Domestic Affairs

Over the past few months, President Donald Trump and his administration have cracked down on temporary migrants, putting hundreds of thousands at risk for deportation. And while Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), led by Secretary Kristi Noem, continues to roll back protections put into place by the administration of former President Joe Biden, federal courts are engaging in increasingly complex back-and-forth rulings to determine the eligibility of over half a million people for deportation. 

On Feb. 5, the DHS released a notice ending the temporary protected status (TPS) of roughly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants residing in the United States, effective April 7, 2025. According to the notice, spearheaded by Secretary Noem, permitting Venezuelan nationals to stay in the United States “is contrary to the national interest of the United States.” 

That interest seems to be dictated by President Trump himself, who has long held a hardline approach to immigration. In line with Trump’s often inflammatory rhetoric surrounding immigrants, especially those from Latin American countries, the notice mentions the presence of “members of the Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua.”

Despite the Trump administration’s characterization of nearly all migrants as dangerous criminals, less than half of migrants currently held in detention facilities have been convicted of crimes, according to June 5 data. 

Venezuelans’ temporary status is related to a larger humanitarian parole program for nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV). The Trump administration also terminated the CHNV program – an action a lower court also paused.

Launched in 2022 for Venezuelans under the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and expanded to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023, the CHNV program allows people from these nations – fleeing due to political turmoil and economic instability – to apply for entry to the U.S. for temporary stay of up to two years. Though the parole designation is not a formal immigration status, individuals can apply for asylum. And it is not without its safeguards: migrants must have a U.S.-based supporter. 

For Venezuelans specifically, TPS was granted in two rounds during the Biden administration – the first on March 9, 2021 and the second on Oct. 3, 2023. Though the Feb. notice only terminates those Venezuelan nationals under the 2023 designation, the decision still leaves hundreds of thousands of people in limbo as Venezuela continues to face political insecurity. 

Ahilan Arulanantham – as a lawyer representing the immigrants challenging the Trump administration – lamented the ruling, noting that the termination of Venezuelans’ temporary protected status “is the largest single action stripping any group of noncitizens of immigration status in U.S. history.”

And soon after the DHS released their TPS notice, federal courts stepped in, quickly escalating the battle between migrants – and their supporters – and the Department. After a temporary pause by a District Court judge, the case quickly made its way to the Supreme Court through an emergency appeal by the Trump administration. On May 19, the Court – in a brief decision without reasoning or explanation – overruled the lower court’s ruling, allowing the termination of TPS for Venezuelan migrants to continue. 

Less than two weeks later, on May 30, U.S. Judge Edward E. Chen of the Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that a small subset of these Venezuelan migrants – around 5,000 – could keep their temporary status. 

And also on May 30, the Supreme Court allowed the termination of the CHNV to continue, sending the case back to the lower courts, and likely permitting the DHS to deport migrants as the case moves forward. This decision applies to the roughly 532,000 people granted protective parole. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in their dissent to the decision that the Supreme Court’s ruling “undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”

A cacophony of shouts fills the air. People spill into the streets, crowding around a white car and shaking their fists angrily. A police siren pierces through the noise, serving as a verbal barrier that does little more to hold back the people than the yellow tape erected around the scene.

It was this scene that unfolded outside of Buona Forchetta—a restaurant in South Park, San Diego—on May 30, 2025. After receiving a tip that the restaurant had hired nineteen undocumented employees, the Department of Homeland Security authorized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct a raid, where four employees were ultimately detained. 

This particular raid has received considerable backlash from the local community, which has rallied behind the workers and the restaurant. Buona Forchetta decided to close for two days following the incident, declaring in a statement that they were “still processing the deep pain and confusion caused by this situation.”

The public scrutiny was directed at not just the raid itself but the nature in which it was conducted. In particular, individuals have criticized ICE agents for wearing face masks, something that San Diego council member Sean Elo-Riviera equated to a sign of “state-sponsored terrorism.” Some citizens and lawmakers have made calls for the ICE agents to be properly identified or for the masks to be removed in order to limit misunderstanding and prevent abuse of power during ICE raids.

“Every single ICE agent who’s engaged in this aggressive overreach and is trying to hide their identities from the American people will be unsuccessful in doing that,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in a press briefing on Tuesday, June 3. “This is America. This is not the Soviet Union. We’re not behind the Iron Curtain. This is not the 1930s.”

Others have been quick to draw similar worrying comparisons, making connections between the secret police forces used by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. After the U.S. Attorney admonished Boston, Massachusetts, Mayor Michelle Wu for characterizing ICE agents as “secret police,” Wu continued to defend her statement.

“I don't know of any police department that routinely wears masks. We know there are other groups that routinely wear masks. NSC-131 routinely wears masks,” Wu said in a statement, referring to the National Socialist Club-131, a Neo-Nazi group based in New England.

While ICE certainly operates under a different pretense than historically masked groups like NSC-131 and the Ku Klux Klan, it still raises a significant question that many politicians and policy analysts have brought to light: if ICE officers are executing the law in a legitimate and proper manner, why do they have to hide their identities?

According to Todd Lyons, the Acting Director of ICE, the masks are merely a protection measure; he described them as a necessary component to prevent ICE officers from getting “doxed,” something that he said has happened to other officers before.

“People are out there taking photos of their names, their faces, and posting them online with death threats to their family and themselves,” Lyons said at a news conference in Boston. He added, “I’m sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line, because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.”

Noting that ICE officers are experiencing a 413% increase in assaults, the Department of Homeland Security also cited the importance of masks in protecting ICE officers from “sickening and demented” attacks against them.

“When our heroic law enforcement officers conduct operations, they clearly identify themselves as law enforcement while wearing masks to protect themselves from being targeted by known and suspected gang members, murders and rapists,” the Department wrote on X.

Whether a needed component to protect ICE officers or a symptom of the return of the secret police forces that characterized the dictatorships of the mid-twentieth century, the inclusion of face masks in ICE agents’ uniforms represents a definitive shift in the role and public perception of police forces in the United States. 

As the Trump Administration moves forward with its crackdown on illegal immigration, an objective that will only continue to rely on ICE to help detain suspected undocumented immigrants, ICE is more likely to receive increasing attention among the media and public, a factor that could determine whether it is perceived in the heroic light the Trump Administration promotes or the dangerous one many lawmakers and critics have highlighted. 

Either way, the masks represent the fine line between protection and concealment, which could—and, historically, has—been a vehicle for the abuse of power. There’s only so long that the boundaries of this line can be tested before they are crossed entirely.

In 2024, during his re-election campaign, President Donald Trump promised the NRA that “no one will lay a finger on [their] firearms” should he return to the Oval Office. Now, five months into his second term, it’s clear Trump intends to honor his promise, even as gun violence rates continue to soar in the US.

Gun safety measures have been one of the many casualties of Trump’s abrupt and expansive cuts to government-funded agencies. The Trump administration has rescinded millions of dollars in grants to gun violence prevention centers across the US, cutting programs like that took years for previous administrations to build.

On May 16, Trump took his pro-Second Amendment agenda to previously unseen heights by legalizing forced reset triggers. These devices, which allow standard guns to operate similar to machine guns, exponentially increase a gun’s firing rate and, many believe, make it easier for gun owners to perpetrate mass shootings. 

Anti-violence organizations warn that Trump’s sweeping reversal of gun safety measures could result in more gun-related deaths, exacerbating what experts call one of America’s deadliest public health crises. Pro-NRA activists, however, celebrate the increased freedom Trump’s actions afford them, commending the president for upholding their constitutional right to bear arms. But as Trump dismantles gun safety across the board, some of the country’s most influential legislators refuse to stand by the president’s deregulation? 

A June 2 decision by the US Supreme Court seems to suggest otherwise. After the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Maryland instituted a statewide ban on assault rifles like the AR-15, the Sandy Hook gunman’s primary weapon. A Maryland resident, backed by three pro-gun organizations, sued the state on the grounds of a Second Amendment violation. The case made its way to the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, where a 9-5 majority decision upheld Maryland’s ban. A final appeal brought the case to the Supreme Court, where four of the nine justices would have needed to vote to hear it. Three conservatives cast affirmative votes, but a fourth, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, declined to hear the Second Amendment challenge. 

According to Kavanaugh’s official statement on the case, the Supreme Court “should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon.” But while the Supreme Court  may agree to hear future gun rights cases, for the moment, its decision marks a sharp blow to Trump’s rampage against gun control. And for the Second Amendment at large, the decision reinforces one fact: not every gun is created equal. 

The right to bear arms does not, for now, encompass the right to own a military-style assault weapon. Many Americans will breathe a sigh of relief. But some view this decision as further proof that the federal government is encroaching on their constitutional rights. 

As America continues to grapple with the limitations of the Second Amendment,  the Supreme Court’s decision points to a growing resistance to Trump’s pro-gun agenda, and an ever-evolving battle around one of America’s most controversial constitutional rights.

The debate over transgender athletes in women’s sports has moved well beyond school gymnasiums—it now occupies courtrooms, state legislatures, and campaign podiums; it is rampant in our policymaking spaces. What began as a relatively niche issue has escalated into a national flashpoint, catalyzed in part by the 2024 election cycle and renewed focus from President Donald Trump. At the heart of the conversation is a growing discomfort over what happens when inclusion policies collide with biological realities. Advocates for trans athletes argue for compassion and the right to compete. In contrast, critics, including a growing number of female athletes and parents, contend that such policies threaten the fairness and future of women’s sports. The controversial discussion has been swept into the broader culture war.

Can Fairness Survive Without Clear Boundaries?

The rise of transgender inclusion in women’s sports has ignited one of the most emotionally charged policy debates in recent memory, and at its core is a fundamental question: Should athletic competition be governed by identity, biology, or some evolving hybrid of both? For critics of trans inclusion in women’s categories, this is not a question of intolerance but of fairness and, most importantly, safety. 

Athletic performance at any level is heavily influenced by physical attributes developed during puberty, such as muscle mass, bone density, and aerobic capacity, which many scientists argue are not entirely mitigated by hormone therapy. As a result, many parents, coaches, and female athletes themselves feel that allowing biological males who identify as female to compete in female categories can erase decades of progress in leveling the playing field for women. 

Title IX was established to ensure equal opportunities for biological females, yet in some cases, those opportunities now appear jeopardized by inclusion policies that ignore physiological realities; certain people believe they truly are what they “identify” with, and now, the new identity options are practically limitless. 

The underlying tension is most definitely ideological, but it is also very much structural. Without a coherent framework rooted in both science and equity, sports risk becoming a zero-sum game where inclusion for a minority group feels like exclusion for a majority.

Locker Rooms Turned Political Arenas

While the fairness argument has legitimate merit, the conversation around trans athletes has been hijacked by partisan agendas, often to the detriment of thoughtful discourse. Former President Trump’s recent campaign rhetoric on this issue reflects a broader strategy: mobilizing cultural flashpoints to galvanize his base. 

By zeroing in on trans participation in women’s sports, he frames the debate not as a niche policy matter but as a symbol of national decline and moral confusion; he and his party call it “gender insanity”. 

Yet this polarization isn't unique to one side. Progressive activists, too, arguably more, have often treated the issue as a litmus test for allyship, shutting down dissenting voices—even those from female athletes themselves—by labeling them as bigoted or regressive. 

So the question remains: when does this trend of selectively contextualizing gender-based issues become too consequential? In this climate, nuance evaporates rapidly, even if this nuance makes the difference between a healthy and injured woman; our democracy is very sacrificial. 

The practical concerns of young girls losing athletic scholarships or being discouraged from competing are being buried beneath the layers of politics and extremism. Once a unifying force and a meritocratic arena, sports have become a battleground for identity politics, with innocent children and teenagers caught in the crossfire. 

What’s lost in this national shouting match is the opportunity to develop rational, science-based policy that upholds the values of fairness and safety without reducing young athletes to pawns in a broader culture war.

Since President Donald Trump was elected in November 2024, the term“tariff” has become a staple in the American vocabulary. 

While “tariff” was a recurring buzzword throughout Trump’s reelection campaign, it wasn’t until after he was elected that the United States truly became acquainted with the reality of his economic plan. From rising diplomatic tensions and the early stages of a trade war with China to a volatile Wall Street and increasing consumer prices, it is unclear whether the U.S. is merely in the “transition period” Trump has been affirming or the onset of a recession.

On-Again, Off-Again: The Ups and Downs of Trump’s Tariffs

Modern Republican presidents have traditionally favored economic and trade policies centered around deregulation. Trump, on the other hand, has advocated for and implemented protectionist measures such as tariffs. 

Trump’s earlier experiments with tariffs, which largely focused on limiting taxes on imports such as aluminum and solar panels, pale in comparison to his recent efforts to drive manufacturing back to the United States.

Beginning on February 1, 2025, Trump announced a 25% tariff on non-energy imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% (later 20%) tariff on China. He also began implementing tariffs on copper, steel, aluminum, and other raw materials. This was only a prelude to a large-scale reciprocal tariff plan that saw a large proportion of countries facing a 10% blanket tariff as well as additional tariffs based on their trade surplus with the U.S. 

This meant that countries like Lesotho, which designates nearly 75% of its exports to the U.S., were forced to pay tariffs of up to 50%. One of several African nations to benefit from the 2000 African Growth and Opportunity Act, Lesotho has become a major base of American textile manufacturing; not only do the tariffs threaten their export capacity, but they could result in wide-ranging financial repercussions that could significantly damage the fabric of their economy.

On April 9, though—just a week after “Liberation Day” when he announced his sweeping tariff plan—Trump agreed to a 90-day pause on the reciprocal tariffs for most countries, instead returning to the 10% tariff baseline he had pledged to establish. However, not all countries were spared; in fact, the tariffs on China were increased to 125% after they retaliated with tariffs of their own.

The rising friction with China has already sparked the beginning of a trade war, and tensions have escalated between the U.S. and other countries as well. However, the impacts of Trump’s tariff plan extend beyond just diplomatic relationships; the economic strains have resulted in a fluctuating stock market and economic insecurity at home. Despite Trump’s proclaimed mission to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., American businesses—large and small—have been forced to deal with higher supply prices, a cost that is typically passed onto consumers through raised retail prices.

The Retail Response: The Commercial Sector Fights Back

As so many American businesses rely on labor and resources from foreign countries, their costs and profits have been dramatically warped by the Trump Administration’s tariff plans. International corporations like Walmart, Target, and Best Buy have announced their intention to raise prices in response to the tariffs, while companies like Mattel and American Eagle are being forced to reconsider their profit outlook and full-year guidance. A survey conducted by Chief Executive Group and AlixPartners reports that 68% of U.S. CEOs have already raised prices or anticipate doing so due to the economic impacts of the tariffs.

In April, controversy arose after Amazon considered the idea of displaying tariff costs next to a product’s price. The White House was quick to respond, with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt labeling the proposal a “hostile and political act.” Soon after, Amazon backed down and scrapped the proposal.

However, it’s not just big business that has been affected; small businesses have faced an even more significant burden from the hiked prices placed on imports as a result of Trump's sweeping tariffs. Five small businesses, including wine company VOS Selections, fishing tackle and apparel company FishUSA, electronic education business MicroKits, women’s cycling company Terry Precision Cycling, and ABS pipe business Genova Pipe, are taking action. This legal battle involves the businesses being represented by the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, against the Trump Administration. These particular businesses represent just a cross-section of the struggles small businesses are facing due to the tariffs and fluctuations in economic policy.

After taking the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade, on May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel ruled in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump that the “Liberation Day” tariffs were unlawful. Despite Trump’s attempt to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify the tariffs, the court saw it as an infringement on Congress’s power to implement taxes.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, Senior Counsel and Director of Litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, in a press release.

While the Liberty Justice Center views the court order as a win, the Trump Administration has been quick to file an appeal, and the tariffs will remain in place until the next arguments take place on July 31. For now, businesses will stay caught in limbo between the burden of heightened resource costs and the threat of rising prices for consumers. While this may place a strain on large companies, the true impact is on the small businesses—American businesses that have long been backed by Republicans, which are now struggling to stay afloat.

President Donald Trump’s feud with the United States' electoral system escalated on March 25, when he signed an executive order overhauling election procedure–a choice that garnered extensive pushback in the following months. The order, titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” mandates that prospective voters in federal elections show proof of citizenship, that all mail-in ballots be received by Election Day, and that foreign nationals be barred from making donations to support American candidates. 

Interestingly, despite this last restriction, Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign received heavy support from Russian donors, the very foreign nationals that this executive order prevents from contributing money. But while Trump’s order might seem illogical, behind the patriotic wording lies an ugly truth.

Trump’s attacks on election procedure have been slow but steady during his second term. In February, the Trump administration paused the work of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which combats cyberattacks targeting governmental infrastructure. CISA has since lost the majority of its top officials and has been unable to respond effectively to election cyberattacks. Trump also cut funding for the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), which protects the country’s election technology from cyberattacks. These measures, along with the most recent executive order, threaten election integrity across America. 

In the United States, elections are relatively decentralized. Election procedure can vary state by state, particularly for local and statewide elections, but federal law also plays a role in all types of elections. For example, every state has its own voter ID rules, but constitutional amendments like the 15th and 19th Amendments dictate who has the right to vote. The federal government also has the power to override state rulings on election procedure should they be found unconstitutional. 

Trump’s executive order would amend only federal election procedures, but since the federal government can supersede state and local election procedure, it’s possible that states like Oregon, which currently utilizes an exclusively mail-in voting system, would lose certain privileges and therefore sacrifice voter turnout.

Trump’s actions have earned him significant resistance, especially from Democrats. Elias Law Group, with support from powerhouses including the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Governors Association and Hakeem Jeffries, filed a lawsuit against Trump in March. A coalition of civil rights organizations, including the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Hispanic Federation, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) also introduced a motion for a preliminary injunction–or a temporary block–against the executive order. A federal court granted this injunction against the order, specifically its  mandate that voters carry proof of citizenship. 

An official at Elias Law Group shared, “This injunction stops an outrageous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters by adding illegal and unnecessary barriers to the voter registration process.” 

Trump’s election procedure overhaul has the potential to disenfranchise eligible voters and wrest election control from the hands of states into those of the executive office. With the potential for more sweeping executive orders and Trump’s funding slashes to organizations like CISA and EI-ISAC, it’s impossible to predict how the election landscape will evolve under the Trump administration, but one thing is clear: it will look very, very different.

On June 14, 2025, around the early hour of 2 AM, gunshots sounded off in Champlin, Minnesota. Both known for their vigor and bold stances in the house, two Democratic legislators were affected—one was severely injured, and the other was killed. 

Sen. Melissa Hortman and Sen. John Hoffman were both attacked in their respective homes by a man identified as Vance Boeltor. CNN had obtained the list Vance carried in his vehicle, which included the names of lawmakers involved in the abortion rights movement.

This latest crime has solidified the recent developments: The Rise of Political Violence in the United States.

U.S President Donald Trump believes it to be “a targeted attack against State Lawmakers” and has termed it ‘horrific violence’ in a statement posted on his X account. “Both legislators are close friends and devoted to their families and public service,” noted Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota’s U.S Senator,  in a joint statement released by the entire State’s delegation.

With many of the top investigators present in the case, from local inspectors to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the suspect still remains at large. 

Background

The normalization of harmful ideas such as white supremacy and conspiracy theories has fuelled the increasing presence of online provocation. These notions of political violence have long been effective, but this trend has changed over the years.

What started as attacks on Leftists since the 1960s, the majority of these attacks still stem from the right wing. The major change, as maintained by the Journal of Democracy, is that the hatred is ignited through organization—a community that shares these dangerous ideals.

The most common terms related to a hate crime in the twentieth century were terrorist or vicious criminal. Now, it is an ‘ordinary’ man who holds a nine-to-five job, is married and part of a community—having no criminal record and having committed no offense, this individual becomes the unexpected victim of an attack.

Vance, the prime suspect in this case, isn’t much different. A middle-aged man, who previously worked on government boards and is married, impersonated an officer, drove around in an official police car equipped with all the typical officer tools.

The suspect has also been identified as the leader of a security board and has undertaken training by the U.S. Army. 

The Public Reacts

The political impact of this case is the fact that despite the government's enforcement urging the ‘No King’ protests to be cancelled, they will still be held. Not only will this highly increase the chances of a clash between the government and peaceful protestors, but it will also create panic among the civilians of Minnesota. Governor Tim Walz, a speaker at the “No King’s” protest, has also withdrawn his appearance. 

The ‘No King’ protest itself has a broader meaning this time around, compared to previous anti-Trump protests. What was once a joking regard that the U.S. is a state known for its absence of a monarchal or oligarchal presence is now a reality for protesters—who proclaim the current sitting president should not wield his power as if he does. Protests are now targeted toward the Trump administration's harsh policies, reflecting the turbulent political climate.

While Vance may be eventually captured, it is clear that tensions are escalating due to political polarization, online radicalization and institutional distrust. What one has to wonder is the effect this case might have on a country that has a big reputation (or rather, a big talk) for its dedication to ‘justice.’

Since President Donald Trump first took office, he has been quick to identify and tackle a variety of targets. Illegal immigration across the United States-Mexico border. Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in schools and workplaces. Unfavorable trade imbalances between the U.S. and foreign countries.

While these were largely expected of him, though, Trump has also pursued a new, surprising target with a particular vengeance: science.

Just hours after his inauguration on January 20, 2025, Trump made his intention to target scientific advancement loud and clear by initiating the process to withdraw from the World Health Organization, one of the world’s leading bodies when it comes to coordinating responses to international health crises, setting standards surrounding pertinent health issues, and compiling and evaluating data to develop more comprehensive understandings of global health matters. 

The Trump Administration has cited WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic” as justification for the withdrawal, joining just three other countries globally that are not a part of the organization. Not only will the United States’ withdrawal from WHO cut an estimated 12-15% of the organization's funding, but it also makes a statement about what the U.S. values—or, in this case, doesn’t value. If there is one thing that the Trump Administration has made clear, it’s its willingness to compromise scientific advancement and collaboration to make a political statement—which has only fed into international and national polarization in the process.

This pattern has also occurred on the national level. Trump has proposed an $18 billion cut to funding for the National Institute of Health, which conducts both internal research and provides grants to outside sources for critical health studies, medical innovation, and community outreach. 

While these cuts are startling enough, it is the way that Trump has wielded them that reflects the truly twisted nature of his intentions. In particular, Trump has weaponized funding from the NIH and other federal grants to force American universities to comply with his policies surrounding DEI and other practices that clash with the president’s agenda. Top research institutions like Cornell University, Northwestern University, Harvard University, and Johns Hopkins University have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants, halting many critical research studies.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has played a critical role in pioneering this new attitude towards health and medical advancement. Kennedy, who has long been controversial for his views on vaccines, has promoted the “Make America Healthy Again,” or “MAHA,” movement. Kennedy’s efforts thus far have centered around pushing to phase out certain synthetic chemicals and dyes in food products; however, Kennedy has also sparked controversy for his interest in studying potential links between vaccines and autism, a theory that the scientific community has largely disputed.

On June 9, 2025, Kennedy seemed to take this skepticism a step further by firing the entire 17-member staff of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a scientific committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccination standards and practices. 

The former board members, all of whom were appointed by former President Joe Biden, were set to have their terms expire in 2028; however, as Kennedy explained in a Wall Street Journal article, firing the former board was the only move to “re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.”

However, Kennedy’s decision to oust the former committee members seems to do just the opposite. Several of the eight members that Kennedy has appointed in place of the former board harbor anti-vaccine views, particularly surrounding the development of mRNA vaccines, which have displayed significant potential for medical advancement and progress. Furthermore, by surrounding himself with committee members who will reaffirm his views, Kennedy may have more autonomy to drive his own decisions—such as when he altered certain COVID-19 recommendations without consulting the committee first.

While exploring new ideas and considering different perspectives is one thing, shaping a key scientific committee to center around a single politicized narrative defeats the purpose of science in the first place—to harness an objective understanding of the natural world in order to drive human innovation and progress. 

As the Department of Health and Human Services and the federal government as a whole distance themselves from the CDC and the broader scientific community to fuel the political agenda of a certain group, the U.S. is putting itself in a dangerous position that places partisan advancement over scientific progress. This doesn’t just mean that the U.S. could lose its global standing as a leader in health innovation and advancement; it means that the very purpose of science could be reshaped to reflect political gains rather than a genuine desire to improve vital medical treatments and devastating health issues. 

Science is not a weapon to be wielded or an accessory to a larger partisan agenda; it is a vital part of the U.S.’s international identity, a symbol of hope to those afflicted by illness and other health matters, and, amidst political division and global uncertainty, a constant reminder of the unifying promise of progress.

In a controversial shift, the Trump Administration resurrected the Alien Registration Act, a statute intended to track foreign nationals during times of political turmoil and fascism in the early 1940s. Though this law was utilized during World War 2, it is now retooled as a domestic immigration intimidation tactic. Civil rights groups such as the National Immigration Law Center warn the United States that reviving a “surveillance-first approach to immigration” can echo harmful chapters of American history. Trump re-enacted an Interim Final Rule on April 11th, 2025, which was issued by the Department of Homeland Security, requiring all non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, to register their status in the United States.

Through this rule, individuals must submit biographical information, fingerprints, and disclose immigration information. The Department of Homeland Security predicts this project will affect almost 3.2 million registered voters, although only 47,000 individuals have complied with the registration mandate so far, fearing deportation. This move has spurred widespread distrust and panic amongst immigrant communities, legal residents, and legal service providers due to the fear of mass criminalization, the creation of a national database that employs immigrant information as a tool of political polarization, and the violation of due process. This revival also introduces a broader push towards expulsion and mass deportation, raising the pressing question of defining “undocumented” and whether presence in the United States can be treated as a crime.

Reclassification of Immigration Noncompliance as a Criminal Offense

Under the Alien Registration Act, failing to register is not regarded as a bureaucratic error but a criminal offense. This change nudges towards a dangerous shift in United States immigration policy. Previously, immigrants were provided with civil removal proceedings, which, while often lengthy and emotionally taxing, did not bear the tremendous social and legal consequences of a criminal conviction. Civil immigration violations, such as entering without inspection, were adjudicated in administrative law. Although these proceedings often resulted in deportation, they did not create a criminal record, involve incarceration in federal criminal facilities, or trigger collateral consequences of immigration relief. The reclassification of non-registration fundamentally dismantles this landscape by criminalizing a greater presence and exposing immigrants to disproportionate punitive measures reserved for extreme offenses. It also heightens legal vulnerability by exposing immigrants to stricter guidelines, social stigma, and barriers to immigration, often difficult to avoid.

Furthermore, green card holders, legal immigrants, asylum applicants, and DACA recipients could face penalties if they fill out their information incorrectly or miss a crucial deadline. Thus, in its current form, the regulation lacks grace periods, a mechanism for correcting mistakes, and an appeals process without triggering legal consequences. This rigid framework has fostered and generated widespread anxiety within immigrant communities. As a result, immigrant attorneys and advocacy groups may report a dramatic increase in urgent consultations and cases. In many cases, the ambiguity of the registration process may leave individuals vulnerable to unintentional noncompliance, emphasizing marginalization against those who cannot access proper resources and legal resources. The cumulative effect could be a minefield for immigrants, even those who followed every guideline regarding their status. What was once a documentation error now constitutes grounds for deportation, detention, or eventual removal.

Intensified Biometric Monitoring and Federal Data Integration

The mandatory collection of biometric data, such as fingerprints, facial scans, and photographs, creates a permanent digital footprint that can be accessed at any time for millions of immigrants. Unlike names or addresses, biometric identifiers cannot be changed, which makes them uniquely persistent and traceable. Once stored, this data may be accessed and leveraged not only for immigration, but other governmental officials and agencies. More importantly, the integration of biometric data across these federal systems significantly weakens privacy and safeguards, as well as due process protections. This lack of oversight propagates a substantial risk of misuse, data breach,s and unjust targeting. The criminalization of registration noncompliance, paired with aggressive data sharing practices, means immigrants may be subjected to automated enforcement mechanisms without legal recourse. The system bypasses various traditional safeguards instilled within the United States, furthering decision-making that often lacks accountability.

Undocumented immigrant or mixed immigrant status households who fear being flagged for noncompliance may begin to avoid public institutions altogether, including programs such as Medicaid, to ease their fear of deportation. This undermines public safety and engagement by dismantling their voice in policy and community decision-making. Within its design, a biometric registration system discourages visibility in engagement and self-advocacy, transforming into a tool of political silencing. In setting this principle, it weakens immigrant communities as well as democratic participation, fostering a dynamic of them being present but not represented.

Curtailment of Economic and Legal Prosperity

Economically, undocumented immigrants may avoid applying for financial aid and public assistance. Due to the revived registration requirement, it fosters a climate of deep uncertainty and fear, driving them away from institutions that provide social mobility and economic stability. Many employers in more prosperous markets may also stray away from employing these individuals to avoid a backlog and a legal crisis that may diminish effectiveness. The result is a cycle of economic entrapment with limited options for these immigrants. Without access to formal employment or public safety nets, families are often forced into informal markets with limited legal protection. As a result, they may work in unsafe conditions with low wages due to employers being able to leverage and exploit their vulnerability. The fear of retaliation or legal consequences prevents them from seeking justice or upward mobility within the economic sector. Over time, these patterns erode generational progress for families and further a stage of economic fragility, weakening the economic and social fabric this country is built on.

Overall, by transforming procedural missteps into prosecutable offenses, this policy constructs a legal landscape in which noncompliance is met with irreversible consequences. It fails to account for the complexities of legal status, especially within marginalized and underprivileged communities. In doing so, it strips immigrants of vital due process protections, traps families in economic insecurity, and fosters widespread distrust in public institutions. More than a regulatory change, this is a cultural and political inflection point by signaling a return to exclusionary models of governance rooted in fear rather than fairness, embedding a legacy of systematic fear and mass exclusion.

On May 3, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2 into law, launching the most heavily funded school voucher program in U.S. state history. This bill would establish an Educational Savings Account Program and allocate educational vouchers for families to utilize for personalized schooling. With one billion dollars of public tax revenue approved for these efforts, SB 2 has the potential to support 80,000-100,000 students with private and religious school costs as opposed to public schooling. 

SB2 is backed by the idea that it provides more accessible education to low-income and special needs families who are unable to afford alternatives to public schooling. Keeping this initiative in mind, the law gives priority to households making below a threshold income amount to cater to families who need Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs) most. Many are drawn to the bill’s promise of empowering families to choose the best-fit education for their children.

Yet the program’s projected impact contradicts its stated intent to expand equitable access. Integrating school vouchers may prove to be ineffective in catering to accessibility and equity needs because of who historically enrolls in programs like these. To elaborate, it is vital to observe trends in similar state programs. Arkansas implemented an education law allocation, “Educational Freedom Accounts” or vouchers for families to support private schooling costs. Most of these funds went not to low-income families but to those already sending their children to private schools. Specifically, 95% of students who took advantage of these vouchers were already in private school or were first-time kindergarteners. And in Texas, according to the state’s fiscal analysis, it is projected that 97% of those who apply for these vouchers will be pre-existing private school students. This data taints the intention of the bill to support struggling families and instead allocates tax dollars to families who are already funding privatized education.

Besides missing the intended use of public funding, the integration of school vouchers in Texas seemingly falls short of solving the issue of underfunded public schools in the state. The state’s schooling data shows 73% of school districts are underfunded, with 17% of those districts considered severely underfunded, with funding gaps exceeding 40% of demonstrated needs. These figures, alongside the fact that public school funding is based on enrollment rates, push vouchers to seem counterintuitive. In the case that enrollment declines, the funding going to schools will decrease as well, only exacerbating this underfunding. 

It's also important to note that private schools are often not the better educational option. Specifically, a report from Louisiana’s Scholarship Program, similar to the voucher program, demonstrated that students who utilized funds to attend private schools often performed worse in math after being enrolled in alternative schooling. In addition to this, correlations were found between school funding and Texas Education Agency (TEA) student achievement ratings. Specifically, larger funding gaps more often than not correlate to lower TEA student achievement ratings, signaling that underfunded schools are less adequate for student success. 

The duality between underfunding and low student achievement, in conjunction with lessened student success shown in private schools, makes vouchers seem like they would completely miss their intended impact of increasing equitable education and instead would cause resources to be lacking in institutions where students need them most.

All it took was 45 seconds. 45 seconds for the 100th Anniversary of the National Speech and Debate Association's (NSDA) National Tournament to be tainted with the fear of thousands of competitors, judges, coaches, and students. 

