A New Jersey Republican hasn’t voted in weeks, sparking questions over lengthy absence on Capitol Hill

2026-04-30T10:00:51.058Z / CNN

By Camila DeChalus

2 hr ago

PUBLISHED Apr 30, 2026, 6:00 AM ET

Rep. Thomas Kean, Jr. listens during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing in the Capitol Visitor Center on March 23, 2023.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc./Getty Images/File

Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey has not voted in Congress in weeks, sparking questions over when he will return to Capitol Hill as he faces a competitive race for reelection back home and Speaker Mike Johnson oversees an extremely narrow House majority in Washington.

The congressman has attributed his absence to a health-related issue, without providing specifics. He has said he expects to be back at work soon, but has not said exactly when he plans to return. The last time Kean voted in the House was on March 5, according to congressional records.

“I want to thank my constituents and colleagues for their patience as I address a personal medical issue,” Kean said in a statement posted to X earlier this week. “My doctors continue to assure me that my recovery will be complete and that I will be back to the job I love very soon.”

Kean’s extended time away from Capitol Hill comes as Republicans hold a historically narrow House majority and have a jam-packed agenda, with legislative priorities ranging from funding the Department of Homeland Security amid a shutdown of the agency to reauthorizing a government surveillance program set to soon expire.

“Absence is always an issue, given the slim majority … Every seat matters,” South Carolina GOP Rep. Ralph Norman said.

Kean, 57, is also running for reelection in a district rated a “toss up” by the Cook Political Report. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm for House Democrats, has named it one of its “districts in play” for the 2026 midterms.

Johnson said in a statement to CNN he spoke to Kean and said he expects Kean “to be back to 100% very soon.”

“Tom is one of the most dedicated and hardest working Members of Congress, and I am grateful for all he does and will continue to do to serve New Jerseyans and our country,” he said.

The congressman has represented New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District since 2023. His primary is June 2 and he is currently the only Republican candidate running, but there are four Democrats vying for his seat.

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler, who represents a competitive district in New York, expressed sympathy for Kean’s situation.

“Over the course of my time in Congress, I’ve seen a number of members on both sides of the aisle who unfortunately have different ailments. Some, you know, have unfortunately passed away from those ailments,” he told CNN.

He continued: “You do have some level of privacy when it comes to your healthcare … and he expects a full recovery, and so we look forward to welcoming him back.”

In his statement earlier this week, Kean said, “I expect to return to a full schedule and be at 100 percent. I take my responsibilities seriously and have a strong record of showing up and delivering, which makes this absence all the more difficult.”

“I am especially proud of my Congressional team, who have kept constituent services and legislative work moving forward without interruption, and my political team for ensuring the campaign continues to run strong,” he said.

Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey called the congressman “a fine member who deserves to be reelected.”

“I’m sure he’s got very legitimate reason,” Smith told CNN, in regard to Kean’s health-related issue.

The New Jersey Republican Party did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

争夺月球南极 中美登月背后的真正博弈 | 世界大解说

2026年4月30日 17:00 / 联合早报

AI摘要

• 美国计划在2028年前完成登月，并在月球南极建设太空基地，以支持未来的火星探索。
• 中国也在积极部署登月计划，嫦娥7号探测器将前往月球南极探测环境，与美国的着陆点相同。
• 月球南极发现水冰迹象，引发资源争夺。美国已与多国签署《阿耳忒弥斯协定》，强调开采太空资源应造福人类，但中国未签署该协定。
• 中美双方都在构想如何在月球搭建自己的太空基地，率先登陆月球南极的一方将有支配月球资源的先机。

本摘要由AI辅助生成，仅供参考

2026年4月10日，美国阿耳忒弥斯2号降落在太平洋，于傍晚5时07分（太平洋夏令时间）完成历史性一刻。但这不是句点，而是拉开中美登月竞赛的一个序幕。

“回到月球”是美国总统特朗普希望在任期内缔造的一个高光时刻，他要赶在太空竞赛劲敌——中国之前，于2028年完成登月。但美国的目的不仅仅是登月，而是计划在月球南极建设太空基地，插上美国国旗。

这是因为人们不仅在月球南极发现了水冰迹象，也相信设立月球基地将有助于人类探索火星和其他星体。开采月球的水冰是否会引发各国争夺太空资源？中美博弈正如何改变太空探索的规则？商业资本的入场又对中美登月竞赛带来哪些变数？

本期《世界大解说》，带你看中美新一轮太空竞赛，隐藏怎样的全球博弈与战略野心。

视频内容：

00:00 争夺月球南极 中美登月背后的真正博弈

01:20 重返月球：美国为何要打造月球基地？

04:37 月球水冰：资源争夺的焦点

08:56 中美登月PK 谁先踏上月球？

对月球“虎视眈眈”的除了美国，还有中国。过去近20年，中国都在积极部署登月计划。从2007年到2024年，中国完成了嫦娥1号至6号的探月任务；运行了“玉兔”探测车；实现了探测器在月球背面着陆；也完成了月壤的采样。

中国嫦娥工程1号至6号时间表（制图：陈乐彤）

嫦娥7号的探测器已经在今年4月抵达文昌航天发射场，它将会发射到月球的南极探测当地环境。这个区域也是美国登月计划看中的着陆点。

美国接下来一系列阿耳忒弥斯任务，就是希望把载人着陆器发射到月球南极，完成载人登陆。目前这个着陆器分别由马斯克的SpaceX和贝索斯的Blue Origin负责研发。

