Sunday, May 31, 2026

ANNAL$ OF TRUMPI$TAN: Trump’s name may come off the Kennedy Center. He could still destroy it. Philip Kennicott, WaPo column

From The Washington Post: 

Trump’s name may come off the Kennedy Center. He could still destroy it.

The Kennedy Center saga encapsulates all of the needless destruction of the Trump administration. The center’s troubles may not be over yet.

The Kennedy Center in 2021. (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)

Column by 

Social media erupted in celebrations Friday after a court ruled that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts must remove Donald Trump’s name from its building and all its branding. The legal opinion, by U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper, was clear, emphatic and in its occasional use of colloquialisms it seemed to express exasperation at the administration’s thin and often ridiculous legal arguments.

“Too cute by half,” Cooper wrote in response to the risible claim that putting Trump’s name on the building wasn’t really a renaming at all, just a little nickname or “secondary” name, like referring to the Federal National Mortgage Association as “Fannie Mae.”

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex officio member of the center’s board, brought the case, and she was thrilled. “It is a victory for the rule of law,” she said in an interview Saturday, adding, “That gives hope to the American people.” 

The court ruling also clarifies that ex officio board members like Beatty should be considered full voting members of the governing body, and it halted at least temporarily Trump’s plan to close the center for a two-year renovation. 

All of this is welcome. It wasn’t just illegal for Trump-appointed board members to vote to rename the national memorial to the slain 35th president of the United States, it was deeply offensive. The Kennedy Center isn’t a stadium or corporate office tower, to be rebranded on a whim. Naming rights to our national memorials and monuments can’t be handed over to the president. 

It was also terribly reckless for the board to capitulate to Trump, and members should have known it would have devastating consequences for the institution of which they are supposedly stewards. Once Trump’s name went on the side of the building, the center went into a precipitous downward spiral. Audiences and artists who might have held their nose and participated in the organization’s programming felt obliged, on principle, to avoid any patronage or contact. The Washington National Opera was forced to part ways with the center, and the National Symphony suffered a continuing severe loss of ticket revenue.

A spokeswoman for the center said that it will appeal the ruling, but Beatty is hopeful that Trump will indeed let Congress start repairing the damage. And she thinks it’s possible that the current board, though appointed by Trump, can step up and function like a responsible board of directors. 

“Now they have another option,” she said. “They don’t want to be sued, they don’t want to be part of this travesty. I think they will regroup and do what is right for the arts.” 

Cooper’s ruling, however, doesn’t remove Trump from the picture, and the president responded to the legal setback with a series of lengthy, furious social media posts. There was a petulance and obsessive quality to these outbursts that went beyond even the bounds of his usual mania.

“The Kennedy Center will soon be closed, probably never to open again,” he wrote, even though the legal judgment halts the looming closure, at least temporarily. 

Later Saturday, in another post, he wrote, “Now, the Kennedy Center will collapse, both structurally and financially.” 

So, Trump remains (for now) the chair of the board and he is angry. Which means celebrations may be premature.

The worst thing Trump could do right now is nothing, simply remain chair and let the center languish. He could decline to authorize budgets or renovations, leave the calendar empty or pocket plans for recovery. The center would be stuck in perpetual suspended animation, like Infrastructure Week or Trump’s oft-announced plans for a new national health care framework. Even if he steps down, boards need leadership and it will be difficult to find someone of the same caliber and gravitas as the chairman Trump forced out, David Rubenstein.

So, Cooper’s ruling won’t in itself save the Kennedy Center. Only Congress can do that, and Congress can only do that if Trump gets out of the way.

But when the history of Trump’s second administration is written, the whole sorry Kennedy Center chapter will be key to understanding the chaos, cruelty and grotesque egotism of the president, as well as the bravery and determination of those who resisted and persevered under exceptionally difficult circumstances. The Trump takeover of the center was an early indicator of the president’s careless ambition, his contempt for precedent, decorum, symbols and nonpartisan institutions. His angry messages since the court ruling prove without a doubt what has been obvious all along: He never cared for the center, for the arts or culture. It was all about him, his name, his brand. 

Beatty stood up to Trump, and to the powerful and wealthy board members who were willing to risk destruction of the center to curry favor with the president. The National Symphony Orchestra, with few options to disentangle itself from the Trump fiasco, continued to make music at an exceptionally high level. Its professionalism was a wonder. 

Cooper’s decision uses a carefully constructed timeline to cast serious doubt on the credibility of the center’s current leadership, and we will probably see this happen again, in other court cases across a wide range of issues. When the facts are lined up, when testimony is given under oath, when Trump’s own careless statements are brought into the record, the truth is damning. And the shame of serving his lawless whims tarnishes everyone around him.