On June 19, an unidentified attendee entered the stage during the Humorous Interpretation (HI) Finals and reached into their bag in front of hundreds of spectators. The perceived threat of violence forced chaos and desperation to dictate the tragedy that would result in at least 3 injured requiring hospitalizations, according to Perrin investigations (for clarification, there are many more unofficial injuries claims via social media with claims of concussions, bruises sustained from being trampled on and broken ankles from running away).

At 4:23 PM, twenty-two-year-old Jayden Michael Roccaforte of Cheyenne, Wyoming, was arrested yesterday after being escorted from the EMC Expo Center, host of the centennial NSDA tournament, in Des Moines, Iowa, on two charges of possession of a controlled substance and one charge of disorderly conduct. 

Their motives for storming the stage and yelling words similar to “want to hear a knock-knock joke” are unknown, but it has been observed that Roccaforte was the NSDA 2021 National Champion for Poetry Reading and NSDA 2020 National Champion for Prose, representing Cheyenne East High School, Wyoming. 

From multiple personal accounts and the NSDA livestream video of the event, Roccaforte is first “heard” entering from stage right, as the camera pans away from the last contestant of HI, and focuses on the young person who curses out an expletive and then after yelling to the crowd of spectators, makes a motion to grab something out of their backpack. That motion is what triggered the swarm of people to run away from the stage and their seats, as many feared he was reaching for a weapon or some form of device. 

Autumn Weimer, a duo interpretation qualifier from Penn High School, Indiana, was watching the round live in the back right bleachers, and initially thought the person on the stage was a contestant. The unusual entrance and odd introduction were perhaps just a play on words; a presentation that didn’t follow conventional rules. But once the initial skepticism passed, she knew something was wrong. 

“My first reaction to the person was confusion,” Weimer said. “I heard him say: ‘knock, knock, guess what’s funny, a bomb.’”

Wyatt Mullins-Bell, a qualifier in Original Oratory from Southern Lehigh High School, Pennsylvania, had a similar reaction to the unforeseen event with a teammate. His first impression was that the NSDA certification of identity was plain to see (the orange ribbon), so it had to be someone who didn't know their way around. 

“When I first saw the individual, I was confused,” Mullins-Bell said. “My first thought was that they had been trying to find an exit but went in the way wrong direction. And I did not recognize them in any way, but I noticed they were wearing an orange visitor’s ribbon, so I assumed everything was fine, just the case of someone getting lost.” 

But in a matter of seconds, as someone over the speaker system yelled, “run away”, students and spectators were left to run without any sense of direction or known point of safety from the intruder. This fear, unfortunately, is not unprecedented but comes from a long history of gun violence in the United States, where as of today, there have been 23 school shootings in the US in 2025. 

Nehemiah Mitchell, a competitor at the supplemental events for RISE High School, Colorado, agreed with the similarities between the fast reactions of everyone in the situation due to the ongoing threat of gun violence in America. 

“Honestly, yes [about why people were so quick to act and run away because of gun violence],” Mitchell said. “And it’s heartbreaking … I personally, in the moment, was frozen up because I didn’t know what to think when the man was on the stage and had a backpack, so I stood there still, while the crowd went into full-blown chaos because they were scared for their lives.”

Perrin contacted NSDA to comment on the event, but NSDA did not respond. 

From the three statements published on Thursday (VIA social media and the official NSDA website), each varying in response to the initial event, the consensus has been that the competition is moving forward with safety and security at the forefront.

"The individual was subdued and removed from the premises by the actions of onsite law enforcement," Executive Director J. Scott Wunn said in a statement on 6/19 at 9:03 pm. “There were no weapons involved. However, the incident scared students and other attendees present. The safety and well-being of our whole community, especially our students, is our top priority… After speaking with the NSDA community, including finalists and coaches, we have decided to suspend the competition for today. We will continue Friday with a revised schedule.”

However, the statements have had mixed reactions. Before Thursday evening’s message, it was 2 hours after the evacuation of the center that the tournament announced it would initially be moving forward with finals. And it wasn’t until the pushback in the comments section on Instagram and the Dramatic Interpretation finalists protesting not to perform Thursday night, that the most recent decision was made. 

Kennedy Garvin, a qualifier in World Schools Debate, from Glacier High School, Montana, feels that the response could have been better catered to a community that has brought up this issue of gun violence in America multiple times on the national stage.

“I believe that the NSDA’s response was both inconsiderate and tone deaf,” Garvin said. “They attempted to tone down the incident and essentially mollify the traumatic nature of today’s events for their constituents. Continuing events after students thought they were going to die, is blatantly disrespectful and I was extremely disappointed in the NSDA for how unprofessionally this was handled. Additionally, I think the amount of terror all of us felt in that moment is being completely understated in both the media and by NSDA simply because he ‘didn’t actually have a weapon’, yet we all holistically believed he did for a solid 45 minutes before an email was sent out.”

Given the current verbiage of “no reported injuries,” the message getting through to students is not well received, leaving many with frustration at an organization that is supposed to ensure the safety of over 7,000 students for the duration of a week. 

Noor Sarwar of Blue Valley High School, competing in Original Oratory, was in the room as it happened and witnessed Roccaforte being tackled by an audience member, in the rush of panic after the perceived threats were made by Roccaforte. 

“I had gotten many bruises on my legs and stomach because I had fallen,” Sarwar said. “I know people who had concussions, gashes, broken bones [and] sprained limbs because of what happened. My friend had her face stepped on and you could see the shoe prints on her face. My teacher and I attempted to take another friend to a clinic nearby, but it was full.”

Sarwar was not alone in witnessing injuries at the tournament; multiple other students have come forward with wounds in the aftermath.

“I injured my knee during the stampede when a girl in front of me fell, I fell on top of her, and then someone fell on me,” Weimer said. “I landed full force on my left knee and have a [bruise]. I thought it was horrific how [NSDA] thinks we can just go about our day and act like nothing happened. There may not have been a gun or bomb, but there were people injured. Not only were people physically injured, but this will cause trauma to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who were at the event. How can you expect to have people perform on the very stage that you didn’t have secured the first time?” 

Mullins-Bell held a similar perspective, especially given the perception of the lack of accountability for the treatment of injuries that were both physical and mental. 

“My initial reaction was surprise,” Mullins-Bell said. “I mean, I knew immediately that their statements were either false or misleading regarding a threat and regarding injuries. People felt threatened for their lives, and the whole building was evacuated… Later, when [NSDA] announced that they were resuming finals, I felt like my trauma meant nothing. I was still fighting off a panic attack, despite having escaped to a hotel about 10 miles away. It was infuriating to me as it was to, I’m sure, many others.”

Why would you choose to vote for someone? Perhaps your candidate of choice has a great economic policy? Comprehensive plans of welfare? Ideas to expand latent proto-industries? The answer, no matter what it may be, stems from one fundamental assumption. What we know is the truth, and what we decide from that point, is the reflection of that known truth. The power is in our hands, the informed citizenry.

This belief in transparency eroded long ago when "necessary poisons" such as lobbying, donations and advertisements were introduced. This belief will only be crumpled further as we witness the rise of a new medium of sabotage–deepfakes. Picture Donald Trump's leaked audio recordings of a call he had with Putin hitting the headlines. Pictures of Trudeau's miffed expression after an awkward handshake. There is video and audio evidence, so it is a well-documented scene. Surely, it's true!

It may be quite harrowing to know that hundreds of such videos and audio clips proliferate the internet, waiting for a docile believer. Many have been doctored to assume an uncanny likeness of known political leaders, portraying them in a negative light.

A Slew Of Misinformation is Rightly Confusing

In Australia, we see ABC News Verify take A$100 and produce a convincing piece of misinformation about a Senator with ease. Early this year, we saw Rishi Sunak in the papers for allegedly promoting a scam platform. Even the dead are resurrected, with India's Tamil Nadu elections having mutliple voices of the past harshly critiquing incumbents. Their voices were rallying the people for a change, with sharp rhetoric and accusatory tones. How can our governments protect against such convincing footage in the era of virality and the politics of outrage?

Deepfake content preys upon a gap in the laws of intellectual property as there are few jurisdictions that protect one's image or voice. More so if the individual is meant to be in public discourse, such as a politician. To close this gap, we return to the coveted idea-expression dichotomy forming the foundation of the TRIPS agreement. Learned judges must proclaim what can or cannot be protected.

Current legal mechanisms are meant to protect original works of (human) authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This means they do not cover Deepfakes, given that they are intangible, abstract expressions made by a non-human.

Legal avenues for justice would be defamation, fraud, trademark infringement or matters of personal dignity. However, protections against Deepfakes falter here as defamation does not protect against false assertions (only allegations), and non-commercial deepfakes cannot be discussed under trademark infringement. Laws about likeness relate to commercial pictures and representation as opposed to one's personal image, and thus many can be left without recourse in the theatre of politics.

That being said, the law of Copyright may offer a solution, even if there is a clear human author requirement. This may be a point of deliberation for the future, as there have been numerous inquiries made as per the following:

• What is considered a high degree of human involvement to adjust and customize a computer programme? Is it then a Copyright work?
• What if an AI system could produce a highly unique image, one of a higher "quality" than that of a human work?
• What if an AI system produced an original work as the system designer used "non-disclosed pre-existing" content to train, and test the model?
• What would push AI-generated content to become copyrightable if all the above questions are unanswered? Could it simply be that arts and politics absorbed AI as the new norm and included it at all levels?

The last question may be the hardest to answer. Deepfakes may not be authored or a work yet, but they are the deliberate output of those who wish to sway the masses with the appropriation of one's likeness. There is a chance that these two statements could one day be synonymous in the courts. Hence, if any doctrine were to offer a solution, it would be that of Copyright and how one's voice image and reputation could be protected against unauthorized use.

It could be argued that such a solution, if viable, would still not be enough. On a large scale, AI disinformation through Deepfakes could mean going further than slander and discrediting. They could cause the dysfunction of democratic processes if the mechanism's integrity is doubted.

Democracy demands fair representation of the pressing issues and the seemingly innocent and evergreen candidates

With AI, many can rewrite history or edit, clip and lighten dark narratives.

Some are keen to wash their erring off their records, such as Prabowo and his 19 billion-views campaign on TikTok to turn him from the former faltering Special Forces commander to a warm Presidential leader.

Similarly, the Slovakian government was shocked to have its democracy's credibleness dashed when a top candidate was seemingly ousted for boasting about rigging the election.

It is crystal clear that the world is not ready for a direct assault on the character of political leaders through AI, much less one on the purposefully opaque workings of a democratic election.

In countries such as South Korea, Argentina, and Pakistan, political parties have deployed custom AI chatbots and even AI-generated video campaigns (such as for the imprisoned Imran Khan) to make information more accessible to voters. Such initiatives are framed as efforts to open up the political process by providing direct access to party messages and candidate platforms. Parties use AI-driven channels, and argue that they are fostering transparency, and not merely framing narratives. Is access to such material truly arming the citizen to be informed? This raises questions about the lines between information and influence, and how campaigns ought to be propagated.

Smear campaigns and urgent appeals for votes are increasingly amplified by AI in nations with unregulated AI use, targeting both young voters eager for digital engagement and older generations who may be swayed by persistent, personalised messaging.

When Trump lost in 2020, many were quick to claim that it was rigged against him, a sentiment echoed by Deepfakes. It is shocking that in one of the most diverse, educated and active democracies, there was so much pushback on the results of well-documented election. Perhaps more shocking was the released proof that Russia utilised Deepfake technology in what RAND called "sweeping and systematic fashion" to discredit Biden's win and cause inflammatory tensions between the Left and Right.

Though it was proven to happen, deniers persist till today. Many do not argue on the grounds of factual recall, but use this misinformation as grounds to harass, attack and prevent nonpartisan workers from doing their jobs. These include those who count the ballot, guide the voters and ensure fairness. It should not be acceptable to allow such roles to be questioned, all due to videos and quotes of unknown origination.

That's Strike 2 on democracy by AI. First attack the people, then the processes that elect them. What could Strike 3 be? Perhaps the deliberate manipulation of issues that concern the masses. It could be reasonable to suspect that AI can be used to produce content on social media platforms to incite rage, sadness and division to sow discord as opposed to letting people unite. This could mean that the political theatre had unwanted plots, with many real issues being overshadowed.

Could Strike 3 be affecting voter turnout? The Campaign Legal Center suggests that bad actors could misinform susceptible citizens about critical dates and places about the election, or even convince them their votes would be for naught. We already saw this in 2023, when the voters in New Hampshire's primary received calls from Robo-President Biden to "save" their vote for the November 2024 election.

Resolutions are coming

The Take It Down Act was a monumental win to stop Deepfake porn. Many were outraged to hear that women were being degraded online and justice was swift. Perhaps this protection could extend to reach our elections, to prevent and clamp down on fabricators. Disinformation already seeds itself in a society where there is lacking equal participation in voting. Voters of colour, minor religions and low socioeconomic status continue to face barriers to entry due to targeted attempts to control or sway their vote.

If authorities fail to act decisively, they risk allowing irreparable harm to their democracies, and in a world where information is wielded asymmetrically, the promise of equal liberties may become a missed relic of the past.

On Saturday, June 14, Americans in over 2,100 cities and towns across the United States came together with their communities and protested the growing contentious use of executive power. Although the slogan “No Kings’’ has become quite ubiquitous in the past week, the millions of Americans who marched the streets with messages on signs weren’t reviving a trend—they were voicing a political critique built on the pillars of fear, anger, and passion.

Why “No Kings” Hits a Nerve

Tapping into historical memory, the phrase “No Kings” serves as a reminder that America was founded in rebellion against monarchical power. To the millions of protesters who took to he streets on Saturday, the event was a stand against the undelivered promise of representation made by President Trump and the federal government. At the same time in D.C., the military parade celebrating the Army’s 250th birthday was set to take place. 

The demonstrations across the nation shed a bright light on the popular desire for a re-centering of values in a system that many believe is becoming authoritarian. Teachers, students, workers, and other civilians linked arms to emphasize their disapproval of the federal government in the form of a peaceful protest. 

Meanwhile, the very soldiers marching in the D.C. parade protested in the form of walking out of line, breaking protocol with President Trump watching. Their defiance, though brief, carried outsized symbolic weight—uniformed individuals rejecting the presence of state power directly in front of its highest power.

Taken together, the coordinated civilian protests and overt acts of dissent from within the military sent a clear message: distrust and discomfort was embedded across all sectors and demographics of American life. “No Kings” protestors reclaimed history with the fear of history repeating itself, demanding that a nation founded in resistance to authoritarianism truly live up to the value of being led by the people. 

How the Administration is Responding

The administration’s initial response to the protests was to frame them as “politically motivated disruption,” diverting any concerns of real systemic issues. Press briefings have been heavily scripted, with Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt following directives to a T. Police presence has substantially increased in states where these protests occurred, including in Utah where a fatal shooting occurred during one of the “No Kings” rallies. 

It is clear that the Trump administration is focused on more “pressing” issues such as the conflict in Iran—however, this dismissive attitude has turned off many of the administration’s very own supporters, including immigrants whose lives have been negatively impacted by ICE. Rather than open channels for dialogue, the administration has leaned into symbolism: American flags, military imagery, and calls for “restoring normalcy.” 

Well, who gets to define normalcy? The people feel as if that power is slipping away from them. The choices of the administration made under the overarching agendas have been a confirmation for many that President Trump is dangerously close to becoming a dictator figure, claiming exemption from constitutional precedent. 

The White House has yet to make any direct response to the “No Kings” protests through press briefings or public messaging channels, and this has been largely interpreted as a purposeful avoidance, designed to deny the demonstration legitimacy. 

In dodging the issue, the administration is becoming increasingly self-reliant in maintaining its agenda as public support takes a nosedive. In attempting to appear stable and composed, officials across the aisle have highlighted their own disregard for the concerns of Americans. And the result is a confirmation to the people of America that authority, that of the very people whom the people have elected, is no longer accountable, and resistance may be the only remaining resort for expression.

In a decision as groundbreaking as it was unanimous, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Ava Tharpe, a student with disabilities, in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court to determine the appropriate standard for proving disability discrimination in educational settings. The verdict? Students suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act no longer need to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” by school officials, a standard previously applied in the Eighth Circuit. 

This decision carries the long-awaited news that students with disabilities suing under these acts for educational discrimination should be held to the same standard as other individuals alleging disability discrimination, holding widespread implications in ensuring that such students have the same access to education as their peers, and that schools are held to the same standard.

The Unique Situation of Ava Tharpe

Ava Tharpe’s rare medical condition comes with a caveat: she can’t go to school in the morning. The Minnesota teenager, who suffers from a form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, experiences regular seizures that often worsen in the mornings, preventing her from safely attending school before noon. Consequently, Ava’s family requested accommodations for her illness from the Osseo Area school district in the form of a 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM school day. The school district denied the request.

What’s the IDEA, Osseo?

The family was shocked at the school district’s refusal. At their previous school in Kentucky, Ava had been given the accommodations, supplementing her education with at-home instruction when needed. However, the Osseo Area school district told the Tharpes that not only did state law not require them to modify Ava’s schedule, but their providing one student with accommodations would saddle teachers and school officials with a disproportionate “administrative burden.” 

Ava’s family refused to give up their fight. The Tharpes first filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law that entitles disabled students to education plans that suit their individual needs. Through IDEA, the Tharpes managed to increase Ava’s daily amount of schooling from 4.25 hours to 5.75 hours— a marked improvement, but still below the daily amount of schooling for non-disabled Osseo Area students, which is about 6.5 hours. 

The Tharpes subsequently utilized the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), both of which prohibit discrimination based on ability, to sue the school district for alleged discrimination against Ava. However, the Tharpes lost the suit when a trial court and, later, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in St. Louis held that Ava’s school officials did not act in “bad faith or gross misjudgment,” a previously established standard for school-related disability discrimination cases.

What Exactly Is the “Bad Faith or Gross Misjudgment” Standard?

At the heart of A.J.T. v. Osseo is a legal hurdle that traces back over four decades. In the 1982 case Monahan v. Nebraska, the Eighth Circuit Court established that, to prove discrimination in educational contexts under the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs had to demonstrate that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” That meant it wasn’t enough to demonstrate that a school failed to meet a student’s needs—families had to prove intent, or near-malicious neglect.

This standard stood in immense contrast to what courts generally require in other disability discrimination contexts, where a showing of “deliberate indifference” often suffices. Put into practice, Monahan made it exceptionally difficult for students like Ava Tharpe to succeed in court. School districts could evade any sort of accountability as long as they appeared to act in good faith, even if their decisions denied students with disabilities meaningful access to education. It was this crooked legal framework that the Tharpe family—and eventually the Supreme Court—would come to challenge.

From St. Louis to SCOTUS

While lower courts ruled against the Tharpes, the question arose, “Why is the burden of proof in cases like Ava’s so much higher than it is for other disability discrimination suits?” The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, allowing the 9 justices to review the lower courts’ decision. The Tharpes’ legal representation argued in front of SCOTUS that an “atextual rule” with no sound legal basis should not prevent students from receiving Rehabilitation Act or ADA benefits. Meanwhile, lawyers for the school district claimed that holding Ava’s school liable for discrimination would set a precedent that could upend “countless good-faith decisions by every public school in America.” 

Ultimately, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of the Tharpes. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion, holding that “ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.” Intentional discrimination, he wrote, “is satisfied by proof that the defendant acted with 'deliberate indifference’ rather than bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The higher burden of proof, which had imposed an unnecessary barrier upon students with disabilities and their families, became, through the SCOTUS ruling, a more equitable standard affirming the rights of disabled people in the US. 

Unanimous, But Not United

Though the ruling in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools was indeed unanimous, not all justices arrived at the same legal reasoning or agreed on what comes next.

On the right, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, filed a concurrence that demonstrated some reservations. While they did agree that the school district’s arguments were procedurally flawed in this case, they left the door open to revisiting how disability laws apply to schools in future litigation. Their message was as such: just because a school denies an accommodation doesn’t necessarily mean it has discriminated. That question, they suggested, is far from settled.

On the left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, alongside Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, pushed for a richer reading of disability law. They argued that requiring plaintiffs to prove “bad faith” would gut the very protections Congress intended. A failure to accommodate, they found, is discrimination—even without malice—and the law must reflect that reality. 

A Win for Families & a Warning from Schools

Aaron Tharpe, Ava’s father, stated that the outcome of the case is “bigger than [his] family” and equipped other families with “another tool that they can use to…fight for the right to access.” Disability rights advocates were also quick to celebrate the ruling: Shira Wakschlag, a representative from the disability advocacy group The Arc of the United States, asserted that “the very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line.” 

The ruling, however, does leave school districts uncertain about next steps. This decision will likely result in a wave of disability rights lawsuits for schools across the country, which officials worry will strain school resources and prevent students from receiving the quality instruction they deserve. 

As the aftermath of the A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools decision unfolds, school districts will doubtless have to perform a delicate dance between protecting disabled students’ place in the classroom and ensuring that their standard of education remains the best it can be.

Lowering Barriers and Raising Accountability

But the impact of A.J.T. v. Osseo extends far beyond a singular Minnesota school district. By pulling down the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, the Supreme Court evened the legal playing field for students with disabilities nationwide. Now, school districts can be held accountable under the same standard used in workplaces, public spaces, and other arenas of public life.

This decision isn’t to be taken lightly. It could open the door to a wave of new litigation, but advocates say that’s not a sign of excess—rather, it’s evidence that families now have access to justice they were once denied. More importantly, it shifts expectations: schools must now proactively ensure access, not just avoid harm.

For families? The ruling is a roadmap and long-awaited validation. For schools? It’s a wake-up call. The legal standard has changed—and so must the systems that serve millions of children who can’t afford to be treated as exceptions to the law.

In a striking move with far-reaching implications, the Trump administration has begun formal steps to dismantle federally funded mental health support for LGBTQ+ youth, proposing the elimination of “specialized services for LGBT youth” under the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and broader Behavioral Health Crisis Services, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees Letter. 

Two months ago, an early version of the president's budget was leaked by The Washington Post, showing plans to cut key mental health programs. Among them were services for LGBTQ+ youth through the 988 Lifeline, support for Certified Community Behavioral Health Centers, Assertive Community Treatment for people with serious mental illness, and grants that help families and individuals navigate mental health challenges. 

Yesterday, The Trevor Project, one of the prominent LGBTQ+ support organizations for 988, announced that the Trump Administration had notified them that their contract would be severed on July 17, 2025. 

If officially approved by Congress before the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, the proposed cuts could drastically alter the landscape of mental health care for at-risk LGBTQ+ youth in America, eliminating trusted, identity-affirming crisis support at a time when demand is only growing.

Cutting Ties By Cutting Contracts

On Oct. 17, 2020, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020 (Public Law 116-172) that designated 988 as the new national three-digit emergency number focused on suicide prevention and mental health crisis response. 

Within two years of its creation, the Department of Health and Human Services developed a strategy to provide access to competent, specialized services for high-risk populations such as LGBTQ+ youth, minorities, and individuals in rural communities with the integration of contractors and subcontractors in those specialized fields. 

The seven groups that provide 988 services to LGBTQ+ young people are:

• The Trevor Project, 
• Centerstone, 
• Volunteers of America Western Washington State, 
• Solari Crisis & Human Services, 
• CommUnity Crisis Services, 
• HopeLink Behavioral Health (formerly PRS)
• and La Frontera EMPACT. 

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 988 Lifeline Performance Metrics, as of Feb.1, the national 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline's LGBTQ+ Youth Specialized Services has received 1,284,075 contacts since its launch in July 2022. 

In a separate document from the one stated above, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a “FY 2026 Budget In Brief”, where the agency maintains that “HHS is committed to ensuring that individuals receive the care and support they need to lead healthy and productive lives. The budget maintains $520 million for the 988-Suicide and Crisis Lifeline to provide immediate access to mental and behavioral health services for people in crisis.”

However, it appears that the “assurance” of commitment comes with the assumption that any mental health crisis will be without any relation to an LGBTQ+ basis. 

The Demographic At Harm

The Trevor Project estimates that at least one LGBTQ+ youth (ages 13-24) attempts suicide every 45 seconds. It is a number that is expected to only shrink with the anticipation of eliminated resources in the US. 

“Suicide prevention is about risk, not identity. Ending the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline’s LGBTQ+ youth specialized services will not just strip away access from millions of LGBTQ+ kids and teens, it will put their lives at risk,” said Jaymes Black, CEO of The Trevor Project, in a news statement last month. “These programs were implemented to address a proven, unprecedented, and ongoing mental health crisis among our nation’s young people with strong bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself.”

A Looming Future 

The key component of this proposal is that it has yet to be approved by Congress, as is customary in the appropriations process. With FY 2026 coming soon, starting Oct. 1, 2025, a decision on funding will need to come before then. With only several months until that looming deadline, many organizations and public figures have come forward to publicly lobby Congress and urge their respective lawmakers to maintain funding for 988 caller support care. 

One such act is the Open Letter, endorsed by The Trevor Project, where celebrities like Eugene Lee Yang, Doechii, Pedro Pascal, Jamie Lee Curtis, and more voice their mutual support for protesting against the administration’s move to eliminate support for one of the most at-risk demographics in the nation. 

And more so, several senators have collaborated to write public letters to  Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, voicing their disagreement with President Trump's recommendations on discretionary funding altogether. 

Spearheaded by Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, the group of senators wrote, “Given the Administration has claimed addressing youth mental health as a priority, elimination of specialized services specifically designed for at-risk youth is irresponsible. We urge you to reconsider and support continued funding for the program.”

If these proposals are passed by Congress before the start of the next fiscal year, the future could look very different for at-risk youth in America.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently announced that in a 6-3 majority, they had made the decision to approve President Trump’s immigration policy of deporting detained immigrants to nations they do not originate from. The decision was the result of a multi-month legal battle between the administration and judicial system over the legality of the decision. Even the SCOTUS case itself saw heated debate, with the liberal Justices of the court strongly opposing Trump’s policy.

The issue itself first arose in February, earlier this year, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued internal guidance that immigrants could be deported to countries to which they had no previous ties if they feared persecution or torture in their home countries. This policy, commonly referred to as seeking a “safe third country,” has been American immigration policy in the past, but only with Canada. In other words, asylum seekers who had entered the U.S. could only be returned back to Canada, if applicable. However, under the new administration, the U.S. has reportedly been seeking deals with over 30 countries to accept detained immigrants, including both standard immigrants and asylum seekers.

One of the most well-known examples of such a country is El Salvador. In March, the U.S. deported 238 Venezuelan men to be incarcerated at a Salvadoran maximum security prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. The administration claimed that the men were deported due to affiliations with gangs, such as MS-13, although the decision was widely critized because the overwhelming majority of the deportees had no criminal record in the U.S., and several even had active asylum cases. For example, according to Lindsay Toczylowski, an attorney for one of the deportees named Andry Romero, Romero had no criminal record, and had fled his home country of Venezuela over fears of persecution over his homosexuality and political views.

This policy was challenged in April through an injunction by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who argued that the deportations, as in the case of the immigrants deported to CECOT, were conducted without due process. Specifically, Murphy required the administration to provide 10 days and a “meaningful opportunity” to express their opposition to deportation, and a further 15 days to reopen immigration proceedings if they felt their safety in the proposed third country hadn’t been sufficiently guaranteed.

However, this ruling was arguably violated by the Trump administration when it deported eight migrants to South Sudan, only one of whom was actually a South Sudanese citizen. The administration claimed the men were criminals, and that it had confirmed that the countries of origin of the seven migrants not from South Sudan had refused to accept them. However, the notice given to the migrants was criticized by District Judge Murphy as “hurried and confused.” Murphy followed up by urging the administration to observe due process, for example, by providing the migrants with a 72-hour notice prior to any interviews, by providing them with a lawyer and interpreter during said interviews, and by adhering to the guidelines he set in his initial injunction. Others have pointed out the fact that South Sudan is currently in a state of civil war, which contradicts the principle of conducting deportations to “safe third countries,” and calls into question the level of safety the administration can guarantee for the migrants.

However, the Supreme Court recently ruled on Monday, June 23rd, that the Trump administration could resume swift deportations to third countries, overruling Murphy’s decision. In other words, the administration is no longer required to provide migrants with adequate time to contest their deportation orders, and can conduct the deportations on their own schedule. While the court did not provide a formal explanation for the emergency ruling, the three liberal Justices on the court wrote their dissent. For instance, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her 19-page dissent that the decision was an “abuse” of power that was “rewarding lawlessness” and making migrants “vulnerable to torture or death” in dangerous countries. She also went on to slam the administration's prior defiance of Murphy’s injunction, claiming that “the government’s misconduct threatens [the rule of law] to its core.”

Meanwhile, the administration quickly voiced its support for the decision, with DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin saying that the decision means the government “can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.” She further commented, “Fire up the deportation planes.” The administration also began to retroactively apply the ruling to its South Sudan deportation. However, Murphy upheld his earlier ruling in this specific case, which Solicitor General John D. Sauer referred to as “unprecedented defiance.” In the context of this disagreement between Murphy’s court and the administration, it is still unclear whether or not the migrants, who are currently being held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, will be deported.

Only the coming weeks and months will be able to tell exactly to what extent the administration plans to utilize third-country deportations, as well as the level of legal legitimacy it can expect. However, the policy is undoubtedly a representation of the administration’s approach to immigration and emblematic of the legal troubles that have come about as a result.

Amidst record-breaking temperatures in New York City, hundreds of thousands headed out on Tuesday to cast their ranked-choice votes in the Democratic Mayoral Primary. The race between frontrunners Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo was expected to be extremely close. Despite this, Cuomo conceded within hours of counting, marking a decisive and influential win for Mamdani that may determine the future direction of a Democratic Party that’s been struggling with an internal identity crisis. 

The Two Frontrunners

Following his resignation as Governor, Andrew Cuomo was looking to make a political comeback as NYC Mayor. However, he resigned in 2021, after an investigation by the state’s attorney general found him responsible for sexually harassing at least 11 women. Cuomo was also under fire because his administration had concealed thousands of COVID-19 deaths among nursing home patients. His fall from grace marked the end of an era after being hailed nationally for his leadership during COVID and his work on infrastructure. Despite his scandal-filled past, 67-year-old Cuomo remained heavily favored amongst Democrats.

33-year-old New York state representative and democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani entered the crowded primary last fall, virtually unknown. A combination of effective marketing and campaigning fueled by viral videos, relatable interactions, and popular policies helped Mamdani skyrocket in the polls. By election day, the polls were split, predicting multiple rounds before a winner could be determined. 

Ranked-Choice Voting

New York’s ranked-choice voting system allows voters to rank up to five candidates in terms of preference. This creates a more complex ballot, but supporters of the system say it allows voters to express themselves more broadly. In the first round, only first choices are counted. If a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, they win the race immediately. If not, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is dropped, and those who ranked them first have their vote go to their second choice. This process continues until the candidate receiving the most votes wins. 

The polls closed Tuesday, June 24th, at 9 PM, and within hours, Mamdani not only took a dominant lead but forced Cuomo to concede. Unofficial results from the election “showed that Mamdani was ranked on more ballots than Cuomo” and was “listed as the second choice by tens of thousands of more voters than Cuomo.” 

Victory for Mamdani

Mamdani, the son of respected Columbia Professor Mahmood Mamdani and renowned Indian filmmaker Mira Nair, ran a platform driven by affordability and cost-of-living. He promised voters fare-free buses, rent freezes in stabilized units, and city-owned grocery stores -- focusing on low prices and a city ‘for the people’. Mamdani also promised free childcare for children 6 weeks to 5 years old and an increase in the production of “permanently affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes.” He plans to play for his proposals by increasing the corporate tax rate to 11.5% -- matching that of New Jersey -- and taxing those making over $1 million annually a flat 2%. 

Powered by 50,000 volunteers, his campaign boasted a large number of individual supporters and donations -- 20,000 compared to Cuomo’s less than 6,000. Mamdani’s social media presence was also crucial to his success. With over one million followers across TikTok and Instagram, Mamdani gained ground amongst young voters online. 

The race was watched closely by Democrats across the country: Mamdani’s win represents an emerging progressive bloc and ideological divide that challenges the party’s status quo. 

What’s Next for the Democrats?

Following Mamdani’s win, Senator Bernie Sanders -- a left-wing democrat who endorsed him -- said the “Democratic leadership is way out of touch.” 

The election outcome underscores a widening rift within the Democrat party, as moderates and progressives battle for the party’s direction. Mamdani’s win may say something about the type of leader Democrats are looking to take on Donald Trump and the GOP. 

When asked about the “establishment-oriented,” older Democrats, Sanders said “they have a lesson to learn.” He says the way forward is to support progressive candidates with strong grassroots movements. 