分别由SpaceX（左）和Blue Origin研发的着陆器示意图（NASA）

自从人类在月球南极发现水冰迹象之后，美国2020年10月就与澳大利亚、加拿大、日本、卢森堡、阿联酋和英国的航天机构签署了《阿耳忒弥斯协定》，其中强调开采太空资源的行为不等同于将外层空间据为国家所有，只要目的在于支持安全和可持续的太空活动，最终造福人类。迄今为止，已有61个国家签署了这份协定，包括印度、日本、韩国和新加坡。

但中国并没有签署这份协定。相反，中国计划在月球建立的国际月球科研站，主要合作方是俄罗斯、泰国、委内瑞拉、巴基斯坦等十几个国家。两方显然已经在登月之前形成了明显的竞争格局。

签订阿耳忒弥斯协定和参与国际月球科研站的国家列表（制图：陈乐彤）

中美双方都在构想如何在月球搭建自己的太空基地，哪一方能够率先登陆月球南极，就有支配月球资源的先机。

受南洋理工大学之邀到本地出席“全球太空趋势”讲座的前NASA科学任务副局长泽布臣（Dr Thomas Zurbuchen）告诉《世界大解说》，目前人们还不清楚月球上的水资源是如何分布的。它可能聚集在山顶，又或者像沙漠里的水汽一样，“所以我们需要去钻探，去搞清楚”。

不过，他担心月球资源会沦为各国争夺的目标。“任何一个国家都不应该垄断月球。我们应该有一种合理的方式，让全人类共同探索月球。如果你真的挖到一桶金，找到大量稀有资源，就一定会发生争执。我希望我们能在问题出现之前找到解决矛盾的方法。”

美国原本计划在阿耳忒弥斯3号任务中完成登月，但目前已调整为先测试SpaceX和Blue Origin的着陆器，载人登月目标延迟至阿耳忒弥斯4号执行。

外界开始关心，这会不会进一步缩短中美登月时间的差距。两方投入的巨额预算将推动人类探月走向商业化，还是让月球成为中美争夺资源与战略空间的新战场？如何避免这样的未来，或许是我们仰望月球时需要思考的问题。

海关数据显示，中国今年3月向美国出口了大量用于航空航天和晶片制造的特种稀土。图为一台采矿机在内蒙古一矿区进行作业。 （路透社档案照片）

海关数据显示，中国今年3月向美国出口了大量用于航空航天和晶片制造的特种稀土，意味着此前引发供应短缺和价格飙升的严格管控或有所松动。

据路透社报道，这批60吨的氧化钇出口量，比中国去年4月在中美贸易战高峰期对多种稀土实施出口管制以来，对美累计出口的钇总量高出50%。

尽管中美去年底达成贸易休战后，大多数稀土出口已恢复，但钇的出口长期受阻，导致航空航天和半导体企业原料短缺，部分生产被迫中断。

截至今年2月的12个月内，相关产品价格上涨了6900%，多家受影响企业已游说华盛顿推动解决问题。

氧化钇主要用于制造耐高温涂层，可保护喷气发动机和发电厂涡轮机免受高温损害，是飞机正常运行不可或缺的关键材料。分析人士指出，鉴于航空航天与国防领域联系紧密，北京此前对相关出口审批持审慎态度。

争夺月球南极 中美登月背后的真正博弈 | 世界大解说

2026年4月30日 17:00 / 卞和 联合早报

2026年4月10日，美国阿耳忒弥斯2号降落在太平洋，于傍晚5时07分（太平洋夏令时间）完成历史性一刻。但这不是句点，而是拉开中美登月竞赛的一个序幕。

“回到月球”是美国总统特朗普希望在任期内缔造的一个高光时刻，他要赶在太空竞赛劲敌——中国之前，于2028年完成登月。但美国的目的不仅仅是登月，而是计划在月球南极建设太空基地，插上美国国旗。

这是因为人们不仅在月球南极发现了水冰迹象，也相信设立月球基地将有助于人类探索火星和其他星体。开采月球的水冰是否会引发各国争夺太空资源？中美博弈正如何改变太空探索的规则？商业资本的入场又对中美登月竞赛带来哪些变数？

本期《世界大解说》，带你看中美新一轮太空竞赛，隐藏怎样的全球博弈与战略野心。

视频内容：

00:00 争夺月球南极 中美登月背后的真正博弈

01:20 重返月球：美国为何要打造月球基地？

04:37 月球水冰：资源争夺的焦点

08:56 中美登月PK 谁先踏上月球？

对月球“虎视眈眈”的除了美国，还有中国。过去近20年，中国都在积极部署登月计划。从2007年到2024年，中国完成了嫦娥1号至6号的探月任务；运行了“玉兔”探测车；实现了探测器在月球背面着陆；也完成了月壤的采样。

中国嫦娥工程1号至6号时间表（制图：陈乐彤）

嫦娥7号的探测器已经在今年4月抵达文昌航天发射场，它将会发射到月球的南极探测当地环境。这个区域也是美国登月计划看中的着陆点。

美国接下来一系列阿耳忒弥斯任务，就是希望把载人着陆器发射到月球南极，完成载人登陆。目前这个着陆器分别由马斯克的SpaceX和贝索斯的Blue Origin负责研发。