Which is to say that while the Kennedy Center saga encapsulates all of the ugliness and needless destruction of the Trump administration, it may also be a turning point. Beatty is determined to see that it is.

As the congresswoman put it: “My job is not done.” 




NEIGHBORS BRISTLE AS $34.6 MILLION SLUDGE-TO-FERTILIZER PLANT TARGETS ODOR-HIT ST. JOHNS SITE. (Jasper Langley, Newsbreak, May 30, 2026)

From Newsbreak: 



NEIGHBORS BRISTLE AS $34.6 MILLION SLUDGE-TO-FERTILIZER PLANT TARGETS ODOR-HIT ST. JOHNS SITE

AI Assisted Icon
Published on May 30, 2026


Neighbors Bristle As $34.6 Million Sludge-To-Fertilizer Plant Targets Odor-Hit St. Johns Site
Source: Google Street View

St. Johns County could get a $34.6 million sludge-to-fertilizer plant on land already notorious for bad smells, and neighbors are not exactly lining up to welcome it.

Merrell Bros. has formally pitched a design-build facility that would turn the county's wastewater residuals into a commercial fertilizer product, while locking in a local, long-term disposal option. 

County leaders are now deciding whether to pursue a public-private partnership to finance, build and run the project on a site that has already drawn years of odor complaints.

As first detailed by the Jacksonville Business Journal, Merrell's proposal calls for taking dewatered biosolids from the county and processing them into a fertilizer that can be sold into the market. 

In return, the company is asking the county to consider a long-term partnership structure that would back construction costs and ongoing operations.

Merrell Bros., headquartered in Indiana, is no stranger to Florida's sludge problems. 

The company already operates a public-private FloridaGreen facility in Pasco County that uses enclosed solar greenhouses and belt drying to create a Class A fertilizer. 

Coverage by BioCycle describes a greenhouse and pasteurization system that Merrell says sharply cuts the kind of outdoor composting odors that tend to set off neighbors. 

That Pasco plant is frequently pointed to as the working template for county partnerships in the state.

County files include a series of letters from Merrell warning that statewide disposal options are tightening just as St. Johns County's biosolids volumes have been climbing, making a local treatment hub more urgent. 

Records with the St. Johns County Clerk show the company pushing for an updated hauling rate and arguing that a local design-build-operate plant could help stabilize long-term costs. 

In one letter, the company wrote, "Merrell Bros. is honored to provide biosolids transportation, treatment, and recycling services to municipalities across the country."

Residents have for years pointed to operations at the nearby Indianhead Biomass site as the likely source of persistent smells, and neighborhood organizers have pressed both county and state regulators to crack down. 

The advocacy group Stop the Stink has compiled odor complaints and local accounts, and highlights an active biosolids permit application tied to Indianhead (FLAB03976) as part of its push for stricter oversight.

Industry experts say the timing of Merrell's proposal is not a coincidence. 

Florida's tightening rules on land application of lower-treated sludge, along with growing concern over PFAS contamination, have utilities racing to lock in in-state treatment capacity rather than paying to haul material long distances or send it to landfills. 

Reporting by WLRN outlines how new bans and testing mandates are pushing investment toward higher-level treatment and recycling systems like the one Merrell is offering.

For St. Johns County commissioners, the pitch is both a potential operational fix and a political minefield. 

They will have to juggle neighbor concerns about odors, state permitting hurdles and the financial risk of a multi-million-dollar build against the promise of long-term cost control and local disposal security. 

The Jacksonville Business Journal reports that talks are still in the early stages, and any deal would need board approval and a full slate of regulatory sign offs before construction could actually begin.

Permits, Contracts And What To Watch

Whether the plant moves forward will hinge on two big buckets of paperwork: county procurement rules and state environmental permits. The language in the county's existing hauling contract, along with Florida's oversight of biosolids facilities, will shape what any public-private deal is allowed to look like. Resolution files and correspondence from Merrell in the St. Johns County Clerk records lay out possible bidding paths and contingency plans if current recyclers fall short. On the state side, permit records in the Florida DEP system will be key milestones to watch as the county decides whether to sign on to Merrell's proposal or look for another way to deal with its growing biosolids pile.

Win for the River: Biosolids Legislation (St Johns Riverkeeper, March 19, 2026)

From St. Johns Riverkeeper:

The Florida Legislature delivered a huge win for the St. Johns this year, with the most significant sewage sludge (aka biosolids) reform package in nearly 20 years.

To protect farm and ranch families from land/crop/cattle contamination, the Department of Agriculture’s 2026 Farm Bill banned the land disposal of Class B biosolids by 2028. Class B consists of sewage sludge that has been treated to reduce, but not eliminate, pathogens and toxic chemicals.