Many left-wing Democrats are recognizing this as a “wake-up call” for the party. Frank Luntz, a pollster, says grassroots Democrats want a “more ideological, confrontational approach to policy and politics.” Stephanie Taylor, from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, echoed this sentiment, saying the establishment “has actively worked to undermine and defeat some of our best and brightest and most charismatic for ideological reasons.” 

“Voters want to believe that you’re going to fight for them.” Quote from Stephanie Taylor, taken from BBC

For a Democratic party that failed to beat Trump, lost both chambers of Congress, and is facing a record-low approval rating of 29%, Mamdani is offering a path forward. His influence extends far past the city’s borders, reflecting a generational change and rejecting the Democratic Party establishment that has become complacent and out-of-touch with voters today.

In another controversial change to immigration procedures, the US State Department has announced that all foreigners applying for student visas will be required to unlock their social media accounts and change privacy settings to public for government review.

Students applying for F-1, F-2 (student), M-1 (vocational), and J-1 (exchange visitor) visas are all subject to this rule. Social media accounts such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and even LinkedIn from the past 5 years must be declared, and consulates have been told to screen for “hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.” The announcement continued, saying that “A U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right.” 

This move comes after the department suspended student visa processing in May, stating that it was a temporary move to prepare for new, more thorough processing and vetting procedures. Additionally, the Trump administration also recently had a public feud with Harvard University, asking them to limit their international student enrollment to 15%. The administration later revoked their ability to enroll international students, although this move was soon blocked by a federal judge. 

History of International Students in the United States

Since the 1950s, the number of international students in the United States has increased substantially, with the only dip occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Open Doors Report, international student enrollment in the United States hit an all-time high of 1,126,690 students in 2023-2024, a 6.6% increase from 2022-2023. Additionally, according to the State Department, in 2023, over 800k visas were issued across the three major visa categories impacted by this new requirement.

Furthermore, priorities for screening will be given to students who are attending colleges where international students make up less than 15% of the student body. An Associated Press analysis from 2023 found that foreign students make up more than 15% of the student body at nearly 200 US universities, most of which are private and include all eight Ivy League schools. When looking only at undergraduate students, foreign students make up more than 15% of the population at about 100 universities. This will cause delays in student enrollment at many of the major institutions in the US.

Consequences Beyond

This heavy impact on international students comes with its economic consequences. According to NAFSA, in the 2023-2024 school year, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported more than 378,000 jobs, with one new job being created for every three international students. With hindrances to these student’s admissions and future, their positive economic impact may be severely limited.

US higher-level institutions have long been known and lauded as institutions of great academic freedom and free speech, a reputation that is being impacted due to these new rules. Their uniqueness which makes them home to the top institutions in the world may be soon taken away.

Schools that rely on international students for tuition and social, academic, and cultural contributions will be hurt as well, impacting broader student culture across the United States, something that will leave lasting impacts.

Among the latest cuts to federal spending under the Trump administration is a desire to “phase out” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after hurricane season ends. 

Background 

FEMA’s purpose in the government is to support civilians and government responders in preparation and in the aftermath of hazards, such as natural disasters. The relief program was created under Jimmy Carter’s administration in 1979, although relief from disasters assisted by the federal government has been occurring since 1803, following a hazardous fire. Throughout time, FEMA has been a part of the Department of Homeland Security following the Bush administration. 

Ending FEMA 

Although FEMA assists in many domestic natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, Trump aims to end the federal program due to spending costs. In addition, the reasoning is a state versus federal government argument—where he argues that states can handle their own disasters instead of FEMA acting as disaster relief. Early June he stated, "We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level—a little bit like education, we're moving it back to the states," Trump said. Although the statement was made after hurricane season, effects are already taking place: 200 workers were fired from FEMA. Hurricane season is expected to last from June to November. 

Respondents 

It’s obvious and likely that ending FEMA would have effects that would make it difficult to recover from disasters. In addition, it has the potential to cost taxpayers more by suffering the ramifications of a disaster instead of pre-emptively fueling it. As a result, Craig Fugate who ran FEMA for eight years under Barack Obama says that completely abolishing the agencies isn’t possible for the president, although there are many areas of reform that are needed. Ultimately, he argues that FEMA is not insurance but rather disaster relief, which can help assist communities in times of emergencies. When asked, “When Trump says he’ll end FEMA, what do you think he means? Reforms like this, or blowing it up?” Fugate responded, “Who knows? Yet responding to disasters is the primary responsibility of states, not the federal government.” 

Insight and speculation 

Instead of seeing FEMA as mutually exclusive with state disaster relief, FEMA can be a tool used in cotangen with other agencies. The abolishment of FEMA is counterintuitive to the rising impacts of climate change. As wildfires blaze through the West Coast every summer, disaster preparedness becomes a more integrated and important aspect of tackling environmental issues than ever before. The human impact of weaning off a system designed to protect civilians should cause great alarm. While only marginal cuts have taken place, like Fugate said, who knows what the future may hold. 

The ongoing tensions between the United States and Iran have reached a dangerous new phase following a targeted American military strike on regional proximities within Iran. The strike, characterized by United States officials as a defensive action to mitigate Iranian action on developing nuclear weapons, has drawn a swift global reaction and sparked fears of a prolonged confrontation that could destabilize not only the Middle East but also the broader international order. While the US maintains that the strike was a preemptive and proportionate response to an imminent threat, other global powers fear that it could ignite a dangerous cycle of retaliation and deepen instability in international conflicts.

Military Posturing and Proxy Threats

Speaking from the White House, President Trump defended this strike as a “clear warning to the Iranian regime” and emphasized that the United States would not hesitate to defend American interests. He claims the operation targeted forces that were responsible for attacks on US personnel and embassies in the region, revealing the stark tension between the two nations. However, this mirrors the high stakes assassination of Iranian General Wassem Soleimani in 2020, a move that fostered a broader international conflict. Now, Trump’s hardline stance is raising fears that diplomacy has once again taken a back seat to military posturing. This is deemed as contradictory to the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons that this mission aims to minimize.

Iran has vowed “severe revenge”, raising the likelihood of proxy attacks across Iraq, Syria, and the Persian Gulf. Tehran has a well-established network of allied militias and proxy groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, which may be mobilized to target US assets, military bases, and allied infrastructure. This marks a new state of instability and tensions amongst the Middle East.

In anticipation of such actions, the Pentagon has placed additional forces on high alert, deploying missile defense systems and rerouting naval assets to the Gulf. American embassies across the Middle East have heightened security protocols, issuing emergency alerts to personnel and advising US citizens to evacuate or shelter in place. Military convoys in Iraq and Syria are now operating under blackout conditions as well as heightened surveillance on chokepoints like the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Now, diplomatic channels are further frayed. 

Iran Nuclear Deal Deadlock Deepens with International Fallout

Any hopes of salvaging the Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) has dimmed considerably. Trump’s previous withdrawal in 2018 combined with recent hostilities has made revitalization nearly impossible. The recent escalation, culminating in the targeted US strike, has further deepened mistrust and eliminated the political space for meaningful dialogue. The chances for diplomacy or policy will be difficult to maintain in the status quo. While European signatories such as France, Germany and the UK have aimed to preserve the deal through diplomatic backchannels, their influence has waned amid US hardline policies and Iran’s growing defiance.

In response to continued sanctions, Iran has gradually abandoned key commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Iran is now  enriching uranium at near weapons-grade levels, exceeding 60% purity and close to the 90% threshold needed for weapons grade material. Iran has also restricted various inspectors' access to key nuclear sites, raising serious concerns from countries in Europe as well as Israel about transparency and possible covert developments. With mutual hostility without a viable negotiation track in sight, the chances of reviving the treaty appear increasingly distant. Instead, the world now faces the dangerous prospect of an unchecked nuclear program in tandem with rising military confrontation, pushing Iran toward an unprecedented security crisis threatening millions.

Maritime Risks Drive Oil Price Volatility

Oil prices have spiked sharply amid mounting fears of maritime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital choke point through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. Any sustained conflict in this region threatens to block or severely restrict the movement of oil venders, and may disrupt supply chains through global energy markets. In fact, Brent crude surged past $100 per barrel following the US strike, while future markets are bracing for further volatility as Iran has hinted it may leverage its naval presence to disrupt shipping routes in retaliation. This disturbs geopolitical arrangements and innovation in both countries, worsening the possibility of transformation and development.

Humanitarian Fallout Looms

The uncertainty of the intention behind missiles may impose severe humanitarian consequences. International aid and relief organizations are preparing for a surge in displacement across Iraq, Syria, and Iran, regions already strained by years of conflict and environmental degradation. In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued an emergency alert, citing potential mass movements of civilians if border towns and urban centers become battlegrounds. Food insecurity, lack of medical access, and infrastructure breakdown are expected to intensify in vulnerable areas. This conflict has strayed from primarily affecting military battlegrounds, harming innocent civilians in the process. 

With Trump doubling down on military pressure and Iran pledging revenge, the risk of uncontrolled escalation is more immediate than at any other point in recent years. International diplomats are scrambling to establish efficient backchannel communications. However, with both American and Iranian leaders locked into confrontation, the chances for diplomacy are slim. The coming days will be critical: whether this moment becomes a revitalization of the 2020 conflict or a descent into a broader war will depend not only on Washington and Tehran, but on how decisively the world at large responds.

As the third anniversary of the overturning of Roe. v Wade approached last week, the implications of the 6-3 decision have yet to come to full fruition. However, the impacts of the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization are being felt by millions of Americans across the country.

Historical Context

In Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy implied in the 14th Amendment protected abortion as a fundamental right. For the next 50 years, the interpretation of this amendment granted women access to the medical procedure and notably, allowed for a “better chance” to combat the mortality rates from home abortions. 

In a study from 2015-2018, Tulane University found that “states with a higher score of abortion policy composite index had a 7% increase in total maternal mortality compared with states with lower abortion policy composite index.” The study went on to make the claim that states that required abortions to be performed by a licensed physician experienced a 51% increase in overall maternal mortality and a 35% increase in maternal deaths during pregnancy or within 42 days postpartum. Additionally, restrictions on state Medicaid funding for abortion were linked to a 29% rise in total maternal mortality.

However, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. And after fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health. But those exceptions were soon questioned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

Constitutional Right or Not?

Dobbs is arguably the first Supreme Court decision to revoke a previously recognized fundamental constitutional right officially. As seen in the last three years, abortion rights are now defined on a state-by-state basis and up to the interpretation of each legislative body. 

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, anti-abortion advocates have advanced state constitutional amendments declaring that nothing in the state constitution guarantees the right to abortion. Some of these efforts aim to overturn prior state court rulings that interpreted constitutional protections for abortion rights. In other cases, such amendments are preemptive, introduced in states where courts have not yet ruled on the issue. Conversely, several states have taken steps to safeguard or expand abortion access, including through constitutional amendments that explicitly enshrine those rights.

As of June 2025, 13 states have banned abortion outright, forcing people to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to access abortion care or to carry pregnancies against their will. But now, even in the states where abortion has been protected, centers and clinics are unable to meet the growing need for the procedures and are closing. 

The Overturn That Shook A Nation

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, I Need An A, which operates a website dedicated to providing information about abortion options, has tallied 105 clinics closing. 29 closures came in states where abortion is now banned at all stages of pregnancy. 11 were in states where it’s banned at about six weeks’ gestation, before many women realize they’re pregnant. But 65 of the closures were in other states.

A key factor to note in all of this is that not all private insurance plans include coverage for abortion services. While federal funds are prohibited from being used for abortions, some states use their own Medicaid funds to cover the procedure. Additionally, a network of private organizations helps fund abortions, including costs related to travel and other expenses.

First reported by AP News last year, in response to rising demand, the National Abortion Federation’s hotline fund reduced the share of clinic costs it covers for patients with financial needs, from 50% to 30%, to assist a greater number of people. The organization reports that average travel expenses now exceed $1,000 per person.

Just as Roe set off years of legal uncertainty over the precise boundaries of abortion rights, Dobbs has launched a long period of uncertainty over states’ power to restrict abortion in the absence of those rights. And now even in the states where abortion was thought to be a guaranteed right, the provided medical care might not be able to ensure that for much longer. 

However, on the opposite side of the aisle, many pro-life advocates are championing this ruling as a victory for the “unborn child” or “fetus” (New York Times journalist Kate Zernike debates the semantics of such terminology). 

A Victory for the Pro-Life Movement With Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) overturned, the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional framework that guaranteed abortion rights at the federal level. As established, abortion policy now falls to individual states, increasing the influence of pro‑life legislators and advocacy groups in shaping local laws. 

Under Republican presidents, especially President Trump, conservatives appointed Supreme Court justices like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. This aligned with the pro-life movement’s alleged main goal: securing a majority primed to rule against Roe. 

Now with that goal achieved, Planned Parenthood funding is to be cut substantially under the “Big, Beautiful Bill” based on the language. While not directly stating the organization's name, Nathaniel Weixel of The Hill makes the connection.

“The bill’s language doesn’t specifically mention Planned Parenthood; it prohibits clinics and providers that offer abortions from accepting Medicaid for the other family planning and reproductive health care services they provide.” 

As abortion care begins to be inaccessible in the United States for certain social classes, it will become something to observe in the coming months as the current administration makes its moves in all facets of American life. 

For the Trump Administration, July 4 didn’t just represent a national holiday—it was the day President Donald Trump finally signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a massive budget reconciliation bill, into law.

After requiring Vice President JD Vance to break a tie in the Senate with a vote of 51-50 on July 1, the bill finally passed the House of Representatives on July 3 with a vote of 218-214. The budget act, which has been in the works for months, contains major tax cuts, border security funding provisions, and reductions to healthcare and welfare programs.

“It’s the most popular bill ever signed in the history of our country—whether you’re military or anybody else—this is the single most popular bill ever signed,” Trump said at a White House military event on July 4. 

Despite Trump’s declaration of its popularity, though, the act has generated controversy among both Congress members and the public. Five Republican Congressmen ultimately voted against the bill, and several other reluctant members posed hurdles on the bill’s journey to the president’s desk. Friction among and within parties has made one of Congress’ only annual attempts at a budget reconciliation bill a contentious one.

Expanding National Debt: Fiscal Conservatism Clashes With The MAGA Agenda

While Trump has characterized the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as “everyone’s bill,” the division it has sowed has expanded beyond just partisan lines and into the GOP itself. Many fiscal conservatives have been quick to criticize the act for the $3.3 trillion it is projected to add to the federal deficit over the next decade.

“Although there were some conservative wins in the budget reconciliation bill (OBBBA), I voted ‘No’ on final passage because it will significantly increase U.S. budget deficits in the near term, negatively impacting all Americans through sustained inflation and high interest rates,” Thomas Massie, one of two Republican House members to vote against the bill, posted on X following its passage. 

The projected debt is largely caused by $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. The act will extend tax cuts imposed during Trump’s first term, which were set to end in December if the bill didn’t pass. Further tax cuts apply to tips and overtime pay, while the act also expands the cap on state and local deductions (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000. The House Ways and Means Committee estimates that the average American family will take home an additional $10,900 a year. The final version of the bill also includes staggered tax breaks for clean energy, which the original House bill had sought to exclude. The Ways and Means Committee has labeled the bill the “largest tax cut in American history.”

“For two years, the Ways and Means Committee has been preparing for this moment, and thanks to President Trump’s overwhelming victory in November, a historic, pro-growth, pro-America tax bill that delivers on the president’s promises to American workers and families will soon become law,” said Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith. “Permanency for the successful provisions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime pay, no tax on car loan interest, and tax relief for seniors, along with tax incentives that reward businesses who manufacture more in the U.S. and hire more American workers will soon usher in the Golden Age of America.”

Along with significant tax cuts, the act also includes provisions for $350 billion in spending directed towards strengthening border security, as well as $25 billion towards developing the Golden Dome missile defense system. Other funds are earmarked towards Pentagon defense development and other national security protection initiatives.

The Costs: Medicaid and SNAP

In order to offset new border security spending and reduced revenue from tax cuts, Republicans in Congress have turned to other programs to cut spending for—namely, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The act requires childless, able-bodied adults to work at least 80 hours per month to qualify for Medicaid, which could put over 12 million Americans in jeopardy of losing their healthcare. The final version of the bill further restricts Medicaid by lowering provider taxes, which help states fund the program’s costs. 

The act also provides reforms to SNAP by requiring states to contribute to the program, which has historically been fully funded by the federal government, and imposing similar work requirements for individuals who rely on the nutritional program. These changes won’t occur until 2028; however, the cuts to SNAP as well as Medicaid have already received considerable backlash.

“My vote against this bill stems primarily from the harmful impact it will have on Medicaid, affecting low-income families and rural health care providers like our hospitals and nursing homes,” Maine Senator Susan Collins, one of the three Senate Republicans to vote ‘no,’ wrote in a statement. 

Republican politicians have characterized the cuts as necessary to fund the bill’s other costs. Vice President JD Vance described border security as the government’s most important priority, writing on X that “everything else—the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions.”

How the people feel, though, is a different story. A June Pew Research Center poll indicated that 54% of Americans anticipate that the act will have a largely negative impact on the country, with just 30% predicting a positive effect. 47% expect to personally face negative impacts.

While thousands of families stand to benefit from the tax cuts, many others risk losing their healthcare or food security. Politicians themselves will likely also be affected by the success or fallout of one of the nation’s biggest budget reconciliation bills in recent years—with Congressional midterm elections just over a year away, political analysts are already making predictions about how the bill may impact Congress’ makeup. Whether the bill is “beautiful” is up to personal interpretation, but Republicans and Democrats alike agree that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act stands to have a big impact on the country.

On February 7, 2025, President Donald Trump took to social media platform Truth Social and disseminated a simple, three-word message: “BALANCED BUDGET!!! DJT.”

While the “Truth” may not contain much substance, it carries considerable weight regarding the future of the United States government’s spending priorities and national debt. Last achieved by former president Bill Clinton in 2001, the idea of a balanced budget has remained a fantasy among civilians, government officials, and fiscal conservatives; however, despite Trump’s promises, the complex financial priorities of Capitol Hill mean that achieving a balanced budget may continue to be merely a memory of the past.

Since the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, Trump has promised to cut “trillions of dollars” of “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the government. However, attempts to promote government efficiency have fallen short and have been minimized by plans for tax cuts and expensive defense initiatives. 

DOGE: From Trillions Promised to Just Billions Saved

First pitching the idea in September 2024, Trump has promoted the Department of Government Efficiency, a new federal initiative aimed at identifying and eliminating government waste, as a core component of his plan to minimize federal spending.

“In 2022, fraud and improper payments alone cost Americans an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars, but with our action plan, we will fully eliminate fraud and improper payments within six months,” Trump said in a speech before the Economic Club of New York in September following the endorsement of billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who initially proposed the idea. “This will save trillions of dollars. It’s massive. For the same service you have right now.”

However, six months into his term, DOGE has failed to cut the trillions Trump has promised—current reports by the agency place savings at $180 billion, with much of the cuts coming from programs like the U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Park Service, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as government grants for health and development initiatives.

Moreover, experts estimate that the Trump Administration has spent $200 billion within his first 100 days, a number that outpaces spending during the same period in nine out of the past ten years. Thus, despite limited progress by DOGE, the financial ambitions of Capitol Hill have minimized efforts thus far to make a significant dent on the national debt. 

The “Big, Beautiful Bill”: Spending Priorities Reevaluated

While federal spending in the first 100 days has been nearly unprecedented, efforts by the Trump Administration and Congress are setting the stage for future spending that could only distance policymakers from their goal of reducing the budget deficit. Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” signed into law by Trump on July 4, 2025, is poised to restructure the U.S.’s economy and welfare system. While the bill contains widespread cuts to Medicaid and restrictions to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), it also includes nearly $5 trillion in tax cuts and $350 billion in funding to border security; the Budget Lab at Yale notes that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” will “substantially add to the debt and deficit at the same time that it contains relatively few investment-incentivizing provisions.”

While the bill may align with Trump’s promises to strengthen border security and cut taxes, it deviates significantly from his pledge to improve the economy and balance the budget. This was reflected in the dissent among his own party when it came to garnering enough votes to pass it; the vote passed 51-50 in the Senate, requiring vice president JD Vance to step in to break a tie despite the Republican majority, and it passed in the House in a close vote of 218-214. 

“What do I tell 663,000 people in two years, three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore?” asked Senator Thom Tillis, one of three Republican Senators to vote against the bill, on the Senate floor.

Tillis’ question echoes the dilemma that dozens of other Republicans who have pledged not to touch Medicaid faced: what’s more important to Republicans on Capitol Hill—preserving key welfare services with the risk of alienating themselves from the GOP base, or breaking promises to constituents and following Trump’s shifting financial priorities in order to remain loyal to their party?

From Social Programs to Parades: What Government Spending is Justifiable?

Despite proposed cuts to social welfare programs that Trump has justified as necessary to save money, he hasn’t been as frugal with other forms of spending. On June 14, 2025, the federal government spent an estimated $25-45 million on a parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. This was the first military parade that has been hosted since 1991. The event also coincided with Trump’s birthday.

While the parade drew widespread dissent in a larger wave of “No Kings” protests that swept across the country, it also served to draw attention to a larger pattern of contradiction among the Trump Administration’s spending priorities. While he has cruised into the presidency with the promise of cutting government waste and has been quick to apply this argument to programs like Medicaid and agencies like the Department of Education, President Trump also didn’t hesitate to spend millions of dollars on a parade involving over 6,500 military personnel and dozens of pieces of military equipment.

From pledges to balance the budget that aren’t reflected in his budgeting plans to money that is spent on patriotic displays instead of welfare programs, Trump’s rhetoric and actions surrounding government spending have presented a murky image of what the federal government truly prioritizes. With current legislative efforts poised to set the U.S. further off track from these goals, Trump risks not just alienating liberals and independents but potentially his own base of supporters amidst unexpected social and economic costs.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill,” or rather, as many Democratic lawmakers have called it, the “One Big Betrayal of a Bill” has garnered significant outrage at many of its provisions. Unfortunately, a recent proposal on the BBB, or H.R. 1, to sell some 3 million acres of public land has been consistent with that precedent. 

The original bill was introduced on May 16th of this year, but it has gone through significant revisions since then. Under the current version of the republican bill, around 3 million acres of public land would go up for sale across 11 states, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Conservationists and congressmen have been engaged in a heated debate about the provision for over a week, and with concerns about the legality of many proposals within the bill in accordance with the Senate ruling, how will the national monuments and protected land that so many citizens cherish fare?

The Draft Provision

The provision was introduced by Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, who currently chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The legislation targets federally owned land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service. Republicans have stated that the goal of the provision is to cede federal lands to local control and create more space for industrial and housing developments, helping to ease the U.S. housing crisis in the long run. Sen. Lee has also stated that the bill would have numerous extraneous benefits, including the increase of domestic energy production and the creation of new revenue streams. In response to criticisms about the land being sold, Sen. Lee has also stated that they would only target “isolated parcels” that could be used for housing or infrastructure. Montana Republican Congressman Ryan Zinke led opposition on the House side, and as a result, Montana was removed from the proposal.

The Conservationist View

Though the bill is touted as an economically efficient solution by Republican congressmen and congresswomen, conservationists and environmentalists alike have brought up countless criticisms of the controversial provision. A study by the Wilderness Society has found that, in contrast to the conservative 3 million acres originally confirmed to go up for sale, the proposal could put over 250 million acres currently under the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service at risk. This is thanks to updated bill text that was leaked on June 14th, which also appears to allow the sale of lands with grazing permits, which had been exempted previously, and could seriously detriment local farmers. This new data makes it clear that this bill could lead to the mass privatization of wildlife habitats and outdoor recreation areas alike. Micheal Carrol with the Wilderness Society said, “Shoving the sale of public lands back into the budget reconciliation bill, all to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, is a betrayal of future generations and folks on both sides of the aisle.” Additionally, Colin Deverell, the associate director for the northwest region of the National Parks Conservation Association, said that “These lands would be put up to sale to the highest bidder with zero community input." 

The Byrd Rule

The Byrd Rule Point of Order was passed with Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It basically requires that reconciliation bills in the Senate remain focused on fiscal issues, subjecting non budgetary provisions to a point of order. It was meant to prevent extraneous provisions that don’t directly affect federal spending from sneaking their way into big bills such as this one. The Byrd Rule only applies in the Senate, and the House does not have any such rule. A Point of Order can be raised against any one or multiple provisions. Now, this specific provision most likely follows the Byrd Rule, due to its clear framing towards raising revenue, but there are many other provisions within the bill that may violate Byrd’s Rule. This includes the Executive reorganization plans, the bonuses for cost cutters, as well as the loss of civil service protections for new federal employees. Due to the variable legality around these other proposals, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” still has a ways to go before it can pass through the Senate. That time might be exactly what opposing congresspeople and conservationists need to reach the general public and prune this provision as well.

Whether public land will be sold, we have yet to see; but conservationists will never stop fighting from sea to shining sea.

On July 4th 2025, the United States government approved the “Big Beautiful Bill” - a sweeping budget package that, among other things, substantially increases funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill allocates $75 billion to ICE over the next several years, including $45 billion earmarked for expanding detention bed capacity alone. This massive funding increase reveals America’s immigration priorities. The consequences are severe. 

At its core, this funding increase represents a commitment to punitive enforcement mechanisms that prioritize detention over humane immigration reform. It is morally questionable and a flawed investment that threatens the civil rights of humans and props up an abusive immigration system. 

Prior to 2025, ICE’s annual budget hovered around $8 to $9 billion. The new bill more than triples that amount, funneling tens of billions into detentions, deportations, and enforcement. The legislation authorizes over 100,000 detention beds, more than doubling the current capacity of about 41,500. 

The expansion heavily benefits private prison corporations like GEO Group and CoreCivic, which stand to receive lucrative no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars. These companies profit from immigrants being held captive, creating perverse incentives to increase detention populations. 

Conditions in ICE detention centers are already egregious. Overcrowding, medical neglect, solitary confinement, and family separations are rampant. The year 2024 alone has seen at least 10 deaths in ICE custody, many in private detention centers where oversight is lacking. Expanding this system will multiply these abuses. 

In addition, legal due process is routinely denied. Thousands of immigrants, including asylum seekers and legal residents, are held without access to counsel or timely hearings. . Even US citizens have been wrongfully detained due to ICE database errors - nearly 1,500 cases documented between 2012 and 2018. Expanding detention only increases the likelihood that rights will be violated and innocent people punished. The government doubling down on treating immigrants as criminals rather than individuals with legal rights will tarnish America’s moral standing. 

Supporters claim that increased ICE funding enhances public safety and deters unauthorized migration. However, research consistently shows immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native born Americans. Moreover, harsh enforcement fails to address the root causes of migration such as poverty and violence in the migrants’ home countries. The policy instead fosters fear among immigrant communities, weakening cooperation with law enforcement. 

The budget also fails to address the overwhelmed immigration court system. Despite record asylum backlogs, funding for immigration judges remains insufficient, which extends the detention time of immigrants. 

Community based Alternatives to Detention (ATD) demonstrate that more humane and fiscally effective strategies are available. ATD programs, such as check-ins and electronic monitoring, achieve over 90% compliance at a fraction of detention costs, roughly $8-14 per day compared to ICE’s $165 per detainee per day. 

Directing funds toward immigration court improvements and legal aid would respect the dignity of the migrants while improving both efficiency and public trust. 

“The Big Beautiful Bill” is a political statement. It declares that America’s response to migration will be control and force, not fairness. It diverts national resources toward expanding a system that has already proven itself to be cruel and counterproductive. 

It is imperative that Congress reexamine and reverse this funding increase. Investing in alternatives that respect human rights, save money, and achieve better outcomes is not only possible, but urgent. 

President Donald Trump’s push to reduce the population of undocumented immigrants in the United States has materialized in multiple initiatives, from plans to build a wall along the United States-Mexico border to the mobilization of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to identify and take custody of migrants currently in the U.S. In his newest efforts to secure the border, though, he has come to rely on a different group—the military.

Thanks to Executive Order 14167, the U.S. military has taken control of public lands along the U.S.-Mexico border. A recent expansion of these efforts means that one-third of the border will soon be represented by militarized National Defense Areas. Earlier efforts to militarize the border began in April, and by May 1, the U.S. military had taken control of over 230 miles of public land in New Mexico and Texas. Now, the military plans to militarize an additional 250 miles of land along the border, which will serve as an extension of Joint Base San Antonio, a group of three separate Texas military bases. Plans also include militarizing parts of the Arizona border.

“Our southern border is under attack from a variety of threats. The complexity of the current situation requires that our military take a more direct role in securing our southern border than in the recent past,” Trump wrote in an April 11 presidential memorandum.

While some farmers and ranchers have applauded the efforts, the increased role of the U.S. military has drawn criticism from civil rights advocates, hunters, and users of public lands, as well as legal experts.

Impacts of National Defense Areas: Consequences and Controversy

Not only do the National Defense Areas increase oversight of the U.S.-Mexico border, but they also allow immigrants who enter the country illegally to face federal trespassing charges. Along with a typical six-month sentence for illegal entry, undocumented immigrants could face up to an additional 18 months if caught in the new militarized zones.

However, it’s not just undocumented immigrants who could face consequences for trespassing—anybody who crosses into the militarized zones with unauthorized entry could be stopped and potentially detained by armed forces.

“Let me be clear: if you cross into the National Defense Area, you will be charged to the FULLEST extent of the law,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on social media. “Just ask the 100 illegal aliens that have been charged so far.”

Since May, the number of migrants who have been charged for trespassing over federal lands has risen to over 1,400, the Associated Press reports. The implementation of the militarized zones has received mixed reactions from Texas and New Mexico natives, many of whom are directly impacted by the National Defense Areas and the migrant community. Many rural farmers and residents support border security efforts. Still, others worry about the restrictions that militarized zones could impose on hunters, hikers, and seasonal laborers who regularly use the land recreationally or cross the border.

Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration: Legal Loopholes

While some have been quick to criticize the implementation of the militarized zones, they are the key to a legal loophole that allows the military to play an active role in monitoring the border. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement on U.S. soil; however, the creation of the National Defense Areas has allowed the Trump Administration to sidestep the law.

Typically, the seizure of federal lands for military purposes also requires Congressional approval. Still, by declaring a national emergency at the southern border, the Trump Administration has been able to bypass it. While a judge has yet to rule on the creation of the National Defense Areas, civil rights groups and local attorneys have been quick to question their legality.

“The expansion of military detention powers in the ‘New Mexico National Defense Area’—also known as the ‘border buffer zone’—represents a dangerous erosion of the constitutional principle that the military should not be policing civilians….We don't want militarized zones where border residents—including U.S. citizens—face potential prosecution simply for being in the wrong place,” said Rebecca Sheff, a senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico.

As legal challenges and criticism mount, it’s only a matter of time before judicial proceedings shift from local efforts surrounding individual cases to federal rulings on the legality of the National Defense Areas as a whole. These decisions are as much a check or boost to Trump’s border security efforts as a commentary on his executive powers as a whole. If the National Defense Areas are upheld as constitutional in court, so will Trump’s efforts to subvert traditional legal processes, such as seeking Congressional approval when pursuing executive action—and it’s this precedent that will ultimately define the rest of his presidency and future executive efforts going forward.

TikTok’s future in the United States could soon be decided as President Donald Trump announced that talks with China to force a sale of the app’s American operations are set to begin, claiming the deal is “pretty much done.” The statement comes as a final September deadline nears for TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest the app or face a nationwide ban. The high-stakes negotiations that have been going on reflect growing tension between prioritizing the safety and security of American citizens and preserving one of America’s largest social media communities.

The Long Fight Over TikTok

This isn’t Trump’s first attempt to break up TikTok. Back in 2020, he signed an executive order to ban the app unless it was sold to a U.S. company. However, this plan eventually fell apart in court. The issue resurfaced last year when former President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in April 2024, giving ByteDance until January 2025 to sell or shut down TikTok in the U.S.

After legal fights and political pressure, Trump extended the divestment deadline twice, with the most recent deadline extending to September 17, 2025. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that talks with Beijing will start “this week or next,” adding that “the deal is good for China and it’s good for [U.S.].” 

Who Might Buy TikTok?

So far, no official buyer has been confirmed, but Trump hinted that “very wealthy people” are lined up and ready. Possible bidders include Oracle, which tried to buy TikTok in 2020, and big tech names like Microsoft. Reports also suggest that private investors are exploring consortium bids.

However, the biggest sticking point in this entire sale process is TikTok’s secret recommendation algorithm, which is the powerful code that makes the app’s “For You” page so addictive. China has strict export rules that explicitly block ByteDance from simply handing over that technology without Beijing’s sign-off, and Beijing has refused to do this before.

