Trump administration to shutter specialized LGBTQ+ suicide lifeline option, sparking backlash
A part of the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline dedicated to LGBTQ+ youth — known as 988 option 3 — is being terminated under the Trump administration, the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration announced.
"On July 17, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline will no longer silo LGB+ youth services, also known as the 'Press 3 option,' to focus on serving all help seekers, including those previously served through the Press 3 option," a statement Tuesday from SAMHSA read.
The agency said those who contact 988 will "continue to receive access to skilled, caring, culturally competent crisis counselors who can help with suicidal, substance misuse, or mental health crises, or any other kind of emotional distress."
It's unclear if staff for the specialized option 3 care line will be cut or moved to the general 988 line. CBS News has reached out to SAMHSA for more information.
The nation's 988 hotline brings critical access to care for those battling mental health emergencies. Nationwide, calls increased 40% soon after the three-digit number was officially launched in 2022.
Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project, a nonprofit focused on suicide prevention for LGBTQ+ young people, described the planned change as "devastating."
"This means that, in 30 short days, this program that has provided life-saving services to more than 1.3 million LGBTQ+ young people will no longer be available for those who need it," Black said in a statement Wednesday. "Suicide prevention is about people, not politics. The administration's decision to remove a bipartisan, evidence-based service that has effectively supported a high-risk group of young people through their darkest moments is incomprehensible."
The news comes in the middle of Pride Month, which Black called "callous." He also criticized "the administration's choice to remove the 'T' from the acronym 'LGBTQ+' in their announcement," saying, "Transgender people can never, and will never, be erased."
Sen. Tammy Baldwin also condemned the agency's move as "cruelly and needlessly taking" away a crucial resource for LGBTQ+ people in crisis.
"During Pride Month, a time to celebrate the progress we've made, the Trump Administration is taking us a step back and telling LGBTQ+ kids that they don't matter and don't deserve help when they are in crisis," she said in a statement. Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, wrote the legislation that created the three-digit 988 hotline.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees SAMHSA, has announced plans to reorganize and fold its functions into a new Administration for a Healthy America. SAMHSA has also lost staff to job cuts this year, including some who worked on the 988 hotline team.
The 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline can be reached by calling or texting 988. You can also chat with the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline here.
The Trevor Project's trained crisis counselors are available 24/7 at 1-866-488-7386, via chat at TheTrevorProject.org/Get-Help, or by texting START to 678678.
For more information about mental health care resources and support, The National Alliance on Mental Illness HelpLine can be reached Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.–10 p.m. ET, at 1-800-950-NAMI (6264) or email info@nami.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘This presidency is a brand-franchise': Trump has taken the commercialization of politics to a new level
'I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.' Those were Donald Trump's words to writer Tony Schwartz in the Art of the Deal. In his second term, Trump has been thinking big about making money. Since his reelection campaign began, Trump is estimated to have more than doubled his net worth to $5.4bn. A sizeable chunk of that cash has come from the launch of Trump-branded products. This week the Trump Organization entered the mobile phone business with a Trump-branded service that will include a 'sleek gold' phone, which costs $499, that is 'made in America'. Maybe? Never to miss a patriotic marketing moment, they launched Trump Mobile at Trump Tower in New York on the 10-year anniversary of their father's announcement at the top of a gold escalator, to the sound of Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World, that he would run for president. The premium tier of service would be dubbed the 47 Plan, priced at $47.45 a month. Donald Trump Jr said the brothers had partnered with 'some of the greatest people in the industry to make sure that real Americans get true value from their mobile carriers'. 'Celebrity' phone launches are hardly new. The launch announcement came days after the actor-hosts of the popular SmartLess podcast – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes – announced their own cut price phone plan, and more than two years since actor Ryan Reynolds profited from his stake in Mint Mobile, sold to T-Mobile for $1.35bn. So was Trump – or the Trumps – thinking big or just following a pattern of seemingly random licensing deals that renew concerns about the president's business enterprises? After all, if Trump is really concerned about phone prices, he could – as president – push for legislative change. 'There was a lot of dialog when Trump returned to power that we would see in this term a particularly interesting residency in the White House about how much money would be made,' says marketing-PR guru Mark Borkowski, 'and this is a typical Trump side-hustle playing off Maga patriotism.' The blurred lines between business and politics, impacting how candidates are portrayed, policies are shaped and voters engage with the political process – commonly referred to as the commercialization of politics – may not be Trump's to own exclusively, but he's taken it to a new level. 'It is troubling, and more than in jest, that this is now a political economy and he's actually saying this presidency is a brand-franchise,' says Borkowski. 'There is no separation between power and profit. He's redrawn the boundaries between commerce and the office of the president, and he's accelerated the notion of post-ethical politics.' The gold phone and patriotically-priced phone plan – '47' referring to Trump's current term, and '45' referring to the previous – is only the latest ask of the Maga (Make America Great Again) faithful, otherwise known as ultra-Magas, to show their commitment in dollar terms. 'The Trumps' continued business expansion often serves to reinforce Trump's political persona rather than distract from it. For Maga supporters, his business ventures are interpreted as proof of his self-made success and outsider status – both key pillars of his political brand,' says Zak Revskyi at the New York brand management consultancy Baden Bower. 