This ban will stop the permitted annual transfer of an average of 70,000 tons of South Florida’s sewage sludge to the Upper Basin of the St. Johns River and its $1 Billion Clean-Up Liability to downstream counties.

Legislation (HB 1285/ SB 1474) was also passed to provide regulatory guardrails for Class AA biosolids, a higher quality treated sewage sludge, to ensure that increased production does not result in increased nutrient pollution runoff and bulk disposal and offset gains from the Class B ban.

This happened thanks to the bill sponsors, Senator Bradley and Representative Shoaf, and the coalition of advocates including Public Trust for Conservation, 1000 Friends of Florida, Florida Springs Council and Audubon Florida.

Other legislative wins include:

Conservation land legislation (HB 441/ SB 546) by Rep. Kendall (R-St. Johns) and Sen. Mayfield (R-Melbourne) increases transparency when the state proposes to sell or exchange conservation lands. These bills were filed in response to last year’s proposal by a developer to swap land in the Guana River Wildlife Management Area.

The passage of PFAS legislation (HB 1019/ SB 1230) requires quarterly testing of wastewater/sewage sludge and phases out certain types of firefighting foams that often contain the PFAS “forever chemicals” which are linked to serious health impacts.

Learn more about the history of Sewage Sludge (biosolids) and the St. Johns here.

Saturday, May 30, 2026

How reporters helped to expose major concerns with a for-profit rehab corporation (Liz Seegert, Association of Health Care Journalists, August 18, 2025)

From Association of Health Care Journalists;

How reporters helped to expose major concerns with a for-profit rehab corporation

Headshots of KFF Health News journalist Jordan Rau, left, and New York Times data reporter Irena Hwang, right. The two uncovered a disturbing trend among rehab facilities owned by for-profit companies.

KFF Health News journalist Jordan Rau, left, and New York Times data reporter Irena Hwang, right.

KFF Health News journalist Jordan Rau and New York Times data reporter Irena Hwang teamed up to uncover a disturbing trend among rehabilitation facilities owned by for-profit companies. Their story, “Even Grave Errors at Rehab Hospitals Go Unpenalized and Undisclosed,” looked at inspection reports, lawsuits, government data and corporate records, finding that Encompass Health, a key player in this arena, had major safety problems — including patient deaths — yet federal officials did little to penalize them. 

In this How we did it, Rau and Hwang shed light on the specifics of their investigation and offer ideas for how other journalists can investigate for profit facilities in their community or state. Many of their suggestions can be used for reporting similar stories within other health care sectors as well.

What prompted you to look into rehab hospitals and Encompass Health specifically?

Rau: There’s been a wealth of great journalism and academic research on the increased for-profit presence in the health insurance, nursing home, hospice, psychiatric and home health industries. But there’s been no substantive reporting on medical rehabilitation hospitals for people needing intensive physical, occupational or speech therapy. 

A well-regarded congressional agency called the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, has tracked the growth of for-profit medical rehab hospitals and noted their high operating margins and the fact that one chain owns an unusually large portion. MedPAC also highlighted differences in some key quality measures between for-profit and nonprofit. We thought this was worth looking into. 

Did the results surprise you? Why/why not?

Hwang: Our analysis focused on three performance metrics defined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, as well as a tally of serious problems revealed through inspections. Two of the metrics, which were about readmission rates, showed that Encompass facilities accounted for a disproportionate share of performance classified as statistically significantly worse than the national rate. However, the third CMS metric, about patients returning to their homes, showed that Encompass facilities tended to perform better than the national rate.

At first glance, these results may seem to be contradictory. But there’s a subtlety, which is that readmission metrics say something different than a metric like return to community does. A facility can do well by sending a large proportion of patients home, but it’s also important to consider how a facility ranks in terms of its patients who are readmitted to a general hospital for potentially preventable reasons. 

While these results were initially a bit surprising, the readmission trends we found between for-profit vs nonprofit facilities were similar to those found in peer-reviewed journal articles by academics who have spent years studying this stuff, like the researcher we quoted. We presented both types of metrics because they each tell you something about a rehab facility’s performance and are each important for readers to know about.

Rau: I was surprised [by] how rapidly the composition of the inpatient medical rehabilitation industry had changed. Our data analysis showed that in 2012, 41% of patients were admitted to for-profit rehabs. By 2023, 61% were. In our reporting, we were able to explain how Encompass Health has been expanding into new markets by striking deals with nonprofit hospitals, where the nonprofits got equity in the new hospital in return for closing their own rehab units.

How did you find patients/families willing to talk? Did you obtain actual copies of complaints or lawsuits? Did patients or lawyers reach out to you?