TikTok’s Back-Up Plan: M2

To solve the problems at hand, TikTok is working on a plan to launch a U.S.-only version called M2, which would run on a separate algorithm trained entirely on American data. The new app could go live as early as September, which is just before the divestment deadline, giving the U.S. more control over user data and security.

In theory, ByteDance could then sell M2’s U.S. business to a local owner while keeping its main global tech in China, which is a workaround designed to satisfy both U.S. national security rules and Chinese export controls.

National Security and Free Speech Clash

Supporters of the forced sale argue that TikTok poses a serious national security risk because of ByteDance’s ties to Beijing. They warn that Chinese authorities could demand access to American user data or manipulate content to sway public opinion.

But critics, including the ACLU, say banning or forcing a sale would violate free speech rights and hurt millions of American creators and small businesses that rely on TikTok every day.

In addition, whether a sale goes through or not, any deal must also pass review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

What Could Be Next?

ByteDance is also suing the U.S. government to stop the forced divestment, arguing the new law unfairly targets one company and violates the First Amendment. Meanwhile, Trump says he’s willing to personally negotiate with China to finalize the plan.

With a final deadline just two months away, the next few weeks could decide whether TikTok’s U.S. feed stays open, or whether one of America’s biggest social platforms disappears for good.

Its potential risks are still under deliberation. However, with the risk of stable totalitarianism growing due to the rapid development of AI (rough calculations by 80000 Hours estimate the possibility of “entrenchment” due to AI at ~25%) digging deep into both the when and the why behind the movement is crucial for preventing authoritarianism before it can take root in our governments.

The origins

“You ask (...) for some Noah Chomsky. What you’ll get is blue pills soaked in Red #3.” The blog Unqualified Reservations, started by Curtis Yarvin or “Mencius Moldbug” in 2007, promised the truth and only the truth. The epistemic approach was further propped up by the writer’s encouragement to “add your own salt” – bring your preexisting beliefs and question everything stated. Most importantly, it gave the reader agency – a phenomenon in dire scarcity among citizens left disgruntled by the ongoing Iraq War, the rising number of draftee casualties only leading to dropping approval ratings year after year – from a 75% approval rating in 2003 to 41% four years later in April (Gallup), when the first blog post appeared on the internet. Yarvin fed off the feelings of complacency. His early blog posts advocated for replacing democracy with a corporate state, where power would flow not from the people, but from formal ownership. Later writings veered toward “scientific racism” and thinly veiled authoritarianism. To Yarvin, democracy was a decaying symbolic theater, his beliefs mimicking the likes of Nietzsche and his skepticism of herd morality and mass opinion. Instead, he wanted to run the U.S. government like a machine – clarity over fairness, formal ownership, and minimizing violence through rule. The Dark Enlightenment is the very antithesis to the 18th-century Enlightenment, abandoning secular optimism in favor of neo-monarchist realism.

The movement was never meant to go viral. Despite being picked up by niche subcultures on Reddit and 4chan, its ideal citizen is not the average voter but the hyper-rational elite—those who feel alienated by mass politics and disillusioned by democratic drift. As Yarvin put it, the movement was designed “by geeks for other geeks.” The “Dark Enlightenment” left the average person powerless, instead fitting under the “submission” of the dominance/submission dichotomy. But fringe ideas don’t need mass appeal to wield power; they just need elite adoption. 

Peter Thiel, one of Silicon Valley’s most influential figures, has long criticized democracy as incompatible with freedom. Through Founders Fund, he invested in Urbit, Yarvin’s personal server platform. Yarvin, in turn, has acknowledged privately coaching Thiel. Vice President JD Vance, similarly backed by Thiel, "has cited Yarvin as an influence himself". Meanwhile, in 2023, the venture capitalist Marc Andreseen released the essay “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” that advocates for accelerationism and rejects political polarization, mimicking Yarvin’s rationalist rhetoric. 

And yet, despite the stated rejection of the polarities of politics, it’s hard to argue for the movement’s apoliticism. After all, can any set of beliefs be deemed apolitical if it includes guidance for redesigning governance top-down and permeates the complex web of those who yield the power and money to govern? The Dark Enlightenment, first and foremost, calls for a “reordering” of power and abolishment of chaos they assume to be associated with democracy. But is any order better than the alternative?

Why now? 

The Dark Enlightment emerged in a post-Iraq vacuum, but its relevance surged after three converging shocks:

The 2008 financial crisis. Caused by, in part, financial deregulation along with a variety of other factors, the 2008 crisis led to millions losing jobs and savings, government budgets being slashed to compensate, and the subsequent underfunding of social services. For many, it exposed democracy as a tool for corporate capture rather than citizen accountability. 

COVID-19 pandemic. From supply chain breakdowns to chaotic school closures to conflicting advice from scientists and officials, the pandemic only amplified pre-existing mistrust in public institutions. The world was unprepared. And the citizens noticed.

AI + crypto boom. As Artificial Intelligence and blockchain took off in the 2010s and 2020s, some began to imagine an entirely new system. Crypto offered alternatives to national currencies. AI promised governance by hyper-rational systems rather than flawed humans. Movements like the “Network State” – “(...) online community (...) that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition (...)” advocated for abandoning fixing broken democracies and building entirely new nations. Many became convinced a restructuring was necessary.

What’s at stake

In 2022, Yarvin laid out a plan he called RAGE: Retire All Government Employees. He believed that a future Trump administration should terminate the entire nonpolitical civil service and replace it with loyalists. Federal funds would be impounded and redirected. If courts blocked unconstitutional orders, they should be ignored. By April of the inaugural year, Yarvin argued, the free press and universities must be curtailed or abolished outright.

The parallels to real life are clear. Over 30,000 federal employers – from the National Park Service to the FDA have been fired as part of DOGE’s efforts to maximize government efficiency. Donald Trump’s portrayal of himself as a “king” on his platform Truth Social mimics the pursuit of “monarchy” described by Yarvin. 

Yarvin once declared that “no brand or building can survive,” mirroring Silicon Valley’s ethos to “move fast and break things.” But what’s being built in place of broken systems increasingly looks like the very “tech elite rule” “Moldbug” calls for. And if, as the Futurist Marinetti once said, “War is the hygiene of the world,” then what we’re seeing now may not be just an ideology, but preparation for a new order.

I. Historical Trajectory: Retrenchment and Resurgence

To comprehend the contemporary moment, one must situate it within the broader arc of American capital punishment. In 1999, the United States held the highest number of executions in its history with a peak of 98 due to the law and order politics of the 1990’s. However as there were massive shifts in public sentiment due to the advent of DNA exonerations, lethal injection drug shortages, and heightened scrutiny of procedural fairness, a new era of retrenchment was ushered in across the ensuing two decades. From 2015 to 2022, annual executions never exceeded 30, and in 2021, the country recorded 11 executions, its lowest total in modern history (DPIC, 2025).

Beginning in 2023, a slow reversal emerged: executions rose to 24 that year, in 2024 executions increased slowly to 25, and now in 2025 stand at 26, a 10-year high, with 9 more scheduled before the year’s end (RBC Ukraine, 2025). These cases stem not from a new wave of capital convictions but rather from the procedural and appellate exhaustion of legacy cases that involve individuals who have been on death row for decades, supplying the personnel for this recent increase.

II. Legal Infrastructure and Doctrinal Drift

A shifting legal environment that has narrowed the scope of judicial intervention and recalibrated procedural requirements is the direct cause of the recent uptick in executions observed over the last three years. At the federal level, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld state protocols for lethal injection over the past decade, as seen in Glossip v. Gross (2015), and has raised the evidentiary threshold for obtaining stays based on Eighth Amendment claims. The Roberts-led Court has developed an increasingly formalist approach, with the development of a strong conservative bloc effectively immunizing state practices from robust constitutional challenges, thereby fostering a jurisprudence of deferential finality.

At the state level, a series of legislative innovations have directly facilitated executions. Foremost among these is the expansion of permissible methods of execution. In response to pharmaceutical unavailability, states such as Alabama and South Carolina have codified alternative techniques of nitrogen hypoxia and firing squad, respectively. Alabama implemented nitrogen hypoxia for the first time in U.S. history in 2023, and Louisiana followed suit in 2025 after a 15-year hiatus. South Carolina’s 2025 firing squad execution, the first since 2010, was likewise a result of legal authorization enacted in 2021.

Additionally, procedural modifications have facilitated greater logistical certainty. Alabama’s state supreme court, for example, removed the statutory requirement that executions be completed before midnight on the designated day, permitting an extended window for carrying out capital punishment and reducing cancellations due to technical delays. 

III. Executive Politics and the Rescaling of Federal Involvement

At the national level, the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in January 2025 has catalyzed a reassertion of federal commitment to the death penalty. An executive order issued in his first week reinstated support for federal executions and pledged logistical assistance to states in obtaining lethal substances (The Marshall Project, 2025). The order also directed the Department of Justice to pursue capital sentences in federal cases involving the murder of law enforcement personnel or undocumented immigrants, framing capital punishment as both a crime deterrent and a mechanism of sovereign authority.

This executive realignment contrasts sharply with the Biden administration’s late-2024 decision to commute 37 federal death sentences, effectively emptying the federal execution pipeline. Trump’s policy, by contrast, signals a rescaling of federal involvement not seen since the 2020 executions conducted in the final months of his previous term.

IV. Social Legitimacy and the Reproduction of Penal Norms

Despite modest national declines in support for the death penalty with Gallup polls from late 2024 reporting that holistically, only 53% of Americans were in favor of applying the death penalty for convicted murderers (Gallup, 2024). The practice remains widely legitimate in execution-heavy states. Indeed, the sociological underpinnings of capital punishment appear largely intact where executions continue. These include discourses that maintain traction in conservative jurisdictions specifically appealing to victims' rights, emotional closure, and public retribution

Media narratives have contributed to this stability. While coverage of executions has diminished nationally, state and local outlets often reinforce the normative acceptability of executions, particularly when the condemned individual has been thoroughly dehumanized or convicted of especially heinous crimes. For instance, the 2025 execution in Indiana of a man who killed a police officer proceeded with minimal public outcry after a 15-year hiatus, mainly due to the public's enduring sympathy for law enforcement victims (CNN News, 2025).

Moreover, anti-death-penalty activism has not effectively mobilized around the 2025 executions, in part because none have involved credible innocence claims or procedural irregularities. In the absence of such galvanizing injustices, the death penalty is applied with little to no resistance further entrenching its administrative normalization.

Conclusion

The surge in executions in 2025 is best understood not as a pendular swing but as a case of punitive path dependency, wherein legal precedent, political will, bureaucratic expertise, and localized social legitimacy converge to sustain and escalate the practice of executions. In this sense, the current moment invites a reexamination of the structural entrenchments that enable capital punishment to endure, even as it recedes from the majority of jurisdictions.

In an unexpected move, Elon Musk announced that he is launching a new political party, the America Party, weeks after a public falling out with President Donald Trump. He announced on X that he has established the America Party as a direct challenge to the existing two-party system, following a poll he posted on the platform asking users if there should be a new political party in the US. 

The possibility of creating a full-fledged new party has intrigued many, although questions about its practicality remain. There is a wide range and variety of state laws governing the presence of political parties on ballots, resulting in a time-consuming and intensely fraught process. To just be recognized by the state, his new party will have to register or submit signatures from thousands of voters. To gain federal recognition, the party would have to gain an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission.  

In addition, his efforts would face significant pushback from both the Democratic and Republican parties, including struggles to gain signatures and meet primary requirements. In the face of all these challenges, the question of the party's vitality remains.

Political Strategy?

Musk’s recent feud with the President came after the passage of the Big, Beautiful Bill (now signed into law). Elon Musk was recruited by President Donald Trump’s campaign to spearhead DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. Their goal is to reduce government spending and increase government efficiency within the federal government, with a targeted goal of cutting $2 trillion in spending. Once President Trump was inaugurated, their mission began with massive federal layoffs aimed at improving efficiency, including the elimination of entire agencies like USAID. He later reduced his goal to $1 trillion, and once this was met, he exited the agency, deeming his mission complete. However, then came the Big, Beautiful Bill. 

It challenged everything Musk had worked for with his agency, and the feud began. Blows were exchanged on both ends, and the culmination was the announcement of the American Party. 

This announcement sets in stone what Musk has been saying for the past few weeks: Musk’s official separation from the Republican Party. This is a massive move because Musk was Trump’s key financial backer, contributing $250 million to his reelection campaign. The consequences of this will impact the Republican Party's funding majorly in the future. 

Additionally, Musk (who is a naturalized U.S. citizen) said that he created his party not to run for President, but rather to concentrate on key House and Senate seats that will have the power to wield legislative influence and be the deciding votes on key decisions. Following the events with the Big, Beautiful Bill, this serves as a failsafe when party allegiances play a significant role in making important decisions.

New Bearings?

On the other hand, the creation of a third party addresses a huge gap in American political representation. According to Musk’s X tweet and poll, people wanted a new political party by a “factor of 2 to 1”. Additionally, a survey from the Pew Research Center found that 37% of Americans wish there were more political parties to choose from. Musk’s new party may fill this gap for many Americans. 

His policy of reduced federal spending appeals to many, and a key factor that may play a significant role in his success is the funding source his party has, leveraging his expansive wealth. Many third parties often struggle to compete with the two major parties, and funding plays a significant role in this. Musk’s party has already overcome that first hurdle, making his chances of success that much higher. His existing influence in both American politics and the economy will only support him in his mission.

His mission to remove party influence from major decisions is what many may consider noble and may appeal to many Americans looking for alternatives. It may be the bearing of something new, a third option for those who have felt slighted or misrepresented.

What this party will turn out to be is still to be seen, but for now, it remains something to watch out for.

The second-largest electric vehicle American manufacturer, Tesla, has been embroiled in multiple controversies over the past few years. However, the recent Tesla lawsuit may have a significant impact on both the company and the entire automotive industry. The Florida-based lawsuit began when George McGee, the owner of a Tesla vehicle, hit and killed someone with his car in 2019. McGee argues that the Autopilot system of the car should have been able to apply the brakes after it crossed a red light and a T-intersection at 117 kilometers per hour.

The history and its consequences

Tesla has been credited with revolutionizing the automobile industry. With its sustainable energy mission, record-setting engineering advancements and ground-breaking innovation, the number of lawsuits Tesla has faced can change the face of the electric vehicle industry. 

Tesla has created a reputation of trustworthiness, frequently advertising the safety of its cars. In its safety report, Tesla has termed itself “the safest car in the world.” This lawsuit, however, might just prove what hundreds of others have sued for: Tesla exaggerates its capabilities. To provide a brief background, multiple investigations have taken place to look into the strong claims made. Tesla has argued that it has prevented deaths and promoted safe driving. Furthermore, on its website, it mentions that for the car to work to its full potential, the driver must be attentive while driving. This is a weak argument, as a rational driver with a peaceful mind would be able to be an attentive driver. 

This article seeks to identify and evaluate the impact of the lack of accountability taken by Tesla, the high competition Tesla faces with Chinese electric cars and other competitors, and interpret the negative impact of this on both Tesla and the automotive industry entirely. 

Tesla’s shortfalls

Tesla has not been transparent in the process of its civil cases, and other car companies have followed suit. One of these cases was that of Zhang Youshou, who sued Tesla–once for its failed brakes, and a second time for the heavy criticism she received after being labeled as a “troublemaker.” Tesla, however, refused to take any action. Whether it was providing her with the database Youshou required or failing to protect her privacy, Tesla had severely harmed the security of its customer. This caused a lack of accountability, leading Zhang Youshou to file a case for defamation. Zhang lost both cases, indicating a strong lack of accountability by Tesla by risking the personal information of their customers. 

Noting the high level of civil cases won by Tesla, it's a clear indicator that Tesla favours profits over customer satisfaction. The Associated Press has found out that 90% of civil cases in which Tesla was a party, Tesla has won. While in a capitalist country such as the United States, this may not pose a problem, but this may provide leverage for other countries, specifically China, to overtake the autonomous vehicle industry. 

The threat

Given that Chinese electric cars have dominated the market share in 2024, Tesla must attempt to increase its customer satisfaction to maintain its existing customer base. 

The Chinese electric car market will likely take over, both in the United States and globally. In a survey taken by Kerrigan Advisors' 2025 OEM Survey, where they accounted for the opinions of top leaders in the automotive industry, 70% are worried about the financial implications it may bring. This is a rightful fear, given the incentives Chinese cars provide over American cars. While American cars, such as Tesla, may have better brand names, with their attractive low prices, technologically advanced systems, and quick production cycles, Chinese cars are far ahead of Tesla. 

Changan Jordan, a Chinese car manufacturer, produces cars that come with either a ten-year warranty or a 500,000 km engine warranty. To give a glimpse of how long a 500,000 kilometer range works, a Toyota car that has been continuously used for twenty years every day, will only reach 425,000 kilometers. These features, along with the solid functioning of the car, can be incredibly attractive, especially for middle-class families looking for an affordable and long-lasting option.

Through and through, Tesla has lacked accountability, and in its wake has set a bad precedent for the rest of the domestic automobile industry. Through these civil cases, it has become clear that Tesla is more focused on profits rather than customer satisfaction. For a company that is losing its market share to Chinese electric companies, Tesla should prevent this by improving both its public image and promoting cars without exaggeration. But as for now, this latest Tesla lawsuit might work in favor of Chinese car manufacturers to build on their reputation as safe, cheap and technologically reliable cars.

Agentic AI is a type of artificial intelligence system that can accomplish specific goals with limited supervision through the autonomous orchestration of agents that mimic human decision-making. Virginia Governor Glen Youngkin recently issued Executive Order 51, which will launch the nation’s first use of agentic AI to empower statewide regulatory review. As Virginia leads the country in business attraction, regulatory modernization, and AI implementation, the governor’s latest executive actions will have ripple effects across the state and around the country. 

More on Agentic AI

While traditional AI operates within constraints controlled by humans, agentic AI employs autonomous, goal-driven behavior to perform specific tasks. Generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT can produce text, images, or code. Agentic AI systems take it a step further, using generated content to complete complex tasks autonomously. For instance, a generative AI chatbot can recommend the best times to take your car in for maintenance, but agentic AI can also book recurring appointments for you and add them to your calendar!

Some of the obvious advantages of agentic AI are its adaptability, intuitiveness, and ability to specialize in tasks in a human-like fashion. Virginia is capitalizing on this rapidly evolving capability to speed up its own processes, but how does it work?

First, agentic AI collects data from its environment in a process called perception. Then, using a variety of AI capabilities, including Natural Language Processing (NLP) and computer vision, it reasons with the data to extract meaningful insights and interpret the broader context of the data it is working with. Next, the AI sets various goals based on user inputs or predefined objectives. It also uses decision trees, reinforcement learning, and other planning algorithms to develop strategies that will help it achieve these goals. Once the strategies are developed, the AI evaluates each possible action and chooses the most optimal path based on accuracy, efficiency, and predicted outcomes -- stemming from “probabilistic models, utility functions, and machine learning based reasoning.” Finally, the agentic AI will execute on its choice, learning from outcomes and adapting its decision-making over time. 

Agentic AI’s autonomy is not only its greatest strength but also a considerable weakness. The nature of autonomous decision-making makes the AI more susceptible to ‘going off the rails’. Additionally, agentic AI systems make use of “reinforcement learning”: the pursuit of maximizing rewards. When a reward system for an AI is poorly designed, the AI might exploit loopholes to achieve ‘high scores’ in unintended ways. This issue is exacerbated when an AI attempts to optimize too aggressively without proper safeguards in place. 

In the context of Virginia’s attempt to implement agentic AI in its regulatory review procedures, a poorly designed AI system may be harmful. For instance, if the reward system compels AI to focus on streamlining regulations as much as possible -- targeting a specific percentage or number -- the AI may unintentionally remove or impact regulations just to maximize its rewards. A well-designed agentic AI system would not only help reduce regulatory burdens in Virginia but also prevent necessary regulations from being impacted.  

Regulatory Review

Virginia Office of Regulatory Management Director Reeve Bull claimed that the “Virginia model” for regulatory modernization is the new gold standard nationwide, and there is substantial evidence to support his claim. When Executive Order 51 was announced, state agencies had eliminated “47.9% of words in their guidance documents” and “streamlined 26.8% of regulatory requirements on the books.” These statistics demonstrate that most of Virginia’s agencies are on track to either meet or exceed the 25% streamlining goal, while the rest may potentially benefit from the assistance of AI. 

Many of these regulatory review efforts stem from Executive Order 19 (2022), which authorized a government-wide audit of regulations, permitting practices, and guidance documents. The order affected nearly 89,000 individual requirements. Notably, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality reported a 65% drop in its regulatory timeline, while the Department of Transportation cut 20,000 regulatory items. Many environmental regulations had been drafted by agencies without any external review, and following the Order, stormwater regulations were reduced from 23 inches of printed material to just five. 

Regulatory review has tangible and direct impacts on citizens and small businesses in the state. For instance, updated building code rules — instated as a result of Order 19 — reduced the cost of new home construction by nearly 6% and saved homebuyers roughly $24,000. Brian Horn, the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development, said more than 48,000 housing-related regulations were streamlined to achieve this outcome. 

Governor Youngkin says Virginia is now looking at a new 35% reduction target, and he hopes that AI will lead the charge. Agentic AI will power the regulatory reduction process by scanning all regulations and guidance documents, identifying ways they can be streamlined, flagging areas in which regulation contradicts statutes, identifying redundancies, and highlighting areas where language can be streamlined. By continuing to refine statewide regulations, Virginia hopes to continue being the model for regulatory modernization in the country. 

Other AI-Use Cases

Aside from Order 51, Virginia is modernizing with AI in many ways. Executive Order 30 (2024) established AI safety standards in various branches of the state.

The Order established policy standards for the ethical and transparent use of AI in government and business. Through mandatory measures such as approval processes for AI capabilities, disclaimers for AI-generated products, and measures to ensure data protection, Virginia is not only using AI to boost productivity and innovation but also firmly controlling it to make sure it does not go off the rails. 

The state also implemented information technology standards for AI and considerations for law enforcement. Furthermore, its education guidelines recognize the dual nature of AI, promoting integrity and partnership to use AI to empower students and augment their success. 

Finally, Order 30 established an Artificial Intelligence Task Force, consisting of the most prominent AI experts in the state -- drawn from educational institutions, non-profits, and private corporations. The Task Force will give recommendations to policymakers to strengthen its use of AI while responsibly guarding against risks. 

Replication and Repercussions

Virginia’s first-in-the-nation use of agentic AI for regulatory review is just one example of AI implementation across the country. Executive Order 51 will likely set a precedent for other states and encourage the careful use of this new technology. 

States have stepped up to fill in the gap the federal government has left through its, arguably, slow handling of AI. Consequently, new rules and uses of AI will continue to be seen soon. This new era of artificial intelligence governance poses exciting new possibilities for innovation and development, and states like Virginia are at the helm, spearheading change and charging full steam ahead.  

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or the DHS, accelerated its deployment of artificial intelligence technologies in the due process of immigration and border enforcement encompassed under the idea of broader national security. Through a series of new technology pilots, biometrics, and automated decision-making infrastructure software, the DHS claims to be modernizing its operations with the boom of AI for government operations, streamlining immigration vetting, and improving threat detection amid national security strategy. However, this rapid and uncalled expansion had triggered growing outrage among organizations for civil liberties and critics, as data privacy experts caution that such systems, when implemented at such a quick rate without a robust fundamental framework, can pose significant threats to due process, personal privacy, and constitutional rights. 

Overview of the 2024 DHS AI Expansion

Guided by the 2024 DHS AI Strategy and aligned alongside the Biden Administration’s AI Executive Order and OMB’s M-24-10 directive on AI governance, DHS launched more than 50 advanced AI initiatives spanning Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services which include facial recognition and computer vision tools located near transport hubs, biometric matching through multiple forms of individual data collection, predictive analytics for migration patterns and detection of any forms of suspicious activity, and natural language processing with sentiment analysis of asylum seekers and public media to name a few.

Privacy Risks: Scale, Surveillance, and Intrusion

The massive data infrastructure, which is necessary for the power of AI surveillance tools, makes the border region a site of unprecedented levels of data extraction. DHS collects a wide range of sensitive data and personally identifiable information, including travelers' biometric information, real-time GPS location, video feeds, online tracked activities, and perceived behavioral actions and cues. 

Critics emphasize that such technologies for border security operate in a gray zone, which means that legal protections around search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment are weaker. In this 100-mile-long border zone where millions of Americans reside, analytics driven by watchlists, mobile phone data extraction, and automated license plate readers are used with limited oversight from judiciary bodies, which is a clear result of how the normalization of mass surveillance and neglect from the government impacts both migrants and U.S. citizens as well.

Compounding such concerns is the lacking of clear expiration timelines for stored data and removal of unwanted information for any specific purpose, insufficient safeguards on secondary data usage by third parties, and an opaque structure for partnerships with external vendors such as third party apps - many of whom use proprietary AI models which are difficult to audit or even contest in trials.

Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination

Facial recognition software and other such biometric algorithms have repeatedly been shown to produce higher rates of error for people of color, particularly Black, Latino, and indigenous individuals. In a border enforcement context, where split-second identification decisions can have profound effects on the individual’s life, as lies by its results in denial of entry, detention, or surveillance escalation, the danger of such biased outcomes is clear. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology have already flagged that AI decision-making, when based on previous enforcement data that had bias, can easily facilitate the reinstatement of discriminatory patterns. For instance, when such predictive algorithms are trained on the historical records of arrest or asylum refusal cases, which contain historical bias for certain sects and races, they can propagate systemic bias, further criminalizing certain communities or identities of color. 

This can have a chilling effect on lawful migration policies and increase racial segregation while undermining the fair implementation of laws for immigration in the country. The lack of reliable mechanisms to appeal, explain, or correct algorithmic misinterpretations poses additional uncalculated risks for people, such as who are asylum seekers and non-citizens who are considered detainees and do not have access to adequate legal representation or protection. 

Civil Society Response and Legal Challenges 

In 2024, more than 140 civil rights organizations such as the ACLU, Just Futures Law and others collectively called for a moratorium of the use DHS had of AI in immigration enforcement as they had cited decades of racial surveillance and subjugation with the unprecedentedly high rates of error stemmed from emerging technologies and a dearth of clear avenues for accountability for the public media. Multiple lawsuits have followed back, and these have demanded the long-awaited details on how AI models are being developed, what datasets they are using, and how automated classifications impact immigration decisions as well. 

Some lawmakers have also introduced legislation frameworks for regulating federal AI use for surveillance or immigration adjudication, as can be furthermore pinpointed and seen in acts such as the Protecting Individual Rights Against Government Use of Surveillance Technologies though such efforts have yet to have actually been passed through both of the chambers of the U.S. Congressional sections. 

Innovation Balance with Rights

The increased use of AI across DHS represents a major change in the ways the federal government enables monitoring, management, and decision-making of mobility. Although technology can contribute to public safety and efficient immigration, unregulated use of it eventually will undermine and erode the underlying democratic and constitutional principles. Without enforceable protections and standards for transparency or independent oversight, such as AI systems will likely worsen discrimination, degrade privacy, and ability to instantiate injustice at scale.

Beginning in early 2025, Los Angeles experiences a sharp and unprecedented escalation in immigration enforcement operations, signaling a major shift in federal policy execution. These actions were spearheaded by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and were in an attempt to renew a federal agenda to aggressively enforce immigration laws and to assert federal authority in cities that resisted cooperation. Eyewitness accounts reported ICE agents conducting stops based on physical appearance as well as loitering near schools and daycares, further fueling outrage. These raids not only disrupted the workforce but fractured families while sowing widespread fear amongst immigrant households. 

Data Fueled the Raids through Surveillance

Analysts and elected officials have widely interpreted the raids as politically motivated, designed to appeal to certain voter bases ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. By orchestrating high profile operations and detentions, officials could demonstrate their credentials and pivot public discourse toward border security and reforms that energize conservative voters. Some raids at Ambience Apparel and Glass House Farms were officially justified as part of workplace enforcement efforts. They targeted alleged labor violations, use of false documentation, or tax fraud. Instead of penalizing employers, the operations focused on detaining workers which raised questions about whether the true goal was to suppress undocumented labor rather than enforce labor laws equitably. 

These operations were enabled by increasingly sophisticated data sharing networks that allow federal immigration agencies to cross reference a variety of personal information. Due to this, some of the raids were not triggered by investigative leads but by automatic algorithmic flagging, matching potential mismatches between workers’ employment record and biometric data. For example, individuals flagged by using different names on tax forms or visiting immigration-related centers became targets for these raids without committing any criminal activity. As a result, civil rights organizations such as the ACLU have condemned this surveillance-driven enforcement model as a form of digital profiling, warning these sources leverage racial bias within their practices. Additionally, critics argue that the usage of surveillance infrastructure disguised as anti-terrorism or public safety has been repurposed for immigration policing often without the consent of local jurisdictions. 

Courts Reassert and Restore Due Process for Immigrants

The federal court injunction issued in July 2025, has not only paused ICE operations in Los Angeles but has reaffirmed key constitutional protections for immigrants. This legal shift has already reshaped rules of enforcement and restored critical aspects of due process long eroded after aggressive immigration tactics. The injunction mandates that detained individuals be granted prompt access to legal representation, the fundamental right often denied during large scale raids. In the past, many detainees were held without the right to contact an attorney or families about their whereabouts. Now, ICE must allow for attorney-client access within a set timeframe and detention centers are required to provide private places for consultations. Additionally, court houses and medical centers are now considered not valid for enforceable actions unless agents obtain a judicial warrant. This is a significant development because in the past this discouraged immigrants from interacting with civic institutions. This new rule seeks to obtain trust and understanding between immigration and the government.

Shielding Immigrants from Federal Outreach

Los Angeles has long identified itself as a sanctuary city with a local governance model that cultivates a safe haven for immigrants from aggressive federal enforcement. In the wake of this new immigration crisis, this framework has strengthened through legal review and public funding. In a direct response to the raids, Mayor Karen Bass has issued Executive Directive No. 25-07 which makes new substantial developments. It orders an internal audit of all city contracts to ensure no cooperation with federal immigration enforcement as well as creating a central reporting system to investigate any unauthorized sharing of data with federal agents. This will extend pro bono immigration and legal defense for DACA recipients and asylum seekers. It will also fund mobile legal clinics that visit impacted neighborhoods. The local sanctuary framework 

Not only provides material protection to immigrants but serves as a legal counterforce to federal policies perceived as discriminatory.

Local Recession Spiral and an Economic Earthquake

California has lost almost 460,000 jobs (271,000 citizens and 193,000 immigrants) in the past week due to labor shortages and business closures. These losses destabilize full supply chains with lower productivity. Immigrants are retreating from public life in response to the intensified ICE integration throughout the region. As a result, local businesses in immigrant rich areas such as Boyle Heights, Pico-Union, and South Central Los Angeles are reporting dramatic drops in consumer spending and engagement. These economic consequences form a self reinforcing cycle: as spending drops, businesses scale back causing uncertainty. Economists refer to this as a local recession spiral where consumers face insecurity in spending, placing strain on the market. The LA Chamber of Commerce and various economic boards are warning of long term labor shortages paired with investor uncertainty. Due to this, some businesses are pushing for federal reform with work authorization programs for long term immigrants. This is counterproductive to restoring stability and opportunity to the US, as civilians are impacted by all industries and the job market.

The Los Angeles raids mark a pivotal transformation in how immigration policy is enforced. From these raids, they have prompted swift legal recourse paired with widespread economic distress and civic activism regarding immigrant inclusion. These events underscore a broader transformation between unjust, destructive actions towards an efficient legal process  with cultural understanding. For immigrant communities, the immediate gains in legal protection and communal solidarity come against a backdrop of long term systematic gain. The coming appeals in policy efforts will define whether this movement becomes a pivot towards inclusive reform or a prolonged clash between federal authority and local autonomy.

When President Donald Trump announced plans to conduct widespread deportations of undocumented and temporarily protected immigrants living in the United States, people were quick to point out the impacts that this would have on key economic sectors that rely heavily on them, such as construction and agriculture.

However, Trump’s deportation plans put another key industry at risk: the long-term care field.

As the Baby Boomer and Millennial generations age and the birth rate drops, the United States is beginning to experience the impacts of an aging population. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the median age in metro areas increased 0.6 years between April 2020 and July 2024, with 13% more individuals over 65 and fewer children under 18. People have been quick to point out the long-term implications this could have for programs like Social Security, but the aging population also poses challenges to the maintenance of nursing homes and retirement communities.

