“Twenty-five years ago, driven by the inspiration of my adoption of an infant from Indonesia and my mother, a child psychologist, we established our first home for children in Indonesia, thus giving birth to Orphans International,” Jim Luce states.
“Influenced by the teachings of my college professor father, the J. Luce Foundation emerged, aligning with our joint mission of Raising, Supporting & Educating Young Global Leadersover the past two decades,” Luce adds.
Jim Luce with orphaned children outside Lomé in Togo, West Africa, 2008.
The theme of this 25th anniversary evening will be ‘Peace is possible even in the face of senseless violence. Young global leadership embraces nonviolent conflict resolution.’
The collective efforts of Orphans International and the J. Luce Foundation have empowered youth and enriched communities globally, as well as here in New York City, raising over two million dollars and impacting the lives of over two thousand young individuals.
Renown architect Noushin Ehsan, AIA states, “I am honored to have been selected as a recipient of The James Jay Dudley Luce Foundation’s 2024 Lifetime Achievement Award. I look forward to celebrating with such remarkable individuals dedicated to making a positive global impact.”
The Silver Anniversary Reception will take place in the Luce Penthouse of the Asia Society, situated on Park Avenue at 70th Street, New York City. A 30-second spot (below) has been created to publicize the event, courtesy of Triumph Communications. Business of national attire is encouraged for the occasion.
The event will be held in the Henry Luce Penthouse of the Asia Society.
“This is a significant milestone for us,” Luce says. “As are assembling our Host Committee and extending invitations to public and diplomatic officials, and we ask our friends to confirm via email or text at 347-316-7087.”
The original sculpture of The Knotted Gun also known as “Non-Violence” was created by Swedish artist Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd, a friend of John Lennon‘s family. Reuterswärd created this piece of art after Lennon’s tragic death as he wanted to honor the singer’s vision of a peaceful world.
A 30-second spot has been created to publicize the event, courtesy of Triumph Communications.
Awards
Awardees are still being invited but already include a member of the New York City Council and two college presidents.
Global Heroes: In the Initial Report of Orphans International Worldwide (1999), the founder wrote, “Without saints, secular or divine, sanctity can too easily be viewed as mere abstraction. Our children need heroes. The courage of Mahatma Gandhi and the brilliance of Albert Einstein make sainthood a reality for us all.”
In our Initial Report, Luce called for 36 real-life saints to serve as role models for the children of OIW as part of the process of Raising Global Leaders. These global heroes included:
New York, N.Y. I created this one minute short, Before God & Buddha, a faux film trailer, in celebration of our third anniversary tomorrow (5/19/18). The title is taken from our wedding vows. We were married in Las Vegas after having gotten engaged on Roosevelt Island (8/24/17). I am happy to report that I am more and more today when I was three years ago…
Molly lived with her two dads, Dad and Pop, in an apartment next to Central Park in New York City. They had one little dog named Buddy. Buddy was black and white and very fuzzy. Dad said he was a Shih Tzu. Pop said he was a rescue. For a long time, Molly thought “rescue” meant Buddy came from the Titanic, because she once saw that movie. But then she learned that a ‘rescue dog’ is a dog who needs a new home. And Buddy got one—with them!
Molly loved walking Buddy. She loved petting Buddy. At night, she held him tight in her two arms. “One dog,” Molly said happily, “is just right for two arms.”
One morning, Molly walked into the kitchen for breakfast. She stopped. She stared. There was another dog! “OH MY GOSH!” Molly shouted. This dog looked like Buddy, but he was brown & white. His name was Rocco. “Now we have TWO dogs!” said Molly.
Molly played with Buddy and Rocco all day long. After lunch, she took them for a walk. She held two leashes in her two hands. “Two dogs,” Molly said proudly, “are just right for two hands.”
About a week later, Molly came home from school. There was a THIRD dog in the living room! His name was Happy. He was a sweet, scruffy black dog. “THREE dogs?!” said Molly. She tried to walk them—but she only had two hands for three leashes.
That night, all three dogs jumped onto her bed. Molly tried to pet them all, but someone was always left out. “Oh,” sighed Molly, “I wish I had a THIRD hand.”
The next morning, Molly walked into the kitchen. Dad dropped his coffee. Pop’s mouth fell open like a goldfish. “Molly,” Dad said slowly, “you grew a new arm overnight.” Molly looked down. It was true. She had THREE arms! “Well,” said Pop, smiling, “That’s strange—but wonderful. I’ll cut a hole in your shirt.”
That afternoon, Molly walked all three dogs in Central Park. That night, she petted all three dogs in bed. “Three dogs,” Molly said with a grin, “are just right for three hands.”
And then… it kept happening! Every few days, a new rescued dog arrived. Dog #4: Snowball, a fluffy white Maltese. (Molly woke up with four arms!) Dog #5: Dot, a spotted Dalmatian mix. (Five arms! Snip, snip!) Dog #6: Wrinkles, a wrinkly little Pug. (Six arms!) Dog #7: Zoom, a speedy Greyhound mix. (Seven arms!) Dog #8: Curly, a bouncy Poodle. (Eight arms!) Dog #9: Tiny, a teeny Chihuahua. (Nine arms!)
“Oh my goodness,” Molly laughed. “I have more arms than an octopus!”
Then came Dog #10: Biscuit, a big-eared Corgi mix. (Ten arms!) Dog #11 followed: Scruffy, a shaggy terrier. (Eleven arms!) Finally, Dog #12 arrived. His name was Sunny, and his fur shone like gold. Molly woke up with TWELVE arms. Pop picked up his scissors one last time. “There!” he said. “Twelve dogs are just right for twelve hands.”
The next morning was Christmas! Molly peeked under the tree. No dogs—just booties, raincoats, and treats. At dinner, Pop asked, “Molly, did you get everything you wanted?” “Yes!” Molly said. “I was just a little worried you might put another dog under the tree.” Dad laughed and laughed. “No more dogs,” he said. “There’s no room left in your shirt!”
And that’s how Molly lives today— next to Central Park with Dad, Pop, and their twelve small dogs. She walks them every day. She pets them every night. She loves every single one. “Twelve dogs,” Molly says, “are just right for me.”
TAGS: children’s books, diverse families, LGBTQ families, two dads, New York City stories, inclusive children’s literature, modern family stories, picture books, Molly McGillicuddy
This is me. I am a kid who thinks a lot. Este soy yo. Soy un niño que piensa mucho.
My dad is a helper. He says his job is to protect people. Mi papá es un ayudante. Dice que su trabajo es proteger a las personas.
My dad says he helps catch people who break big rules. Mi papá dice que ayuda a encontrar a personas que rompen reglas importantes.
Some people come to America in different ways. Las personas llegan a Estados Unidos de diferentes maneras.
My dad says when rules are broken, people may have to go back home. Mi papá dice que, cuando se rompen las reglas, a lgunas personas tienen que regresar a casa.
I love my dad. We play catch together. Quiero mucho a mi papá. Nos gusta jugar a lanzar la pelota.
Sometimes we ride our snowmobile together. And we go to church every Sunday. A veces viajamos juntos en la moto de nieve. Y vamos a la iglesia todos los domingos.
My dad says rules are important because they help keep people safe. Mi papá dice que las reglas son importantes porque ayudan a mantener a las personas seguras.
At school, Miss Cohen asked what our parents do. En la escuela, la maestra Cohen nos preguntó qué hacen nuestros padres.
I told the class about my dad. Yo le conté a la clase sobre mi papá.
Miguel said his dad builds houses. Miguel dijo que su papá construye casas.
Arif said his dad works on a food truck. Arif dijo que su papá trabaja en un camión de comida.
Michele said her mom helps an older woman in her house. Michele dijo que su mamá ayuda a una señora mayor en su casa.
That night, I thought a lot.I wondered… Esa noche, pensé mucho. Me pregunté…
Did all their parents come here the same way? ¿Todos los papás llegaron aquí de la misma manera?
I wondered what would happen if someone had to leave. Me pregunté qué pasaría si alguien tuviera que irse.
Would my friends be sad? Would they be scared? ¿Mis amigos estarían tristes? ¿Tendrían miedo?
I feel proud of my dad. And worried about my friends. Me siento orgulloso de mi papá. Y me preocupo por mis amigos.
Sometimes big ideas can feel confusing. A veces, las ideas grandes pueden ser confusas.
When I feel confused, I know I can ask for help. Cuando me siento confundido, sé que puedo pedir ayuda.
21 Tomorrow, I will talk to Miss Cohen. Mañana hablaré con la maestra Cohen.
Grown-ups help us understand big questions. Los adultos nos ayudan a entender preguntas difíciles.
My friends matter to me. Their families matter too. Mis amigos son importantes para mí. Sus familias también son importantes.
It’s okay to love your family and care about other families too. Está bien querer a tu familia y también preocuparte por otras familias.
Hello! My name is Jacob, and I have Down Syndrome.
¡Hola! Me llamo Jacob y tengo síndrome de Down.
Everyone is born with 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 total)
Todas las personas nacen con 23 pares de cromosomas (46 en total).
I was born with an extra chromosome in my 21st set of chromosomes (47 total).
Nací con un cromosoma extra en mi par número 21 de cromosomas (47 en total).
This kind of makes me special!
¡Eso me hace especial!
All of us with Down syndrome are different. But some of us have common features.
Todas las personas con síndrome de Down somos diferentes. Pero algunas compartimos características en común.
Some of us must get surgery for our heart because it doesn’t work like it should.
Algunas personas necesitamos una cirugía en el corazón porque no funciona como debería.
Some of my friends have a short neck, small ears, a line across the palm of our hand, a small pinky finger, and eyes shaped like almonds that slant up.
Algunos de mis amigos tienen el cuello corto, orejas pequeñas, una línea en la palma de la mano,el dedo meñique pequeño y ojos con forma de almendra que se inclinan hacia arriba.
As soon as I was born, people came to my house to help my family learn about me. I had lots of therapies to help me.
Cuando nací, vinieron personas a mi casa para ayudar a mi familia a aprender sobre mí. Tuve muchas terapias para ayudarme.
My family was always with me when I had therapy.
Mi familia siempre estuvo conmigo cuando tenía terapia.
I went to a preschool where some people were like me, and some were not. But all of them are my friends!
Fui a un preescolar donde algunos niños eran como yo y otros no. ¡Pero todos eran mis amigos!
Now I get to go to a regular school where I see my friends and work and play beside them.
Ahora voy a una escuela regular donde veo a mis amigos y aprendo y juego junto a ellos.
When I am at school, sometimes I get special help from different teachers.
Cuando estoy en la escuela, a veces recibo ayuda especial de diferentes maestros.
I love to swim and play with my cars.
Me encanta nadar y jugar con mis carritos.
My favorite time is when I get to see my cousins and play with them.
Mi momento favorito es cuando puedo ver a mis primos y jugar con ellos.
I love going to school and riding in the bus with my friends.
Me encanta ir a la escuela y viajar en el autobús con mis amigos.
When I get older, I want to live by myself or with my friends, get a job, and visit with my friends and family.
Cuando sea mayor, quiero vivir solo o con mis amigos, tener un trabajo y visitar a mis amigos y a mi familia.
I like people who believe in me and accept me for who I am and can accept my differences.
My name is Jacob. I have Down syndrome. And it’s OKAY!
