costs of housing, healthcare, food, childcare, and more, tailored to today’s realities.

This measure too demonstrates the racial inequity that persists today.It shows that 67 percent of Black households are economically insecure, compared to 42 percent for white households. It also provides a new and more accurate benchmark for us to strive toward, and with economic security as our standard, policy can finally match our values.

Imagine wages and structures built on that truth. Programs calibrated to actual living costs and the reality of what families are experiencing. Funding for schools and communities that begin with equity instead of scarcity. A standard of economic security shifts the minimum to mean dignity, agency, and opportunity, not just scraping by.

Change starts by insisting federal, state, and local governments, and even private institutions, use the TCES standard to guide policy. No more hiding behind arbitrary benchmarks. Only a clear line between getting by and truly thriving.

The structure of exclusion was built with intention. Let’s bring that same resolve to building its replacement, a new architecture of opportunity, belonging, and justice. The dream of 1963 was never modest. Neither can be the movement that finally brings it home.

Jennifer Jones Austin is the CEO of the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies (FPWA), an anti-poverty, policy and advocacy organization.

The post Opinion: A Dream for Economic Justice, Deferred by Design appeared first on City Limits.

By JONEL ALECCIA, Associated Press

At least 95 people in more than a dozen states have been sickened since January in an outbreak of salmonella poisoning tied to recalled eggs, federal health officials said Thursday.

Country Eggs LLC, of Lucerne Valley, California, has recalled large, brown cage-free “sunshine yolks” or “omega-3 golden yolks” eggs and production has been suspended. The eggs were sold in cartons bearing the brand names Nagatoshi Produce, Mishuo and Nijiya Markets. The cartons contain the code CA 7695 and sell-by dates of July 1 through Sept. 16.

Related Articles

Immigration agents signed up to recruit at a California university. Then the protests started

PHOTO ESSAY: 20 years after Hurricane Katrina, these then-and-now photos show the power of place

Gun used in Emmett Till’s lynching is displayed in a museum 70 years after his murder

Mystery surrounds $1.2 billion Army contract to build huge detention tent camp in Texas desert

Online age checks are proliferating, but so are concerns they curtail internet freedom

The outbreak has sickened people in at least 14 states, with illnesses beginning between Jan. 7 and July 25, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. Eighteen of those who fell ill were hospitalized. It’s possible that many more people have been sickened and that eggs were distributed to additional states, the CDC said.

An investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration based on where ill people reported buying or consuming eggs identified Country Eggs LLC, as a common supplier, officials said.

The eggs were sold to grocery stores and food service distributors. Consumers should check their refrigerators for recalled eggs and throw them away or return them to stores for a refund.

Symptoms of salmonella poisoning include diarrhea, fever, severe vomiting, dehydration and stomach cramps. Most people who get sick recover within a week. Infections can be severe in young children, older adults and people with weakened immune systems, who may require hospitalization.

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.

NEW YORK (AP) — About 780,000 pressure washers sold at retailers like Home Depot are being recalled across the U.S. and Canada, due to a projectile hazard that has resulted in fractures and other injuries among some consumers.

According to a Thursday recall notice published by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, power tool and equipment company TTI is recalling certain models of its Ryobi-branded electric pressure washers because the products’ capacitor can overheat and burst, “causing parts to be forcefully ejected.”

Related Articles

Average rate on a 30-year mortgage slips to 10-month low

Online age checks are proliferating, but so are concerns they curtail internet freedom

How Gen Z is preparing (or not) for retirement

Fed official sues Trump over attempt to fire her, challenging his power over the independent agency

US applications for jobless benefits fell last week as layoffs remain low

That poses serious impact risks to users or bystanders. To date, the CPSC notes, TTI has received 135 reports of capacitors overheating in the U.S. — including 41 reports of explosions that resulted in 32 injuries and/or fractures to consumers’ fingers, hands, face and eyes. A corresponding notice from Health Canada noted that no additional incidents were reported in Canada.

Consumers in possession of the now-recalled pressure washers are urged to stop using them immediately and visit Ryobi’s recall website to learn about how to receive a free repair kit, which includes a replacement capacitor.

The Ryobi washers under recall have model numbers RY142300 and RY142711VNM. About 764,000 were sold in the U.S., in addition to 16,000 in Canada.

In the U.S. these products were sold at Home Depot and Direct Tools Factory Outlet between July 2017 and June 2024, the CPSC notes, for about $300 to $400 in stores and online.

The Associated Press reached out to TTI for further comments on Thursday.