'These business moves don't just coexist with his political identity – they actively feed into it. They help sustain the image of Trump as a results-oriented executive who blends capitalism with populism,' Revskyi adds. On Thursday, Bloomberg revealed that investment bank Dominari Holdings, where Donald Jr and Eric work as advisers, helped an obscure toymaker selling Smurf-branded tumblers, koala backpacks and plush sea turtles, pivot into crypto this week, sending its shares up more than 500%. The outlet noted that there was no sign in regulatory filings that Trump family members were involved in this or previous crypto-related transactions through the bank – which is based in Trump Tower – but noted that 'the gain added to the windfalls of executives orbiting the president's family'. Aside from the Trump's well-publicized (and profitable) adventures in crypto – his ownership stake in World Liberty Financial produced $57,355,532 in income since it was launched last year – the family brand has upped by 20 its Trump-branded real-estate projects around the globe, calculated Citizens for Ethics, including an 80-storey skyscraper in Dubai, and plans for branded hotels in Riyadh and Jeddah, and a golf course in Qatar, to an estimated value of $10bn. A 234-page financial disclosure form released by the Office of Government Ethics this month showed 145 pages of stock and bond investments. The disclosure showed that 2024 was a very good year for royalty payments from products featuring his name and likeness. Among them, calculated NBC News, was $3m from a Save America coffee table book; $2.5m from Trump sneakers and fragrances; $2.8m from Trump watches; $1.3m from a Trump-endorsed Bible; and just over $1m each from '45' guitars and non-fungible token (NFT) sales. Most have at least some aspect of gold-coloring, according to a review of the 'Golden Age of America' Trump collection. Many of the assets are held in a revocable trust overseen by Donald Jr, including more than 100,000 shares, or 53%, of Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, valued at 5.15bn, or held in partnerships that do not require divestment under conflict of interest laws. The business of selling the family name hums along despite, or because of, the on-the-fly dramas that envelope the White House from week to week. The White House claims that the president 'has been the most transparent president in history in all respects, including when it comes to his finances', noting that Trump handed over 'his multibillion-dollar empire in order to serve our country, and he has sacrificed greatly'. The Trump phone, which analysts doubt can be 'made in America', as promotional materials assert, is merely an add-on to a thriving political-business operation. Democrats have found it hard to find a footing in calling out the interplay, in part because Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, was similarly accused of allowing a family business of influence peddling to evolve around him and issued a pre-emptive pardon of family members before he left office. 'I don't do it for the money. I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I do it to do it,' Trump wrote in the opening lines of in the Art of the Deal, published in 1987. 'Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That's how I get my kicks.' But under Trump politics and business have become melded as never before. 'It's a new hyper-reality that exists in America,' says Borkowski. 'It's about turning political fandom into money, and he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's doing exactly what was expected. Nobody in Trump's heartland sees this as damaging – it's what they expect a deal-maker to do. The absurdity of everything Trump does is the point.'
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A longer ‘winter': Public funding slowdown heightens pressure on biotech startups
This story was originally published on BioPharma Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily BioPharma Dive newsletter. Biotechnology industry watchers were hopeful at the start of 2025. Venture funding appeared to be rebounding after a lengthy slump, and a smattering of new stock offerings and company acquisitions brewed optimism that the public markets might be similarly warming up to young drugmakers. But the positivity quickly dissipated. Trump administration policies gutted scientific research funding and raised questions about U.S. drug prices. Large layoffs and upheaval at public health agencies created regulatory turmoil that added risk to what's already, by its nature, a risky sector to invest in. The results were laid out in a June report from David Windley and Tucker Remmers, two analysts at the investment bank Jefferies. According to that report, funding in public biotech companies — be it from initial public offerings, follow-on stock offerings, or 'PIPE' deals — plummeted in May. The 'political and economic uncertainties' have "cast a cloud over biotech investment,' they wrote. 'Since product development cycles can range 12-15 years in this industry, biotechs (and their boards and investors) want clarity on FDA regulation, drug pricing, and funding before committing to large, [long-term] investments,' Windley and Remmers wrote. Investors and industry insiders interviewed by BioPharma Dive say that the public slowdown is trickling down to startups that have already been under intense pressure during a prolonged pullback. Companies and investors are struggling to align on valuations, making funding rounds more difficult to close than in prior years. The uphill battle in the public markets is further delaying IPO plans, too. "People are waiting to see what happens, and it's extended that winter," said Tim Scott, the president of Biocom California, an industry trade group. To date, only seven biotech companies have priced IPOs in 2025, and no large offerings have occurred since mid-February. No biotechs have publicly disclosed IPO ambitions in several months either, and one of the last to do so, Odyssey Therapeutics, pulled its offering in May. In a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, CEO Gary Glick wrote that it was 'not in the best interests of the company' to go public at that time. One reason IPOs have ground to a halt, experts say, is that the public markets aren't rewarding drug startups as predictably as they once were. Typically, drug companies can expect their value to climb after delivering positive clinical results. But 'even companies with good data aren't seeing a lot of movement in the public markets,' said Jonathan Norris, a managing director at HSBC Innovation Banking. As a result, Norris said, companies are looking at the time and expense it takes in the monthslong process to go public and wondering: 'What's the benefit?' 