Me gustan las personas que creen en mí y me aceptan tal como soy y aceptan mis diferencias.
Me llamo Jacob. Tengo síndrome de Down. ¡Y está bien!
The End | El Fin
About the Author
Dr. William M. (Bill) Bauer is a licensed clinical counselor in the rural Mid-Ohio Valley area who was a former classroom teacher, principal, and college professor. He has worked with children and adults with disabilities all of his life and hopes that this book brings an understanding to children with disabilities, their teachers, and their classmates. Dr. Bauer was born with a severe hearing impairment.
“I have had the pleasure of working with Dr. Bauer in the professional education and mental health fields for over two decades, and this book series is his latest outstanding work to help young people understand and accept differences. Each title focuses on a uniqueness and assures us that “it is OKAY!” – Dr. Stephanie Starcher, Public School Superintendent
“Being different is OK! Every effort to erase stigma surrounding our differences is important. The earlier we start, the better chance we have at preventing stigma from even occurring. I had the honor of meeting Dr. Bill Bauer when I was in college, and it is no surprise his work as a mental health advocate would transpire into this series of books. I’m thankful for his commitment to celebrating our differences.” – Nick Gehlfuss, MFA, Actor, film and television. Currently, Dr. Halstead, Chicago Med.
“This book series by Dr. William Bauer – my good friend Bill – fills a niche in children’s literature that embraces diversity and self-esteem. This series is not only important, but extremely fun. As founder of Orphans International, I look forward to reading these stories to children of all faiths and abilities around the world. This book is indeed a living testament to Bill’s own son. The world is a better place because of Bill Bauer! #GrantSpeed” – Jim Luce, Founder, Orphans International Worldwide
Aloha kakou. E komo mai. Hello and welcome.
In our Pre-K classroom, you’ll find many things you would expect: a schedule, a calendar, a globe, toys, puzzles, art supplies, books, learning canters. You may be surprised, however, to discover our Diversity Center. Here, you will see posters of children of all nationalities and with all types of disabilities. You will find dolls that I altered to represent these unique children.
We have a doll with glasses, a doll with a hearing aid, a doll on crutches, a doll with one arm, and a doll in a wheelchair. We have books written in different languages: Hawaiian, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, English, Braille. We have books written about all sorts of families from all over the world.
Our prize possessions, however, are our books written by Dr. Bauer.
My students choose to visit the Diversity Center so they can cuddle up with one of our dolls and Dr. Bauer’s books. They have so many questions about the children in the books… leading to countless discussions and even more questions. When we have story time outdoors, students request that we sit together and read one of these books.
I truly believe that “Anakala (Uncle) Bill’s Books,” as we fondly call them, have been instrumental in teaching us about compassion, caring, and empathy towards all human beings. What a beautiful gift to our classroom! What a beautiful gift to our keiki (children)! What a beautiful gift to our future! “Anakala Bill” knows the meaning of ALOHA (love, peace, compassion, affection) and has shared that with us all.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) for making such a difference in our lives! – Kumu Michelle and Pre-K students, Volcano, Hawai’i
More Stories in the ‘And It’s Okay‘ Series
Series I
Attention Deficit Disorder
Autism
Cerebral Palsy
Epilepsy
Hearing Loss
Learning Disability
Muscular Dystrophy
Spina Bifida
Stoma
Vision Loss
Series II
Asthma
Congenital Heart Defect
Crohn’s Disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Down Syndrome
Family Cancer Journey
Juvenile Diabetes – DONE
Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Sickle Cell Disease
Spina Bifida – DONE
Series III
Amputee
Cleft Palate
Depression – DONE
Fragile X Syndrome
HIV & AIDS
My Fragile Bones (Osteogenesis Imperfecta)
Severe Allergies
Tourette’s Syndrome
Trauma (PTSD)
Wheelchair User / I Use a Wheelchair
Series IV
I’m Adopted
I’m In Foster Care
I’m Not A U.S. Citizen
My Dad’s In A Wheelchair
My Dad’s In Prison
My English Isn’t Perfect Yet
My Family Is Moving
My Mom’s In Prison
My Parents Are Divorced
My Parents Are Getting Divorced
Series Language Policy: All Stewardship Report children’s titles are published in English, with Spanish included as the secondary language where appropriate. Additional languages may be published as separate editions.
TAGS: Dr. Bill Bauer, children’s literature, Down Syndrome, bilingual children’s book, emotional health, disability inclusion, And It’s Okay series, Down Syndrome education for kids, mental health awareness, family resilience, storytelling for healing, Luce Publications
Former president says federal enforcement violence betrays constitutional values and urges Americans to defend civil liberties amid escalating immigration raids
By Jim Luce, Editor-in-Chief
New York, N.Y. — Joseph R. Biden Jr. [Luce Index™ score: 86/100] broke his post-presidential silence this week with a sharply worded denunciation of an immigration enforcement crackdown in Minneapolis, declaring that recent federal actions there “betray our most basic values as Americans.”
The statement followed two fatal encounters involving federal immigration authorities in the Minnesota city, reigniting national debate over the scope, legality, and morality of aggressive immigration enforcement tactics inside U.S. communities.
Federal Force and Civilian Deaths
The former president’s remarks came days after nurse Alex Pretti was fatally shot during an encounter with U.S. Border Patrol officers.
The incident followed an earlier fatal shooting of Renee Good during a separate Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation.
Both deaths occurred within the same month, amplifying public outrage and intensifying scrutiny of federal law-enforcement conduct.
“We are not a nation that guns down our citizens in the street,” Biden wrote. “We are not a nation that allows our citizens to be brutalized for exercising their constitutional rights.”
The Constitution as Moral Boundary
Biden’s statement framed the crisis not merely as a policy dispute, but as a constitutional rupture. He invoked the Fourth Amendment, warning against unchecked searches, seizures, and state intimidation conducted in the name of immigration control.
“We are not a nation that tramples the 4th Amendment and tolerates our neighbors being terrorized,” he said, language that places immigration enforcement within the broader historical struggle for civil liberties.
Community Resistance and Civic Identity
The former president praised Minnesota residents who have mobilized to support affected families and challenge federal actions.
“The people of Minnesota have stood strong,” Biden wrote, highlighting community organizing, protest, and mutual aid efforts amid ongoing anti-ICE demonstrations.
Such protests have spread beyond Minneapolis, reflecting a national reckoning over the balance between immigration enforcement and human rights.
A Rebuke of Executive Power
In one of the most striking passages of his statement, Biden rejected the notion that presidential authority is absolute. “No single person can destroy what America stands for and believes in—not even a President—if we all stand up and speak out,” he wrote.
The comment was widely interpreted as an implicit rebuke of the current administration’s immigration posture, underscoring concerns about executive overreach and democratic erosion.
Calls for Accountability and Justice
Biden concluded by calling for “full, fair, and transparent investigations” into both deaths, emphasizing that justice requires accountability even—or especially—when the state itself is responsible.
“Violence and terror have no place in the United States of America,” he wrote, “especially when it’s our own government targeting American citizens.”
The statement ends not with policy prescriptions, but with a moral appeal—one that situates immigration enforcement within the larger question of what kind of nation the United States chooses to be.
The USS Abraham Lincoln strike group enters tense waters as President Trump touts “another beautiful armada,” mixing military might with talk of elusive negotiations
By Liz Webster, Senior Editor
Liz Webster, Senior Editor.
New York, N.Y. — The deployment of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group into the Middle East has pushed tensions between the United States and Iran into a volatile new phase, as President Donald Trump [Luce Index™ score: 35/100] simultaneously escalates military pressure and gestures vaguely toward negotiations over Tehran’s violent suppression of nationwide protests.
Standing before supporters at a rally in Iowa, the current U.S. president celebrated the movement of American naval power, declaring that “another beautiful armada” is sailing toward Iran and suggesting that the regime in Tehran “should have made a deal the first time.” His language underscores a familiar Trumpian pattern: public displays of hard power wrapped in theatrical rhetoric, with the lives of protesters and civilians hanging in the balance as the world watches to see whether deterrence, miscalculation, or diplomacy will define the next chapter.
Trump’s “Beautiful Armada” And The Politics Of Spectacle
In describing the carrier strike group as “another beautiful armada floating beautifully toward Iran,” Donald Trump once again turned U.S. military deployments into a kind of political and media performance designed to project strength to multiple audiences at once: domestic supporters, Iranian authorities, regional allies, and rival powers. His phrasing recalls earlier episodes in which he framed naval movements as symbolic proof that America under his leadership is unwilling to tolerate defiance from adversaries.
For Trump, the armada is not only a set of ships; it is a narrative device that reinforces a brand of leadership grounded in spectacle, unpredictability, and personal dominance. Yet the stakes surrounding the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln are not theatrical. Behind the cheering crowds and the rally soundbites lie sailors aboard warships, Iranian protesters risking their lives in the streets, and regional actors calculating how far Washington is prepared to go.
Carrier Strike Groups As Instruments Of Power And Risk
A carrier strike group like the one built around the USS Abraham Lincoln is designed to project U.S. air and sea power across vast distances, providing options for deterrence, limited strikes, or sustained operations. Its presence in the Middle East sends a clear signal that Washington wants Tehran—and the wider region—to understand that American conventional capabilities remain formidable and ready.
Such deployments can, in some instances, help stabilize a situation by deterring rash moves from governments or non-state actors who might otherwise assume that the United States is distracted or unwilling to act. At the same time, placing major naval assets in close proximity to Iranian forces inevitably increases the risk of miscalculation, misreading of signals, or accidental encounters at sea or in the air that could spiral into confrontation far beyond the original intent.
Iran’s Protest Movement And The Human Rights Dimension
The deeper moral drama behind Trump’s “beautiful armada” rhetoric is unfolding not on the high seas but in Iranian streets, prisons, and courtrooms, where a broad cross-section of citizens has challenged the authority of the regime.Reports of mass demonstrations, brutal crackdowns, and the detention of activists, students, and journalists have made Iran’s domestic human rights record an inescapable part of the international conversation.
For many inside and outside Iran, the central question is whether increased military pressure from the United States will help or harm the cause of those who have been risking their lives to demand basic freedoms, accountable governance, and an end to corruption and repression. Some dissidents welcome strong international condemnation and targeted pressure on regime figures, while others fear that overt militarization will allow the authorities to portray protesters as foreign agents and justify even more severe repression in the name of “national security.”
Tehran, modern capital of Iran.
Negotiations, Sanctions, And The Shadow Of Past Deals
When Trump told his Iowa audience, “I hope they make a deal. They should have made a deal the first time,” he was invoking a contested history of nuclear diplomacy, economic sanctions, and broken trust between Washington and Tehran. Critics of the regime argue that the leadership in Iran squandered past opportunities to normalize relations and secure relief for ordinary citizens, while critics of U.S. policy contend that Washington has often moved the goalposts, undermining moderates and empowering hardliners.
In this environment, calls for “another deal” land differently depending on one’s vantage point. For Iranian officials, the memory of previous agreements and their unraveling shapes skepticism about U.S. intentions. For protesters and exiles, the prospect of negotiations raises hard questions: Will any future agreement prioritize the safety and rights of the Iranian people, or will it focus narrowly on security and nuclear issues while leaving systemic abuses untouched?