Immigrants have played a key role in filling these roles, representing 28% of the direct long-term care workforce. Along with foreign-born individuals who possess a green card or visa, this number also includes undocumented immigrants and those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS)—both groups that the Trump Administration has targeted.

As of 2024, an estimated 1.2 million people lived in nursing homes across the U.S., and as the population continues to age, that number is only likely to grow. This doesn’t account for individuals who receive other types of long-term care, such as assisted living. More than five million workers are involved in direct care, and this number is projected to rise. The long-term care sector is expected to be one of the largest growing industries in the United States, with the Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute anticipating nearly nine million job openings between 2022 and 2032. 

However, the Trump Administration’s policies towards immigration, particularly regarding TPS holders, have not only prevented the direct care workforce from growing but have degraded it. Since April, the Department of Homeland Security has terminated TPS for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, with a majority of them from Venezuela and Haiti. While federal courts have temporarily blocked some of the proceedings, the Trump Administration’s actions have still threatened the stability of the direct care sector.

“In the aging services field, the stakes could not be higher. Workforce shortages contribute to the stark reality that the U.S. is currently struggling to meet the demand for long-term services and supports among the nation’s older population,” Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge—a service membership organization dedicated to supporting aging adults—wrote to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem in a publicly published letter. “Foreign-born workers with legal status, including parolees and TPS holders from Haiti and Venezuela, play a meaningful role in stabilizing this fragile workforce….Your agency’s decisions to terminate the temporary parole for all CHNV [Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela] individuals and roll back TPS designations for Haiti and Venezuela have created immediate uncertainty and concern for employers and workers alike.”

With caregivers often earning low wages—the hourly average was $16.72 in 2023—it can be challenging to find and retain individuals who are willing to work. Furthermore, restrictions on visas and a growing hostility towards immigrants in the U.S. have limited the number of migrants and refugees who are coming to the U.S., direct care professionals report.

As deportations continue and the aging population in direct care grows, this gap is only expected to increase, placing long-term care facilities in jeopardy of facing worker shortages that could ultimately threaten their vitality. Deportations and suspended migrant protections don’t just serve to endanger the safety and stability of immigrants who have already settled in the U.S.; they also hold the potential to limit essential care for a growing population of seniors across the country.

The Generational Realignment

The increasing visibility of younger progressive leaders, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani, represents more than just generational turnover. It reflects an ongoing realignment within the Democratic Party—one shaped by a silent dissatisfaction with what was conventional, mistrust in traditional political institutions, and a shift in voter priorities. Their rise is a response to long-standing gaps in representation, fresh policy ambition, and party responsiveness—especially among younger, working-class, and demographically diverse constituencies.

While the Democratic Party has always encompassed a range of ideological views, these up-and-coming figures are signaling a reassertion of populism and structural reform as central pillars of the Democratic identity. Their influence, although still relatively new in institutional terms, already offers a glimpse into where the party may be heading—particularly as we begin to witness generational demographics shift and younger voters become more active amid the polarization within the electorate.

Structural Ambition 

Ocasio-Cortez and Mamdani are often described as democratic socialists, but their impact extends beyond these self-proclaimed affiliations. What distinguishes their political work is the focus on profound structural change with the throughline of affordability and leaving no one behind. Their priorities include single-payer healthcare, publicly funded housing, climate transformation, stronger labor protections, and more.

What has kept these figures popular? The increase in political participation among younger Democratic voters, mixed with a healthy dose of social media, has acted as the foundational pillar for the upward publicity trends of these politicians. Surveys show strong support for proposals such as tuition-free public college, rent stabilization, and climate legislation modeled after the Green New Deal. For many in Gen Z and Millennials, the ideal candidate looks to the future.

Mamdani’s work in the New York State Assembly illustrates how this ideological shift operates at the state level. His focus on tenant protections, campaign finance transparency, and the role of private capital in housing markets reflects a growing skepticism of the market-based approach to social policy that has dominated American politics since the late 1900s. AOC’s federal-level work, although more often overshadowed by party leadership and gridlock, similarly centers on public investment and regulation as necessary corrections to private sector overreach.

Party Friction and Institutional Resistance

Despite their growing influence, figures like AOC and Mamdani still face significant pushback from within the Democratic Party itself. National leadership remains largely risk-averse, oriented toward protecting incumbents and preserving major donor relationships, especially during a Republican-dominated Congress. We are seeing an increase in progressive candidates finding themselves blocked by party politics in primaries, as evidenced by repeated clashes between left-leaning challengers and incumbents. With numerous current policy issues and conflicts, the image of the Democratic Party in the press nonetheless reflects the early buzz around the 2028 presidential election.

The institutional infrastructure of the Democratic Party is still designed for coalition management rather than ideological clarity, a crucial factor in maintaining organization within a party with as broad an umbrella as the Democratic Party. This creates friction when younger progressives push for immediate action on issues that leadership views as politically risky or infeasible in the short term. The resulting dynamic is neither beneficial to the party nor to the country.

Some Democrats advocate for a cautious, suburban-oriented strategy focused on securing narrow electoral majorities. Others, including Ocasio-Cortez and Mamdani, argue that expanding and energizing the base—particularly among younger, working-class, and nonwhite voters—requires a far more intentionally inclusive and “fresh” policy model. 

Abstract

The rise of progressive leaders like AOC and Mamdani represents a significant development in the internal evolution of the Democratic Party. They reflect a convergence of generational change, shifting voter preferences, and ideological redefinition. AOC and Mamdani are simply examples of well-played cards in politics, having smartly capitalized on these wide-ranging shifts. Their continued influence will depend not only on their electoral success but on their ability to build lasting institutional infrastructure, forge coalitions across different wings of the party, and deliver tangible outcomes in office; perhaps further unexpected personnel changes are to come within the party as well.

Whether or not the Democratic Party fully embraces the approach of figures like Mamdani and AOC, it can no longer ignore it. As political, economic, and environmental crises deepen in this second Trump administration, the demand for substantive and structural reform is only likely to grow. The party’s long-term direction will be shaped, in part, by how it responds—not only to these leaders—but to the societal conditions that produced them.

For thousands of undocumented immigrant families, the morning ritual of drop-offs, backpacks, and goodbyes is starting to change. 

A recent decision by the Trump administration has redefined who qualifies for the federally funded Head Start preschool program. Though previously a place of refuge and possibility for children of undocumented immigrants, Head Start will now require legal proof of immigration status. And for many, that’s a barrier they cannot cross.

The children affected by this decision aren’t political actors. They’re not seeking handouts or bending the educational system. They’re toddlers—three-year-olds with sticky hands, learning their ABCs. Regardless of the fact that they don’t understand policy, they understand when they’re not welcome.

A Policy Meant to Punish

The administration claims this is about protecting resources. However, those on the ground—like parents, educators, and community leaders—-see something else completely: a calculated effort to strip opportunity from families already at the margins of society.

For years, undocumented families have been able to enroll their children in Head Start under a decades-old interpretation of federal law that acknowledged the unique needs of immigrant communities. That protection is no more. Along with it goes access to preschool education, developmental services, health screenings, meals, and safety—all part of the Head Start promise.

This decision goes beyond bureaucracy. It extends to the personal. It’s a message sent directly to communities of color: You don’t belong here. Even if your child was born here.

Fear is Everywhere

The policy has already started creating fear in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods. Families are vanishing from programs overnight. In fact, mothers who once brought their kids to class now avoid the centers altogether, afraid that a simple enrollment form could end in their deportation.

And that fear doesn’t end at school. It follows children home, weaving into their lives and their quiet moments of play and learning. It thus teaches them, long before any lesson plan ever can, that safety is conditional and belonging has limits.

Collateral Damage

For the children themselves, the implications go past missing a few weeks of storytime. Preschool is often the first space where developmental delays are caught, early intervention begins and social-emotional learning is nurtured. Without that foundation, children show up to kindergarten behind—sometimes even by years.

And it’s not simply about academics. For a number of immigrant families, Head Start is more than school. It’s the only access to a meal, a nurse, a counselor, a parenting workshop. It’s where single parents can find support.

Removing access doesn’t just harm those who are undocumented. It undermines the stability of programs that rely on federal numbers for funding. And most of all, it normalizes a dangerous idea: that some children are more deserving than others.

A Ripple Effect

This policy isn’t isolated. It’s part of a broader federal shift aimed at removing undocumented immigrants from public life. Similar restrictions are already impacting access to adult education, job training, and even community health centers.

The cumulative effect is devastating. Families are being pushed further into hiding, afraid to seek medical care, legal help, or education—even when they’re legally entitled to it. Trust in institutions erodes. Fear replaces any semblance of participation. And the children? They’re the ones caught in the middle.

Early Childhood, Erased

Head Start was never perfect. But what it was was a symbol—of compassion, of promise, and of progress. It was an overall attempt to level the playing field as early as possible. To say that where a child is born, or to whom, shouldn’t dictate the entire rest of their life.

That symbol is now disintegrating. And with it, a generation of children may grow up learning the wrong lesson: not how to count, or how to read, but how to hide.

Hope and Resistance

Yet even in this moment, resistance is building up. Advocacy groups are preparing lawsuits. Some Head Start centers are working quietly to keep families enrolled, helping them to navigate the new requirements. In addition, in pockets across the country, neighbors are stepping in to say: this isn’t who we are.

If a country can’t open its arms to a four-year-old, it must ask itself—what kind of future is it building? Who is that future even for?

Children don’t know politics. But they do know when a door is slammed in their face.

And they remember.

Historically, July 4th has represented the independence of the United States, commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. However, this year, Trump gave his Republican-dominated Congress a new task, turning this date into a legislative deadline: the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill.

The final version of the bill, dubbed the Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), consists of over 1,000 pages, mainly targeting tax cuts and social program reforms. The Department of Education and numerous related programs faced heavy changes with the passage of this bill.

The bill streamlines student-loan programs, condensing numerous plans into simply two options: the standard repayment plan and the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP). This will lead to higher monthly repayment rates, both for current students in debt and for the millions of estimated future ones. Student loans as a whole have also been capped-- limits extending to both lifetime loans in undergraduate and graduate school. In addition, the PELL grant program, which is the largest US federal grant program for undergraduate students with financial need, has had its qualifying rules tightened, eliminating students on fully funded scholarships from the grant. These changes aim to save taxpayers' money by cutting out unnecessary funds, as the CBO estimates a reduction of over 300 billion from taxpayers' dollars in the next decade with the passage of the OBBB.

The passage of this bill also brings upon new analytic responsibilities to the ED. The OBBB implements strict new accountability mandates to the ED to strip funding from programs that don’t provide sufficient economic value. Carrying out this task will require hefty data analysis and investigations into thousands of federal programs, in addition to collaboration with various other agencies such as the IRS and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, with the recent cuts to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the primary knowledge-gathering body of the ED, the department's capacity for such analysis is severely compromised.

Contrary to common belief, the ED isn’t responsible for creating education policy; rather, it is tasked with the administration and enforcement of federal education laws and programs. It’s been a long-time conservative initiative to minimize the ED, or even abolish it entirely. Many right-winged politicians believe that individual states should be the ones creating education policy, rather than centralizing it to the nation. Through both Trump’s 2016 and 2024 campaigns, he has run with the explicit position to significantly reduce the size and scope of the Department of Education, and his current regime and members have reflected that stance. “Education is fundamentally a state responsibility. Instead of filtering resources through layers of federal red tape, we will empower states to take charge and advocate for and implement what is best for students, families, and educators in their communities,” said McMahon, after the passage of the bill, adding, ““Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them”.

However, now, with the agency’s workforce already depleted by Trump’s earlier actions, as the Supreme Court has enabled 1,300 employees to be cut from the department, McMahon faces a hefty list of implementation challenges. Though this move is criticized heavily by the liberals, conservatives as well are speaking out in concern for this compounded situation. "I do have significant concerns that the speed of the cuts will have left us with a department that is unable to effectively implement this legislation," said Beth Akers, a professional at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.

Akers' concerns have been widely shared by not only politicians, but also experts in the financial aid, higher education, and other sectors. Though the current administration values efficiency and decentralization, inducing complex responsibilities whilst simultaneously stripping capability is a risky balance--one that could easily lead to systemic disruption, confusion, and failure. The coming years will be the ones to reveal whether this bold strategy is one to create efficiency and effectivity, or if the OBBB will eventually be viewed as the catalyst to the dismantling of critical federal oversight, equitable access to education, and financial opportunity for our nation.

On July 4th, 2025, Americans were meant to celebrate 249 years of independence. Instead, many cities resembled conflict zones. According to The Guardian, mass shootings occurred in Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Chicago, and Brockton, Massachusetts. In Chicago alone, five people were killed and at least 36 others wounded throughout the weekend, says CBS News. In Indianapolis, two were killed and five wounded. In Brockton, six were hospitalized after an early morning fight escalated into gunfire.

As the U.S. Gun Violence Archive reported, these events added to a staggering count of over 205 mass shootings in 2025 by early July. The common thread: American holidays are increasingly marked not by unity, but by tragedy.

Chicago: A City Under Siege

Chicago experienced the most extensive violence during the 2025 July 4th weekend. According to CBS News, the city saw five deaths and 36 injuries across dozens of separate incidents spanning from Thursday evening through Sunday night. The victims ranged in age from 16 to 52, illustrating how the violence cut across demographic lines.

The most devastating incident occurred earlier in the week at a Black and LGBTQ-owned restaurant in the River North neighborhood. According to AP News, four people were killed and 14 others injured when shots were fired from a fast-moving vehicle into a crowd attending an album release party. The victims included Leon Andrew Henry, 25, Devonte Terrell Williamson, 23, Taylor Walker, 26, and Aviance King, 27.

Chicago pastor Donovan Price, who responds to communities in crisis, described the scene as "a war zone" with "mayhem and blood and screaming and confusion." The restaurant had been created as a safe space for marginalized communities, making the attack particularly devastating for the local LGBTQ and Black communities.

Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling called the shooting a "cowardly act" and noted that police found two different calibers of shell casings, suggesting multiple shooters. The venue remained closed as police investigated what they described as a targeted attack rather than random violence.

Indianapolis: Youth Violence Erupts Downtown

Indianapolis experienced significant violence concentrated in the downtown area during July 4th celebrations. According to WTOP News, at least two people were killed and five wounded in incidents that prompted police Chief Chris Bailey to express public frustration about community supervision failures.

Bailey described "hundreds of unsupervised kids" roaming downtown during the violence, telling reporters that "we are not your children's keepers" and demanding that "parents and guardians have got to step up." His statement that "a kid is dead tonight" highlighted how young people were both perpetrators and victims of the holiday violence.

The Indianapolis incidents reflected a broader pattern of youth involvement in July 4th violence. Police reported that many of the participants in the downtown violence were minors, raising questions about community supervision and social services during holiday celebrations.

The Institutional Collapse Behind the Violence

The July 4th shootings stem from concrete institutional failures that have made mass violence predictable rather than shocking. In Indianapolis, police found themselves managing "hundreds of unsupervised kids" during holiday celebrations, a scenario that reveals how community supervision structures have simply disappeared. Youth programs, neighborhood organizations, and extended family networks that once provided guidance during major events have been defunded or abandoned, leaving adolescents to navigate crowded urban spaces without adult oversight.

This institutional vacuum creates specific conditions for violence. The Chicago restaurant attack targeted a space explicitly designed for LGBTQ and Black communities, groups that have been forced to create their own safe spaces precisely because mainstream institutions have failed to protect them. When marginalized communities cannot rely on broader social structures for security, they become isolated targets rather than integrated parts of a larger civic fabric.

The geographic spread of violence across multiple states indicates this isn't a localized problem but a systemic breakdown. Cities have lost the capacity to manage large public gatherings safely, not because of inadequate police presence, but because the social infrastructure that prevents conflicts from escalating has eroded. When minor disputes like the fight in Brockton automatically involve firearms, it signals that communities have lost the informal mechanisms that once de-escalated tensions before they became deadly.

This collapse has transformed patriotic holidays into occasions for trauma rather than celebration. Since 2006, there have been five mass killings of four or more victims by gunfire on July 4, according to the Northeastern University Mass Killings Database. The Gun Violence Archive confirms this trend, documenting 66 mass shootings on July 4 since 2013 resulting in four or more people injured or killed.

The rise in shootings on July 4 highlights how national holidays have become moments when underlying tensions surface rather than opportunities for unity. Independence Day brings together large crowds in public spaces, often without the structures needed to ensure safety. At the same time, the symbolism of the holiday can heighten feelings of exclusion or frustration among those who feel left out of the nation’s promises. In a country where political divides and access to firearms remain unresolved issues, these factors create an environment where violence becomes more likely. The persistence of this pattern each year suggests that July 4 is no longer simply a celebration of freedom but a reflection of how deeply fractured the American social landscape has become.

Mississippi officials are working on a new law that prevents minors from using social media. The law was created after concerns of the harmful effects of social media on young people, and it will require minors to obtain parental approval to create a social media account. The policy also stipulates that social media companies need to make efforts to verify their users’ ages. Netchoice, a non-profit trade association, notes that “a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have wrongfully allowed the law despite a judge disapproving of it,” with the judge arguing that it may violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

Significance of the law

If the law passes, it would have a severe effect on Mississippians’ freedom of speech. According to New America, it may infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of all social media users, not just youth. 

Age verification is one of the bill’s biggest hurdles. Facial age estimation, which is a popular method for verifying users’ identities, risks users’ privacy. As it stands, facial age recognition technology is not available in a safe and private manner, and would likely be infeasible to implement on a large-scale social media platform like Instagram, which has two billion monthly users. 

However, supporters of the policy argue that it would reduce the number of children introduced to harmful content online. Because social media and the internet as a whole are so anonymous, minors are at a high risk for manipulation and coercion by other users. The ease of access to almost any sort of content, unrestricted messaging and more, are the prime reasons for why many Mississippi parents and lawmakers are staunch supporters of this law being passed and implemented.

The question of whether social media restrictions violate citizens’ freedom of speech is not unique to Mississippi: Texas and other state courts have blocked similar measures. Rep. Jared Patterson, a Republican in the Texas House of Representatives, stated that “This bill was the best way to protect children in this state,” amidst a rise in phishing, doxxing and cyber-bullying among minors. Instagram and TikTok have been criticized for purposely making their products addictive, perpetuated by their algorithms which determine what content the app feeds its users. 

Despite these efforts, organizations like Center for Democracy and Technology have argued that these limitations to access would undermine freedom of speech. For example, if social media gets banned, two ‘individuals’ rights to freedom of speech and expression are getting limited. 

Take the 2011 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case, for example. The plaintiffs, a video game and software industry, filed a preenforcement challenge to the California Assembly Bill 1179, which would restrict the selling of violent video games to minors. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court’s majority opinion, stating that although the government works at the interest of youth, it must not prevent these youth from the free flow of expression and thought. Although a blanket ban may be considered necessary in today’s age, there is no denying that this act of protection may compromise American young people’s constitutionally protected rights.

Despite this revelation, parents and policy-makers alike continue to believe that it’s much safer to disallow them from using social media entirely. Senator Brian Schatz, a United States senator from Hawaii, is a strong supporter of banning social media for children below the age of thirteen. He believes that since companies are not taking action, Congress must. And his claims are not unfounded: Meta recently revealed in a study that 32 percent of teenage girls using Instagram felt dissatisfied with their bodies. However, despite the study’s conclusion, which determined that teenagers blame Instagram for their body image issues, it provides no real solution, only reinforcing the link between mental health issues and social media use that most Americans already understand.

Other supporters of a blanket ban of social media for minors under thirteen  include Senator Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas, Senator Chris Murphy, the junior U.S. Senator for Connecticut and more. 

Impact of either solution

Both solutions to the social media issue may have extreme impacts. By limiting children’s access to social media, lawmakers may reduce the risks of them doxxed, cyberbullied or otherwise harmed by other users. But this doesn’t mean that minors would not be able to access these social media platforms through secondary means. And if personal documents are required, young people’s privacy and safety may be at risk if their information is not handled properly

Other countries solutions

A harsher approach to social media regulation is not limited to the United States. The Australian government  has implemented a ban on social media for those below sixteen, and is fining companies A$50 million ($32.5 million) if they don’t comply with these new regulations. Amy Friedlander, a civilian mother of three from the “Wait Mate” movement, lobbied in favor of these regulations, noting that it was hard for parents to either see their child being addicted to their devices or feel left out. In response, Meta commented that Australia’s efforts may backfire by pushing children into unregulated corners of the internet.

Can social media ban actually work for teens in the U.S?

Today, social media is ingrained in the social fabric of the United States, especially among young people. Teenagers use social media to communicate, connect and post content. When the recent ban on TikTok was announced, many American teenagers posted videos using VPN. And of the micro trends seen on TikTok and Instagram, many are popularised by the youth in America: Stanley cups, Rhode phone cases and more. It would be a fair assumption to conclude that it would be a risky move as companies would lose a huge market if social media was removed entirely for minors in the U.S.

There is no denying that American youth will be using social media at some point or another. Enabling them to use a moderated and monitored version can instill in them a sense of responsibility as to how to use it safely. But preventing young people from accessing these platforms entirely may be both detrimental to the economy and their social development, and may infringe on people’s freedom of speech–one of the most crucial tenets of the U.S. Constitution.

The United States announced on July 22, 2025 that it will again withdraw from UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), citing policy differences. President Trump’s administration said UNESCO had “strayed” into promoting what it called “woke, divisive cultural and social causes” that clash with U.S. priorities. The State Department also criticized UNESCO’s 2011 decision to grant full membership to a Palestinian state, saying it was “highly problematic” and had fostered “anti-Israel rhetoric” within the agency. The withdrawal, to take effect on December 31, 2026, is part of a broader “America First” policy that has pulled the U.S. back from several international bodies. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the decision ensures U.S. membership in international organizations “aligns with our national interests”.

Historical Context

• 1946 – The United States was a founding member of UNESCO.
• 1984 – The Reagan administration withdrew from UNESCO, protesting alleged financial mismanagement and a perceived anti‑U.S. bias.
• 2003 – The U.S. rejoined under President George W. Bush after reforms were promised.
• 2011 – The Obama administration halted U.S. funding after UNESCO admitted a Palestinian “state” to membership.
• 2017 – President Trump’s first administration announced a withdrawal, accusing UNESCO of anti-Israel bias (the U.S. accrued about $542 million in dues arrears during this period).
• 2023 – President Biden reversed Trump’s 2017 pullout and re‑entered UNESCO.
• 2025 – Four days ago, President Trump announced a second withdrawal (to take effect end-2026) as his administration repeated its earlier objections.

Reactions and Responses

UNESCO and many U.S. allies reacted with disappointment. Director‐General Audrey Azoulay said she “deeply regret[s]” the decision but was not surprised, noting that the agency had prepared by diversifying its funding. She emphasized that only about 8 % of UNESCO’s budget comes from the U.S. today. Azoulay rejected claims of bias, highlighting UNESCO’s recent initiatives in Holocaust education and fighting antisemitism. In a statement she noted that the U.S. rationale was “the same as seven years ago” despite changed circumstances, and that UNESCO remains a “rare forum for consensus” on concrete multilateral action.

International leaders also responded. French President Emmanuel Macron posted on X that France would give “unwavering support” to UNESCO, calling it a “universal protector” of culture and science, and insisted U.S. withdrawal “will not weaken [France’s] commitment” to the agency. China’s foreign ministry criticized the move as “not the behaviour expected of a responsible major country,” and expressed strong backing for UNESCO’s work. UNESCO officials said the pullout would have only a “limited impact” on ongoing programs, given the reduced U.S. contribution. They stressed that UNESCO has offices in 54 countries and supports networks of World Heritage sites, schools, universities and cities around the world, with over 2,000 cultural and natural heritage sites and 13,000 educational and research institutions under its purview.

Within the United States, reactions split largely along partisan lines. Israel’s government welcomed the decision. Danny Danon, Israel’s U.N. ambassador, said UNESCO had shown a “consistent misguided anti-Israel bias,” and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked the U.S. for its “moral support and leadership,” calling the withdrawal a necessary step to ensure fair treatment of Israel in U.N. forums. Conversely, Democratic lawmakers condemned the move. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the decision “short-sighted and a win for China,” noting Beijing has become the largest UNESCO contributor in the U.S. absence. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) warned that unilaterally cutting UNESCO ties is “another assault … on international cooperation and U.S. global leadership,” ceding ground to rivals like China.

Implications for International Cooperation, Culture, Education and Science

UNESCO is best known for its World Heritage Sites and cultural preservation. Its programs include World Heritage listing of landmarks (the U.S. has 26 sites such as the Statue of Liberty, Grand Canyon and Yellowstone), as well as safeguarding intangible cultural heritage and promoting cultural diversity worldwide. The U.S. pullout means American authorities and experts will no longer participate in UNESCO committees that decide such designations. However, UNESCO officials note that U.S. financial withdrawal has been manageable: the U.S. share of UNESCO’s roughly $900 million annual budget is only about 8 %, down from over 20 % in 2017. UNESCO’s director says no layoffs are planned, and the agency has many other donors.

In education and science, experts say the departure is a setback for global collaboration. UNESCO leads international cooperation on education, science and technology. It supports initiatives from girls’ literacy and rebuilding universities in conflict zones (e.g. in Ukraine and Lebanon) to setting global standards on research and new technology (for example, issuing guidelines for use of artificial intelligence in education). Academics warn that without U.S. participation, American scientists and educators lose a voice in shaping these efforts. “For generational challenges such as AI in education or improving literacy, where the U.S. is well‐positioned to lead, we are, in effect, cutting off our nose to spite our face,” commented one UNESCO chair on learning. The agency also promotes open science and biodiversity research globally. By exiting, the U.S. cedes these fields to international forums where Chinese and other interests may have greater sway.

On global multilateralism, the move underscores a U.S. retreat from some international bodies. The Trump administration (both first and second term) has withdrawn from or halted funding to several U.N. agencies, including the World Health Organization and the Human Rights Council. The July decision reflects a continuing “America First” skepticism of global institutions. Critics caution that even if budgetary impacts on UNESCO are small, the political message is large: it signals the U.S. is willing to disengage when disagreements arise, potentially straining alliances and inviting other powers to set agendas in education and culture. Some analysts say future administrations may again reconsider: a Democratic White House could restore membership, while continued withdrawals could further weaken U.S. influence in setting international standards. As one congressional Democrat put it, the decision “cedes ground to U.S. competitors, especially China, who will take advantage of America’s absence to shape the international system in their favor.”

From the State to School - Ryan Walters 

The effects of the current controversies surrounding the government and the Department of Education is happening more than it seems. Ryan Walters, the State Superintendent of the Oklahoma Department of Education, has drawn national attention for his stances on curriculum censorship, cultural issues in education, and teacher accountability. 

Deven Carlson, a political science professor at the University of Oklahoma, states that “if his primary aim was self-promotion, he’s been ‘highly successful”. 

Critics argue that Walters is doing this to raise his national recognition by voicing “controversial” opinions on news media and outlets. His actions included referring to members of the teachers' union as “terrorists” who “indoctrinate” children, making false claims that books with LGBTQ+ themes had inappropriate content, and alleging that teachers defending LGBTQ+ rights were defending child sexual abuse. Additionally, his use of state funds for political videos, calls to audit local districts, and his harmful rhetoric about “woke indoctrination” have strained relationships with school districts across Oklahoma. Many call for his resignation as these issues are detrimental to what the Oklahoma State Department of Education was supposed to do in the first place: to teach. 

Adding to the growing chaos in Oklahoma, just a few days ago, it seemed that Walters didn’t appear to be following his own rules. Two members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education are accusing him of screening graphic images on a television connected to his computer during a meeting focused on teaching credentials and student attendance. 

As a result, more and more people are calling for the resignation of Walters. Even the state’s Republican leaders, including Governor Kevin Stitt, say that they support the investigation of the conservative superintendent who seems almost hypocritical. Only time can tell what will happen to him. 

Oklahoma Education 

Walter’s situation isn’t helping Oklahoma’s education system which is currently ranked dead last in education. Adding fuel to the fire, it also ranks near the bottom in education funding. Thus, with current controversies occurring, improvement might be a long work in progress. Despite a budget surplus, there still aren’t enough classroom resources. Despite increases in pay for educators, Oklahoma still hasn't matched up to the national averages or kept pace with inflation, which has pushed educators out of the field and worsened the state’s teacher shortage crisis. Classrooms across Oklahoma have reported increased class sizes, limited access to resources, and school districts like Tulsa and Norman have raised concerns about the Education Department because of budget instability.

Educational Reform Under Walters 

Under Superintendent Walter, Oklahoma has adopted new education rules that some critics argue restrict freedom of speech. For instance, talks about race, gender, and American history are to be carefully covered so that it doesn’t get too “inappropriate” for children.

House Bill 1775, passed in Oklahoma, bans certain teachings around race and gender that have been in place since 2021 but have been recently enforced more aggressively. In 2024, this enforcement was expanded to cover teacher training materials, libraries, and workshops. Any concept associated with critical race theory, which argues that race is a social construct and racism is embedded in the legal structure, has also been banned.

These decisions have formed an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship as educators now must face disciplinary threats for discussing topics related to these concepts. In school districts, schools have avoided discussion on civil rights and removed “controversial” books from their libraries, which has led to a chilling effect on civic education and also contributed to the teacher shortage. 

Summer Boismeir, a school teacher in Norman, Oklahoma, had students ask why they couldn’t read certain books and had to tell her students the truth. As a result, she “chose to resign so that I could continue to speak out for intellectual freedom” which demonstrates the conflict for teachers to choose between continuing to educate children and freedom of speech. 

The Next School Year 

As the current education system in Oklahoma has sparked outrage from educators and parents, there have been a number of protests, media coverage, and legislators working together to find solutions to this issue. 

However, the battle is far from over. Even in 2023, Tulsa Public Schools was nearly stripped of its accreditation after disputes occurred between Walters' budget and curriculum standards. With this, parents and school administrative boards are starting to push back to increase teacher support and decrease censorship in the classrooms. 

With threats to the stability of Oklahoma's State Department of Education, action is being taken for not just the next class of Oklahoman children, but for future generations. It is now up to the parents and educators of Oklahoma to decide whether they want to demand change but sacrifice having educators in the field or uphold the status quo in order to provide at least some sort of learning for the students.

When Alexander Hamilton first advocated for the addition of a strong judicial branch to aid our Federal government in his Federalist No. 78 essay, he made the argument that the judiciary has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”

However, nearly 250 years after the publication of Federalist No. 78, the judicial branch has come to occupy a unique role in American politics and society—one that has not only become increasingly politicized but has come to exercise considerable force and will over the United 

States’ political landscape.

The U.S. Supreme Court stands at the heart of the American judicial system. As it has evolved to assume a more powerful role in society, its perception has also changed. From contentious recent cases to the growing partisan divide, the Supreme Court’s role under the spotlight has earned it a controversial view from the public.

A Court Divided: Partisan Ideology Takes Center Stage

The Founding Fathers hoped that the Supreme Court would serve as a nonpartisan anchor amidst shifting political tides, with the primary goal of interpreting and applying the Constitution to law. However, it has increasingly become a partisan battleground, and both Democrats and Republicans have taken advantage of justices’ life-tenure positions to influence Constitutional law far into the future.

The shift towards a partisan focus on the Supreme Court most visibly surfaced with former President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Despite Bork’s experiences working for federal courts and the Justice Department, his judicial ideology, which focused on a strict interpretation of Constitutional law, stirred dissent among opponents, leading his appointment to be blocked by the Senate with a 58-42 vote, which stands as the most significant margin of a failed Supreme Court nomination.

While ideology had played a role in previous nominations, Professors Leonard Gross and Norman Vieria note that “this focus on ideology raised a crucial question as to whether it was proper to reject an otherwise qualified nominee for ideological reasons. The rejection of judicial nominees on this basis has important implications for judicial independence and public confidence in the federal courts.”

Thanks to three strategic appointments by President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court currently displays a conservative lean, and public opinion reflects this. According to a recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, while just 8% of Republicans view the Court in a negative light, 30% of independents and 56% of Democrats also do. Gaining an ideological majority has increasingly become a goal for both parties, disturbing the traditionally nonpartisan nature of the Court.

Recent Cases: From Roe Onward

Beyond the justices themselves, though, recent Supreme Court cases have attracted controversy that has significantly damaged the Court’s public perception.

Following the overturn of the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022, which effectively eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, 43% of adults in the U.S. reported having “hardly any confidence at all” in the Supreme Court. While that number has now dropped to around a third of adults, the court’s conservative stance surrounding key issues has continued to spark discontent among many liberals.