分别由SpaceX（左）和Blue Origin研发的着陆器示意图（NASA）

自从人类在月球南极发现水冰迹象之后，美国2020年10月就与澳大利亚、加拿大、日本、卢森堡、阿联酋和英国的航天机构签署了《阿耳忒弥斯协定》，其中强调开采太空资源的行为不等同于将外层空间据为国家所有，只要目的在于支持安全和可持续的太空活动，最终造福人类。迄今为止，已有61个国家签署了这份协定，包括印度、日本、韩国和新加坡。

但中国并没有签署这份协定。相反，中国计划在月球建立的国际月球科研站，主要合作方是俄罗斯、泰国、委内瑞拉、巴基斯坦等十几个国家。两方显然已经在登月之前形成了明显的竞争格局。

签订阿耳忒弥斯协定和参与国际月球科研站的国家列表（制图：陈乐彤）

中美双方都在构想如何在月球搭建自己的太空基地，哪一方能够率先登陆月球南极，就有支配月球资源的先机。

受南洋理工大学之邀到本地出席“全球太空趋势”讲座的前NASA科学任务副局长泽布臣（Dr Thomas Zurbuchen）告诉《世界大解说》，目前人们还不清楚月球上的水资源是如何分布的。它可能聚集在山顶，又或者像沙漠里的水汽一样，“所以我们需要去钻探，去搞清楚”。

不过，他担心月球资源会沦为各国争夺的目标。“任何一个国家都不应该垄断月球。我们应该有一种合理的方式，让全人类共同探索月球。如果你真的挖到一桶金，找到大量稀有资源，就一定会发生争执。我希望我们能在问题出现之前找到解决矛盾的方法。”

美国原本计划在阿耳忒弥斯3号任务中完成登月，但目前已调整为先测试SpaceX和Blue Origin的着陆器，载人登月目标延迟至阿耳忒弥斯4号执行。

外界开始关心，这会不会进一步缩短中美登月时间的差距。两方投入的巨额预算将推动人类探月走向商业化，还是让月球成为中美争夺资源与战略空间的新战场？如何避免这样的未来，或许是我们仰望月球时需要思考的问题。

US cyber team hasn’t been activated yet to protect midterm elections from foreign meddling

2026-04-30T10:00:50.804Z / CNN

By Sean Lyngaas

2 hr ago

PUBLISHED Apr 30, 2026, 6:00 AM ET

People cast their votes at the Bailey’s Elementary School polling location in Falls Church, Virginia on April 21.

Maxine Wallace/The Washington/Getty Images

For the first election cycle in years, US military and intelligence officials have not yet activated a specialized team dedicated to detecting and thwarting foreign threats to elections, according to comments from those agencies to Congress and CNN, alarming some lawmakers and former officials who have served on the team.

A failure to activate the team would be a “major national security mistake and I hope that they will correct it in the weeks to come,” Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who sits on the armed services committee, told CNN.

For every general and midterm election since the 2020 election, the Election Security Group (ESG) has been a hub for officials from the National Security Agency, the code-breaking and signals intelligence agency, and US Cyber Command, the military’s hackers, to share intelligence and launch counter attacks against trolls from Russia, Iran and elsewhere who were trying to undermine US elections.

The ESG has overseen operations targeting Russian companies that spewed propaganda at US voters in 2024 and Iranian hackers that meddledin the 2020 election.

At this time in the election cycle, even months from Election Day, the group is normally activated, staffed and briefing Congress on its efforts, former Cyber Command officials said. But the newly minted head of the NSA and Cyber Command indicated to lawmakers this week that the group was still dormant ahead of the 2026 midterms.

“I don’t know that an ESG has been established yet, but we are prepared to, as required,” Gen. Joshua Rudd said at a Senate hearing in response to a question from Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono.

Cyber Command and NSA have other ways of tracking and countering foreign threats to US elections. That work, the agency said in statements to CNN, continues.

But neglecting the ESG — which many election security experts see as a proven, effective tool — has surprised some former Cyber Command officials.

Cyber Command and NSA have other ways of tracking and countering foreign threats to US elections. That work, the agency and the command said in statements to CNN, continues.

“The bigger danger is not what foreign actors do, but what Americans believe foreign actors did,” Kikta told CNN. “We are heading into the midterms partially blind to foreign influence and right after an attempted assassination of the president generated conspiracy theories almost immediately. It’s as reckless as it is foolish.”

The ESG “was the most impactful mission that I got to be a part of at US Cyber Command,” Andrew Schoka, who worked at Cyber Command in the 2020 election cycle, told CNN. The details of that work often can’t be publicized, he said, but it is “an incredibly impactful and significant contribution to free and fair elections in the United States.”

The group, he said, combines “the unique mission of the NSA and the unique authorities and capabilities of Cyber Command.”

CNN asked Cyber Command and the NSA multiple times over email and phone whether the ESG had been activated. Both organizations responded with a statement that did not answer the question.

“U.S. Cyber Command regularly targets actions by malicious foreign cyber actors overseas against the nation, this includes those intent on interfering with our democratic processes,” a command spokesperson said.

An NSA spokesperson said: “In support of ODNI’s [the Office of Director of National Intelligence’s] whole of IC [intelligence community] effort concerning foreign threats to 2026 elections, we have identified an Election lead that will represent NSA for the IC’s broader ability to counter foreign threats to election security.”

The work that Cyber Command and NSA do are one piece of what has been a federal government-wide effort to expose foreign efforts to sway American voters.