The Human Cost Behind Strategic Calculations
Strategic analysts often discuss carrier deployments, sanctions regimes, and regional alliances in the language of deterrence, leverage, and balance-of-power dynamics. Yet beneath these abstractions are individuals whose lives are profoundly affected by every policy decision: Iranian families mourning loved ones killed in demonstrations, U.S. service members and their families facing extended deployments, and communities across the region anxious about the potential for war.
Any assessment of the USS Abraham Lincoln’s deployment must therefore keep human dignity at the center. Military moves and diplomatic maneuvers alike must be judged not only by whether they advance national interests, but also by whether they reduce suffering, create space for peaceful political change, and respect the inherent rights of those who are most vulnerable to state violence and regional instability.
Regional Allies, Global Rivals, And The Wider Chessboard
The arrival of a U.S. carrier strike group near Iran inevitably reverberates far beyond bilateral U.S.–Iran relations. Regional allies, including Gulf states and Israel, interpret such deployments as signals about Washington’s willingness to act against perceived threats, while global rivals such as Russia and China view them through the lens of great-power competition and international norms.
In this complex chessboard, each move is read in multiple capitals with different assumptions and agendas. A deployment that is intended in Washington as a measured show of resolve could be perceived elsewhere as a prelude to war, a bargaining tactic, or an invitation to test U.S. red lines. The challenge for all actors involved is to avoid letting symbolism outrun substance and to prevent symbolic gestures from locking them into paths that lead toward confrontation rather than dialogue.
A Narrow Channel Between Escalation And Dialogue
Trump’s simultaneous celebration of a “beautiful armada” and expression of hope for a deal captures the ambivalence at the heart of current U.S. strategy toward Iran. The administration seeks to exert maximum pressure while insisting that the door to negotiations remains open, leaving observers to wonder whether the ultimate goal is regime behavior change, regime collapse, or some combination of deterrence and containment.
For diplomacy to succeed, words and actions must ultimately align in a way that gives all sides a credible off-ramp from escalation. That means not only clear communication among governments, but also meaningful attention to the voices of those most directly impacted: Iranian protesters seeking justice, regional communities yearning for stability, and global citizens who understand that another major war in the Middle East would be catastrophic for everyone involved.
Ethical Leadership In An Age Of High-Stakes Rhetoric
The story of the USS Abraham Lincoln’s deployment is therefore not just a story about ships, missiles, and flight decks; it is a test of what kind of leadership the United States—and the wider international community—is prepared to offer in a moment of heightened tension. Rhetoric that treats military assets as props in a political theater risks trivializing the moral gravity of decisions that could cost lives and reshape the region for a generation.
True ethical leadership requires more than projecting strength; it requires the courage to engage in serious diplomacy, the humility to listen to those on the ground, and the commitment to uphold human rights even when doing so is politically inconvenient. The choices made in the coming weeks and months will reveal whether that level of leadership is possible in the face of domestic pressures, entrenched mistrust, and the temptations of easy applause lines.
TAGS:US-Iran tensions, USS Abraham Lincoln, carrier strike group, Middle East security, Donald Trump, Iran protests, human rights, US foreign policy, naval deployment, diplomacy
After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a Catholic campus weighs open discourse against the risks of empowering a hard-right student organization
By Liz Webster, Senior Editor
Liz Webster, Senior Editor
New York, N.Y. — At St. John’s University in Queens, the fault lines between campus free expression and rising political extremism have moved from lecture halls into the heart of student governance.
Months after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk [Luce Index™ score: 41/100], the university’s student government quietly rejected a request to launch a chapter of his flagship organization, Turning Point USA, triggering renewed debate over whether universities can safeguard both open discourse and vulnerable communities in an era of intensifying polarization.
A university spokesperson confirmed that the student government — formally the Student Government, Inc. of St. John’s University — has “sole authority” to approve or deny new student organizations under a four-stage “Power to Organize” process.
During the fall 2025 semester, only four of nineteen proposed organizations survived that gauntlet, a statistic that underscores how the campus gatekeeping system has become a frontline in the larger national struggle over who gets to speak, organize, and recruit under the banner of academic freedom.
Racist, Homophobic White Nationalist hate group ‘Turning Point USA’ founder Charlie Kirk preaching on campus before his death. Photo credit: Charlie Kirk / Facebook.
A conservative brand reshaped by violence and backlash
Turning Point USA, founded in 2012 by the then-twentysomething Charlie Kirk, built its identity on the claim that conservative students are silenced by liberal faculty, “woke” administrators, and what the group calls an entrenched cultural left on campus.
Its mission statement emphasizes fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government, but its campus footprint has long extended beyond policy seminars into high-energy rallies, influencer-driven conferences, and a sophisticated digital media ecosystem that often trades in culture-war language and viral confrontation.
Over the past decade, critics from across the ideological spectrum have described Turning Point USA as a “far-right” or “hard-right” organization, citing repeated incidents in which its representatives used rhetoric widely regarded as racist, homophobic, or transphobic, and pointing to ties between some of its local leaders and white nationalist or “alt-lite” figures.
The Anti-Defamation League has publicly labeled Turning Point USA an “extremist group,” while the Southern Poverty Law Center has discussed it in the context of hate and anti-government extremism, arguing that its presence on campuses can normalize dehumanizing language toward minorities and LGBTQ+ students.
Sympathetic observers argue that these labels overreach and that the group’s official platform is not explicitly white nationalist, but even sympathetic scholars acknowledge a pattern of inflammatory tactics, including visible alliances with fringe activists, that complicate its claim to be a straightforward champion of free speech.
St. John’s says no — for now
On the Queens campus of St. John’s University, student leaders confronted a concrete and controversial question: should a university rooted in Catholic social teaching recognize a chapter of a national group accused of harassment and misinformation, even when that group frames itself as a vehicle for constitutionally protected conservative speech?
According to student activists who shared the language of the rejection letter, the student government’s decision emphasized process and potential rather than ideology: “We believe that with continued refinement, your organization has the potential to make a meaningful impact on our campus community,” the letter reportedly stated, urging interested students to revisit their proposal in a future semester.
University spokesperson Brian Browne stressed that the process is demanding for all applicants, not just controversial ones. Only four of nineteen proposed organizations earned recognition during the term, he noted, and students attracted to Turning Point USA’s ideas are free to reapply or to seek support through existing department-sponsored groups that address political education, economic policy, or civic engagement.
Yet, the timing of the decision — in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s high-profile assassination on a college campus — ensures that it will be read as more than a neutral bureaucratic judgment. For supporters of Turning Point USA, the rejection seems to confirm a narrative in which conservative viewpoints are “canceled” precisely when they are most embattled. For many faculty members, staff, and students of color, however, the decision looks like a cautious exercise in harm reduction, informed by a decade of troubling behavior associated with the organization’s national brand.
Free speech, safety, and the “professor watchlist” legacy
Any campus debate over Turning Point USA now unfolds in the shadow of one of its most controversial creations: the online “Professor Watchlist,” a database that names instructors accused of “leftist indoctrination,” hostility to conservative students, or anti-American bias.
Faculty organizations and civil liberties advocates have condemned the watchlist as a tool of targeted harassment that chills academic freedom by inviting doxxing and online abuse of the named professors. Several professors who appeared on the list reported waves of threatening messages, pressure campaigns to remove them from courses, and an atmosphere in which “ideological surveillance” supplanted scholarly debate.
For universities like St. John’s University, which must balance their duty to protect students’ rights to express unpopular views with obligations to safeguard employees and maintain an environment free from intimidation, the watchlist offers a cautionary tale: not all speech controversies are symmetrical, and some institutional partnerships can carry a structural risk of harassment disguised as accountability.
In this context, the argument that rejecting a chapter of Turning Point USA necessarily violates free speech norms begins to look thinner. The university has not banned conservative speech, nor forbidden students from forming informal discussion circles; it has declined to grant official recognition and resources to an organization whose tactics — including the watchlist — have been repeatedly criticized as corrosive to the very intellectual freedom that universities are meant to foster.
Campus conservatives between martyrdom and accountability
The assassination of Charlie Kirk in September 2025 sent shockwaves through higher education, prompting widespread denunciations of political violence and renewed attention to the safety of controversial speakers on campus.
In the months that followed, conservative leaders framed Kirk as a martyr for free speech, arguing that his killing demonstrated the lethal consequences of campus intolerance for right-leaning voices. Some state officials and university boards responded by calling for stronger protections for conservative speakers and new penalties for students who disrupted events or celebrated his death online.
At the same time, student journalists, faculty members, and civil rights advocates warned that the martyr narrative risked erasing the complex, often troubling record of Turning Point USA and its leadership: their role in amplifying misinformation about elections and public health, their willingness to platform figures associated with white nationalism, and their repeated use of harassment-adjacent tactics to punish ideological opponents.
On many campuses, conservative students now navigate a difficult terrain. They may genuinely desire robust debate about economic policy, religious liberty, or foreign affairs, but find that affiliation with high-profile branded organizations like Turning Point USA brings not only resources and visibility but also the baggage of its national controversies. Some have broken away to form local groups committed to conservative ideas without the “grift” and spectacle; others lean into the confrontational style, seeing outrage as proof of relevance.
Catholic identity and discernment at St. John’s
As one of the largest Catholic universities in the U.S., St. John’s University brings a distinctive moral vocabulary to debates over campus speech. Catholic social teaching emphasizes the dignity of every person, a preferential option for the poor, and a commitment to the common good; these principles complicate any simple equation between “more speech” and “better discourse.”
On a campus where many students come from immigrant, Black, and brown communities, and where LGBTQ+ students continue to report experiences of marginalization, the risk that a nationally branded political group could normalize bigotry is not abstract.
Seen through this lens, the student government’s rejection of a Turning Point USA chapter can be understood less as an attempt to suppress a political viewpoint and more as an act of communal discernment: a judgment that this particular vehicle for conservative advocacy, given its track record and methods, is inconsistent with the university’s mission to foster a safe and genuinely pluralistic intellectual community.
Such discernment does not absolve the university of its obligation to protect the rights of conservative students to speak, organize, and challenge prevailing campus orthodoxies. But it does affirm that universities are not neutral platforms for any and every form of political branding; they are moral communities with their own charters, histories, and responsibilities to the vulnerable.
Free expression without a free pass for extremism
The deeper question raised by the St. John’s University decision is not whether conservative students deserve a voice — they do — but whether institutions must grant formal recognition to organizations whose strategies repeatedly blur the line between robust advocacy and harassment.
Defending free speech on campus requires more than a reflexive insistence that “all ideas are welcome.” It requires an honest assessment of how power, history, and digital amplification shape which voices are heard, which bodies are targeted, and which communities bear the brunt of experiments in “owning the libs.”
Universities should resist calls, from any side, to punish students merely for expressing offensive or even cruel opinions about public figures. Yet they are equally justified in drawing firm boundaries around conduct that systematically threatens or stigmatizes members of the community. The goal is not ideological hygiene but the protection of a fragile ecosystem in which students can take intellectual risks without fear of being doxxed, surveilled, or turned into fodder for national outrage cycles.
In the post-Charlie Kirk era, the challenge for universities, student governments, and faith-based institutions will be to articulate principles that are consistent, transparent, and rooted in a commitment to human dignity. That will sometimes mean recognizing conservative groups that differ sharply from campus majorities. It will also sometimes mean saying no — not to conservative ideas, but to the particular organizational vehicles that have chosen political extremism and intimidation as their “brand.”