Recent Supreme Court cases have only served to alienate the Court from the public even more. Even though the Court leans conservative and a third of the current justices were appointed by Trump, the Court has played the problematic role of reigning in many of the Trump Administration’s actions, including its ruling blocking Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship and its order to the Trump Administration to facilitate the return of a wrongly deported man. 

Between dissent from civilians and pressure from the government, the Supreme Court has come to assume a unique role in the spotlight where it must balance ideology with adherence to the rule of law and commitment to civilian liberty with government duty. With recent efforts stripping lower federal judges of some of their traditional injunction powers, the Supreme Court only stands to gain more influence. How it chooses to use it, though, could have a monumental impact on how it continues to be perceived.

Seven months into the Trump administration, the most significant transformation of the American government is occurring not through dramatic legislative battles or Supreme Court decisions, but through the systematic capture of federal agencies. Russell Vought, who wrote key sections of Project 2025 and now serves as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is a self-described Christian nationalist who has positioned himself to reshape federal governance according to religious principles.

This represents an unprecedented combination of ideological planning and administrative control. Unlike previous religious conservative movements that sought to influence policy from the outside, Vought controls the budget mechanisms that determine which programs receive funding, which regulations take effect, and which federal initiatives survive. His section of Project 2025 outlined plans for "consolidating government power within the executive branch" through bureaucratic capture.

The transformation operates through what scholars call "administrative constitutionalism." This means using bureaucratic processes to achieve constitutional-level changes without formal amendments or major legislation. This strategy allows Christian nationalist ideology to embed itself within the permanent structures of government, creating institutional changes that could persist regardless of future electoral outcomes.

Vought's Power

According to The 19th, Russell Vought sees the Office of Management and Budget as a "nerve center" that can be used to curtail DEI programs and purge the federal workforce of Trump's perceived enemies. The budget agency under his control can be used to withhold money approved by Congress and eliminate dissent within agencies by firing employees. This creates what experts describe as a constitutional inversion, where administrative officials gain power to override legislative decisions based on religious rather than legal criteria.

The Office of Management and Budget traditionally functions as a neutral judge of fiscal policy, focused on efficiency and program effectiveness. Vought has transformed it into an ideological enforcement mechanism, with his organization's stated mission being "to renew a consensus that America is a nation under God."

This represents a fundamental departure from over a century of Progressive Era reforms designed to separate professional administration from partisan politics. The Pendleton Act of 1883 established merit-based civil service specifically to prevent this kind of ideological capture of government expertise. Vought's approach reverses these protections by making federal employees' job security dependent on conforming to religious expectations rather than professional competence.

Mass Firings

The administration's most powerful tool for controlling federal employees is Schedule F, a federal employment classification that removes traditional civil service protections from policy-related roles. The Office of Personnel Management estimates 50,000 positions will be reclassified under this rule, making them "at-will" employees who can be fired for any reason, including disagreeing with their boss's political or religious views.

The mass firings have already begun on an unprecedented scale. According to The New York Times, more than 150,000 federal workers at more than a dozen agencies have had their roles eliminated in the first seven months of Trump's presidency. Nearly 60,000 federal jobs are officially gone under Trump so far, with the Trump administration firing people, dismantling agencies, and inviting people to quit.

The cuts have been particularly severe at specific agencies. According to AP News, Russell Vought launched mass layoffs that threatened to cut up to 1,750 employees, or about 95% of the GSA workforce, with entire regions effectively fired. The Federal News Network explains The Department of Veterans Affairs has plans for the largest reduction in force at least 70,000 employees, while the Trump administration plans to cut 80,000 employees from Veterans Affairs according to an internal memo.

Tens of thousands of employees on probationary status have been fired, though these terminations have been challenged in court and the administration has been ordered to issue sweeping job reinstatements. However, the Supreme Court ruled in July 2025 to allow the mass firings to continue. The court's decision unfreezes at least 40 dismissal actions underway at 17 agencies, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs under the reorganization.

Project 2025 Details

The 900-page Project 2025 document provided specific step-by-step instructions that are now being systematically executed across federal agencies. The document contains detailed implementation strategies for each federal department, outlining which programs to eliminate, which regulations to reverse, and which personnel to target.

For example, Project 2025 specifically calls for eliminating the Department of Education entirely and transferring its functions to other agencies or states. It outlines plans to defund climate research programs across multiple agencies, eliminate diversity and inclusion offices government-wide, and restructure federal law enforcement priorities around religious conservative values.

The document represents what critics call a "sweeping vision of Christian Nationalist governance" that operates through administrative mechanisms. By focusing on regulatory changes, personnel decisions, and budget allocations, the strategy achieves policy transformations without requiring congressional approval or constitutional amendments.

Project 2025 also provides detailed transition plans for quickly installing ideological allies in key positions across the federal government. It includes lists of potential appointees who have been vetted for ideological loyalty and specific policy priorities for the first 180 days of implementation.

Healthcare Impact

Federal healthcare policies have become the primary battleground where Christian nationalist ideology has achieved concrete victories. The administration has systematically dismantled gender-affirming care through administrative action, achieving what Project 2025 outlined as priority goals.

The impacts are already visible across the healthcare system. The White House explains major hospitals in New York, Denver, and Washington D.C. have stopped gender-affirming services for young people, which Trump praised in a statement as his "intended effect." Denver Health in Colorado stopped providing gender-affirming surgeries for people under age 19 to comply with executive orders and continue receiving federal funding.

On February 20, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights announced the rescission of "HHS Notice and Guidance on Gender Affirming Care, Civil Rights, and Patient Privacy." By March 2025, HHS issued a proposed rule that would eliminate the requirement that health insurance issuers provide coverage for sex-trait modification as an Essential Health Benefit.

The financial impact is severe. Congressional Budget Office estimates that removing federal funding of gender-affirming care for minors in Medicaid/CHIP will yield $700 million in "savings" over ten years. The May 2025 budget bill expanded this ban to include all Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care for transgender people of all ages, not just minors.

The healthcare transformation extends to reproductive services through Title X restrictions that have historically reduced program participation dramatically. When similar restrictions were previously implemented under the first Trump administration, a study done by the Guttmacher Institute shows approximately 1,000 family planning clinics left the federal program and patient enrollment dropped from 4 million to 1.5 million people, representing healthcare access loss for 2.5 million Americans.

Education Battles

According to The Guardian, the Trump administration has systematically targeted education policies that conflict with evangelical Christian beliefs, following Project 2025's blueprint for eliminating the Department of Education entirely. According to the New York Times, on March 12, 2025, the administration fired roughly 1,300 employees, leaving the department with 2,183 employees, down from more than 4,000. The administration is trying to impound $6.8 billion in funding passed by Congress, creating immediate uncertainty for schools nationwide.

The Supreme Court ruled in July 2025 to allow the Trump administration to resume efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, though NCES employees told NPR that cuts likely won't impact Title I grants for the 2025-26 school year, but the fate beyond that seems incredibly uncertain.

According to Fenway Health, Project 2025 explicitly called for reversing LGBTQ+ protections in schools as part of its Christian nationalist agenda. The administration has already delivered on this promise by reversing Biden-era Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ students. Politico explains that in January 2025, a federal court in Kentucky blocked Biden's Title IX rules protecting transgender students, and the Trump Administration ensured these protections would not be restored. The new policy redefines "sex" under Title IX to mean only "biological sex recognized at birth," effectively stripping protections from transgender and non-binary students.

This creates immediate conflicts between federal policy and state law. According to EdWeek, Maine is currently the subject of three federal probes after its governor told Trump "we'll see you in court" over transgender athlete policies. Schools in states protecting LGBTQ+ students now face the choice between losing federal funding or violating state law.

The evangelical influence is clear in how these policies prioritize religious doctrine over educational access. EdWeek explains that key senators from both parties rejected virtually all the Trump administration's proposals to slash K-12 education funding in July 2025, but the administration continues pursuing cuts through administrative action rather than legislative approval. This creates ongoing uncertainty for the approximately 17,600 local school districts and over 5,000 postsecondary institutions that depend on federal funding.

Constitutional Problems

The systematic embedding of religious authority within government structures creates what legal scholars increasingly recognize as a constitutional crisis operating through administrative rather than legislative mechanisms. The Establishment Clause specifically prohibits government from advancing particular religious perspectives, but the current transformation achieves religious establishment through bureaucratic processes that avoid direct constitutional challenges while accomplishing the same practical results.

Recent Supreme Court decisions ending Chevron deference actually accelerate this process by reducing automatic judicial deference to agency interpretations of existing laws. This gives agencies more flexibility to reinterpret statutes according to religious priorities without courts automatically accepting previous secular interpretations.

Multiple constitutional challenges are proceeding through federal courts, but the legal process moves slowly while administrative changes occur immediately. Civil rights organizations including the League of Conservation Voters argue that Vought "is unfit for this role and holds dangerous views about presidential power" that threaten the constitutional separation of powers.

Public Opinion

The political foundation for Christian nationalist governance reflects significant public support that provides electoral legitimacy for these transformations. The Public Religion Research Institute interviewed more than 22,000 adults throughout 2024 and found strong correlations between Christian nationalist support and voting for Trump across all 50 states.

According to PRRI's 2024 American Values Atlas, 29% of Americans espouse Christian nationalism, with the survey categorizing Americans into four groups: Adherents (10%), Sympathizers (20%), Skeptics (39%), and Rejecters (31%). Republicans (55%) are more than twice as likely as independents (25%) and three times more likely than Democrats (16%) to hold Christian nationalist views.

The PRRI survey found that Christian nationalists are more likely to support political violence, with two-thirds of Christian nationalism Adherents (67%) and nearly half (48%) of Sympathizers agreeing that God ordained Trump to be the winner of the presidential election. This support base provides democratic legitimacy for policies that might otherwise face overwhelming opposition while creating conditions where administrative transformation can proceed with sufficient political backing despite lacking majority support.

Conclusion

The systematic capture of federal agencies through mass firings, ideological budget control, and religious policy enforcement represents a fundamental shift in American governance. When government scientists can be fired for climate research, when healthcare programs lose funding for following medical guidelines, and when schools face financial ruin for protecting student rights, the relationship between expertise and ideology fundamentally changes.

This transformation operates below the radar of most democratic safeguards. Unlike traditional authoritarianism that operates through dramatic seizures of power, this occurs through routine administrative processes that individually seem unremarkable but collectively achieve systematic ideological control. The embedding of religious ideology within permanent government structures creates what political scientists call "competitive authoritarianism," where democratic forms persist but substantive democratic governance erodes.

Whether American democracy proves resilient enough to resist systematic ideological capture of the administrative state will determine not only current policy but the fundamental structure of American government for generations to come.

The Washington Post reports that in a Gallup survey, 79% of Americans called immigration a "good thing" for the country, representing the highest level of pro-immigration sentiment in 25 years. Al Jazeera's reporting on the same Gallup data shows the share wanting immigration reduced dropped from 55% in 2024 to 30% today, a dramatic shift that occurred precisely as Trump pledged to carry out what he calls the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history.

This surge in pro-immigration sentiment cuts across party lines in unexpected ways during a period of intense immigration enforcement and political debate. Rather than turning Americans against immigration generally, the enforcement focus appears to have clarified public thinking about the distinction between supporting immigration and supporting specific enforcement methods. Americans are simultaneously expressing record-high positive views about immigration while showing declining support for specific immigration policies, revealing how they distinguish between supporting immigration as a concept and approving of particular enforcement methods.

Record Enforcement Success

Immigration enforcement has achieved dramatic results that surpass previous administrations. According to Axios reporting, there were 25,228 total encounters nationwide in June 2025, which is the lowest monthly total in CBP history. U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions—the arrests of individuals attempting to cross the border illegally—nationwide also hit a new historic low with 8,024, while the Southwest border saw 6,072 apprehensions, a 15% drop from the previous record in March.

These numbers represent more than seasonal variations. The enforcement success extends across multiple metrics, with illegal crossings reaching what officials describe as decades-low levels. The Washington Post notes that Trump has delivered on his campaign promise to tighten security at the U.S.-Mexico border, with illegal crossings now at their lowest point in recent memory.

What makes these achievements particularly significant is their consistency across different border sectors and entry points. The decline wasn't concentrated in one geographic area but spread across the entire southern border. This systematic reduction suggests that enforcement strategies are working comprehensively rather than simply pushing migration to different locations, a problem that plagued previous border security efforts.

Yet this enforcement success occurred alongside puzzling shifts in public opinion that challenge assumptions about how policy achievements translate to political support. The disconnect suggests that Americans evaluate immigration policy through multiple lenses beyond simple effectiveness metrics, including concerns about methods, humanitarian impacts, and broader values about how the government should treat incoming immigrants.

Declining Approval Despite Success

Trump's immigration approval ratings present a puzzle that defies conventional political wisdom. NBC News reports that while Trump started his second term with immigration as his strongest issue, there has been a clear decline in support across multiple polls. In poll after poll during his first few weeks in office, Trump's approval rating on immigration regularly eclipsed 50%, but by mid-July, just 42% of adults approved in CNN's poll.

Morning Consult's Trump Tracker showed Trump's immigration approval at 56% in late January, but this has declined to 51% in recent polling. Economist/YouGov polling found similar results, dropping from 51% approval in mid-February to 45% in early July.

The decline becomes more puzzling when examined against the timeline of enforcement success. As border crossings were reaching historic lows in June, approval ratings were simultaneously falling. This inverse relationship suggests that Americans are responding to something other than policy effectiveness when evaluating immigration approaches.

CNN polling conducted July 10-13 found that 55% say the president has gone too far when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the US illegally, up 10 points since February. The president's approval ratings are around 40% for his handling of both immigration in general and deportations specifically.

The approval decline appears connected to specific enforcement methods rather than border security generally. CBS News polling reveals that support for Trump's deportation program has fallen, with the network noting that Trump's declining marks on immigration generally are more connected to his deportation program than activity at the border. This distinction is crucial because it shows Americans can simultaneously approve of border security improvements while disapproving of interior enforcement methods.

Public Opposition to Specific Methods

Americans demonstrate clear preferences for certain immigration policies while rejecting others, creating a complex approval landscape that reflects detailed rather than simple thinking. CNN's recent poll found that 59% of Americans oppose arresting and detaining undocumented immigrants who have resided in the United States for years with no criminal record. This echoes a theme seen throughout 2025 polling - support for immigration enforcement tends to erode when pollsters specify that people without criminal records or longtime residents will be among those affected.

A Wall Street Journal poll from mid-January before Trump returned to office showed that almost three-quarters of registered voters (74%) supported detaining and deporting only undocumented immigrants who had been convicted of crimes. By contrast, only 38% favored deporting undocumented immigrants with American citizen children, 31% favored ending birthright citizenship, and just 26% favored deporting immigrants "even if they have lived in the U.S. for 10 or more years, pay taxes on earnings, and have no criminal record."

The opposition to certain enforcement methods has grown more intense as policies were implemented. CNN found that majorities oppose plans to build new detention facilities capable of holding up to 100,000 undocumented immigrants (57%), oppose increasing ICE's budget by billions of dollars (53%), and oppose efforts to end birthright citizenship (nearly 60%).

NBC News reports that high-profile incidents like the hunger strike at a Florida detention facility dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz," where detainees protested living conditions, illustrate the kind of enforcement controversies that drive down public approval even when border security metrics improve. Americans want border security but oppose family separations and due process violations that come with aggressive enforcement.

A May NPR/Ipsos poll found that while 48% supported "quickly deporting alleged gang members," a majority (53%) opposed ending birthright citizenship, and the public was almost evenly divided on support for the "mass deportation of everyone who is in the country without legal status."

Partisan Patterns and Shifting Dynamics

Republican support for immigration policies remains strong but shows some internal complexity. According to CNN, opposition among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents has risen from widespread to nearly universal, with 90% of Democratic-aligned adults now saying that Trump's deportation policy has gone too far, while just 15% of Republican-aligned adults say the same.

However, even among Republicans, support varies by specific policy. NBC News found that while only about one-quarter of Republicans oppose arrests aimed at immigrants without criminal records, just shy of half (47%) offer outright support, far below the 83% who approve of deportations overall.

Newsweek reports that Republican support dropped significantly on the question of whether immigration is generally good or bad for the country, falling from previous levels. The publication notes that support appeared to be shifting for some of the key policies Trump has sought to implement after promising them on the campaign trail.

Latino voters present particularly nuanced views. NBC News focus groups with Latino Trump voters found that most still supported Trump's broad actions on deportations, but several criticized the administration's widespread deportations, saying Trump should prioritize undocumented immigrants who committed additional crimes over those who have followed the rules since arriving.

Immigration Optimism Surge

The most surprising development involves Americans expressing record-high positive views about immigration generally, even as they criticize specific policies. The Washington Post reports that in a Gallup survey, 79% of Americans called immigration a "good thing" for the country. This finding comes as Trump pledges to carry out what he calls the largest mass deportation program in U.S. history.

The timing of this shift is particularly significant because it occurred during a period of intense immigration enforcement and political debate. Rather than turning Americans against immigration generally, the enforcement focus appears to have clarified public thinking about the distinction between supporting immigration and supporting specific enforcement methods.

CNN polling also found that immigration has become a top issue for Democrats in ways it wasn't before. When asked to name the issue they consider most important, 20% of Americans mention immigration, ranking it second only to economic concerns. While Republicans remain more likely to prioritize immigration, the partisan gap has narrowed from 26 points in January to 10 points as Democratic opposition to deportation policies has intensified.

Protests and Public Response

The implementation of immigration policies has generated significant public reaction beyond polling numbers. CNN found that Americans say protests against the Trump administration's deportation policies have been mostly justified by a 55% to 45% margin. There's particularly strong backing for the protests among Democratic-aligned adults (78%), adults younger than 35 (63%), and people of color (59%).

The public also shows concern about government overreach in responding to protests. By a 9-point margin, 47% to 38%, Americans say they're more concerned that the government will go too far in cracking down on protests rather than fearing that the protests themselves will get out of hand. Most Americans (59%) oppose Trump using National Guard troops in response to immigration protests even if a state's governor does not support the use of those troops.

These findings suggest that immigration enforcement is creating broader concerns about civil liberties and government power that extend beyond immigration policy itself. The public's support for protests and opposition to military responses indicates that immigration has become a catalyst for broader democratic concerns.

Future Policy Challenges

Recent polling reveals several key insights for future immigration policymaking. A July Wall Street Journal poll found registered voters close to evenly split on their approval of Trump's handling of immigration, with 62% approving of "deporting undocumented immigrants" while 58% oppose deporting people "believed to be here illegally without them ever seeing a judge or getting a hearing."

The distinction between supporting deportation in principle and supporting specific methods reveals the complexity of public opinion. The Wall Street Journal found that 53% say the "Trump administration is crossing the line" with its deportation efforts, while 45% say it is "doing what is necessary."

CNN polling shows that just shy of half (46%) say Trump's immigration policies have made the country safer, and 42% say the federal government has been careful about following the law in carrying out deportations. These figures suggest that Americans question both the effectiveness and legality of current enforcement approaches.

The summer of 2025 has demonstrated that achieving enforcement success, as measured by border crossing reductions, may be necessary but insufficient for maintaining broad political support when Americans question the methods used to achieve those results. Future immigration policy will need to account for public values about humanitarian treatment, due process, and community impacts, not just enforcement effectiveness.

The data suggests that Americans want immigration policy that achieves security goals while maintaining their sense of national values about how the government should treat people. The challenge for policymakers involves crafting approaches that satisfy security concerns while maintaining public confidence in implementation methods and broader immigration benefits.

This past weekend, the United States Office of Special Counsel announced that it had launched an investigation into Jack Smith, a former Justice Department special counsel who oversaw two significant federal prosecutions of President Donald Trump after the 2020 election. 

Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith in November 2022. At the time, the Justice Department had already begun investigating President Trump’s actions, and Smith was appointed to separate the investigation from the Justice Department and remove the politicized aspects of it.

Neither of the cases against Trump materialized after a Supreme Court ruling that expanded presidential immunity for actions during office, and some documents were tossed. On top of all of that, President Trump's reelection in the 2024 election made sure that all charges against him were dropped. After all of this, just a few days before Trump’s inauguration, Jack Smith resigned. He is now being investigated for possible violations of the Hatch Act.

The Hatch Act and OSC

According to the OSC, the Hatch Act is a federal law that limits the political activities of federal employees as well as some other government employees and is meant to make sure federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan way and that federal employees are not politically coerced. Suppose the OSC (Office of Special Counsel) concludes that a federal employee has violated the law. In that case, their case is referred to the president, and discipline can range from a reprimand to a removal from federal service altogether.

Former violations of the Hatch Act include some during President Trump’s first term when thirteen of his most senior aides, including his senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and his son-in-law, were found campaigning illegally for his reelection, but they faced no significant consequences. 

Now, after President Trump’s second term began, he recently hired Paul Ingrassia, a former right-wing podcast host, to lead the OSC. Ingrassia has a history of partisan statements, but said in a post on X that he would work to revitalize “Fairness” in the enforcement of the Hatch Act. Although he has not yet been approved, Jamieson Greer, Trump’s trade representative, is the acting head of the office, leading to concerns about the lack of a nonpartisan investigation by Jack Smith.

The Investigation Itself

After being elected, President Trump made it clear that he was planning to fire Smith and his team, and many Republicans accused Smith of bringing the cases forward for his political reasons. Since Trump was inaugurated, the Justice Department has fired multiple individuals connected to both of his cases. 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) called explicitly for the investigation in a letter to Jamieson Greer to investigate Smith and see if he “unlawfully took political actions to influence the 2024 election to harm then-candidate President Donald Trump”. Cotton claimed that Smith’s actions were not customary and appeared to have “no rationale”, especially his move to rush to trial.

The circumstances surrounding the investigation raise questions about whether this investigation is genuinely one of merit or one of political strategy. On one side, the investigation seems politically motivated when looking at all of the past violations, the leadership of the OSC, and the relevance of Jack Smith to the current President. However, the hastening of trial procedures by Jack Smith also begs the question of his motives in doing so, making the investigation potentially invalid. 

In both cases, it becomes essential to continue to monitor this investigation to understand the potential fallout and consequences. Perhaps, pursuing a more bipartisan route to investigate would clear doubts and increase the validity of the inquiry in people’s minds, leading to a clear and transparent conclusion, and one that can be used to further justice in our country.

Understanding the Recent Layoffs

As we near the end of the first 200 days of Trump, who campaigned upon promises of creating jobs and strengthening the economy, there has perhaps been no other sector subject to a cut in jobs than his own Department of Education. The over 1,400 layoffs occurring represented over a third of the Department’s workforce-- significantly decreasing their functionality on a mass scale.

The administration cites reasons for streamlining services and reducing bureaucracy; however, many are quick to disagree.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote critically in her dissenting opinion, saying that allowing these cuts "hands the executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out.” It furthers a point that many have--that only Congress should enable such a layover as large as this one, as deprecating the ability to execute a law is essentially ignoring the law altogether.

An employee of the Department of Education also provided insight, “These people are not bureaucratic bloats: they're vital to helping improve educational outcomes for our nation's children, and to ensuring states comply with the law,” they said. In addition, the employee mentioned the numerous ongoing and near-completed research projects that were put to an end in correlation with the layoffs, describing the loss as “inquantifiable”.

Impact on Students

The reduced size of the ED also means decreased effectiveness of its programs. The role of the Department of Education is to oversee the education of the nation as a whole, meaning they are tasked with policy planning, allocating funding, and data analysis. These responsibilities translate to numerous student services--many of them being crucial in all levels of education.

Since the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) is under the ED, there will certainly be a large backlog on student loan services. Processing, assistance, and loan disbursements will all turn into more time consuming endeavors, leaving students in a state of heightened uncertainty and vulnerability to administrative errors. Already, there have been reports that the estimated complaints have escalated from 16,000 to 27,000. This issue with delays was one prevalent even before the cuts, making it worrisome to see what other systemic issues may emerge in the future.

For instance, the then new FAFSA program in 2024-2025, which is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, was riddled with delays and issues. The overhaul of FAFSA began at the end of Donald Trump’s first term with the passing of the FAFSA Simplification Act as part of the end-of-year budget. However, the execution of this bill faltered, as it was placed upon a department already embattled with numerous other issues, heightened by the meager support of Congress and the global dilemma of the pandemic.

Despite various explanations for this specific issue’s origins, it's clear that eliminating the workers who carry out essential tasks will inevitably affect the department's organization, efficiency, and overall effectiveness in addressing similar problems to arise in the future.

Additionally, civil rights enforcement during school will be heavily impacted. Seven out of the twelve regional offices of the Office for Civil Rights have been shut down, making it one of the largest sectors of the ED to be cut. And, with 80% of sexual assault and 60% of bullying incidents estimated to go unreported, the OCR's diminished capacity makes it increasingly difficult to ensure these critical issues are adequately addressed.

Impact on Staff

The numerous cuts to the ED have left the staff, even those who weren’t subject to firings, uncertain about their future. Not only must they heed attention to potential future layoffs, as the Administration had stated their campaign goal was to “dismantle” the department, they have been left with an overflow of work. And, with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that these cuts are indeed, within the president’s inherent legal capabilities, it’s evident to believe that future ones will be, as well.

Furthermore, the immediately reduced workforce doesn’t immediately decrease the long-term duties, creating an impossible predicament for the employees. “"People were crying, breaking down at the human toll,” an employee who survived the cuts said, describing the atmosphere similar to a “funeral”.

Within this situation, it’s key to remember that these ED employee’s aren’t just automated working instruments, they’re people who can and are affected by the environment and workplace around them. Though on paper, the 1,400 workers laid off are already gone, the ripple effects will stretch far past the workplace. These weren’t only workers-- they were colleagues, friends, family, and community members who will not only be left without a stable source of income, but also leave a lasting social, emotional, and functional discrepancy in the communities they were terminated from.

Assessing the Future

For students, the greatest impacts of this change will be the future ones that are dependent on how the staff of the ED react in the present. While the some of the world has the concession to debate the authority of the Executive branch’s power to execute some decision-- the future of students hinges on a system that is now facing an unprecedented challenge. It can be both a scary and enlightening thought for the ED to be diminished, and only the future will tell if this will mark the start of escaping bureaucracy and promoting efficiency, or if this decision will create a dysfunctional educational system that fails American students.

For generations, standardized tests like the SATs and ACTs have loomed over students’ futures, with scores often carrying the weight of college dreams and career ambitions. But in New York City, the pressure begins even earlier. Here, thousands of eighth-graders pin their hopes on another high-stakes exam: The Specialized High Schools Admissions Test, or SHSAT. In the eyes of many families, this one exam is less of a test and more of a key–or a lock–to not only the next four years, but their future.

With the SHSAT being the sole criterion for admission to New York City’s “Elite Eight” schools, recent news has stirred unrest in the community about standardized testing: Black students received just 3 percent of offers, while Hispanic students received only 7 percent. 

The Crown Jewels of New York City’s Public Schools 

Featuring cutting-edge advanced research, rigorous college-level coursework, a wealth of extracurricular offerings, and a legacy of illustrious alumni, New York City’s eight specialized public high schools stand out as some of the most high-performing secondary institutions in the nation.

For many eighth graders, these specialized schools represent a dream, offering unparalleled resources and invaluable connections. Nearly 20% of their graduates go on to attend top 25 universities, underscoring the unique opportunities these schools provide.

The “Elite Eight” schools are Bronx High School of Science, Brooklyn Latin School, Brooklyn Technical High School, High School of American Studies at Lehman College, High School for Math, Science, and Engineering at CCNY, Queens High School for the Sciences at York College, Staten Island Technical High School, and Stuyvesant High School.

Once admitted, students enter an intensely competitive academic environment. Often, students take multiple AP (Advanced Placement) courses and have extracurricular activities outside of school, making them stand out during the college admissions process. At Stuyvesant High School, for instance, the average SAT score hovers around 1500, and the average ACT score is an impressive 33, putting the school as a whole in the uppermost percentile. 

To first get in, however, students must be the best of the best in their middle schools, competing with thousands of other NYC students for a spot. 

When Opportunity Hinges on a Single Number

With these schools’ prestige comes a challenging admissions process. Every year, 26,000 of New York City’s eighth-grade students take the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT) in hopes of getting an acceptance letter in the spring. 

To prepare, eighth graders spend their summer break and free time studying for the SHSAT, with some students even starting their studying years before. 

Given the significance of a number determining one’s fate for four years, preparation is often tedious and difficult. 

Hao Diep, an alumnus of the Bronx High School for Science, talked about the air of competitiveness in the months leading up to the examination and said, “People took mock exams and compared scores, sparking a competitive drive even though there were no prizes to be had at the end.” 

Based solely on a single entrance exam score of students’ mastery of English and Math, the schools then decide on acceptances. 

Last year, out of the tens of thousands of eighth-graders who took the exam, only approximately 4,000 students ultimately received admission. 

In an even more astonishing statistic, though Black and Latino students made up more than 44% of all test takers, their percentages in the “Elite Eight” were each less than 10% of the overall student population. 

More specifically, at NYC’s most selective specialized schools, Stuyvesant High School, only eight offers went to Black students and 27 went to Hispanic students, out of a class of 781 students. 

Not only was a consistent decrease in Black and Hispanic student admissions a pattern, but a similar trend existed with Bronx High School of Science. Out of 738 admitted students, only 76 offers went out to students of these racial backgrounds. Such a drop was massive compared to the year prior; there were 97 offers made towards these students. 

Standardized Testing Within a Wider Web of Inequality

Due to the intense pressure placed on students to score in the top percentile on the SHSAT and the competitive acceptance rates at New York City’s public high schools, many critics have drawn parallels between the SHSAT, SAT, and ACT, questioning their reliability as true measures of academic success.

Black and Latino families have historically made up a disproportionate percentage of low-income households in the United States compared to other ethnic groups, raising important questions about how standardized testing reflects income inequality and the unequal access to test preparation resources that many students face.

The intense competitiveness of these exams is fueled by an expensive prep culture, which often turns success into a matter of who can afford the most resources rather than who possesses the raw talent and academic ability to excel.

A parent and member of the Community Education Council, which has criticized the SHSAT in the past, said, “It’s a system that will always reward those with more resources, forcing disadvantaged students to pay a burdensome, regressive tax to test prep.”

Test prep has increasingly become a norm among students nationwide, whether it be for the SAT or ACT (or the SHSAT for NYC students), for children to obtain high scores. With this preparation, however, come lofty prices that not every family can pay. 

On average, the vast majority of quality ACT and SAT classes range from $600 to over $3,000 for a full program. Therefore, before students even enter the testing room, there is a stark difference in the preparation they may have received leading up to the test. 

Not only is test preparation a major issue for students, but the overall inequality from birth to the admissions tests is apparent. 

Professor Sean Reardon of Stanford’s Graduate School of Education said, “Kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods end up behind the starting line even when they get to kindergarten”. 

Due to historically low acceptance rates for Black and Hispanic students and a lack of funding for support programs, many of these students feel unmotivated to perform well. Even if they have the potential to excel academically, their abilities often go unrecognized unless they achieve exceptionally high test scores.

As universities bring back standardized testing requirements, these exams can reveal inequalities that are often ignored. For New York City’s “Elite Eight,” reliance on the SHSAT continues to hinder talented Black and Hispanic students due to unequal access to resources. 

Until percentages rise for New York City’s public high schools, these schools will continue to reflect the bleak and complex realities of the admissions process.

The upcoming mayoral race in New York City is shaping up to become a high-stakes referendum on the future of land use and housing in the nation’s largest city. In a city with 158,000 unhoused and more than half its residents rent burdened, the pressure to deliver meaningful affordability solutions has never been greater. 

Amid this backdrop, Democratic nominee and frontrunner Zohran Mamdani has emerged, presenting himself as a candidate running "to lower the cost of living." At the center of his housing policy is a plan to build 200,000 rent-stabilized units. To fund this, Mamdani plans to issue $70 billion worth of municipal bonds among other measures. What once seemed unlikely now appears increasingly plausible as Assemblyman Mamdani leads former Governor Cuomo by an astonishing 28 points in recent polling.

Windfalls of Mamdani’s Gamble

Issuing $70 billion in municipal bonds is unprecedented by all accounts. No city in U.S. history has ever attempted a bond issuance on this scale. However, the proposed mechanism could jumpstart a project that would have otherwise taken decades to fund. The immediate availability of capital enables rapid construction, which can quickly increase the affordable housing stock and provide relief to thousands of struggling renters. 

Because municipal bonds often offer favorable taxation, they attract a broad pool of investors, ranging from pension funds to retail investors seeking stable returns.This high investor appeal would create strong demand for the bonds, keeping interest rates and, by extension, borrowing costs relatively low.