More than a year into a second Trump administration, many centers at other federal agencies, including the FBI and departments of Homeland Security and State, that were previously tasked with repelling foreign influence operations have been disbanded or downsized, CNN previously reported.

In their annual threat assessment released in March, US intelligence agencies did not mention foreign threats to US elections for the first time since Russia’s influence operation aimed at the 2016 vote. The 2025 assessment, the first under Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, said that foreign powers would use artificial intelligence to continue to target American voters with disinformation.

King, the independent senator, told CNN that the dormancy of the ESG would be “very concerning, when you consider we’ve been seeing foreign interference occurring in our elections for the past decade – and we know that our adversaries are more enabled and more capable than ever before to cause harm to our democracy.”

The NSA and Cyber Command have ample budget and resources available to combat foreign meddling in elections, should they be ordered to use it. Former officials from both agencies told CNN that there are still a number of tools that the agencies could use to counter election threats outside of the ESG.

And there is bipartisan support for hitting back against foreign hackers and trolls that target US democracy.

“When these dictators are using cyber ops to come after … American elections … I think we should flex a little offensive cyber capability,” Senator Dan Sullivan, an Alaska Republican, said at the armed services hearing.

伊朗战事冲击显现 法国经济第一季度意外陷入停滞

2026年4月30日 17:05 / 联合早报

伊朗战事冲击显现 法国经济第一季度意外陷入停滞

法国国家统计与经济研究所（Insee）称，受贸易和内需疲软拖累，一季度国内生产总值（GDP）环比持平。 （法新社）

法国经济第一季度未能实现增长，凸显出伊朗战争引发的滞胀风险带来冲击。

法国国家统计与经济研究所（Insee）称，受贸易和内需疲软拖累，一季度国内生产总值（GDP）环比持平。彭博调查分析师的预估中值为增长0.2%，去年第四季度为增长0.2%。

彭博社引述数据说，第一季度消费者支出下降0.1%，家庭投资下降0.7%，已对经济造成拖累。企业投资下降了0.2%。

由于出口下滑3.8%，净贸易对GDP的拖累达到0.7%。

伊朗战事冲击显现 法国经济第一季度意外陷入停滞

2026年4月30日 17:05 / 联合早报

伊朗战事冲击显现 法国经济第一季度意外陷入停滞

法国国家统计与经济研究所（Insee）称，受贸易和内需疲软拖累，一季度国内生产总值（GDP）环比持平。 （法新社）

法国经济第一季度未能实现增长，凸显出伊朗战争引发的滞胀风险带来冲击。

法国国家统计与经济研究所（Insee）称，受贸易和内需疲软拖累，一季度国内生产总值（GDP）环比持平。彭博调查分析师的预估中值为增长0.2%，去年第四季度为增长0.2%。

彭博社引述数据说，第一季度消费者支出下降0.1%，家庭投资下降0.7%，已对经济造成拖累。企业投资下降了0.2%。

由于出口下滑3.8%，净贸易对GDP的拖累达到0.7%。

RFK Jr.’s healthy food agenda puts hospitals on notice about patients’ meals

April 30, 2026 5:00 AM EDT / KFF Health News

Complaints about hospital food are certainly not new, and Jell-O and fruit juice are often the butt of related jokes. But the Trump administration has recently upped the ante.

It is urging the public to report hospitals and nursing homes that serve sugary drinks, nutrition shakes or meals that it says don’t meet dietary guidelines established last year by the Department of Agriculture, with officials vowing to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding if violations occur.

The initiative from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is spurring backlash from some doctors and medical providers who say it fails to account for patients’ unique dietary needs and is anathema to Republicans who have long embraced an anti-regulatory stance.

It’s also not clear that HHS has the regulatory authority to enforce its threat without going through a formal rulemaking process, lawyers and dietitians say.

“Most of this is political theater. HHS doesn’t have the power to do much,” said Kevin Klatt, a dietitian and research scientist who is an assistant professor at the University of Toronto. “Also, if it’s to the point that you’re trying to control people’s choices, well, you look a little fascist.”

The agency sent notices to hospitals asking them to align their food purchases with the administration’s 2025-30 dietary guidelines to ensure continued eligibility for Medicaid and Medicare payments, Kennedy said at a March 30 press event.

“We are going to bring all the hospitals in the country in line with good food,” he said, describing the instructions as “essentially a federal mandate.”

Asked later about the guidance, however, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement that it “does not establish new mandates, change Medicare Conditions of Participation, or create any new penalties for hospitals or nursing homes.”

“There are no changes to enforcement, survey, or accreditation processes associated with this guidance,” he added. Instead, he described the notice as building on “long-standing expectations” that healthcare facilities meet patients’ nutritional needs “as part of safe, high-quality, patient-centered care.”

Nixon also downplayed a threat by a top Kennedy adviser, Calley Means, who called on the public to report hospitals that don’t comply with the guidance.

“If a hospital is serving patients sugary drinks, they are out of compliance with government standards and are putting their reimbursements in jeopardy,” Means posted on X. “If you see patients being served sugary drinks, please post information below or let CMS know.”

The comment included a link to an HHS webpage with a toll-free number for reporting complaints typically used for medical bills. Withholding federal funding from hospitals is one of the most extreme enforcement tools available to regulators, one the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has seldom deployed.