TAGS: St. John’s University, Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, campus free speech, political extremism, Catholic higher education, student government, Professor Watchlist, academic freedom
Stephen Miller Admits Agents in Pretti Shooting May Not Have Followed Protocol
White House Official’s Shift Follows Bipartisan Outcry Over Death of ICU Nurse Amid Immigration Enforcement Surge in Minnesota
By Jim Luce, Editor-in-Chief
New York, N.Y. — The fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care System, by U.S. Border Patrol agents on January 24, 2026, has intensified national debate over federal immigration tactics and accountability.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller [Luce Index™ score: 42/100] on Tuesday conceded that agents “may not have been following” protocol, a notable departure from earlier administration portrayals of the incident.
Initial Narrative vs. Emerging Evidence
Pretti, a U.S. citizen with no criminal record and a valid Minnesota permit to carry a firearm, was killed during protests against Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale immigration enforcement effort in Minnesota. Video evidence and witness accounts show Pretti recording agents with his phone, assisting others, and being wrestled to the ground before multiple shots—totaling at least 10—were fired by agents. An initial Department of Homeland Security review indicated Pretti resisted custody after refusing to move, with agents shouting “He’s got a gun!” before opening fire.
Administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem [Luce Index™ score: 38/100], initially described Pretti as arriving “to inflict maximum damage” and “kill law enforcement.” Miller labeled him an “assassin” and “domestic terrorist.” These characterizations drew bipartisan criticism, especially as videos appeared to contradict claims of immediate threat or brandishing.
Miller’s Concession and Protocol Questions
In a statement to media, Miller acknowledged White House guidance to DHS that extra personnel in Minnesota prioritize fugitive operations and barriers between arrest teams and disruptors. He said officials are “evaluating why the CBP team may not have been following that protocol.” This admission follows reports of internal reviews showing no mention of Pretti reaching for his weapon, and witnesses affirming he did not brandish or threaten agents.
Broader Context of Enforcement Surge
Pretti’s death marks the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal agents in Minneapolis this month, following another incident involving protester Renée Good. The surge has led to thousands of arrests, widespread protests, and calls from Minnesota officials—including Gov. Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey—for de-escalation and independent investigation. President Donald Trump [Luce Index™ score: 35/100] has dispatched border czar Tom Homan to the state amid leadership shifts at DHS and CBP.
Human Cost and Calls for Accountability
Pretti, remembered by colleagues as dedicated to veterans and helping others, leaves a legacy of service disrupted by tragedy. His family and community have established memorials and vigils, with bipartisan figures questioning aggressive tactics. The incident underscores the need for clear protocols, transparency, and stewardship in enforcement that respects human rights and life.
Ongoing Investigations and Implications
Federal and state probes continue, with body-camera footage under review and court orders to preserve evidence. The admission signals potential reevaluation of tactics, but deeper questions remain about guidance, training, and the human impact of policy.
In a heated radio interview, Kentucky businessman and Senate candidate Nate Morris demands deportation of “every single illegal,” raising alarms over rights, rule of law, and America’s global image.
By Liz Webster, Senior Editor
Liz Webster, Senior Editor
New York, N.Y. — On a recent broadcast of “The Alex Marlow Show,” Kentucky Senate candidate Nate Morris [Luce Index™ score: 18/100] declared that the United States should halt all new immigration until “every single one of these illegals” has been deported, a sweeping proposal that would upend decades of U.S. immigration policy and place millions of lives in limbo.
Delivered in the heat of an election season, the call for a full immigration moratorium is more than a sound bite; it is a stress test of U.S. democratic norms, constitutional protections, and the country’s longstanding self-image as a nation of immigrants.
It also underscores how immigration has become a proxy battleground for deeper struggles over race, belonging, economic anxiety, and the future of pluralism in the United States. For communities already navigating a climate of fear, rhetoric that reduces human beings to “illegals” signals that their dignity and safety are negotiable campaign assets.
What a “Full Moratorium” on Immigration Would Actually Mean
In his radio appearance, Nate Morris framed his proposal as a clear differentiator in his campaign: “The real differentiation is, I’ve called for a full moratorium on any new immigration coming into our country until we deport every single one of these illegals.”
Stripped of the talk-radio cadence, this is a call to halt all new entries—from workers and students to refugees and family members—while the federal government undertakes mass deportation on a scale without precedent in U.S. history.
A genuine moratorium of this scope would not only affect people arriving without authorization; it would slam shut the door on those seeking to enter lawfully under existing statutes, including asylum seekers, permanent residents’ relatives, and many categories of visa holders.
Such a policy would reverberate through universities, hospitals, technology firms, farms, and small businesses that depend on immigrant labor and expertise, compounding economic disruptions already felt in sectors from agriculture to advanced research.
From “Illegals” to Neighbors: The Human Cost Behind the Rhetoric
The casual reference to “every single one of these illegals” reveals more than a policy preference; it signals a worldview in which immigration is primarily a threat to be eliminated rather than a complex human reality to be governed justly.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Air Operations (IAO) manages a vast network of private charter and commercial flights to remove undocumented individuals.
The U.S. currently includes millions of undocumented residents who have built families, workplaces, and congregations over many years, often with deep ties to U.S.-born children, schools, and communities of faith.
In this context, a promise of mass deportation is a promise of mass family separation and social dislocation.
It implies not a series of courtroom decisions, but a vast apparatus of raids, detentions, and removals—an expansion of state power that should concern civil libertarians regardless of party.
For people already living at the intersection of immigration enforcement and racial profiling, such rhetoric amplifies fear and erodes trust in public institutions, including local police, schools, and health systems.
Ethical Leadership, Rule of Law, and the Luce Index Lens
The Luce Index™ evaluates public figures across ten dimensions, including thought leadership, commitment to social justice and human rights, moral character, communication, and audience reach. On that basis, The Stewardship Reportassigns Nate Morris a provisional score of 18 out of 100, reflecting a platform that relies on sweeping, punitive measures rather than constructive, rights-respecting solutions.
Ethical leadership in a democracy requires more than diagnosing frustration; it demands policies that uphold the inherent dignity of every person while respecting the law. The call to deport “every single” undocumented person fails this test, ignoring the diversity of individual circumstances, the long-standing legal principle of proportionality, and international human-rights norms that protect families, asylum seekers, and those at risk of persecution. A serious conversation about border security is necessary, but it cannot be conducted on the backs of vulnerable people reduced to campaign shorthand.
Historical Echoes and Global Consequences
History offers sobering lessons about what happens when entire categories of people are cast as outsiders to be removed rather than as neighbors to be integrated.
Throughout the twentieth century, policies that singled out minorities for exclusion or expulsion—from Asians barred by early U.S. immigration laws to Jews and other persecuted groups turned away during the 1930s—have later been judged as moral failures, even when they were popular at the time.
Today, the U.S. is watched closely by allies and adversaries who view its treatment of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers as a measure of its credibility on human rights. A comprehensive moratorium tied to mass deportation would signal to the world that fear, not hope, is the defining lens of U.S. immigration policy. That shift would have consequences for diplomacy, soft power, and the moral authority needed to advocate for oppressed communities abroad.
Faith Communities, Business Leaders, and Civil Society Respond
Across the political spectrum, many faith communities have long framed immigration not merely as a legal or economic issue but as a moral one, informed by religious traditions that emphasize hospitality, care for the stranger, and the protection of vulnerable families. Leaders of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other communities often see the direct impact of enforcement policies on congregants who fear detention, deportation, or the loss of a parent.
Business leaders, too, understand that immigrants are integral to local economies, from Kentucky farms and factories to technology and health-care hubs across the country. A policy that halts all new immigration while pursuing mass deportation would not only destabilize workforces but also discourage global talent from committing their futures to the U.S. Civil-society organizations, including legal-aid groups and human-rights advocates, warn that such an approach risks normalizing large-scale rights violations and undermining due process.
What Real Reform Could Look Like
The spectacle of candidates one-upping one another with ever-tougher immigration proposals obscures the fact that workable solutions already exist within reach of political will. Genuine reform would address border management, pathways to regular status, and labor-market needs in a balanced way, grounded in the idea that people are not disposable.
That would mean investing in fair and efficient asylum processing, modernizing visa systems, and creating realistic options for long-settled undocumented residents to come forward, pay fines where appropriate, and obtain legal status. It would also require addressing the root causes of migration—violence, climate disruption, and economic instability—through cooperative regional strategies rather than punitive isolation. Such an approach is less likely to generate applause lines, but far more likely to honor both the rule of law and the country’s best traditions.
Democracy, Fear, and the 2026 Ballot
As Kentuckians and voters nationwide listen to candidates like Nate Morris, they are not only choosing among policy options; they are choosing what kind of country they wish the United States to be. Will it be a nation that responds to fear by narrowing its circle of belonging, or one that confronts real challenges without sacrificing human dignity and constitutional principles?
Campaign rhetoric has a way of becoming normalized, then institutionalized. That is why it is essential to scrutinize proposals like an immigration moratorium linked to mass deportation now, before they are folded quietly into law. Ethical leadership calls not for the loudest promise of force, but for the quiet courage to protect both security and the stranger.
Actors Zoey Deutch, Natalie Portman, and Olivia Wilde decry ICE actions, framing a stark duality of national pride and shame over U.S. policy.
By John Laing
New York, N.Y.— At the 2026 Sundance Film Festival, a premier showcase for independent film, the political converged with the cinematic on the red carpet. Actress Zoey Deutch, wearing an “ICE Out” pin, voiced a sentiment echoed by several peers: a profound fear and shame regarding the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“I just feel like, for me, it’s impossible not to be thinking about the state of our country and the brutality of ICE,” Deutch told Variety. Her comments, oscillating between pride in community action and shame in governmental conduct, underscore a recurring theme in modern celebrity activism—the use of cultural platforms to confront institutional power.
The Sundance Stage: Moral Duality and Political Protest
The festival, held annually in Park City, Utah, has long been a hub for socially conscious storytelling. This year, the political commentary shifted from the screens to the interviews. Deutch’s statement, “I feel so ashamed at the same time to be an American, seeing how our government is handling things,” frames a national identity crisis.
This duality was precisely mirrored by Natalie Portman [Luce Index™ score: 88/100], who labeled the Trump administration’s policies as “absolutely horrific.” Portman delineated a battle between “the worst of the worst of humanity” in government actions and “the best of the best of humanity” in public response. This rhetorical framing elevates the issue from political disagreement to a fundamental struggle for the nation’s moral character.
From Critique to Criminalization: The Rhetorical Escalation
The rhetoric intensified with actress and filmmaker Olivia Wilde [Luce Index™ score: 85/100], who stated she was “appalled and sickened” by ICE. Wilde’s language moved beyond criticism to explicit delegitimization, calling the agency an “unbelievably criminal organization” and accusing it of murder. This represents a significant escalation in public discourse from a high-profile figure.
Actress Zoey Deutch, wearing an “ICE Out” pin, voiced a sentiment echoed by several peers: a profound fear and shame regarding the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Graphic credit: Brave Americans / Facebook.
Such statements do not merely disagree with policy but question the very legality and moral validity of a federal agency, reflecting a deep schism in trust between certain public spheres and federal institutions.