Large-scale borrowing could also stimulate economic activity in housing-adjacent sectors by creating opportunities in construction, design, and beyond. In fact, according to the National Association for Home Builders, constructing just 100 rental apartments would yield $12.4 million in income for state residents, $3.3 million in taxes and other revenue for state and local government, and 170 jobs. Scaled to 200,000 units, Mamdani’s plan would imply billions in economic activity.

In addition, a surge in the affordable housing supply may moderate rent inflation, improving cost-of-living and potentially boosting disposable income for low- and moderate-income residents. 

In a housing market as competitive as New York’s, Mamdani’s plan could relieve pressure even on non-stabilized units by rebalancing supply and demand.

Furthermore, expanding rent protections can, potentially, foster greater stability and counter the effects of gentrification and displacement. Moreover, because the units would be publicly owned or managed with community oversight, residents may have greater influence over maintenance and governance, empowering historically marginalized communities.

Crucially, a Mamdani plan would represent a shift away from private-market reliant models. By positioning the city as both the builder and owner of housing, the plan establishes housing as infrastructure rather than a commodity.

Losing it All

While the rewards may be significant, the risks certainly match that. As of the fiscal year 2025, the city’s bond debt alone totals over $43 billion. Mamdani’s plan would almost triple that. 

The city is legally mandated to pay back bondholders, meaning debt service becomes a non-negotiable budget item. According to the Comptroller's Office, the city currently spends almost $7.5 billion annually on debt services. A $70 billion expansion would sharply increase this burden. Funding for those repayments would have to come from somewhere—perhaps from higher taxes or budget cuts. 

While the city’s credit rating is currently favorable, under a Mamdani plan, it could be jeopardized. Credit rating agencies like Moody’s or S&P evaluate city governments based on their perceived ability to repay debts. If New York issues debt too aggressively without a clear plan for repayment, it risks a downgrade. This would increase borrowing costs across the board from classrooms to subways.

A low rating would also become a “gift that keeps on giving.” Such a rating could erode investor confidence, making the bonds more difficult to sell and thus forcing the city to offer higher interest rates, further increasing long-term costs.

With a recession looming and federal aid uncertain, the city’s revenue may fall sharply as debt service obligations spike. Legally protected housing bond repayments could begin to crowd out funding for other critical services. Even in optimistic scenarios, a bond program of this size would narrow fiscal flexibility for many mayors after Mamdani and future City Councils. Fiscally conservative critics argue that a project of this scale could lock the city into a rigid, debt-burdened spending trajectory for years to come, making it difficult to adapt to new needs or even crises. In effect, Mamdani’s vision could bind future administrations to both a financial and political path they didn’t choose.

A Housing Vision or Fiscal Gamble?

Mamdani’s housing proposal is as bold as it is risky, a sweeping attempt to redefine the role municipal bonds play through mass-scale investment. It offers the promise of immediate relief and a long-term pivot from private-market dependence. Yet it also demands a truly staggering financial commitment that could reshape the city’s budget for a generation. 

As voters prepare to cast their ballots, the question is no longer whether the Big Apple needs housing reforms. It certainly does. The question is, rather, whether Assemblyman Mamdani’s approach is genius or insane. And that line is very, very thin.

In recent years, several U.S. states have attempted to block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood, sparking legal battles, political debates, and concerns from public health experts, pro-choice, and everyday American citizens. While supporters of these policies, and in more recent news, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, argue that public funds should not support organizations affiliated with abortion, critics warn that such restrictions limit access to essential healthcare services for millions of low-income individuals. With nuances to each side of the argument, it is imperative to give context and background information to first attempt to understand the complexity of such a controversial issue.

Background: Medicaid and Planned Parenthood 

Medicaid is (very soon could be used) the primary public health insurance program for low-income Americans, jointly funded by the federal government and the states. While federal law already prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for most abortion services under the Hyde Amendment, organizations like Planned Parenthood are reimbursed by Medicaid for services such as cancer screenings, birth control, STI testing and treatment, and general health exams. 

While there is a clear distinction that Medicaid funds are to be strictly used certain services, there are deviations (the Hyde Amendment has exceptions for when Medicaid can cover abortion care nationwide such as rape, incest, and when the pregnant person’s life is in danger), those funds are up for debate given the organization’s founding principle of providing multiple forms of abortion care. 

On a separate note, before delving into the pros and cons, it is important to differentiate the numbers, or rather, the assumed percentage of abortions Planned Parenthood contributes to on the national scale. A reminder that these statistics are provided merely to give a better overview and are not to indicate a bias either way. It is estimated that 613,383-930,160 abortions were received in 2022 on a national scale (voluntarily, given information to the CDC for the first number and Guttmacher for the second number). There is an assumed correlation in provided services with Planned Parenthood’s self-reported 402,200 in 2023-2024, with the obvious exception of the year gap. This is merely to provide better context for the contributions Planned Parenthood makes to the national number of abortions per year. 

Now, in at least 14 states, lawmakers have moved to disqualify Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements altogether, citing the organization’s involvement in abortion services as the primary concern, and given the wording of the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill, the legality of such is now up for debate in the courts. These efforts have varied in scope and success, with some being blocked by federal courts and others continuing through the legislative and judicial process. However, with the recent ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood in the federal circuit, as of July 8, Planned Parenthood won a temporary injunction on Monday that allows its clinics to continue to receive Medicaid funding for services that are unrelated to abortion. 

But now it raises the question: what are the pros and cons of a world blocking medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood?

Arguments in Favor of Blocking Medicaid Funds 

Major supporters of defunding efforts argue that taxpayer dollars should not be directed to organizations that provide or support abortion services, even indirectly. The verbiage used to describe abortion is targeted phrases like “the unborn” and “innocent life”, and since the 1950s, pro-life movements have had a strong tie to their religious beliefs. The movement originated in Catholic opposition to abortion law being “accepted” and gained more traction after 1973, when abortion was legalized nationwide by the Supreme Court, where Roe v. Wade established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion through the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Although Medicaid funds are not used for abortions (except in limited cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment), opponents argue that any reimbursement for other services frees up organizational resources for abortion provision. From this perspective, funding Planned Parenthood, even for non-abortion services, is seen as a violation of public values in states with strong anti-abortion constituencies. 

And of course, the infamous argument of state autonomy. State governments advocating for funding, traditionally republican and conservative, have argued that they should have the right to align public spending with state-specific moral and political priorities. A strong case of this was evident in Florida, where in 2024, an amendment was proposed to protect abortion and undo the six-week abortion ban. On Nov. 6, a little over 57% of Floridians voted in favor of a state constitutional amendment that would protect access to abortion. But a 60% majority is required there, so the abortion amendment failed. 

Blocking Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood can be seen as an assertion of states' rights to govern their healthcare partnerships in ways that reflect local values and policy goals. 

Arguments Against Blocking Medicaid Funds 

On the other side of this argument, critics argue that defunding Planned Parenthood reduces access to essential healthcare services, especially for low-income individuals. Planned Parenthood serves as a primary provider of reproductive health services in many areas, particularly in underserved or rural communities. In two-thirds of counties with a Planned Parenthood clinic, no other comparable reproductive health providers are serving low-income patients. 

Moreover, research suggests that when patients lose access to Planned Parenthood, they do not always find care elsewhere. Studies from states like Texas, which excluded Planned Parenthood from its family planning program, found reductions in contraceptive use and increases in Medicaid-funded births. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that cutting off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would result in increased federal spending due to higher rates of unintended pregnancies.

Similar efforts in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri have sparked lawsuits and drawn federal scrutiny. In some cases, federal courts ruled that the defunding efforts violated Medicaid patients’ rights to choose their provider. In other states, the status of funding remains unresolved as legal challenges continue. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has warned that the funding cuts result in reduced hours, staff layoffs, and clinic closures, particularly in high-need areas. 

The Next Steps

The debate over whether states should be allowed to block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood raises complex questions about federalism, public health, and moral values. Proponents of defunding emphasize fiscal responsibility, consistency, and alternative care options. Opponents warn of reduced access to essential services, legal conflicts, and disproportionate harm to low-income communities. 

As legal battles unfold and more states consider restrictive measures, the outcomes will have long-term implications for healthcare access, reproductive rights, and the relationship between state and federal oversight. Regardless of one’s position, the issue remains one of the most significant and divisive public health debates in America today. It will undoubtedly continue to impact American daily life and be a major factor in the 2026 midterms.

In Wisconsin, the swing state is familiar with politics playing a role in daily life. Rebecca Cooke gets that because it’s where she’s from.

She grew up on a dairy farm outside Eau Claire, a farm that, like so many, eventually couldn’t keep going. After that, she waitressed, opened a small business, and even started a nonprofit to help other fellow Wisconsinites trying to get something off the ground. 

So when she talks about wages not keeping up or the cost of groceries climbing, she’s not reciting a memo. It’s her life.

In 2022, she came within a few thousand votes of flipping Wisconsin’s Third District from Representative Derick Van Orden, which Donald Trump had carried by seven points. 

That close call showed she’s got more than long-shot potential. Now, she’s back on the trail for 2024, and this time the spotlight’s bigger.

Backing From All Over

National Democrats have marked her seat as one of their “red-to-blue” targets, which means more money and attention headed her way. 

She’s got endorsements from groups that don’t always overlap: End Citizens United, EMILY’s List, Social Security Works, the New Democrat Coalition, even Blue Dogs.

She doesn’t box herself in. Her line is usually something like, “I’m progressive where it counts,” and then she’ll talk about healthcare, wages, breaking up monopolies. 

But she’ll also say she’s willing to talk with anyone. In a district that stretches from Eau Claire to the Mississippi, being flexible is survival.

Bernie Steps In

Then came the Sanders endorsement, which made a lot of ears perk up. Bernie’s statement read less like a press release and more like, well, Bernie:

“I am proud to endorse Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District. … We need fighters in Congress who will stand up for working families and take on the greed of powerful special interests. And that’s what Rebecca will do.”

“Rebecca is a working class fighter who developed her populist roots in rural western Wisconsin. A daughter of farmers, a waitress and a small business owner …”

“She will be an ally to me in the House as she works to enforce antitrust laws … raise the federal minimum wage … and expand Medicare …”

Cooke responded with gratitude, calling Sanders someone who “cuts through the fray of Washington because he’s not afraid to speak truth to power.” She added, “He’s spent his career fighting for the same values that drive our campaign … I’m proud to stand alongside Senator Sanders in this fight.”

Of course, Republicans pounced, branding her “Bernie-backed” and “too far left.” In a red-leaning district, that’s not just noise, it’s a strategy. And it is on that will have more physical spotlight in the coming days as Sanders and Cooke will speak together at a rally this Saturday, Aug. 23, in Viroqua, Wisconsin. 

What She’s Actually Doing

Cooke’s counter isn’t online ads; it’s showing up. She’s been at dairy breakfasts, small-town parades, and county festivals all summer. She often introduces herself the same way: “I grew up on a dairy farm.” 

By the time someone asks what party she belongs to, she’ll shrug and say she’d rather they decide based on who she is, not the label.

It’s not flashy, but in rural politics, it’s the kind of thing that sticks.

Why It Matters Beyond WI-03

Her race is about more than just one seat. Democrats are watching closely to see if a candidate rooted in rural life, who’s got populist energy but can also shake hands with moderates and most importantly, rebuild trust with working-class voters.

Her link with Sanders adds another layer: can she hold progressive support without spooking the middle? If she can, other Democrats might look to her playbook as they try to win back farm towns and small cities.

At bottom, it’s about authenticity. People are tired of canned lines and shiny slogans. Cooke’s campaign feels like a kitchen-table chat: dairy farms, waitress shifts, small business struggles. It’s not glamorous, but it’s real.

The Tightrope

Cooke’s campaign is a balancing act, pragmatic and bold, local and national. The gamble is that voters will care more about that than the attack ads.

If she’s right, Wisconsin’s Third might just flip, and in the process, Democrats could rediscover how to talk to the heartland.

Who is RFK Jr?

Secretary of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services RFK Jr swore into his position on February 13th this year and since he started his term, RFK Jr has repeatedly promoted and spread misinformation, famously saying that “autism comes from vaccines” when in reality, it’s a genetically linked condition (HHS, 2025). Kennedy pushed harmful rhetoric on autism, saying that autism is a “chronic disease” and an “epidemic”, creating harmful stigma around the community and further marginalizing them (Middlemass, 2025). Besides this, Kennedy also promotes his other takes on ideas like the necessity of fluoride in water, linking it to problems like arthritis and thyroid disease (BBC, 2024). However, it is his anti-vaccine take that is particularly harmful and set to make its mark on society. 

So What Really Are Vaccines and Why Are They so Important?

Vaccines are like the tutorial in a game before you face the boss. They contain a weakened strain of the virus so that the immune system can fight it and create the antibodies. Should the actual strain of the virus enter the body, these antibodies will attack the virus and get rid of it much faster. This means that the immune system will be able to act efficiently to stop results like permanent injury and death. Essentially, vaccines are a mechanism for prevention. They prevent things like Polio from killing millions of people worldwide or Measles from killing millions of children a day. Therefore, access to vaccines is imperative to the safety and health of our world (CDC, 2024). Yet, vaccines are getting more and more expensive and the trend of Kennedy’s actions right now are heading towards making vaccines completely inaccessible to the low income. Unfortunately, it is not just the prices that disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Kennedy is not just pulling funding, he is pulling life from minorities in the US. 

What We’re Facing Today

Kennedy has been cutting funding from crucial research and institutions for a while now. Aside from the cuts to research that have been happening by the Trump Administration, $2.7 billion from National Institutes of Health and about 30% cuts to funds for cancer research, Kennedy has cut about $3 billion from the National Institutes of Health, one of the largest platforms for significant research in the US (Baldwin, 2025). Most recently, he’s also pulled $500 million in funding from vaccine research on viruses that affect the respiratory system, specifically vaccines that use mRNA technology (Seitz, 2025). In addition to this, Kennedy stated that no new research using mRNA technology would be permitted under the administration because of his skepticism surrounding the technology’s safety. It’s important to note that this concern is unfounded because mRNA technology has proven to be repeatedly successful and safe in its recent development. In fact, during the height of the Coronavirus spread, it was vaccines made using mRNA technology that helped slow down the pandemic (Bennet, 2025). Currently, researchers have been looking into mRNA technology and its uses for vaccines aimed at other viruses. Removing funding for such critical technology takes the US off the brink of innovation in making vaccines for rising viruses and future pandemics (Goldman, 2025). Instead of making it easier to fight viruses with vaccines, Kennedy is making it harder and this has drastic implications on minority communities. 

Ethnic minorities in the US like African Americans and Hispanics have repeatedly shown patterns of health problems, diseases, and viruses affecting them at a disproportionately higher rate than other groups. This is especially true in viruses that affect the respiratory system. The Covid pandemic, for instance, caused higher mortality rates in Black and Hispanic communities than other ethnic groups. During the pandemic, a hospital found that 70.6% of its patients were Black, showing how the virus affected them more than any other ethnic majority. This pattern is not only present in Covid either; pulmonary diseases put Indigenous Americans on the ventilator for 137% more days than average (Blank, 2025). These communities have long been put at a disadvantage by policy, causing them to lose access to high paying jobs, lose access to quality education, and to face discrimination from society. To add onto this, it’s much more likely that minorities will face discrimination or be treated wrongly in the healthcare system than ethnic majorities. These conditions put together are a disastrous recipe for continued structural violence throughout history. Drawing back funding from research aiming to ease the effects of problems that affect minorities at higher rates only serves to perpetuate this violence. Without funding for mRNA technology that revolutionizes the way we make vaccines, minority communities will face the worst effects of the US vulnerability to disease and viruses. With rising prices due to lack of funding and the constant inequity that minorities face, Kennedy’s policy means that preventative healthcare is only going to be more inaccessible to the minorities that need it.

In late July and early August 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unveiled an aggressive Instagram-driven hiring spree that joins together bold visuals with sweeping promises, “AMERICA NEEDS YOU,” “no undergraduate degree required,” and “up to” $50,000 in signing bonuses, $60,000 in student-loan repayment, and 25% premium pay. The campaign coincides with a policy pivot: DHS has removed the age cap for ICE law-enforcement applicants, re-framing recruitment as a civic emergency under a widened eligibility. 

Earlier Instagram posts have an almost lifestyle-ad tone (i.e., a conventionally attractive officer in uniform) before turning into explicitly mobilizing aesthetics, such as apparent Uncle Sam homages and "defend the homeland" messaging. The official landing page at join.ice.gov mirrors that escalation: an Uncle Sam image, a warning that “America has been invaded by criminals and predators,” and incentives that emphasize speed and scale. 

A Crisis-Driven Campaign

The timing is not coincidental. In conjunction with an administration push to increase removals, DHS formally announced the end of the age limit for ICE recruits on August 6, 2025, citing a flood of over 80,000 applications in the campaign’s first week and highlighting a benefits package designed to accelerate hiring. The Associated Press also frames the age-limit change as part of a broader effort to meet enforcement goals, underlining the compatibility of policy and persuasion. 

The Legal-Economic Core: Incentives and Fine Print

The campaign’s central claims—up to $50,000 in sign-on bonus, $60,000 in student-loan repayment, and 25% premium pay—are not a facade; they are in line with ICE’s official recruitment materials. The official portal states “You do not need an undergraduate degree” and lists those “up to” amounts prominently, while directing candidates to USAJOBS postings for role-specific terms. The 25% figure is consistent with Law Enforcement Availability Pay (LEAP) for HSI Special Agents and Administratively Uncontrollable Overtime (AUO) for specific Enforcement and Removal Operations roles, as outlined in ICE's career FAQs. 

The crucial phrase is “up to.” As with many federal incentives, eligibility, amounts, and service commitments vary by title, grade, location, and funding. The campaign’s headline numbers are appealing, but applicants should cross-check the fine print on official job announcements before assuming universal applicability. 

Persuasion by Uncle Sam, Then and Now

The visual language is intentional. One of the most recognizable American recruitment posters ever created is the pointing-finger Uncle Sam, “I want you for U.S. Army,” poster. Designed by James Montgomery Flagg in 1917, it was first used for recruiting men in the military during World War I and later reused in World War II.  Museums and archives note its enduring status as the emblem of wartime enlistment appeals, itself an adaptation of earlier British iconography. ICE’s current campaign borrows that iconography explicitly: join.ice.gov features an Uncle Sam image and text that have been adapted for modern-day urgencies. 

Is It Propaganda? 

Propaganda has been historically characterized by communication scholars as the systematic control of public attitudes through the manipulation of significant symbols, a persistent effort to influence opinions and guide behavior toward defined objectives (Lasswell; Jowett & O’Donnell, among others). When seen through that lens, some parts of the ICE rollout coincide with traditional persuasion design: 

• Symbolic freight: The Uncle Sam motif shifts civil immigration enforcement as a quasi-military duty, invoking national identity and moral obligation.
• Policy-message coupling: The age-limit reduction and incentive spike are publicized simultaneously with visually demanding appeals, decreasing recruitment friction and normalizing escalation targets.  
• Prominence through incentives: "Up to" figures generate emotion-evoking headlines that can obscure circumstances and restrictions that are integral in practice. 

To clarify, governments should and can recruit; this is not necessarily illegitimate. The issue is whether the means (fear-forward text, framing selective benefits, and historical symbolism) are intended to evade thought, an indicator that researchers employ to differentiate between propaganda and typical persuasion.

Where This Leaves Us

ICE's Instagram-enabled deployment is similar to government persuasion on an immense scale. According to academic standards for propaganda, this involves symbol-heavy messaging in support of set objectives, aligning with enabling policy changes. However, this does not imply that each of the claims is false; rather, it demands a careful examination of eligibility and fine print, as well as a fair assessment of what is being normalized in the process.

Three tangible actions could prove beneficial for both applicants and citizens: Before making decisions, (1) Confirm incentive details against official postings; (2) Separate patriotic imagery from specific job duties, authorities, and constraints; and (3) Track results, including the number of hires, cost, error rates, and civil-liberties safeguards, rather than just the inputs.

For federal law enforcement, where persuasion was once silent, this moment could mark the end of recruitment exceptionalism. Instead, it now uses large fonts and finger-pointing.

Overview of the Court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, covering Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, has increasingly become one of the most influential appellate courts in the nation. Historically, it gained prominence in the civil rights era as a result of landmark decisions on desegregation and voting rights.

The court has, today, been reshaped by a new generation of judges, often described as the most conservative and textualist in the nation. Six of the 17 sitting judges were appointed by President Trump during his first term, among them Judge James C. Ho, who is reportedly on Trump’s shortlist for Supreme Court justices.

Landmark Cases from the 2024-25 Cycle

1. Petteway v. Galveston County - Narrowing the Voting Rights Act

In Petteway, the plaintiffs alleged that Black and Latino voters collectively had their political influence unjustifiably diluted through redistricting efforts in Galveston, Texas. However, in a 12-5 decision, the court held that, under the Voting Rights Acts, different ethnic groups cannot combine their numbers to bring vote dilution claims. Rather, the court held that each group would have to prove harm independent of one another.

This decision makes it more difficult to challenge redistricting plans in multi-ethnic regions, and the result is expected to significantly hinder Texas Democrats as they explore legal options following a Republican-led redistricting effort to gain four congressional seats.

2. SpaceX v. National Labor Relations Board - Weakening Federal Agencies

Just days ago, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Elon Musk’s SpaceX, which claimed the structure of the NLRB, namely its members’ insulation from presidential removal and the use of Administrative Law Judges, was unconstitutional.

Through this decision, the court legitimized a key cornerstone of modern conservatism: the movement against the so-called “administrative state". Even further, this decision will likely allow President Trump to continue terminating officials at independent agencies as he has done with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

3. Reese v. ATF - Second Amendment Rights for Adults Under 21

In a major victory for proponents of the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit affirmed that to deny an individual aged 18-20 the right to obtain a handgun was an infringement of their Second Amendment rights and a denial of equal protections under the Fifth Amendment.

In the wake of prominent Second Amendment cases Heller and Bruen, lower courts have struggled to interpret the limits of permissible gun regulations. Through its blanket rejection of restrictions for all adults, the Fifth Circuit has applied a maximalist reading of the aforementioned cases, treating virtually any limits to the Second Amendment as unconstitutional. At a moment when mass shootings by young adults have already sparked intense debates, the court’s decision is particularly striking.

Targeting the Bench: Impacts of Judge Shopping

Plaintiffs suing the federal government have the privilege to choose which district they file their suit in, provided a local connection can be established. Some districts, however, only have one judge, allowing plaintiffs to “shop” for judges based on their ideological inclinations.

For conservatives, many such judges can be found in federal district courts that appeal to the Fifth Circuit such as the Northern District of Texas. Within the Northern District, the Amarillo division has faced great scrutiny recently. Nearly all federal cases are heard by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee with well-documented conservative views. Having appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the conservative supermajority makes it statistically likely a favorable ruling is reached. Even if a panel draws a rare liberal majority, the en banc process, allowing the court to rehear the case as a whole, provides a mechanism for the conservative majority to reassert control.

As might be anticipated, this practice has led to numerous highly consequential cases being allowed to take an “easy route.” For instance, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a challenge to the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, was filed in the Northern District of Texas, though the Supreme Court later rejected the Alliance’s complaint. Similarly, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization originated in the Southern District of Mississippi, another conservative judicial stronghold.

From New Orleans to Washington

In the High Court’s last term, 12—or approximately 20%—of its cases originated from the Fifth Circuit. This prominence, however, is not only a matter of volume; the Fifth Circuit has heard some of the most controversial and consequential cases in recent jurisprudence. Most notably, Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, came before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Fifth Circuit.

This dynamic, however, is also reflective of tensions between the Fifth Circuit and the Roberts Court. While the High Court has overturned almost all of the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in the past term, it cannot avoid addressing them. In effect, it forces the Supreme Court to engage with questions it might have otherwise sidestepped. Even with the reversals, the circuit succeeds in shaping the Court’s agenda and hastening timelines for doctrinal shifts.

For conservatives, the Fifth Circuit provides a sort of “judicial laboratory” where bold and, at times, procedurally extreme legal theories can be tested, legitimized, and then potentially adopted as the law of the land. To liberals, however, the significant influence of the circuit represents an imbalance whereby a single regional court can set terms for national constitutional changes.

As the Supreme Court prepares to sit for their “long conference”—where the justices select which of hundreds of petitions to hear in the new term—cases from the Fifth Circuit are all but certain to capture headlines in next year’s news cycle.

Challenges to the Fifth Circuit’s Ascendency

The Fifth Circuit’s aggressive jurisprudence has not gone unanswered. Across the nation, proponents of the “living Constitution” have begun to develop strategies to blunt the court’s growing influence.

To counteract the court’s impact, some liberal advocacy organizations have, ironically, employed the same litigation strategy as conservatives: judge shopping. In a 2024 case regarding LGBTQ rights, attorneys from the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, and other organizations and law firms were accused of attempting to have their case assigned to Judge Myron Thompson, a Jimmy Carter appointee. With that effort being unsuccessful, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

Public advocacy groups have also played key roles in framing the circuit’s decisions within broader societal contexts. Organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have highlighted instances where court rulings have impacted civil rights, such as the court’s delayed recognition of LGBTQ and free speech rights in Spectrum WT v. Wendler.

On a national level, Congresswomen Mikie Sherill (D-NJ) introduced the End Judge Shopping Act of 2023 in response to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The legislation aims to prohibit suits that seek injunctions from being filed in single judge judicial districts, preventing “judge shopped” cases from having nationwide implications. Currently, though the bill has been introduced in both the Senate and House, it has not progressed beyond that stage.

Judging America

The Fifth Circuit’s decisions ripple far beyond its marble courthouse in New Orleans. It has forced some of the United States’ most powerful institutions—the Supreme Court, Congress—to grapple with questions of power, rights, and the limits of the law. The circuit’s recent notoriety serves as a reminder of the incredible influence that relatively small, regional benches can have on a nation’s legal landscape and the lives of the millions they serve.

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a decision that transformed marriage law across the United States. In a 5-4 majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that states, under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, must license marriages between two people of the same sex. Celebrated by the LGBTQ+ community, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is the most significant LGBTQ+ rights case in American history and a defining decision of the twenty-first century.

Yet, this landmark decision was not without controversy. At the time of Obergefell v. Hodges, 35 states held statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages. With four dissenting opinions from the conservative wing of the Supreme Court, challenges against the ruling ranged from judicial overreach to distortion of the constitutional definition of “Liberty.” The most pertinent of these challenges came from Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued that “the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” Nearly a decade later, Justice Thomas’s concern resurfaced in the ongoing challenge brought by Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds.

Kim Davis has submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, claiming that Obergefell v. Hodges violates the First Amendment right to religious freedom. Her petition to the court comes after the Kentucky county clerk was jailed for six days in 2015, and is appealing a verdict that resulted in her paying over $360,000 for emotional damage and attorneys' fees. By filing the petition, the Supreme Court will hear Ms. Davis's argument but whether they take the case is a separate matter that has yet to be determined. The Supreme Court hears over 7000 petitions and decides to rule on less than 1% of cases brought before it. However, it is important to note that the Court has directed Moore and Ermold to file a response to Davis’ petition by October 8. While the Court can deny review based solely on the petition, requesting a response signals that this case is not in the pile of automatic denials but is in the pool of cases under active consideration. Anytime the Court does grant review, it requires such a response. Nevertheless, Justice Thomas’s dissent in Obergefell, along with a 6-3 conservative majority, are frequently cited reasons pundits say present potential concern regarding the overturning of the landmark marriage rights case.

Ms. Davis’s petition is unique, as it provides a potential carve-out for clerks to refuse certifying gay marriages without requiring Obergefell to be overturned. The fundamental issue of Ms. Davis’s action in 2015 was that, in her capacity as a government employee, she was not entitled to the same First Amendment protections she would have as a private citizen. By refusing to issue licenses, she was violating Moore and Ermold’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, as recognized in Obergefell v. Hodges. The district judge declared Ms. Davis in contempt of court for six days until her deputies began licensing same-sex marriages. A ruling in Ms. Davis’s favor may not overturn Obergefell outright, but it could allow county clerks to refuse certifying same-sex marriages under a religious pretense, thereby making the process of marriage significantly more burdensome for LGBTQ+ individuals.

However, Ms. Davis’s argument remains undermined by significant judicial precedent. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that an individual's religious beliefs are not sufficient reasoning to excuse compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the government is free to regulate. In his decision, he goes on to point out that allowing such exceptions would “open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." This demonstrates that Ms. Davis’s argument of personal religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment does not supplant the Obergefell v. Hodges decision.

What may be slightly more troublesome about this petition for the LGBTQ+ community is that it doesn’t simply extend to the First Amendment. While the challenge itself outlines Ms. Davis’s own religious convictions, an important part of the Employment Division v. Smith case specifically states that the law must be “otherwise valid.” While the Obergefell decision in most circumstances would be sufficient precedent to point towards a “valid” law, the 6-3 conservative majority in the courts and Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health (2022) case (where he named Obergefell as one of the cases to be relooked at), may put the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling under a microscope once again. In this way, Ms. Davis’s petition could become a Trojan horse: framed as a narrow question of religious freedom, but carrying with it the potential to test the validity of Obergefell itself.

Ultimately, the decision to hear Ms. Davis’s petition will be left to the judgment of the courts, who will rule on whether there’s sufficient reasoning within the petition to re-examine Obergefell. Just as Dobbs reopened questions many thought settled, even the decision to entertain Ms. Davis’s petition could fuel uncertainty over rights that millions of Americans now take for granted. The question the Court must ask itself is whether it will continue to balance seemingly competing constitutional claims (liberty for same-sex couples on one side, free exercise of religion on the other), or whether it will tip the scales decisively toward one or the other. If the Court entertains Davis’s case, it won’t just be ruling on marriage licenses in Kentucky, it could once again put the rights of millions of Americans on uncertain ground.

AI played a major role in last year’s presidential election. From deepfakes to AI-generated advertisements, a new wave of campaigning was born from the fast-paced technology. Amidst the rapid development and implementation of AI in our daily lives comes a particularly sensitive moment for the state of elections and democracy going forward: the 2026 Midterm Elections. AI has the potential to make or break the results for either party, so future regulation will be closely scrutinized by both sides of the aisle. 

Significance of the 2026 Midterms

The 2026 midterms are shaping up to be extremely consequential for the United States. The first reason -- and the most obvious -- is that the balance of power in Congress may shift. Republicans, who hold narrow majorities in the House and Senate, are currently capable of passing President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda without much trouble. 

In the 2026 midterms, all 435 House Seats and 33/100 Senate seats are up for grabs. Historically, the president’s party loses seats in the midterms. In every midterm election with an incumbent Republican president since World War II, Republicans lost an average of 26 seats in the midterms. 

The midterms will also give politicians an accurate look at the president’s approval rating halfway into his second term. The outcome will determine if Trump can continue to push his legislative and political agenda forward. If Republicans lose control of one or both chambers of Congress, they will likely be stuck in a deadlock attempting to pass particularly polarizing and politically-charged pieces of legislation. 

If they lose control of the Senate, Democrats will likely block all efforts to approve Trump’s judicial and executive appointments. The stakes are high, and everyone knows it. 

Current Issues

Top of mind for voters will be issues related to the economy, immigration, and the current administration's policies on things like trade, spending, and democratic integrity. President Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” -- which he recently signed into law -- will have a major impact on electoral success in the 2026 midterms. However, very few voters actually know what the packed, 870-page bill contains. 

Right now, both parties are trying to claim victory before voters realize the bill's effects, and the stakes are huge for Republicans, who passed the bill and have the most to lose next year. The bill’s biggest measures were front-loaded to take effect before the midterms, but their impact may not be felt till much later. 

Redistricting wars in states like Texas are already making headlines, as Republican lawmakers look to soften losses -- or even make gains -- in next year’s election. More than a dozen states are weighing the idea of redrawing district boundaries ahead of the midterms.

Texas legislators recently proposed a rare, mid-decade congressional map change at Trump’s instruction. If passed, five seats previously in democratic areas would be redrawn to heavily favor Republican gains. Large Democratic states have retaliated by threatening to do the same. Governors Gavin Newsom, Kathy Hochul, and JB Pritzker of California, New York, and Illinois would see sizable Democratic gains if they followed through with retaliatory claims. 

Gerrymandering and other forms of election ‘manipulation’ will further undermine election integrity in America. As attacks on democratic institutions continue and the U.S. leans more towards autocracy, historians will look back on the results of the 2026 midterms as a pivotal moment in the country’s history. 