Even serving liquid nutrition products like Ensure to patients could put hospitals in jeopardy, Means warned. “They need to change or lose reimbursement. Please report them if you see it,” he told an X user.

Medicare and Medicaid, combined, are the largest payers of hospital expenditures.

Without mentioning Means by name, Nixon said in his statement that “references to external websites or hotlines are not connected to this guidance and do not reflect HHS or CMS policy. This effort reflects a commitment to supporting providers with clear, evidence-informed information as they continue to improve patient outcomes.”

Means did not respond directly to requests for comment from KFF Health News, instead posting on X shortly after he was contacted: “‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ has led Democrats to defend the medical importance of mass-serving soda and junk food to American patients.” In a text with KFF Health News, he said, “That’s to cite if you want. I don’t have a comment.”

Still, some administration officials have made it clear they will not shy away from halting federal funding, a rarely taken step that can imperil the ability of a hospital to remain open.

A carrot and a stick

HHS can withhold or threaten federal funding if hospitals violate mandatory minimum health and safety standards set by the agency. The standards stipulate that hospitals must protect patient privacy, for example, and uphold infection control.

The standards do address hospital food, but they don’t explicitly refer to the 2025-30 dietary guidelines established by the USDA.

Rather, the standards require that “individual patient nutritional needs must be met in accordance with recognized dietary practices,” and list other requirements for hospitals, such as having access to a qualified dietitian.

“CMS has never before interpreted this requirement as mandating adherence to any set of dietary guidelines,” according to an April 13 brief from law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

The CMS memo shows the agency is taking the “notable step” to incorporate the dietary guidelines “into the hospital regulatory framework without new rulemaking,” according to the brief.

Hospitals are likely to comply because they are loath to cross the federal government and want to avoid a legal tussle or enforcement action by Kennedy, some lawyers say.

“He doesn’t have a legal basis to do this, but hospitals and nursing homes can’t afford to ignore it altogether because of what it signals about potential enforcement action,” said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.

If federal funding were withheld, hospitals could always sue to try and challenge HHS’ authority.

“When the agency goes to the hospital and says, We’re going to take away your money for this, the hospital can sue and say, Look, nothing requires us to fry our fries in beef tallow or whatever,” Bagley said.

For hospitals looking to comply, the agency’s memo provides examples of what should and shouldn’t be served to patients.

Food as medicine

What the guidance calls “don’ts”: sugar-sweetened beverages or juice. And “do’s”: water, unsweetened tea, milk, or coffee. Meals suggested in the memo include grilled salmon with quinoa or bean-based entrees with leafy greens.

Some nutritionists welcomed the focus on hospital food for patients. Marion Nestle, a public health advocate and molecular biologist, lauded the initiative, saying, “These sound terrific!” in an April 8 post on her blog, Food Politics.

Other health leaders and doctors pushed back, noting hospitalized patients often have more individualized nutrition needs that may not conform to federal dietary recommendations.

For “a patient struggling to swallow from just having a stroke, salmon and quinoa is the worst thing for them. They’re going to risk aspirating on it,” said Klatt, the University of Toronto dietitian.

Hospitals that neglect to provide certain standards of care, such as protein shakes to treat malnutrition or an unhealthy weight loss, could open themselves up to possible legal liability. Eighty percent of malnourished elderly patients gained weight and improved muscle mass on nutritional supplements such as Ensure, according to the results of a clinical trial published in Nutrición Hospitalaria, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Abbott, which manufactures Ensure, makes a range of products including shakes for people who “could be malnourished due to medical treatments, such as chemotherapy, and not be getting the calories they need because they don’t have much of an appetite,” company spokesperson John Koval said in a statement.

“It’s always a struggle to get people to eat. Losing weight in the hospital raises the risk of mortality,” said Mary Talley Bowden, a sleep medicine specialist, who has often sided with Make America Healthy Again causes but criticized the administration’s call to report violations on X, posting: “Give me a break Calley. A hospital snitch line for soda?”

“It’s a little tyrannical,” she said in an interview.

The focus on hospital food came in late March as part of Kennedy’s MAHA initiative, in which he has touted changes to federal dietary guidelines that emphasize protein and healthy fats while eschewing processed foods.

Kennedy has leaned heavily into his work on changing eating habits, which fits into the MAHA gestalt and polls well with both Democratic and Republican voters. Eighty-six percent of registered voters surveyed said it should be easier for every American family to access fresh fruits and vegetables, according to a poll released in September 2025 by Navigator Research.

_KFF Health News_is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at_KFF_— the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

John Roberts’ legacy of removing race protections sees defining moment

2026-04-30T08:00:50.982Z / CNN

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst

PUBLISHED Apr 30, 2026, 4:00 AM ET

Supreme Court justices Voting rights Supreme Court Human rights

Chief Justice John Roberts attends the State of the Union address on February 7, 2023.

Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/Getty Images/File

The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday rolling back protections for Black and Latino voters marks another dramatic turn in the long-fought effort by conservative justices to reverse measures vital to overcoming America’s legacy of race discrimination.

The decision also marks a defining moment for the court under Chief Justice John Roberts, who declared soon after joining the bench in 2005, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Three years ago, the justices by the same 6-3 vote as Wednesday ended racial affirmative action in higher education admissions. The newest decision, which follows a series of rulings led by Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito restricting the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, will reverberate deeper.

Taken as a whole, the pattern would mean fewer chances for minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing. That, in turn, would mean fewer opportunities for the voice of Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans and other minorities in government.