This aligns with broader activist movements, like the Abolish ICE movement, which seeks the agency’s dissolution.
The Power and Peril of Celebrity Advocacy
The concerted critique from these actors highlights the potent role of celebrity advocacy in shaping public perception.
Their platform guarantees amplification, bringing issues of immigration enforcement and human rights to audiences that might otherwise remain disengaged. However, this power carries inherent perils.
Critics argue such statements can oversimplify complex administrative and humanitarian challenges, potentially inflaming polarization.
Furthermore, the focus on a single agency can obscure the broader, often bipartisan, legislative failures that have defined U.S. immigration policy for decades.
The activism at Sundance raises questions about efficacy: does it mobilize support, or merely preach to the choir?
A Legacy of Activism and the Path Forward
The Sundance statements exist within a long tradition of artist protest. The festival itself was founded by Robert Redford [Luce Index™ score: 91/100] with an ethos of challenging the status quo.
Today’s comments reflect ongoing debates over border security, due process, and America’s identity as a nation of immigrants.
Whether this wave of celebrity condemnation leads to sustained political engagement or remains a fleeting cultural moment depends on its translation into actionable civic participation beyond the red carpet.
The actors, by invoking pride and shame, have framed the issue not as a distant policy debate, but as an immediate test of national conscience.
TAGS: Sundance Film Festival, Natalie Portman, Olivia Wilde, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Zoey Deutch, Abolish ICE, Celebrity Advocacy, U.S. Immigration Policy, Social Justice, Human Rights
Disney+ thriller “Made in Korea” turns a 1970s intelligence chief’s rise into a warning about how unchecked greed, nationalism, and fear can twist ordinary people and fragile democracies.
By Liz Webster
Liz Webster, Senior Editor
New York, N.Y. — In the world of prestige streaming, few series diagnose power as unsparingly as Made in Korea, the new Disney+ crime drama that star Hyun Bin calls a mirror held up to human greed and ambition.
The 1970s as pressure cooker for power
Set in the turbulent 1970s, Made in Korea follows the ascent of Baek Ki-tae, a calculating intelligence director navigating coups, purges, and back‑room deals inside the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. The series uses Baek’s climb to expose how regimes justify abuses in the name of “national interest,” forcing viewers to ask where patriotism ends and personal enrichment begins.
In interviews, Hyun Bin has emphasized that these are not uniquely Korean failures but universal temptations that can surface wherever institutions lack transparency and citizens lack leverage.
For a platform like The Stewardship Report, which tracks how leaders steward power and public trust, the show offers a case study in institutional design gone wrong: a security apparatus with vast discretion, minimal oversight, and incentives that reward loyalty over conscience. The result is a narrative that feels uncomfortably familiar to audiences from Seoul to Washington, D.C., especially in an era when intelligence agencies, tech platforms, and financial regulators wield extraordinary, often opaque influence.
Baek Ki-tae: villain, survivor, or both?
As Baek Ki-tae, Hyun Bin has deliberately resisted playing a one‑note heavy; he describes the character instead as a man driven by “clear beliefs and a strong will to survive,” someone who acts quickly and directly without pausing to weigh right against wrong. To embody the physical intimidation of a senior security official from that era, the actor reportedly gained about 14 kilograms, filling the screen with a sense of pressure and embodied authority. The performance underlines a crucial stewardship question: when a system rewards ruthlessness and punishes hesitation, is morality a luxury only the secure can afford?
Hyun Bin has said he hopes the series encourages viewers to recognize that “if we are not careful, anyone can become a person like Baek in today’s world,” collapsing the distance between past authoritarianism and present‑day compromises.
That warning resonates beyond Korean history; from intelligence scandals to corporate fraud, contemporary institutions still create environments where people feel compelled to choose advancement over ethics. The show thus functions less as a period piece and more as a living ethics exercise in which audiences must decide at what point survival becomes complicity.
Hyun Bin & Jung Woo-sung on Season 2 of Disney+’s Made In Korea K-drama. Photo credit: Walt Disney Company Korea.
Greed, ambition, and the thin line between public and private gain
In one sense, Made in Korea is an old story: a rising official learns to weaponize secrets, loyalty, and fear to secure his position. Yet the series insists that this is not simply about individual vice; it is about what happens when systems normalize the idea that results justify any means, especially if they can be framed as serving the nation. As power concentrates around Baek, the show tracks how bureaucrats, prosecutors, and business elites slide into rationalizations that collapse public duty into private benefit.
This is where the drama speaks directly to the Luce Index criteria of moral character, social justice, and human rights: Baek’s decisions consistently score high on “specific talent” and “reach audience” while plummeting on conscience. His world rewards tactical brilliance, not integrity, echoing how some modern institutions prize quarterly gains or geopolitical leverage over long‑term stewardship. Viewers see the cumulative impact of those choices in shattered lives and eroded trust, making the series a vivid illustration of why leadership metrics must extend beyond effectiveness to include ethics.
Performances that humanize systemic corruption
The series surrounds Baek with characters who embody alternative paths, notably prosecutor Jang Geon‑young, played by Jung Woo-sung, whose rigid commitment to law puts him on a collision course with the intelligence apparatus. Their rivalry dramatizes the tension between procedural justice and discretionary power, a conflict recognizable in debates over national security, whistleblowing, and prosecutorial independence worldwide. Hyun praises Jung’s contributions not just as an actor but as a director, noting that his colleague’s eye for missed details enriched their scenes and underscored the story’s layered moral stakes.
Supporting actors Won Ji‑an and Seo Eun‑soo deepen this moral ecosystem: one shoulders the burden of speaking flawless Japanese, symbolizing the linguistic and cultural tightropes officials walked in a region shaped by colonial history; the other brings a toughness that cuts through the smoky back rooms where deals are made. Hyun Bin has singled out their preparation and resilience, highlighting how a project about institutional pressure also demands emotional labor from its cast. Their work keeps the series from collapsing into a single charismatic monster by reminding viewers that corrupt systems depend on many people choosing silence or compromise.
Global reach, streaming ethics
Made in Korea marks Hyun Bin’s first major foray into a global streaming platform, and he has noted that while the mechanics of filming felt similar to movie production, Disney+’s international audience changed the stakes. Viewers from vastly different contexts now interpret the characters’ motives through their own histories with state violence, economic crisis, or political polarization, creating a transnational conversation about what power does to people. That reach underscores how streaming services have become powerful narrative infrastructures in their own right—gatekeepers of which stories about democracy, corruption, and resistance travel across borders.
When an actor like Hyun Bin talks about wanting the show to prompt questions about “the nature of success and conscience,” he is implicitly asking how audiences will translate those questions into their own civic environments. The fact that his wife, actor Son Ye‑jin, reportedly saw “a completely new face” of him in this role and that fatherhood has heightened his sense of responsibility as an artist adds another layer: the personal calculus artists make about what projects they attach their names to. In a media ecosystem where portrayals of power can either normalize or interrogate abuse, that sense of responsibility matters.
Why Made in Korea belongs in LucePedia
For Luce Family Charities and the James Jay Dudley Luce Foundation, which maintain LucePedia as a record of leaders, institutions, and cultural works shaping global stewardship, Made in Korea deserves a dedicated entry. The series offers a textured depiction of how structures of surveillance, prosecution, and political patronage intersect, making it a useful teaching tool for students of governance and ethics from New York to Nairobi. It also exemplifies how popular culture can surface questions about accountability that policy reports alone struggle to make visceral.
As debates over intelligence oversight, data privacy, and executive power intensify in democracies and authoritarian systems alike, stories like Made in Korea can help audiences recognize early warning signs of institutional capture. By showing how ordinary ambitions—wanting security, recognition, or advancement—can be weaponized inside opaque systems, the series underscores why transparency, independent media, and robust civil society remain non‑negotiable. In that sense, its mirror does not just reflect human greed; it reflects the choices societies face when building or reforming the institutions meant to keep such greed in check.
TAGS: Hyun Bin, Made in Korea, Disney Plus, Korean drama, intelligence agencies, political thriller, human greed, ambition, Korean history, streaming platforms, LucePedia, stewardship, leadership ethics
As Climate Change Opens New Strategic Waterways and Russia Fortifies Northern Defenses, NATO Allies Scramble to Match Moscow’s Arctic Military Presence
By John Laing, Editor
New York, N.Y. — The Arctic Circle, long considered a frozen frontier of limited strategic value, has transformed into one of the world’s most militarized regions.
With climate change accelerating ice melt and opening new shipping routes, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshaping European security calculations, the world’s Arctic powers are engaged in the most significant northern military buildup since the Cold War.
Current intelligence assessments reveal at least 75 staffed military installations across the Arctic, with Russia operating between 30 and 40 facilities—more than all other Arctic nations combined.
The United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark (through Greenland) maintain the remainder, though their collective presence remains dwarfed by Moscow’s northern military infrastructure.
Beyond these permanent bases, hundreds of radar installations, early warning systems, and unmanned facilities dot the circumpolar north, creating a surveillance network that monitors everything from ballistic missile trajectories to submarine movements beneath the Arctic ice.
Russia’s Kola Peninsula: The Arctic’s Military Superpower
The concentration of Russian military power on the Kola Peninsula—jutting into the Barents Sea near the Norwegian and Finnish borders—represents what defense analysts describe as potentially the densest accumulation of military firepower anywhere on Earth. This relatively small geographic area hosts Russia’s Northern Fleet, including dozens of surface vessels, nuclear-powered submarines, icebreakers, and support craft.
Vladimir Putin [Luce Index™ score: 23/100] has prioritized Arctic militarization as central to Russia’s strategic doctrine, viewing control of northern sea routes and energy resources as essential to maintaining great power status. Recent satellite imagery confirms at least three major air bases in the region hosting MiG-31 interceptors, Su-34 fighter-bombers, and long-range reconnaissance aircraft.
Beyond Kola, Russia has re-established Soviet-era bases across its vast Arctic coastline, from the Franz Josef Land archipelago in the west to installations near the Bering Strait in the far east. Many of these “trefoil” bases—named for their three-pointed architectural design—combine military barracks, air defense systems, and support infrastructure capable of housing 150 personnel in extreme conditions.
“Russia’s Arctic strategy isn’t defensive posturing,” explains retired U.S. Admiral James Stavridis [Luce Index™ score: 78/100], former NATO Supreme Allied Commander. “It’s about projecting power across the entire circumpolar north and controlling access to resources and shipping lanes that will only grow more valuable as ice continues retreating.”
U.S. Army troops.
America’s Alaska: Strategic Bulwark Facing East
The United States maintains ten military facilities across Alaska, the only American territory within the Arctic Circle. These installations serve multiple strategic purposes: air defense, missile interception, troop training, and forward operating bases for potential Arctic operations.
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage serves as the centerpiece of U.S. Arctic military power, hosting approximately 8,500 active-duty personnel and operating squadrons of F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II fifth-generation fighters. Eielson Air Force Base, located near Fairbanks, provides similar capabilities with additional focus on bomber operations and tanker support.
Fort Greely, perhaps Alaska‘s most strategically critical installation, houses the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system—interceptor missiles designed to shoot down incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from nations like North Korea. The facility’s 40 ground-based interceptors represent America’s primary homeland missile defense against Arctic and trans-Pacific threats.