AI on Another Level

AI was already an issue being talked about before last year’s presidential election. According to an analysis of AI-related bills from state legislatures from January 1 - July 31, 2024, by the Brennan Center, legislators focused on “addressing deepfakes of themselves, but less so on other potential harms of AI on democracy.” 

14 states enacted deepfake laws prior to the election, but there was remarkably little new policy in the many other areas related to AI and democracy -- from the ways AI is used in election administration to voter suppression and election security. 

By July 31, 2024, a total of 151 bills addressing deceptive media in elections using AI had been introduced or passed.

Other topics that were lightly touched on -- but are worthy of much more scrutiny --  include attacks on the election process, regulation of robocalls, guidance for AI use in elections, and threats to election workers. The Center said that AI was already being used to “suppress and intimidate” voters and to “falsely allege election fraud.”

Furthermore, they emphasized expert warnings on AI use to “supercharge partisan gerrymandering of legislative districts,” which is particularly relevant today amidst redistricting conflicts in many states nationwide. 

Today, AI is much more advanced than it was just one year ago. New models like GPT5 have been released, and some unreleased models have proven their aptitude through feats like clinching Gold at this year’s International Math Olympiad. Simultaneously, the current administration’s approach to AI has been permissive. 

President Trump initially directed all federal departments and agencies to rescind any actions taken by the Biden administration that are “inconsistent with enhancing America’s global AI dominance.” 

Recent advancements in AI make it increasingly challenging to prevent things like election fraud, voter suppression, and the spread of misinformation -- issues the U.S. has already had to deal with in recent elections. While AI only evolves, regulation has not improved much since last year’s election. 

Current Measures

The U.S. has not yet adopted any comprehensive federal regulation on AI. Since last year, the rate of AI-related regulation and legislation has not matched the rate of AI advancement. While Congress is still considering numerous AI bills on a wide range of issues, there is a lack of focus on election-related legislation. 

States have also stayed focused on AI deepfakes and deceptive media, and many legislators have targeted regulations towards this type of content because of its direct effect on their image online. 

Back in 2023, the Republican National Committee released a video of what would happen if Biden won the 2024 Presidential race. In the top left corner of this ad was a small note that said “Built entirely with AI imagery.” Some candidates are also using generative AI robots to call potential voters. AI was already remarkably influential in last year’s race, but it will be an even bigger player in the upcoming midterms. 

Many states have already enacted laws regulating the use of AI to create political deepfakes by either prohibiting such material or requiring AI disclosures. Other bills that have been introduced include those on AI in campaign finance, election interference, and fraudulent voting.

Despite many specific examples of AI misuse, quantifying AI’s overall effect on elections and democracy is extremely challenging because there is no way to measure its cumulative impact over time. 

What To Look Out For

Midterm season is slowly creeping up on us. Rather than focusing solely on the details of new AI regulation, it will be important to analyze how much is regulated before the election.

The current administration and Congress may opt for a lax approach towards AI next year, especially if they believe it will help them keep the Republican majority. On the other hand, many states may introduce more AI-related election regulations to combat the spread of misinformation and attacks on election integrity. 

Either way, the quality and quantity of such measures must be closely scrutinized. AI is a revolutionary technology that we are learning more and more about every day. Its influence is immeasurable, but it is a tool that has the potential to quietly determine the outcome of one of the most consequential elections in American history. If democracy is the experiment, 2026 may be its most dangerous trial yet.

The United States, already grappling with an escalating opioid crisis, now faces a new threat that could worsen this public health emergency: significant cuts to Medicaid coverage and addiction treatment programs under President Trump’s newly passed “Big Beautiful Bill.” Public health researchers are sounding urgent alarms about the potential consequences it will have for America’s ongoing battle against the opioid epidemic. 

Medicaid’s Role in Fighting the Opioid Crisis

Since the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion in 2014, millions of Americans have gained access to addiction treatment services, from medication-assisted treatment (MAT) to counseling and recovery programs. Medicaid became the largest single payer for substance use disorder treatment in the U.S., covering about 40% of all nonelderly adults with opioid addiction. But the “Big Beautiful Bill” shifts Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to a capped block grant program, giving states a fixed sum each year, regardless of rising need. Critics say that in states hit hardest by the opioid epidemic, these limits will force deep cuts in coverage, with addiction treatment often the first to go. Already, overdose deaths in the U.S. have reached record highs, over 100,000 in 2023, according to the CDC. Advocates warn that slashing treatment access at this moment could accelerate the death toll.

The Research Behind the Warnings

Researchers affiliated with the Center for Health Economics of Treatment Interventions for Substance Use Disorder delivered their analysis to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader John Thune in July. The team used sophisticated modeling to project the real-world consequences of Medicaid cuts now being implemented across states.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage under the new law. Building on federal data showing that roughly 2% of Medicaid enrollees receive medications for opioid use disorder, researchers calculated that 156,000 people with addiction will lose treatment access.

Using the RESPOND population-based model, the analysis projects that overdose rates among those losing treatment will double in the first year following coverage loss. This finding aligns with clinical research showing that cessation of medication-based treatment leads to a six-fold higher risk of death in the four weeks immediately following treatment disruption.

The Progress being Undone

The timing of the Medicaid cuts coincides with remarkable progress in reducing overdose deaths. CDC provisional data shows a 26.9% decrease in drug overdose deaths in 2024, falling from 110,037 deaths in 2023 to an estimated 80,391 deaths. "This decline represents more than 81 lives saved every day compared to 2023 levels," CDC officials said in their analysis of the 2024 data. The question facing public health officials is whether the enacted budget changes will reverse this unprecedented progress.

Geographic Impact Varies

The impact of Medicaid cuts will not be distributed evenly across communities. States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act now face the most severe disruptions to their treatment infrastructure. Rural communities present particularly concerning scenarios. These areas already struggle with provider shortages, limited treatment facilities, and transportation barriers that complicate access to care. States like West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky, which have among the nation's highest rates of opioid-related mortality, are now forcing officials to choose between maintaining treatment programs and addressing other health priorities.

Urban safety-net hospitals and community health centers serving large Medicaid populations face significant financial strain, which may lead to service reductions or facility closures.

Looking Forward

The study forecasting that 156,000 Americans will be cut off from life-saving addiction treatment is more than an academic exercise. These forecasts reflect a nascent reality that individuals, families, and communities, in the wake of implementing the new law, will be confronting as states deal with the evident tension between the fiscal imperatives of the new law and the public health implications. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that eliminating Medicaid coverage for addiction treatment will cost lives in the long run, while also leading to larger, longer-term costs in multiple other systems. The important question now is whether America will be able to find a way to mitigate the damage to its advances in responding to the opioid epidemic, or whether the policies implemented therein will mark a substantial reversal on the opioid epidemic that has severe consequences for those most vulnerable. There's a lot to lose as America tries to manage the implications of statutory changes that could potentially undo one of the most significant accomplishments for public health in recent times.

The fight over California’s newly proposed congressional map isn’t just about who will win elections or who lawmakers will represent. It’s also about which regions will gain leverage over federal spending and investment, which development projects will get prioritized, and which industries will face stronger or weaker regulation. 

Context

The most recent plan put forth, known as Proposition 50, will seek to suspend California’s independent commission and adopt a Legislature-decided map of congressional seating projected to add roughly five Democratic-leaning seats to the state. Normally, these maps are reconsidered and redrawn every decade, though this most recent proposal seeks to expedite this cycle’s redrawing to only a half decade. Due to the potential for upsetting the balance in the legislature, this action has incited subsequent lawsuits and sparked a fierce campaign against it, leading to high political and economic stakes across California.

This package to redefine districts was originally framed as a response to Texas’ partisan remapping this August, which opponents called a blatant power grab that violated independent commission powers. 

General Economic Impact

The immediate costs of facilitating this change are relatively minimal, with California’s Legislative Analysts estimating only a one-time cost of a few million dollars to update election materials and other administrative materials in California’s counties. However, the long-term economic implications of this switch-up can be drastic.

California’s House of Representatives and its various internal committees influence where and how much funding will flow to. This includes allocations to port authorities, water projects, wildfire research, and research grants. Thus, a map that fortifies Democratic control could increase Democrat priorities and could also lead to further clashes with the Republican federal administration. 

Sector Specific Impacts

One sector that could see big changes post-remapping is logistics. California is home to many of North America’s west coast ports, and sees massive railway and highway transport activity as well. As such, policy campaigns on freight regulation and environmental requirements could change how carriers and operators all along the supply chain do business, impacting numerous businesses and thousands of jobs.

Bay Area and San Diego technology districts are also vulnerable to legislative action. For example, changes to STEM-related worker visa regulation could leave labor gaps in technology firms. Other regulations may also impact funding for semiconductor or artificial intelligence research, such as federal funding routing from the CHIPS and Science Act. 

Agricultural development is also dependent on policy, with bluer districts potentially leading to stronger advocacy for canal repair, groundwater regulation and development, and more climate-focused investments via direct public investment, research funding, or tax advantages.

California Members of Congress also spend time signaling policy priorities for local jurisdictions. More Democrat-leaning seats could push more communities towards public transit development, renewable home investments, and land rezoning efforts. Though these powers take a lot longer to materialize, it could potentially lead to more walkable and environmentally friendly municipalities across California. 

Policy Improvements

Due to the controversial nature of Prop 50, some opportunities for improvement exist, especially those that may help balance the implied changes the proposal will introduce. For example, it could be advantageous to phase in the proposed changes gradually. This will limit immediate disruption to at-risk constituents and businesses, and can allow more room for remedies before the full brunt of economical impacts are felt. 

One possible amendment for future redrawings could be to only permit lawmakers to set the broad criteria for the remapping, the actual map-drawing could instead be left to the responsibility of nonpartisan demographers and other unbiased government or judicial organizations. 

Mandatory public hearings and more in-depth disclosures of draft economic impact assessments could also help reassure voters and may also have an added benefit of streamlining the proposal’s legislative journey leading to a quicker adoption. 

By aligning technical expertise, public input, and improved transparency, California can reduce legal risks in the future, temper backlash, and maintain confidence within its districts.

Going Forward

Though many changes are in the works, the backlash is still strong and mounting. Both state and federal opposition exists, and the ultimate decision of whether Prop 50 will stay is hinged upon the decisions of the California Supreme Court and also the U.S. Federal Justice Department’s decision on whether or not to pursue federal litigation efforts. 

Court litigations can drag on for months if not years, thus the long term viability of Proposition 50 still remains in limbo. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind the implications of such regulation. Even beyond California, the impacts of such a proposal can be substantial, though not necessarily obvious at times. 

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind – July 20, 1969. The day that mankind quite literally flew to the Moon establishing NASA as the forefront of space exploration. 

Home to revolutionary technology such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope, NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has detected some of the most distant galaxies, captured the first black hole, discovered carbon dioxide in far-distant worlds unlike our own, and taken the most breathtaking images of our solar system.

However, some of the greatest mysteries of our universe, such as life on other planets or the location of the Golden Record related to extraterrestrial life, may never be answered. Scientists believe such mysteries are in jeopardy because of Trump’s proposed “extinction-level cuts” to NASA spending.

The Trump administration revealed in July its massive plan to slash the space agency’s overall budget by 24 percent to $18.8 billion, the lowest number since 2015. Space and Earth missions would bear the brunt of these changes, relinquishing more than 53% of what was allocated last year. President Donald Trump’s request for the 2026 Fiscal Year includes no money for the Orbiting Carbon Observatories—despite its importance in precisely indicating where carbon dioxide is being emitted. Such cutting means key research that assists farmers, student researchers, and scientists for policy-making will cease.

Restoring NASA’s Science Mission Directorate to $9 billion would account for the needs of high-priority projects and cost increases in materials from recent inflation, where NASA has been directed to pursue a series of new missions that would support the United States’ educational industry, for Earth sciences, solar physics, planetary science, and astronomy.

The Trump Administration’s Agenda

NASA has stated that the missions were “beyond their prime mission” and are being terminated “to align with the President’s agenda and budget priorities”. Advocates are highlighting the future discoveries that will not be made, as they fund campaigns to persuade Washington lawmakers to “defy the President” and preserve or even expand NASA’s funding. 

“An extinction-level event is when…life that has been otherwise perfectly well-functioning, healthy ecosystems…are wiped out in large numbers. That’s functionally what this budget is,” said Casey Dreier, the Chief of Space Policy at the Planetary Society. Dreier has played an immense role in rallying Congress members to oppose the budget and preserve funding for future missions.

Furthermore, advocates express an immense loss to “un-crewed” science would be the $3.9 billion Nancy Grace Roman space telescope—created as a successor to the James Webb and Hubble telescopes—which produces stunning images and unexpected insights into the origins of the universe as well as the Big Bang. 

David Crisp, a retired NASA scientist who led the development of the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, said that they are much more accurate than any other systems globally [operating or planned] and a “national asset that should be saved”.

However, there may be a hidden incentive for FY2026—rooted in politics.

Crisp hopes that Congress will vote to preserve funding for current and future missions—funded through the fiscal year that ends on the 30th of September. A bill in the House would align with the President’s request and eliminate the missions, while a Senate version preserves them. For instance, Congressional Democrats warned NASA Administrator Sean Duffy last month that it’d be “illegal to terminate missions or impound funds already appropriated by Congress”. 

The Brain Drain

This poses a moral and legal dilemma for employees at NASA; science is not as important as it once was, as the [Trump] administration prioritises privately funded foundations and private schooling and redirects taxpayer money [to them].

“...and they’ve made a living of being innovative on a budget that was always limited,” says Ehud Behar, a high-energy astrophysicist at Technion, and a former NASA researcher.

Dreier said that there had been “productive” conversations with congressional Republicans and Democrats—pushing for an increase to NASA’s science budget—though Trump aims to grant extra funding for human missions to Mars. 

This poses a whole new set of hindrances for the United States’ scientific research and community. Missions can turn off mid-light, extended missions that are led in coalition with other countries, such as Japan and Russia, can be left to “tumble in space”—posing threats to international affairs.

The most worrying? 1,555 scientists, “...engineers, and others, were laid off due to loss of research money and technology investments”, says Behar. 

Is science dead?

What does that entail for the future of STEM education?

Crisp is attempting to put together a coalition of outside partners—including Japan and Europe—which could fund and operate instruments attached to the space station. NASA itself has said that outside proposals will be accepted.

NASA missions—and science as a whole—are critical to discovering the secrets of the universe, Earth, and improving the quality of various livelihoods. It encourages educational attainment and has a “direct bearing” on its leadership in technological innovation and the country’s “national security”. Cutting down on research funding isn’t economically shortsighted, but dangerous.

It’s in the essence of policymakers to protect and safeguard the brain-economy of the United States, especially since science is the building block of opportunities for educational institutions, multi-faceted social economies, and educating our youth.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court denied immediate relief for researchers and universities, allowing the Trump administration to cut nearly $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

The Court held that challenges to funding cancellations cannot be brought in district courts but, rather, must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, a much more specialized forum that typically handles contract disputes. In forcing such a venue, the High Court greatly narrowed legal pathways due, simply, to numbers. There are 94 district courts and only one Court of Federal Claims, which can only hear so many cases.

It, however, did not endorse the administration’s criteria for terminating grants—a methodology that has already been found unlawful by lower courts.

For a funding system that distributes nearly $40 billion annually and serves as the backbone of American medical research, the ruling raises questions about not only administrative law but academic freedom more broadly.

Academic Freedom in a Constitutional Gray Zone

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether academic freedom enjoys robust constitutional standing. Universities and academics alike have long defended the principle as necessary to scholarship, while courts have provided inconsistent protections. 

In a 1957 case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire, the Court notably recognized “the dependence of a free society on free universities.” In contrast, a judge in the Southern District of New York held, just months ago, that Columbia University faculty did not have standing to litigate the Trump administration’s $400 million budget cut. Neither the High Court nor any lower court has firmly established academic freedom as an independent constitutional right. 

This recent ruling only further amplifies the ambiguity. By funneling all claims into the Court of Federal Claims, the High Court reduced researchers' ability to make constitutional claims such as free speech or due process. The paradox is striking: while the ruling acknowledges that funding disputes touch on legal rights, it simultaneously denies scientists a straightforward venue to defend them. 

For researchers whose projects are defunded because they intersect with politically sensitive topics, such as climate change and reproductive health, the practical message is that meaningful recourse is limited.

Risks to Research

The most immediate danger is to the peer-review process. The NIH and other agencies rely on experts to evaluate the quality and impact of proposals. However, if agencies become more concerned with defending their decision in court, scientific merit may be forced to take a back seat. 

The decision also creates procedural risks. By diverting disputes to the Court of Federal Claims, the ruling ensures that challenges will become slower, more technical, and less accessible. Researchers may hesitate to pursue claims at all, particularly early-career academics who lack institutional backing. The chilling effect could discourage innovative or controversial work precisely when it is most needed.

At a time when federal university funding has been slashed, the higher costs institutions face as they support faculty in grant disputes and litigations may divert resources from supporting students and other critical operations. This dynamic also risks deepening inequality in the research ecosystem: well-funded, prestigious universities may manage, while smaller, less-advantaged universities could be left vulnerable. 

More broadly, the ruling threatens to exacerbate the politicization of research. The NIH has been repeatedly drawn into political battles whether it be with COVID-19 or stem cell research in the early 2000s. By restricting legal remedies, the Court may inadvertently embolden the current and future administrations to use grants and research as a political tool. 

Silver Linings and the Path Forward

Despite the many risks, the ruling could produce some constructive outcomes. Particularly, it could encourage greater transparency. When faced with the prospect of legal scrutiny, institutions and agencies become more compelled to articulate clearer reasoning for fiscal decisions. This transparency could improve accountability to the public that funds a great deal of scientific research through tax dollars. Over time, this clarity could reduce public skepticism and strengthen trust in scientific institutions.

The High Court’s ruling has made it clear that individual faculty members are limited in their ability to litigate funding decisions. However, this limitation may actually encourage institutions to adopt broader internal mechanisms such as contingency funds or legal support structures.

Additionally, the ruling can serve as a catalyst for political reforms. The legal constraints imposed reveal gaps in the statutory and regulatory framework. As a result, lawmakers may feel increased pressure to codify protections for researchers. 

Finally, if federal funds become unpredictable, universities, foundations, and private philanthropists may develop new models for supporting high-risk research. Public-private partnerships, endowment-backed fellowships, or universities pooling resources are all possibilities in a future with highly politicized research funding. 

Grants, Courts, and the Future of Research

The Supreme Court’s ruling on NIH grant cancellations highlight the complex interactions between the law, federal oversight, and scientific research. There is a steady balance needed for all three to coexist efficiently. It is quite evident that that equilibrium has been disrupted, raising broader questions for all stakeholders: scientists, lawmakers, and, most importantly, citizens.

What is the FTC’s goal?

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is starting to scrutinize the mental health risks that AI chatbots could potentially impose onto children. The commission has asked for internal documents from major tech firms, including tech giants such as OpenAI and Meta (Reuters 2025). The sudden investigations stemmed from delivering on Trump’s mandate to cement America’s dominance in AI without compromising the safety and well-being of the people. 

The initial response rose from the recurrent inappropriate behavior that chatbots have been found as of recently. According to the Wall Street Journal, reports of flirtatious and borderline romantic relationships between teens and AI chatbots have led to cases of suicide due to heartbreak (WSJ 2025. 

Key Details of the Investigation

In order to scrutinize the issue from all angles, many politicians have taken upon themselves to do their own due diligence. Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri’s senior senator, launched his own probe into Meta in parallel with the FTC, asking for documentation on the troubling policy that allowed chatbots to engage with minors in romantic and sensual conversations in the first place (Reuters 2025). Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, is also investigating whether Meta AI Studio and Character AI have misrepresented their services as the guise of mental health support (Beaumont 2025). 44 other state attorney generals, including California’s attorney general Rob Bonta, have also issued a warning to AI companies deeming that the conduct of sexualized interaction with children could potentially be criminal (SF Chronicle 2025).

However, Meta and OpenAI have not released detailed public responses addressing the allegations posed against them. While Meta has highlighted their implementation of a new safety measure in order to limit access to certain AI personas and thereby restricting flirtatious content, many critics have argued that the change only came about after significant public pressure. OpenAI has followed suit in signaling plans to address these concerns, but questions on self-regulation being sufficient enough are still being asked. Other companies like Character.AI have not yet received a letter from FTC, but have made promises to cooperate with the commission. All in all, the FTC probe was a huge success that struck fear in even the most influential AI firms in the world.

Many legal scholars have cited that the commission is repeating a very famous historical precedent, pointing to the FTC’s 2019 action against YouTube for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection ACT (COPPA). YouTube along with Google agreed to pay a $170 million civil penalty in order to settle the allegations of illegally collecting personal information from children without their parents’ consent, which is a direct violation of COPPA (FTC 2019). The repetition of the precedent has sparked interest in a new federal child AI safety standard, which would be somewhat similar to Europe’s AI Act provisions. However, regulating AI chatbots is much harder than creating guardrails for traditional social media, since constant learning and updating by these powerful LLMs would be hard to keep up with. Additionally, the blurred line between actual therapeutic conversation and unlicensed mental health advice also could cause legal could give rise to significant legal disputes.

What Comes Next

Since the investigation is still relatively new, no other information has been given regarding any developments. However, the FTC’s interest at a federal, legislative, and state level is a reason for celebration. As the commission starts to strike down AI companies not prioritizing child safety, other firms will start to scramble to strengthen their own safeguards and adopt more transparent policies. The same guardrails that AI ethicists have worked effortlessly to create are finally starting to be enforced by the law.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark victory of the Civil Rights Movement. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6th, 1965, this bill was to counteract racist barriers that prevented black citizens from exercising their right to vote, including the removal of literacy tests and poll taxes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave power to the 15th Amendment, which famously granted African American men the right to vote after the Civil War. This historic symbol of progress celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, yet despite the cause for celebration, Louisiana (the state with the fourth-highest black population by percentage) may be on the verge of unraveling this pivotal beacon of racial equality in America.

Louisiana, a state with nearly a third of its population comprised of African American voters, is the latest state to be swept up in the redistricting challenges occurring around the country, from California to Texas. Yet, unlike those primarily political battles, the redistricting efforts in Louisiana (or lack thereof) are rooted in race, with the potential to undermine a central pillar of voting rights equality.  The timeline of what eventually became Louisiana v Callais becomes very important, as it spans years of appeals, injunctions, and a continuous game of legal hot potato between the courts.

Our story begins in 2022, when the Louisiana Legislature adopted a congressional map with only one black-majority district out of the six available districts across the state. Black voters in the state, realizing that this map would undermine their voting power, quickly appealed the 2022 map. In March 2022, Nairne v. Landry challenged the map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which states, “ No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” Around this time, other parties began to join the plaintiff’s side, voicing their own concern about the gerrymandered districts, which led the case to be renamed to Robinson v. Landry, after the new lead plaintiffs in the case.

During this time, the Supreme Court was in the midst of another case, Allen v. Milligan, determining whether Alabama’s congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower court's ruling to redraw the map, which it temporarily granted. However, rather than enact a final ruling, the Court decided to wait for its decision in Allen v. Milligan, holding Robinson v. Landry in abeyance. In November 2023, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Milligan, the Fifth Circuit agreed that Louisiana’s map is likely discriminatory, thereby determining that the legislature could redraw the maps. After the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the Louisiana legislature finally included a second black-majority district in an updated 2024 map, seemingly putting this case to rest. However, nobody was prepared for what would happen next.

A group of “non-African-American”  Louisianians led by defendant Phillip Callais, challenged the updated 2024 map, stating that it was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. After an expedited trial, on April 30th, 2024, a divided panel of three federal judges overturned Louisiana’s 2024 map, lending credence to the theory that the legislators improperly favored race during the construction of the new districts. In theory, this would have reverted Louisiana’s map to the original one black-majority district for the 2024 Presidential Election. In May 2024, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hold off on the map overturn temporarily due to the general election. The U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency stay in Robinson v. Callais, pausing enforcement of the district court's decision to strike down Louisiana's 2024 map as racial gerrymandering using the Purcell Principle, a judicial presumption against major change close to an election year.

The Court heard the first oral arguments for Louisiana v. Callais in March 2025. On June 27th, 2025, the Supreme Court scheduled a rehearing of the case for the 2025-2026 term... with a major twist: the court asked both sides for a brief explaining whether the creation of a second black-majority district would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment. Remember, the Callais position is not that the idea behind redrawing the map was flawed or that there shouldn’t be two black-majority districts, but rather that the 2024 map had very poorly drawn districts to achieve this racial justice. However, in a surprise to both the court and the defendants, the Louisiana government has made a complete 180, seeking the Supreme Court to rule that ANY use of race in redistricting should be found to be unconstitutional. The brief submitted by the state of Louisiana argues against racial redistricting in the same way affirmative action was overturned by the court, stating, “Race-based redistricting is categorically unconstitutional for all the reasons race-based admissions programs are likewise unconstitutional.” This is the ultimate legal irony: a state, forced to consider race to remedy a voting rights violation, now uses that same mandate to argue that considering race is itself the violation. By targeting the medicine, Louisiana seeks to invalidate the diagnosis. The danger is that in the pursuit of a colorblind ideal, the Court may sacrifice a critical lens that has been used for decades to ensure minority voters are not rendered invisible in the democratic process.

In an unprecedented turn, this complex dispute over the legitimacy of a congressional district has evolved into a case with the potential to threaten the fundamental principle of fair and equitable voting. While the 2024 Louisiana map is poorly drawn, the subsequent removal of race as a consideration from drawing district maps is a massive judicial overreach with significant consequences for voting rights advocates across the country. The Court will have to weigh the arguments and determine whether equitable justice can be achieved by ignoring real-world factors that impact the voting rights of millions in this country. If Louisiana’s proposal is accepted, maps may not have to be redrawn, for many to wonder if voting rights in this country are heading in the right direction.

On Aug. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump called for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign. Due to recent allegations with mortgage fraud, Trump is adamant on removing Cook from this position.

In a reporter interview earlier this week, Trump said that he would fire Cook if she did not resign because “what she did was bad.” Cook is currently fighting back these threats by Trump, verbally and legally. She filed a lawsuit (Cook v. Trump) on Aug. 28, 2025 in hopes of blocking out this removal and protecting her reputation. 

Wall Street Takes a Hit

With these allegations and statements that formed, Wall Street took a hit in many different aspects. For one, stock futures for Nasdaq, S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average all dropped down 0.1% in pre-market trading following President Donald Trump’s announcement against Cook. Stock futures were not the only thing that took a slip, but global equities as well. Certain losses spiked to above 1% depending on the country. UK’s FTSE 100 dipped 0.5% as Germany’s DAX dropped by nearly 0.3%. The largest fall out of all the stock futures was France’s CAC 40, which fell by 1.4%.

After a fall such as this, many analysts made comments on how Wall Street was affected, qualitatively. Nigel Green from the financial advisory deVere Group said in a remark, “Trump's decision to remove a sitting Fed governor has shaken confidence in the institution that underpins the world's financial system.”

Changes in Currency Values

Currencies globally have dramatically changed in worth with the accusations as well. Domestically, the U.S. dollar index fell by as much as 0.4% before being able to slightly recover itself. The value of the euro increased by 0.22% and the Japanese yen heightened by 0.27%. In addition to this, the British pound rose by 0.2% and the Swiss franc appreciated by 0.28% against the dollar. With all of this and the expectation of a Federal Reserve interest rate cut, it is expected for the U.S. dollar to have a 2% decline this month. 

If the legal dispute with Cook and Trump continues to unfold, it is foreseeable that there will be larger impacts to the U.S. dollar’s value as time goes on. Analysts and investors will continue to be closely monitoring the trajectory of the dollar’s value.

The Slip of Short-Term and Rise of Long-Term Treasury Yields

On Tuesday, the U.S. Treasury Yield curve underwent big changes and continued to do so as President Trump moved forward with removing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve governor position. It was seen that short-term yields were falling while long-term yields were rising. This was proven within the specific statistics, with the 2-year yield being more than 4 basis points lower at 3.685% when the 30-year yield gained more than 2 basis points at 4.911%. 

Analysts Expect Resilience

Since all of these events, Wall Street has made a recovery. However, it is important to note that despite all of the drastic measures these changes could have caused, most markets managed to be resilient and buoyant. That being said, analysts also expect a different case for the bond market. Due to the steepening curve of the U.S. Treasury Yield, it is foreseeable that there may be increased term premiums as investors may be partaking in both potential inflation risks and political interface in monetary policy. Should President Trump succeed in removing Lisa Cook from Federal Reserve Governor, there will be additional pressure and increase on long-term yields. If Cook manages to defeat Trump in their legal dispute, the market is expected to steady out and the political uncertainty of the time is more likely to defuse.

Growing Up Between Worlds

On September 10, news broke that felt like an earthquake in the ground I grew up on. Charlie Kirk—a conservative firebrand and founder of Turning Point USA—was shot dead at Utah Valley University during his American Comeback tour. Over 3,000 people were in attendance. But what unsettled me most wasn’t just the violence, or even who it targeted. It was where it happened: Utah, my hometown, a state often branded as safe, sheltered, and conservative to its core. If violence can erupt here, then nowhere is immune. And that, more than anything, reveals the crisis we’re living in.

As a Nigerian American woman raised in Salt Lake City, where conservatism is woven into the cultural fabric, I’ve always lived in a tension between belonging and alienation. My parents taught me to respect the values of faith and family we shared with our neighbors, but also to understand that the rhetoric often preached in Utah’s political spaces was not meant for people like us. This incident, tragically, brought all of those contradictions home.

The responses I heard only deepened that tension. Friends from high school messaged me in disbelief: “Utah, of all places?” My sister, who attends UVU, let us know what had happened. My father, after confirming the news, just said: “Too bad.” Shock. Detachment. Resignation. That’s where America is now. Some condemned Kirk as hateful. Others immediately made him a martyr. Both missed the deeper truth: we’ve normalized political violence. And the data shows it—57% of Americans now say political violence is a major problem, up from 44% just two years ago.

I don’t celebrate Kirk’s death. I understand why some people feel relief at the loss of a figure whose words were often dismissive and divisive. But I also recognize that he died surrounded by thousands of people found meaning in him. That duality, the fact that both truths can coexist, defines the polarized space we now inhabit.

When Violence Becomes Ordinary

Just two days later, another headline: bomb threats targeting HBCUs nationwide. My own university in Alabama wasn’t directly named, but Alabama State just down the road was. Those threats turned out to be hoaxes, but the timing was chilling. And this isn’t new: between January and February 2022 alone, 57 HBCUs were hit with bomb threats, nearly all of which targeted Black institutions. From a conservative rally in Utah to historically Black campuses in the South, violence and the fear of it echo everywhere.

In June in Minnesota, former Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband were assassinated in their home, while State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were shot at the very same night. Both attacks were carried out by a man armed with a “hit list” of nearly 70 names—lawmakers, abortion providers, and advocates he wanted dead. This wasn’t random. It was a planned political execution, one of the deadliest targeted attacks on state officials in recent history.

These ruptures are not about partisanship. They’re about what kind of nation we are becoming, or perhaps what we always were, now made undeniable. In high school, I competed in speech and debate, and one lesson has always stuck with me: the goal is not always to persuade, but to be heard. To tell a story in such a way that even if someone disagrees, they still understand your perspective. That’s what is missing now in our national dialogue. Instead of listening, we rush to blame. Instead of grappling with complexity, we flatten it into absolutes.

I’m young. My peers and I are entering adulthood at a time when political violence feels routine. And it’s not just perception: from 2016 to 2024, the U.S. recorded 21 terrorist plots or attacks on politicians motivated by partisanship—compared to just two in the entire quarter-century before. It’s tempting to go numb. But numbness is a luxury we can’t afford. Whatever path we take after college, we have to resist animosity, hear others out, and reject hate even when it’s easier to embrace it.

Choosing to See Humanity

Humanization is being chipped away every day. We see it whenever disagreement turns into dismissal, whenever someone is reduced to an enemy because they think differently. In moments like this, it is not enough to scroll past the headlines or retreat into silence. We have to pay attention, be mindful of how fragile this moment is, and recognize that history is being made around us.

The world doesn’t stop spinning, even when violence shakes us. But what we choose to do in these moments, how we respond, how we show up, matters. We are inheriting a country shaped by contradiction, division, and pain. But we also inherit the power to shape what comes next. 

We can choose not to give in to indifference. We can choose to listen, to speak with care, and to act with courage. In a time when dignity feels fragile, our responsibility is clear: protect it, honor it, and never forget that history isn’t just something we watch. It’s something we write.