The gravity of such consequences and the entrenched divisions among the justices were clear as the opinion was announced from the courtroom bench.

https://www.cnn.com/

CNN’s chief supreme court analyst reacts to bombshell ruling

1:52

As Roberts first revealed that the case of Louisiana v. Callais would be delivered, he said Alito had the majority opinion. Roberts, whose seniority gives him the assignment power, had turned the case over to a colleague with whom he has long worked on racial issues.

Belying the historic nature of the decision, Alito began in his usual dry tone, detailing the lower court action in the long running Louisiana case, which began with redistricting after the 2020 census. He related the intricacies of the VRA’s disputed Section 2 that prohibits discrimination and recounted the evolution of standards for assessing when Black and other minority voters may succeed in a challenge to district maps that dilute their voting power.

Such dilution can arise, for example, from legislative “cracking” and “packing” methods – that is, dispersing or concentrating Black voters among districts to weaken their overall voting power.

No longer would challengers be able to point to the effects of vote dilution, Alito said. Rather, they would have to show that state legislators likely had discriminatory purpose or, as Alito spelled out in his opinion, that “circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”

Alito’s bench statement and written opinion on behalf of the six conservative justices leaned heavily on the view of Roberts’ 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder that voting safeguards enshrined in 1965 were no longer essential to America.

In photos: Chief Justice John Roberts

22 photos

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts listens to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in January 2018.

Tom Williams/AP

In photos: Chief Justice John Roberts

-1 / 22

Roberts arrives at the US Capitol to preside over President Trump’s impeachment trial in February 2020.

Bill Clark/AP

0 / 22

Roberts ends the impeachment trial after Trump was acquitted.

Senate TV

1 / 22

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts listens to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in January 2018.

Tom Williams/AP

2 / 22

Roberts is seen in a yearbook photo from his prep school in La Porte, Indiana. He was born in Buffalo but grew up in northwest Indiana. In 1979, he graduated from Harvard Law School.

AP

3 / 22

Roberts shakes hands with US President Ronald Reagan in 1983. He was an associate counsel to Reagan from 1982-1986.

National Archives

4 / 22

As an attorney for the government and in 14 years of private practice, Roberts argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court and won 25 of them.

The Washington Post/Getty Images

5 / 22

In May 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Roberts to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Roberts is seen at right along with Bush’s other judicial appointments.

Ron Rdmonds/AP

6 / 22

In 2005, Bush nominated Roberts to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images

7 / 22

Roberts, third from left, meets with US senators in Washington a day after he was nominated by Bush. With Roberts, from left, are Sens. Arlen Specter, Bill Frist and Mitch McConnell.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

8 / 22

Roberts meets with US Sen. Mary Landrieu as he makes his rounds on Capitol Hill in July 2005.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

9 / 22

Roberts was tabbed to replace O’Connor, but plans changed after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in September 2005. Bush announced that he wanted Roberts to replace Rehnquist instead.

Andrew Councill/AFP/Getty Images

10 / 22

O’Connor weeps as Roberts and other pallbearers carry Rehnquist’s casket into the Supreme Court. Roberts was once a law clerk for Rehnquist.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

11 / 22

Roberts answers questions during his second day of confirmation hearings in September 2005. The Senate voted 78-22 to confirm him.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

12 / 22

Roberts’ wife, Jane, holds a Bible as her husband is sworn in by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

13 / 22

Roberts and his wife attend his swearing-in ceremony in the East Room of the White House.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

14 / 22

The Roberts walk with their children, Jake and Josie, after he took the Supreme Court bench for the first time in October 2005.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

15 / 22

Bush enjoys a light moment with Roberts and other Supreme Court justices on Roberts’ first day. With Bush, from left, are John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Antonin Scalia, Roberts, O’Connor and Kennedy.

Pool/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

16 / 22

Roberts shakes hands with President Barack Obama at Obama’s inauguration ceremony in 2009.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

17 / 22

Roberts watches Elena Kagan sign the Oaths of Office after she replaced retiring Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010.

Handout/Getty Images

18 / 22

Roberts administers the oath of office to President Donald Trump in 2017.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

19 / 22

The US Supreme Court, with newest member Brett Kavanaugh, poses for an official portrait in November 2018. In the back row, from left, are Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh. In the front row, from left, are Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Roberts, Ginsburg and Samuel Alito.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

20 / 22

Roberts and Thomas pay their respects to the late President George H.W. Bush as he lies in state in December 2018.

Johnathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

21 / 22

Roberts arrives at the US Capitol to preside over President Trump’s impeachment trial in February 2020.

Bill Clark/AP

22 / 22

Roberts ends the impeachment trial after Trump was acquitted.

Senate TV

23 / 22

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts listens to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in January 2018.

Tom Williams/AP

24 / 22

Roberts is seen in a yearbook photo from his prep school in La Porte, Indiana. He was born in Buffalo but grew up in northwest Indiana. In 1979, he graduated from Harvard Law School.

AP

Prev Next

In photos: Chief Justice John Roberts

“(V)ast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South…” Alito wrote. Adapting a line from Roberts’ 2013 decision, he added: “As this Court has recognized, ‘things have changed dramatically’ in the decades since the passage of the Voting Rights Act.”

When Justice Elena Kagan, who sits next to Alito on the elevated bench, then spoke for the three dissenting liberals, she referred explicitly and emphatically to Shelby County and the line of cases eviscerating voting rights protections.