Rau: Locating people — especially ones willing to go on the record, and who have reliable documentation of their care — is often the hardest part of health care stories. I searched court records in counties where rehab hospitals were located and also scoured social media and consumer review sites. 

I was able to identify some people by matching those findings with inspection reports we had obtained. We caught a lucky break when we noticed that one hospital had (presumably inadvertently) included the names of patients on its plan of correction, which is the formal response a health facility must make to a health inspection report that has identified deficiencies. 

You lay out your methodology very clearly at the conclusion of the story. What else should local reporters know if they want to replicate this approach for facilities in their state?

Hwang: There’s quite solid public data available about rehab facilities and hospitals. But reporters interested in doing a similar analysis should keep in mind that each data source may span different timeframes or may even be missing a little information. 

Make sure you supplement information about things like hospital name and profit status from one dataset to another, as appropriate. And note that these may also be out-of-sync with figures reported in a company’s SEC filings and other reports. So, as always, just make sure that the numerators and denominators you’re using pass basic sanity checks, and that you’re always comparing “apples” to other apples, so to speak.

What advice do you have about filing FOIAs or pursuing some of the settlement information, particularly if reporters work for smaller outlets without the resources of KFF Health News or The Times?

Rau: Since state health agencies perform complaint inspections on behalf of CMS, you should look to them first. Some states post the inspection reports on their websites (often in obscure places), but others make you file public records requests and may try to charge you. You can also ask CMS for the inspection reports, known as Form 2567 surveys. They are public documents and exempt from FOIA, and you won’t be charged for them. 

We found the CMS press office was responsive when we asked for just a few, but the second time we requested a comprehensive database, they made us go through the FOIA office. We ultimately had to sue. After CMS settled the Freedom of Information lawsuit KFF Health News brought for the entire database of rehab hospital inspection reports, the agency added the reports to the hospital survey database it already posts on its website as a result of AHCJ’s efforts. 

It’s still important to get PDF copies, because while the database version has a column indicating immediate jeopardies, the most serious type of violation, it lacks the introductory portion of the inspectors’ reports that would contain the text that explicitly explains what prompted the immediate jeopardy. And some of the state versions contain the hospital response — the aforementioned plan of correction — which can contain good details for your story.

If you do need legal support for a state or federal public records request, try contacting the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which can help line up pro bono attorneys and has a special program to help local reporters

It took expertise to analyze all of this data. What tips do you have for local reporters looking to analyze data from CMS or other official sources? And in this era, can journalists trust the data being posted? 

Rau: As far as we can tell, Medicare’s oversight of health care facilities has been largely spared the tumult going on in the federal government. As of six months into the new administration, we haven’t seen any changes in the way the federal government regulates health care facilities, or in the data it posts on data.cms.gov or Medicare’s Care Compare

What other sources might be available to cross-check the information?

Hwang: Cross-checking and understanding potential limitations of data are so important! It’s so obvious I feel silly even saying it out loud, but don’t be afraid to seek an expert who can help you. Look for researchers who might have analyzed the same subject, or even the same database. Often, they’ve spent way longer on a topic than a journalist has, and they can provide a good gut-check about whether something has gone awry with the data. Or, lean on your reporting partner who has spent years immersed in CMS data — at least that’s what I did in this story!

I also found it helpful that two sets of information (PDFs of inspection reports and aggregate statistics on readmission rates reported by CMS) seemed to be telling the same story. While the inspections and metrics were both by CMS, they each examined slightly different facets about IRFs. The fact that the results aligned helped my confidence in our findings.

Any other advice for journalists interested in doing deep dives into local facilities, whether skilled rehab, nursing homes or hospitals?

Rau: These stories are easier to do on a local or state level than nationally. There are fewer facilities to look at, and you’re more likely to already be familiar with them. The first steps I recommend are checking county courts for lawsuits, getting the inspection reports and understanding what data exists on a federal or state level.

The federal data sets are easy to find at data.cms.gov/provider-data. Read the data dictionary first. Some states have their own data and do additional inspections. Be aware that if you’re looking into assisted living facilities, those are only regulated by states, not the federal government. 

It’s also good to think about how you are going to assess performance. It may be how quality has changed over time. Or how one facility or subset of facilities compares to the group. Or how your area’s health providers compare to a state or national average. Or what new issues have developed that didn’t exist before?


Jordan Rau, a reporter for the nonprofit KFF Health News, has been writing about hospital safety since 2008. Irena Hwang specializes in data analysis for The New York Times.

Liz Seegert

Liz Seegert

Liz Seegert is AHCJ’s health beat leader for aging. She’s an award-winning, independent health journalist based in New York’s Hudson Valley, who writes about caregiving, dementia, access to care, nursing homes and policy. As AHCJ’s health beat leader for aging,