'If you have any readouts that are even eye squinting, you're going to get crushed,' he said. 'It's a tough, tough endeavor.' The shuttered IPO window is exacerbating problems for young biotechs. "If you don't have a public market opportunity, then the companies that are private have to think about ways to raise capital and stay private for longer," said Maina Bhaman, a partner at Sofinnova Partners. Feeling that burden, venture investors are becoming more conservative. While private funding hasn't plummeted as much as its public counterpart, investors are more selective and slower-moving. Funding has become increasingly consolidated into fewer and larger 'megarounds,' to the extent that more firms are compiling similar portfolios. And they're hard to finalize, even when most of a funding syndicate is already onboard, according to Norris. "People are struggling to figure out where the bottom of the market is and what's the appropriate valuation and expectation for that investment,' he said. "A lot of VCs are pencils down right now on deals they would otherwise be moving forward on,' Scott added. Pullbacks are nothing new in biotech. But what has been unusual, some say, is how long the sector has spent in the doldrums after peaking in early 2021. One reason is the most recent boom flooded the market with more companies than it could support. But another is that the ensuing correction has intensified amid regulatory and political upheaval. A report last week from Roel van den Akker, PwC's U.S. pharma and life science deals leader, predicted that companies will be 'preparing contingency plans' to account for delays in 'trial oversight' and drug applications. Drug companies are used to dealing with a high level of risk, as most experimental medicines never make it to market. But 'now you've got a lot more macro uncertainty that is being layered on top," Bhaman said. On the public side, that uncertainty has resulted in less patient investors, some of whom are pressing company boards to shut down after setbacks rather than change course. But some startups are taking drastic steps, too, such as cutting programs and staff to, some experts believe, depress their value so they can still attract investment. The "lack of surety" is pressuring biotechs to be as efficient as possible with their cash, Scott said, perhaps working on one program instead of a few. There have been multiple high-profile examples of late. Eikon Therapeutics and Insitro, two well-funded startups, both cited a need for 'prudence' in laying off staff. Norris expects more companies to proactively cut staff, or even close, as the longer-than-expected winter drags on. 'Most of those companies are not going to find the investors that they're hoping for,' he said. 'And I think that's just the unfortunate truth.' Recommended Reading Radiopharmaceutical drugmaker RayzeBio signals plans to go public
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts
Social Security privatization would shift retirement funding from the government to individual Americans. Proponents of privatization believe it can lead to higher investment returns, thus providing retirees with more money in retirement. For some, the focus on personal responsibility is key. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › If you want to get people worked up, ask a small group of friends what they think of Social Security privatization. Privatization refers to the idea of shifting the management and funding of retirement from the government to individuals. In other words, rather than paying Social Security taxes as part of FICA, you would keep the money and invest for retirement on your own. Experts have dramatically different opinions on privatization, with some fearing that it will lead to more people entering retirement with little to no financial resources. Those arguing in favor of privatizing the program take a completely different view. Here's how they believe the change would benefit the average American worker. Imagine that a portion of your Social Security taxes were invested in a personal account rather than used to fund current retirees' benefits. You could invest in stocks and bonds to your heart's content. In fact, you could invest in any vehicle you believe will provide a strong return. One of the beauties of investing is the way compound interest can significantly increase your retirement savings over time. As long as you begin investing early and are consistent, proponents of privatization believe you're in a position to build up more money than you could ever collect through Social Security payments. Proponents believe that Americans will appreciate the ability to invest their retirement savings where they want. Rather than paying it into a program supporting current retirees, they can choose where their money will go. However, the open question becomes: What happens to the millions of current retirees when workers stop paying into the system? Read any message board, and you're likely to find plenty of people with an opinion about Social Security privatization. It's been a hot-button topic since President George W. Bush first suggested it in his 1978 Congressional race, then pushed for it again following his successful 2004 presidential campaign. Since that time, the subject has been supported by a rotating cast of politicians, who claim it will put the responsibility for saving on individuals rather than allowing them to depend on the government to provide a safety net. While this reasoning overlooks the fact that Americans spend decades contributing to the system and Social Security has never been a public assistance program, it does appeal to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Proponents believe that pushing Americans to invest on their own means greater financial literacy among the masses. It's also believed that it will foster a culture of savings and investment. While this may be true for some, it's fair to imagine that wealthier Americans can afford to pay financial planners to help them make the most of their investments, while workers living paycheck to paycheck may have trouble saving the funds at all. It's likely that most people would like to save for retirement, but not everyone can afford to do so. The good news is that plenty of people are actively involved in seeking a solution to potential Social Security shortages. It may turn out that some form of Social Security privatization -- such as a hybrid system that allows you to continue paying into the current system while setting aside some money to make your own investments -- will be the answer. Or, it may be something entirely different. While proponents of Social Security privatization offer numerous potential advantages, it's yet to be seen if anyone will come up with a better solution. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