“This court’s project to destroy the Voting Rights Act is now complete,” she declared. Of the act, she said, “It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers.”

As both Roberts and Alito looked out at spectators expressionless, Kagan said, “For over a decade, this court has set its sights on the Voting Rights Act.”

Indeed, Wednesday’s decision may have been inevitable, given the transformed bench since Roberts took control over two decades ago. Four new conservative justices have joined, three of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term.

Now the Roberts Court’s goal notably aligns with Trump’s own efforts to curtail voting-rights protections and influence the upcoming midterm elections. Officials in some Republican-dominated states, including Florida, were immediately poised Wednesday to take advantage of the ruling and redraw their maps.

And with what Kagan described as the court’s “made-up and impossible-to-meet evidentiary standards,” she warned that the decision “greenlights districting plans” that would disadvantage minorities nationwide.

Related article Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas Getty Images Trump leans in on a major 2026 issue: possibly replacing Justices Alito and Thomas 4 min read

George W. Bush nominees work in tandem

Roberts has led the court to end race-based policies in public schools, in higher education and, most sweepingly, in voting laws. With a few exceptions, he has been in sync with Alito, who joined the bench in January 2006, four months after Roberts.

Both men were appointed by President George W. Bush, and while they differ temperamentally and in regard for institutional appearances, they are more often than not together.

When Roberts held prominent roles in the Ronald Reagan and then George H.W. Bush administrations in the 1980s and 1990s, he advocated for a limited interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. In memos from the time, Roberts demonstrated that he believed federal protections for Black, Hispanic and other minority voters from the 1960s civil rights era were no longer warranted.

In this January 1983 photo, President Ronald Reagan greets John Roberts during a photo opportunity with members of the White House Counsel’s Office in the Oval Office in Washington, DC.

US National Archives and Records Administration

Only since becoming chief justice has he been able to carry through on his vision. It was a vision Alito wove throughout Wednesday’s opinion.

He included several references to the landmark Shelby County decision. In that 2013 case, the majority dismantled a part of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination to obtain Justice Department approval before changing their election procedures.

Alito joined him in 2013 and earlier, in a 2006 case, when Roberts wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” (Alito was the only justice to sign that opinion, a partial dissent and concurrence, in a Texas redistricting dispute.)

It was in a 2007 school integration controversy when Roberts wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Alito, along with other conservatives, joined the chief justice there, as well as in 2023 when Roberts led the court to end racial affirmative action. Alito made a brief reference to that Harvard case Wednesday, too.

Midterms looming

Most crucial for the nation’s history of race discrimination, Wednesday’s action further diminishes the iconic 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law that brought the franchise to Black voters and other racial minorities who’d been kept from the polls.

The VRA was passed only after the “Bloody Sunday” attack on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. During that March 7, 1965, encounter, sheriff’s deputies beat civil rights marchers as they tried to cross the bridge.

https://www.cnn.com/

What Dr. King told John Lewis after Bloody Sunday

1:23

With such history, this area of the law has long produced sharply divided opinions, and there were earlier signs that the justices were struggling with the Louisiana controversy.

The Louisiana case had first been argued two years ago, but then the justices called for reargument, foreshadowing that the conservatives might be headed for a substantial ruling affecting voting rights not only in Louisiana but across the nation.

A lower federal court had found Louisiana legislators likely violated Section 2 and ordered a second Black-majority district created. (Previously, only one of the six Louisiana congressional districts had a Black majority.)

A group of White residents then challenged the redrawn map, arguing that the common Section 2 remedy amounted to a breach of the Constitution’s equality guarantee. The group pointed to the high court’s broader trend of disfavoring race-based programs.

The justices had slightly departed from that pattern in a 2023 redistricting case from Alabama, when they said that the use of race was not only permissible but might be required, to compensate for a prior discriminatory map. That will now be seen as a one-off.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court did not explicitly go as far as the White challengers wanted, to outlaw any consideration of race to remedy an allegedly biased map. Still, in the highly partisan world of redistricting, it will be difficult for any challenger to produce evidence that a district was drawn not for any political reasons but based specifically to dilute Black or Latino voting power.

The Alito majority picked up from a 2021 ruling he had written in the Arizona case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. There, the same six-justice majority limited the Voting Right Act Section 2 coverage for certain electoral practices that did not involve redistricting. The court upheld requirements that ballots cast at the wrong precinct be discarded and that criminalized the third-party collection of absentee ballots (such as were sometimes used in remote tribal areas of the state).

Alito pointed to the decision as another precedent paving the way for view of VRA liability only when a practice is motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

Kagan did not quarrel with the assertion but rather used it to reinforce her argument that the conservative majority had been strategically building to this moment – a moment that she said conflicted with the essential goal of the Voting Rights Act.

“Even after the Fifteenth Amendment banned racial discrimination in voting, state officials routinely deprived African Americans of their voting rights,” she recounted.

“Through a seemingly boundless array of mechanisms – most of them facially race-neutral and among them the drawing of district lines – States either prevented Black citizens from casting ballots or ensured that their votes would count for next to nothing,” Kagan wrote.

“The Voting Rights Act was meant as the corrective,” she added.

Roberts in 2013 and Alito on Wednesday acknowledged the legacy surrounding the Voting Rights Act. But as happened in the 2013 milestone, Alito and the others in the majority deployed that success to brush aside the remaining effects of racial bias.