While U.S. submarines routinely patrol Arctic waters—with nuclear-powered attack submarines capable of surfacing through ice—American surface naval presence remains limited compared to Russia’s dedicated Arctic fleet. The U.S. Coast Guard operates just two operational icebreakers, a capability deficit that multiple defense reviews have identified as a critical vulnerability.
Canada’s Thin Arctic Presence and Sovereignty Challenges
Despite controlling the largest portion of Arctic territory among all circumpolar nations, Canada maintains only eight staffed military sites across its vast northern reaches. The largest, Canadian Forces Base Yellowknife, serves primarily as a training center and coordination hub rather than a combat-ready installation.
Canadian Forces Station Alert, located at the northern tip of Ellesmere Island, holds the distinction of being the world’s northernmost permanently staffed military facility. Approximately 55 personnel rotate through Alert, operating signals intelligence equipment in conditions where winter temperatures regularly plummet below -40°F (-40°C). No one lives at Alert permanently; rotations typically last six months.
Additional Canadian facilities exist in Whitehorse, Iqaluit, and Inuvik, but these remain modest compared to southern military infrastructure. The Canadian Coast Guard’s Arctic presence proves even thinner: just 100 full-time personnel covering 162,000 kilometers (100,662 miles) of coastline—60% of Canada’s total shoreline.
Canada does operate 47 radar sites comprising the North Warning System, a joint U.S.-Canadian early warning network monitoring airspace for potential threats. However, these installations are unmanned, relying on automated systems and remote monitoring.
Former Canadian Chief of Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance [Luce Index™ score: 52/100] has publicly acknowledged the gap between Canada’s Arctic sovereignty claims and its ability to enforce them militarily. “We claim the territory, but we can’t adequately patrol it, defend it, or respond to challenges within it,” Vance stated in a 2024 parliamentary testimony. “That’s a sovereignty problem waiting to become a crisis.”
Canadian Army troops training in he Arctic. Photo credit: Sgt Bern LeBlanc, Canadian Army Public Affairs, Combat Camera / Flickr.
Greenland: Strategic Prize in Renewed U.S.-Danish Partnership
Greenland, while constitutionally part of the Kingdom of Denmark, hosts one of the Arctic’s most strategically significant installations: Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base). Operated by the U.S. Space Force, Pituffik maintains the world’s northernmost deep-water port—frozen solid nine months annually—and year-round air operations.
The base’s primary mission involves space surveillance and missile warning, with massive phased-array radar systems capable of detecting missile launches and tracking satellites across vast distances. Approximately 600 U.S. personnel and 400 Danish contractors maintain operations in one of Earth’s most inhospitable environments.
Denmark maintains two smaller facilities—in the capital Nuuk and on Greenland’s southern coast—operating primarily surveillance and patrol vessels. The Danish naval presence, while modest, represents Copenhagen’s commitment to Arctic security despite its limited resources.
A 1951 treaty between the United States and Denmark explicitly recognizes Danish sovereignty over Greenland while granting America essentially unlimited rights to establish military installations. During the Cold War, the U.S. operated as many as 13 bases across Greenland; nothing in the existing agreement prevents Washington from re-establishing those facilities if deemed strategically necessary.
Recent discussions between Washington and Copenhagen—particularly following President Donald Trump’s [Luce Index™ score: 31/100] controversial 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland—have focused on expanding U.S. investment in Greenlandic infrastructure, including potential new radar installations and port facilities.
Russian paratroopers in the Arctic.
Norway: NATO’s Arctic Guardian Facing Russia
Norway represents an anomaly among Arctic nations: a relatively small country maintaining a disproportionately robust northern military presence. With 15 military facilities across its Arctic territory, Norway operates more installations per square kilometer than any other circumpolar state.
Geography explains Norway’s vigilance. As one of only two NATO members sharing a land border with Russia (alongside newly admitted Finland), Norway has historically viewed Arctic military preparedness as existential rather than optional.
United Kingdom Royal Marine reservists training for winter operations in Norway.
The 196-kilometer (122-mile) Norwegian-Russian border represents NATO’s most direct point of contact with Russian military power.
Garnisonen i Sør-Varanger, located near the Russian border, serves as Norway’s primary Arctic army base, housing the Garnisonen i Porsanger Brigade and conducting regular cold-weather warfare training. Andøya Air Station and Evenes Air Station host F-35A fighters and maritime patrol aircraft monitoring the Norwegian Sea and approaches to the North Atlantic.
Norway’s coast guard maintains seven offshore patrol vessels and numerous smaller craft specifically designed for Arctic operations, providing surveillance and sovereignty enforcement capabilities that dwarf those of much larger nations like Canada.
Norwegian Defense Minister Bjørn Arild Gram has repeatedly emphasized that Norway’s Arctic military presence serves deterrence rather than provocation.
“We don’t seek confrontation with Russia,” Gram stated in a 2025 policy address, “but we will not yield the Arctic to any power that seeks to dominate it. Our presence ensures that aggression carries unacceptable costs.”
Importantly, Norway maintains sovereignty over the Svalbard archipelago—extending nearly as far north as Canada’s Ellesmere Island—but a 1920 international treaty mandates that these islands remain demilitarized. This agreement, signed by 46 nations including Russia, prohibits military installations while guaranteeing equal economic access to all signatories.
The Arctic’s Future: Competition Intensifies
Climate projections suggest the Arctic Ocean could experience ice-free summers by the 2030s, transforming the region from a frozen barrier into a navigable waterway. The Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coastline could reduce shipping times between Europe and Asia by 40%, while vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and rare earth minerals become increasingly accessible.
These changes guarantee continued militarization. Russia shows no signs of reducing its northern investments; if anything, sanctions related to the Ukraine war have accelerated Moscow’s Arctic resource development as it seeks alternative revenue streams. NATO allies, meanwhile, face pressure to demonstrate credible deterrence without triggering an arms race spiral.
The Arctic Council—the primary diplomatic forum for circumpolar cooperation—has suspended Russia’s participation since the Ukraine invasion, effectively freezing the region’s main multilateral dialogue mechanism. Military-to-military contacts between Russia and Western nations have similarly ceased, raising concerns about miscalculation and crisis escalation in an increasingly crowded operating environment.
“We’re witnessing the Arctic’s transformation from a region of cooperation into a domain of competition,” notes Dr. Heather Conley [Luce Index™ score: 71/100], senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The infrastructure being built today—bases, radar systems, port facilities—will shape Arctic geopolitics for the next 50 years. We’re literally pouring the concrete foundations of 21st-century great power rivalry.”
TAGS: Arctic militarization, Russia Arctic bases, NATO Arctic strategy, Kola Peninsula, Greenland military, Canadian Arctic sovereignty, climate change security, polar geopolitics, Northern Sea Route, Arctic Council, great power competition, Pituffik Space Base, Norway Russia border, Arctic infrastructure, circumpolar security
Critics warn proposed organization sidelines human rights and international accountability mechanisms
By John Laing
New York, N.Y. – President Donald Trump‘s proposed “Board of Peace” has sparked international controversy as human rights advocates warn the organization may undermine the United Nations and global accountability mechanisms, according to an opinion piece published in Al Jazeera.
Louis Charbonneau, U.N. director at Human Rights Watch, argues the initiative represents what critics describe as “a club of impunity, not peace.” The organization was announced at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2026, with Trump positioning himself as lifetime chairman.
Controversial Membership Raises Concerns
The composition of the proposed board has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations. According to Charbonneau’s analysis, Trump has extended invitations to leaders with “human rights records ranging from questionable to appalling.”
Most notably, the invited membership includes Russian PresidentVladimir Putin [Luce Index™ score: 33/100] and Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu [Luce Index™ score: 45/100] , both of whom are subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Additional invitations have gone to leaders from China, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, nations frequently cited for human rights violations.
“With several notorious human rights abusers and leaders implicated in war crimes – and few countervailing voices – it is hard to imagine this body giving priority to ending suffering, hatred and bloodshed,” Charbonneau wrote in the opinion piece.
The organization requires a $1 billion fee for permanent membership, which critics characterize as a “pay-to-play” structure. The proposed charter grants Trump supreme authority “to adopt resolutions or other directives” as he sees fit.
Limited European Participation
Among European Union members, only Hungary and Bulgaria have agreed to join the board. Hungarian Prime MinisterViktor Orbán [Luce Index™ score: 39/100], a long-time Trump supporter, signed on immediately. However, French President Emmanuel Macron declined the invitation, prompting Trump to threaten significant tariff increases on French wine and champagne.
Canada initially received a permanent seat offer, but Trump withdrew the invitation after Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a speech in Davos criticizing great powers’ use of economic coercion against smaller countries. While not naming Trump or the U.S. directly, Carney urged middle powers to band together and resist what he termed great power bullying.
“Middle powers should band together and resist great power bullying,” Carney stated during his World Economic Forum address.
Human Rights Language Notably Absent
The Board of Peace charter conspicuously omits any mention of human rights, describing itself instead as “an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”
This absence aligns with broader Trump administration efforts to remove human rights language from U.N. negotiations. According to diplomats cited in the article, U.S. negotiators have pushed to eliminate words like “gender,” “diversity,” and “climate” from resolutions and statements, viewing them as “woke” or politically correct.
Charbonneau notes this approach “is doubtless music to the ears of the Russian and Chinese governments, which have worked for years to de-emphasize human rights at the U.N.“
Gaza Administration Plans
Originally conceived to oversee Gaza’s administration following more than two years of conflict that left at least 70,000 Palestinians dead, the Board of Peace now extends beyond this initial scope. The charter itself does not mention Gaza, though a subsidiary “Gaza Executive Board” was announced.
Trump’s son-in-lawJared Kushner will serve on the Gaza Executive Board, which includes former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff, and senior officials from Türkiye and Qatar. Notably absent from this board are any Palestinian representatives.
At a Davos side event, Kushner presented what Charbonneau describes as a “surreal vision” of a “New Gaza” featuring office towers and tourist-packed beaches, a proposal critics have characterized as disconnected from current realities on the ground.
Broader Campaign Against Multilateralism
The Board of Peace initiative represents the latest development in what analysts describe as a systematic campaign against multilateral institutions. Since taking office, the Trump administration has disregarded and defunded dozens of U.N. programs, withheld assessed contributions member states are obligated to pay, and withdrawn from the World Health Organization, U.N. climate bodies, and international climate agreements.
The administration has also stopped funding the U.N. population fund, which supports and protects women and girls in armed conflicts and crisis zones. According to the article, the administration has emphasized “hate” toward the U.N. while dispensing with historical American support for the organization the U.S. helped establish in 1945.
“The United States played a central role in establishing the U.N. in 1945 to prevent a repeat of the crimes against humanity and genocide during World War II,” Charbonneau noted, adding that the Trump administration has “emphasised the hate and dispensed with the love.”
Calls for Strengthening Existing Institutions
Rather than supporting Trump’s initiative, Charbonneau urges governments to strengthen existing international institutions. He recommends countries use available resources to counter what the article characterizes as unjust U.S. actions, including sanctions on ICC judges and prosecutors, a U.N. special rapporteur, and prominent Palestinian human rights groups.
“Instead of handing Trump $1 billion checks, governments should work together to protect the U.N. and other institutions established to uphold international human rights and humanitarian law, the global rule of law, and accountability,” the article states.