“‘(O)ur Nation has made great strides’ in eliminating racial discrimination in voting,” Alito wrote Wednesday, citing Roberts in 2013. “And if, as a result of this progress, it is hard to find pertinent evidence relating to intentional present-day voting discrimination, that is cause for celebration.”

Supreme Court justices Voting rights Supreme Court Human rights

US Supreme Court under Roberts takes ‘wrecking ball’ to Voting Rights Act

2026-04-30T10:03:32.212Z / Reuters

By John Kruzel

April 30, 2026 10:03 AM UTC Updated 45 mins ago

节点运行失败

[1/2]Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts attends U.S. President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025 in Washington, DC. Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

• Summary

• Its latest ruling guts key part of the civil rights law
• The 6-3 decision was powered by the conservative justices
• Court hollowed out another part of the law in 2013
• Ruling comes ahead of congressional elections in November

WASHINGTON, April 30 (Reuters) – The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has often been called the crown jewel of the U.S. civil rights movement. But under a U.S. Supreme Court led for two decades by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, experts said, that jewel has lost its luster.

In a 6-3 ​ruling on Wednesday powered by its conservative justices, the court gutted what scholars said was the last remaining pillar of the landmark law enacted after the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, Alabama with the aim of ‌preventing racial discrimination in voting.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“The metaphor is a wrecking ball,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, describing the Roberts Court’s approach to the Voting Rights Act, or VRA. “There are still parts of the VRA that are operative, but the two main pillars are now virtually dead letters.”

Those provisions include Section 2, the subject of Wednesday’s court ruling. The decision, which blocked an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority U.S. House of Representatives district, will make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the landmark civil rights ​law.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The ruling was issued with congressional elections looming in November, as President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans fight to maintain control of both the House and Senate. Trump hailed Wednesday’s ruling and said he thinks Republican-led states would now want ​to reconfigure their voting maps.

‘A COLOR-BLIND CONSTITUTION’

Supporters of the ruling, including John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under Republican President George W. Bush, said it “continues the court’s ⁠campaign to ensure that the government obeys a color-blind Constitution.”

A sharp dissent authored by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by her two fellow liberals cast the ruling as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

Kagan pointed ​to another ruling involving Section 2 in which the conservative-majority court in 2021 endorsed Republican-backed measures in Arizona that a lower court said would disproportionately burden Black, Latino and Native American voters.

Kagan also cited a 2013 ruling authored by Roberts in a case involving Alabama’s ​Shelby County that gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision that had required states and locales with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval to change voting laws.

Wednesday’s ruling, Kagan wrote, “is part of a set.”

“For over a decade,” Kagan added, “this court has had its sights set on the Voting Rights Act.”

‘EFFECTIVELY DEAD’

The Voting Rights Act emerged in the aftermath of a pivotal 1965 voting rights march in which hundreds of Black people crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma and were met by state troopers who waded into the crowd ​swinging billy clubs.

Days after the incident now called “Bloody Sunday,” President Lyndon Johnson demanded that Congress approve voting rights legislation. Lawmakers passed the Voting Rights Act to broadly prohibit poll taxes, literacy tests and other racially motivated policies that had been implemented by ​white leaders in certain states to prevent Black voters from casting ballots.

The Voting Rights Act’s Section 5 required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval to change voting laws, and provided a formula for determining which states and locales were subject ‌to this “preclearance” provision.

In ⁠2013, the Supreme Court upended these legal protections in a 5-4 ruling powered by the conservative justices in favor of officials from Alabama’s Shelby County. The court held that Congress had used outdated facts in continuing to force Alabama and eight other states, mainly in the South, to get federal approval for rule changes affecting Black and other minority voters.

The ruling left open the possibility of Congress devising a replacement formula for deciding which jurisdictions should be subjected to the preclearance requirement, though that never happened.

It also left the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 untouched – for the time being.

The law’s Section 2 was amended by Congress in 1982 to prohibit electoral maps that would result in undermining the clout of minority voters, even absent direct proof of racist ​intent.

For more than four decades, plaintiffs could win a Section ​2 claim by showing, among other things, that a ⁠voting map had a racially discriminatory impact under this legal standard, known as the “results test.”

The court’s decision on Wednesday, however, effectively turned Section 2 into an “intent test,” experts said.

The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Roberts and the four other conservative justices. It said the focus of Section 2 must center on the Constitution’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination ​under its 15th Amendment.

Ratified in 1870 following the U.S. Civil War that ended slavery, the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to pass laws ensuring that the right to vote not ​be denied “on account of race, color ⁠or previous condition of servitude.”

Interpreting Section 2 to “outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect,” Alito wrote.

‘IMPOSSIBLE TO SATISFY’

Harvard Law School Professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos said Wednesday’s ruling means the results test is “effectively dead.”

“It’s there in theory but now impossible to satisfy in fact,” said Stephanopoulos, who filed a brief in the case defending the Voting Rights Act.

Press Robinson, an activist and one of the Louisiana residents who brought a legal challenge that ⁠led to the creation ​of the second Black-majority district in the state, said the Supreme Court decision would echo throughout the country at all levels of government, and ​that he feared that soon elected Black officials will “disappear.”

“We’ll be back where we were at the time that slavery was declared illegal in this country,” Robinson said on a call with reporters. “This country doesn’t seem to want to advance beyond that time.”

Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Brad Brooks; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.