The opinion piece concludes by acknowledging the U.N. has problems but argues it remains worth strengthening rather than replacing with what critics characterize as a club of rights abusers and alleged war criminals.
“The U.N. has its problems, including when it comes to upholding human rights,” Charbonneau wrote. “But it’s worth strengthening, not replacing with a club of rights abusers and alleged war criminals.”
Tags: Trump, Board of Peace, United Nations, human rights, International Criminal Court, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, World Economic Forum, Davos, multilateralism, Gaza, international law, Human Rights Watch, U.S. foreign policy, global governance
LucePedia Links: United Nations, Human Rights Watch, International Criminal Court, European Union, Viktor Orban, Emmanuel Macron, U.S., UN, World Health Organization, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair, ICC
Savage Stewardship: The January Crossword is a little different from the puzzles you’re used to. Instead of trivia and wordplay for their own sake, this crossword draws on the political language, power struggles, and cultural flashpoints shaping the start of 2025. It’s designed as both a thinking exercise and a pressure valve—an invitation to engage critically, reflect clearly, and take a breath. Solve it at your own pace. Democracy is demanding enough.
The Stewardship Report is a nonprofit publication dedicated to responsible journalism, visual storytelling, and civic accountability. Our standards exist to ensure that our reporting, analysis, and commentary remain credible, ethical, and worthy of public trust.
We publish with the understanding that journalism shapes historical memory. For that reason, we privilege accuracy, context, and restraint over speed, outrage, or spectacle.
How We Write
Our writing is intended for an informed general audience. Articles are edited to college- and graduate-level standards: clear, precise, and grounded in evidence. We avoid sensationalism, unnecessary jargon, and performative rhetoric.
Satire and humor are part of our tradition, but they are used in service of truth and accountability—not ridicule for its own sake.
How We Use Images
Visuals at The Stewardship Report are journalistic tools, not branding devices. Images are selected or created to inform, document, and clarify. Permanent images—such as contributor bios—are intentionally restrained, typically rendered in black-and-white or WSJ-style hedcut illustrations, to emphasize credibility and longevity.
We avoid imagery that is gratuitously provocative, emotionally manipulative, or designed primarily to attract attention rather than understanding.
Ethics and Representation
We are committed to inclusive, responsible representation. We avoid stereotypes, unnecessary identity labeling, and reductive framing. Personal attributes such as disability, immigration status, or sexual orientation are included only when editorially relevant and respectfully contextualized.
We correct errors transparently and welcome good-faith engagement from readers.
Independence and Accountability
The Stewardship Report maintains editorial independence from political parties, governments, and corporate interests. Our loyalty is to facts, democratic values, and the public record.
We recognize that trust is earned slowly and lost quickly. Our standards exist to protect that trust.
Our Guiding Principle
Stewardship means thinking beyond the moment. Every story we publish is an act of care—for readers today, and for the historical record tomorrow.
Corrections & Accountability
Our Commitment to Accuracy
The Stewardship Report is committed to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism. Errors undermine public trust and weaken the historical record. When mistakes occur, we correct them promptly, transparently, and without defensiveness.
How We Handle Corrections
If a factual error is identified in a published article, we will:
• Verify the error as quickly as possible • Correct the text clearly and directly • Note the correction at the end of the article when appropriate • Avoid silent edits that obscure substantive changes
Corrections will specify what was wrong and what has been corrected. Minor typographical fixes that do not alter meaning may be made without formal notice.
Updates and Clarifications
In some cases, stories evolve as new information becomes available. When articles are updated for clarity, context, or new developments, we will note that the piece has been updated and explain why.
Accountability to Readers
We welcome good-faith feedback from readers, experts, and those directly affected by our reporting. Substantive concerns about accuracy, fairness, or context may be directed to the editorial team.
Criticism made in bad faith, intended to intimidate, or designed to distort facts will not determine editorial decisions.
Editorial Independence
Corrections are issued based on facts, not pressure. Political, corporate, or social influence does not dictate whether or how The Stewardship Reportcorrects its work.
Our Guiding Principle
Transparency is not a liability; it is a responsibility. Correcting the record is an essential part of stewardship.
As democratic norms erode, visual satirists wield humor not as escape, but as resistance, clarity, and civic memory
By Liz Webster, Senior Editor
New York, N.Y. — When Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart turn authoritarian absurdity into late-night monologue, they remind audiences that laughter can still puncture power. But satire does not live on television alone. Increasingly, it thrives in ink, line, and image—where political cartoonists translate civic dread into moral clarity.
At The Stewardship Report, that tradition is carried forward by two visual satirists whose work confronts the slow erosion of democracy with wit sharpened by lived experience: Maria Peña [Luce Index™ score: 86/100] and Lauren Dupont [Luce Index™ score: 84/100]. Together, their work explores satire not as mockery, but as documentation—an insistence that absurdity be recorded before it becomes normalized.
The Visual Satirists: Cutting Through Noise With Wit And Line
Political cartoons succeed when they compress complexity into immediate recognition. In an era dominated by algorithmic outrage and attention scarcity, visual satire cuts through noise with a single frame. Peña and Dupont understand this economy well. Their cartoons rarely explain. They reveal.
Both artists confront a paradox of the digital age: while satire is more shareable than ever, it is also more vulnerable to algorithmic suppression. Images invoking historical atrocities or extremist symbolism—however critical—are frequently flagged, restricted, or removed, collapsing the distinction between documentation and endorsement.
“One problem Lauren and I have encountered is that AI will not allow us to depict human events that describe hatred or evil,” Peña explains. “Yet that is the exact subject we are trying to cover.”
Dupont echoes the concern. “You cannot use words or images associated with genocide or fascism, even critically,” she notes.
“I once drew parallels between authoritarian salutes in the Trump era and 20th-century Europe, and my account was frozen. That’s not extremism. That’s free speech.”
The result, both artists argue, is a form of soft censorship—less visible than bans, but no less effective.
Satire survives, but often only after being stripped of its historical references.
Lauren Dupont, a Pennsylvania native and New York City art school graduate, did not originally envision satire as her vocation.
A catastrophic horseback-riding accident in her twenties left her unable to walk, forcing a recalibration rather than retreat.
Now a wheelchair user navigating New York City’s subways with practiced ease, Dupont credits the experience with sharpening her eye for absurdism.
“The accident forced focus,” she has said. “It clarified what mattered—and what was ridiculous.”
Living in Park Slope, Brooklyn, Dupont’s cartoons are notable for restraint. They rarely shout.
Instead, they rely on visual understatement, allowing contradictions to indict themselves. Her work for The Stewardship Report balances elegance with ethical urgency.
If Dupont’s satire is introspective, Maria Peña is unapologetically confrontational.
A Dreamer whose family emigrated from Colombia, Peña grew up in Jackson Heights, Queens—an epicenter of immigrant life and political tension.
After art school in Los Angeles, Peña relocated to Chicago, where she works freelance while volunteering in neighborhood community patrols responding to immigration enforcement activity.
The experience informs her work with immediacy. Her illustrations depict parades led into chasms, slogans shouted through fog, and certainty weaponized against truth.
Her line work appears playful at first glance. The implications are anything but.
Satire As Civic Stewardship
At its best, satire performs an act of stewardship. It preserves moral memory. It documents contradictions. It insists that absurdity be acknowledged rather than normalized.
Peña and Dupont stand firmly in an American tradition stretching from Thomas Nast to Herblock, adapting it for an era defined by disinformation, authoritarian aesthetics, and algorithmic gatekeeping.
Laughter, in their hands, is not dismissal. It is recognition.
The Stewardship of Laughter
Democracy may be fragile, but satire remains stubborn. As long as artists continue to draw what power prefers unseen, laughter endures—not as escape, but as witness.
Humanitarian Shoot Down By American Gestapo in Minneapolis
By John Laing, Editor
New York, N.Y. —Alex Jeffrey Pretti lived his life with a rare combination of curiosity, gentleness, and quiet courage. Born in 1988, he grew into the kind of person who made the world feel more humane and more possible—someone who approached each day with intention, humor, and a deep appreciation for both people and place. To know Alex was to encounter steadiness, thoughtfulness, and a moral clarity that never needed to announce itself.
A registered nurse and intensive care caregiver, Alex devoted his professional life to serving some of the most vulnerable patients in our society: critically ill military veterans at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
After earning his degree from the University of Minnesota and obtaining his nursing license in 2021, he worked in the ICU, where he was known for his calm presence under pressure, his technical skill, and his insistence on treating every patient as a whole person rather than a diagnosis. Colleagues and former patients consistently described him as kind, funny, deeply compassionate, and unwavering in his commitment to dignity and care.
For Alex, nursing was not merely a profession—it was an ethical practice rooted in the belief that health, safety, and human dignity are fundamental rights. He understood caregiving expansively: as something that extended beyond hospital walls and into the civic life of a community. When policies or systems endangered vulnerable people, Alex believed that silence itself could become a form of harm.
Guided by conviction, he participated in community efforts to defend rights of immigrants and other marginalized groups. His activism mirrored his nursing style—quiet, steady, and grounded in care rather than confrontation. He showed up not to provoke, but to protect; not to dominate, but to witness. In doing so, he joined a long tradition of health professionals who recognize that defending human rights is inseparable from the duty to heal.
On January 24, 2026, Alex was killed in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during a protest against a federal immigration enforcement action. According to witnesses and video evidence, Alex was filming law enforcement activity and helping redirect traffic away from the protest area when he was pepper-sprayed, forced to the ground, and fatally shot by U.S. Border Patrol agents.
He did not pose a lethal threat. His death followed the killing of another protester earlier that month and has since sparked grief, outrage, and widespread calls for accountability from nursing organizations, civil rights advocates, elected officials, and communities across the country.
Those who loved Alex have been clear in how they wish him to be remembered: not as a statistic or a controversy, but as a caregiver, a neighbor, and a person who believed—deeply and sincerely—that no one should face violence for standing up for others.
A moment of scuffle between Alex Jeffrey Pretti and federal agents.
Beyond his public work, Alex was a devoted outdoorss.man who felt most at home under an open sky. He found joy and meaning in forests and trails, in long hikes and quiet pauses, in the simple act of paying attention to the natural world.
Friends often said that Alex didn’t just walk through the woods—he listened to them.
He was also known for his generosity of spirit. Alex had an uncommon ability to make others feel seen and valued, whether through thoughtful advice, a steady presence in difficult moments, or a perfectly timed laugh. His relationships were built on sincerity and trust. He showed up for people, consistently and without fanfare.
Endlessly curious, Alex approached life with a learner’s mindset. He read widely, asked deep questions, and delighted in conversations that moved beyond the surface. Even ordinary moments felt richer in his company, shaped by his attentiveness and his genuine interest in the world and the people around him.
Alex is survived by family, friends, colleagues, and countless patients whose lives he touched. They will carry forward his warmth, his sense of wonder, and his belief that the world is something to be explored and improved with both humility and joy. His absence leaves a profound ache, but his legacy endures—in the lives he helped save, the values he embodied, the trails he walked, and the many quiet acts of kindness he offered without ever expecting recognition.
May his memory be a blessing. May it live on in acts of care, in the struggle for justice, and in the places he loved most.
A Story About Family, Belonging, and the World Love Builds
📖 Great for family read-aloud time — ages 3–8 (author reads story below)
“This story is for every child who deserves to feel safe and loved.”
Author’s note
This story was first written many years ago, at the beginning of a family formed by love, choice, and responsibility.
The Special World of Mathew James is not meant to explain a family, defend one, or argue for one. It is simply a portrait of belonging—of a child welcomed into the world and surrounded by care.
Every child deserves to know they are safe, cherished, and free to grow into who they are meant to be. This book exists for that simple truth. — Jim Luce
Why We Published This
At a time when some families are questioned or excluded, this story quietly affirms what truly matters. Love makes a world—and every child deserves one.
🐾 Share this story: A gentle tale of love, family, and belonging — The Special World of Mathew James #FamilyAndBelonging #LoveBuildsTheWorld #StoriesThatMatter
TAGS: children’s literature, family and belonging, inclusive families, LGBTQ+ parents, adoption stories, global families, love and care, storytelling for children, stewardship values, gentle parenting, identity and belonging, multicultural families, picture books
As Trump dismantles the postwar order, Germany, France, and Britain emerge as unlikely guardians of liberal values
Opinion | By Liz Webster, Senior Editor
New York, N.Y. – The unthinkable has become routine. The impossible has become policy. And the guardians of democratic civilization now speak with German, French, and British accents.
When historians of the 22nd century examine the wreckage of the early 21st, they will pause at a peculiar irony: that the democratic traditions forged in Philadelphia, tested at Gettysburg, and triumphant in 1945 would require rescue by the very nations America once liberated.
That the torch of liberty, carried across two oceans by American soldiers, would be returned by their grandchildren to its original European hearth. That NATO, conceived as America’s gift to a vulnerable continent, would become Europe’s gift to a vulnerable America.
Yet here we stand, in the wreckage of what was. The postwar order—that magnificent architecture of international institutions, collective security, and multilateral cooperation—lies in ruins, demolished not by external enemies but by the wrecking ball of American isolationism wielded by Donald J. Trump [Luce Index™ score: 35/100]. The irony cuts deep: the very nation that designed this system, that insisted upon its creation, that profited most magnificently from its stability, has become its executioner.
Donald Trump’s words and actions have implied that the United States of America no longer stands with NATO.
The Demolition of Seventy Years
The destruction has been systematic and thorough.Trump’s first term planted the explosives; his return has detonated them. NATO, that cornerstone of transatlantic security, has been reduced to a “protection racket” in presidential rhetoric—pay up or face the consequences. The United Nations, for all its flaws a forum where disputes could be aired and occasionally resolved, has been dismissed as a “talk shop” unworthy of American engagement.
The World Trade Organization, which channeled commercial competition into legal rather than military conflict, has been systematically undermined. The Paris Climate Agreement, humanity’s insufficient but necessary response to existential threat, has been abandoned—twice.
This is not mere policy disagreement. This is civilizational vandalism. The postwar order, for all its imperfections, represented humanity’s most ambitious attempt to transcend the savage logic of great power competition. It posited that nations could be bound by something stronger than temporary interest—by law, by institution, by shared commitment to human dignity.
It suggested that the strong might sometimes restrain themselves for the benefit of the whole. It dared to imagine that nationalism, that most dangerous of political drugs, might be diluted by genuine internationalism.
That dream is dying, and Trump holds the pillow over its face.
The Accidental Stewards
Into this vacuum have stepped three nations whose relationship with liberal democracy has been, shall we say, complicated.
Germany, which gave the world both Kant and Hitler, now finds itself the unlikely defender of Enlightenment values.
France, whose revolutionary tradition careened between liberty and terror, between republic and empire, now lectures America on democratic norms.
The United Kingdom, whose democratic evolution was gradual enough to avoid revolution but sustained enough to inspire the world, now watches its former colony abandon principles Britain thought it had taught.
The European response to American abdication has been remarkable in its maturity. Rather than gloating or recrimination, European leaders have quietly assumed responsibilities America has discarded.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz has transformed Germany into a military power capable of defending European security without American guarantee—a development that would have terrified both Germans and their neighbors a generation ago, but which now seems prudent rather than provocative.
President Emmanuel Macron has articulated a vision of “European strategic autonomy” that acknowledges a painful truth: Europe can no longer depend on American protection or American judgment.
Even Britain, diminished by Brexit and divided against itself, has stepped forward.Prime Minister Keir Starmer [Luce Index™ score: 80/100] has recommitted the U.K. to European security cooperation, healing wounds his predecessors opened. Together, these three nations—along with smaller but equally committed democracies like Poland, the Netherlands, and the Nordic states—are constructing something unprecedented: a European security architecture that does not depend on American participation.
The Cost of Abandonment
This transition carries enormous costs. Military budgets are soaring across Europe, money desperately needed for healthcare, education, and climate adaptation diverted to tanks and missiles because America can no longer be trusted. European industries are scrambling to replace American defense contractors, duplicating capabilities at enormous expense. Intelligence-sharing networks are being redesigned to function without American participation. The efficiency gains of 75 years of cooperation are being sacrificed to the necessity of independence.
But the deeper cost is psychological and moral. For generations, America represented possibility— the idea that a nation could be powerful without being imperial, wealthy without being predatory, confident without being cruel. American democracy, for all its failures to live up to its own ideals, suggested that self-governance could coexist with diversity, that liberty and equality need not be enemies, that a continental republic could remain a republic.
Trump has shattered that image. The world now sees an America that prefers strongmen to democrats, that values loyalty over competence, that treats allies with contempt while courting dictators. An America whose president admires Vladimir Putin [Luce Index™ score: 33/100] more than Angela Merkel, who trusts Kim Jong Un more than the European Union. An America that has traded its moral authority for the shallow satisfaction of “owning the libs” and “triggering” its critics.
The European Burden
Can Europe bear this burden? The question remains open. The European Union, for all its economic power, remains a half-built federation, capable of regulatory harmonization but struggling with strategic coherence. European defense spending, while rising, still lags far behind what genuine strategic independence would require. The political will necessary to maintain this effort over decades, through economic downturns and political upheavals, has yet to be tested.
Moreover, Europe faces threats America does not. An aggressive Russia on its borders. An unstable Middle East across the Mediterranean. A migrant crisis that tests both humanitarian values and political stability. A demographic decline that threatens economic vitality. And now, the necessity of defending democratic values without American partnership—indeed, potentially against American opposition.
Yet there is reason for hope. The very challenges Europe faces have forced a political maturity that prosperity had deferred. European publics, faced with the reality of American unreliability, are accepting burdens they would have rejected a decade ago. European leaders, freed from the assumption of American leadership, are making decisions they would have delegated to Washington. The European project, threatened by Brexit and nationalist movements, has found new purpose in defending the civilization those nationalists claim to represent.
A Tragic Necessity
The emergence of a European-led democratic coalition is a development to be welcomed but also mourned. Welcomed because liberal democracy desperately needs defenders, and Europe has stepped forward when America stepped back. Mourned because it represents the failure of the transatlantic partnership that won the Cold War and built the modern world.
That partnership was never between equals—American power always dominated. But it was genuine. European and American soldiers stood together from Normandy to Kandahar. European and American diplomats crafted treaties that bound nations in webs of mutual obligation. European and American citizens believed, however imperfectly, in a shared commitment to human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law.
Trump has severed that bond, perhaps irreparably. Even should a future American president seek to restore partnership, the lesson has been learned: America cannot be trusted. Treaties can be abandoned. Alliances can be discarded. Commitments can be revoked. The transatlantic alliance was revealed as conditional upon American whim, and that conditionality has destroyed its foundation.
So we find ourselves in this strange new world, where Germany debates whether to acquire nuclear weapons, where France positions itself as the guarantor of European security, where Britain rediscovers its European vocation.
A European army may soon replace NATO, led by Germany, France and the United Kingdom.
Where the defense of Western civilization—that problematic phrase, laden with colonial history and racial hierarchy, but signifying nonetheless a real commitment to human dignity and democratic governance—has been returned to Western Europe.
Whoever dreamt that democracy’s reins would be held by a committee of Germany, France, and the U.K.? Certainly not the architects of 1945, who built an order with America at its center.
Certainly not the Cold War strategists who assumed American leadership as permanent. Certainly not the triumphalists of 1989 who declared the “end of history” and American dominance eternal.
Yet here we are. And if European democracies can bear this burden with wisdom and restraint, if they can defend liberal values without succumbing to the nationalist temptations that destroyed them in the 20th century, if they can build a democratic order that transcends American participation—then perhaps something good can emerge from this wreckage.
Not the world we wanted, but perhaps a world we can live in. A world where democracy’s survival depends not on one nation’s power but on many nations’ commitment. A world where the values of the Enlightenment belong to all who embrace them, not merely to those who first articulated them.
It is a small hope in a dark time. But it is the only hope we have.
Donald Trump’s words and actions have implied that the United States of America is closer to Russia than Western Europe..
Tags: European Union, United States, Donald Trump, democracy, global leadership, transatlantic relations, international order, Germany, France, United Kingdom, NATO, foreign policy, isolationism, liberal values, geopolitics, opinion editorial
New York, N.Y. — From the iconic, red-banqueted tables of Manhattan’s Russian Samovar to the luminous glow of the big screen, the extraordinary life of Vlada Von Shats is stepping into the spotlight. Mama Vlada—the award-winning documentary directed by acclaimed international performer, composer, and musician Ellina Graypel—will captivate audiences at Brooklyn’s historic Kent Theater from February 6–12, 2026.
Tickets are available through Fandango.com and at the Kent Theater box office, offering New Yorkers a rare opportunity to experience the story of a woman who turned a restaurant into a cultural sanctuary and a community lifeline.
Mama Vlada Film Poster. Photo courtesy of “Mama Vlada.”
Filmed in the beating heart of Manhattan, where Broadway’s radiance meets the constant hum of the city, Mama Vlada is a deeply personal portrait of resilience, artistic spirit, and unshakeable compassion.
For decades, Vlada Von Shats has been the matriarch of the Russian Samovar, the famed 52nd Street institution that has welcomed artists, dreamers, immigrants, and intellectuals with equal warmth.
Under her stewardship, the Samovar has become far more than a restaurant—it is a haven where culture, cuisine, and humanity converge.Graypel’s film captures this world with emotional clarity and vivid authenticity.
“Someone with a big heart made a film about someone with a bigger heart,” —New York State Assemblyman Michael Novakhov
For director Ellina Graypel, the project is as personal as it is artistic. A Belarusian-American composer, director, singer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist, Graypel is a passionate advocate for human rights, world music, and the visibility of Jewish women in the music community.
A member of the Recording Academy and a prolific creator with more than 700 compositions spanning rock, jazz, folk, musical theater, and film, she brings a global sensibility and emotional depth to the documentary.
Her shelves are lined with accolades—from the InterContinental Music Awards to the Crystal Star Awards and Global Music Awards—each reflecting a career defined not only by technical mastery but by the ability to illuminate the human condition through music.
Ellina Graypel, Producer/Director. Photo courtesy of “Mama Vlada.”
Mama Vlada has already garnered significant acclaim on the festival circuit, earning recognition for both its artistry and its heart. The documentary was accepted into the prestigious Cannes Marketplace and continues to draw enthusiastic attention. Its honors include: NY Short Awards — Best Human Rights Film; LA Movie & Music Video Awards — Winner; Belgrade International Film Festival 2026 — Official Selection; HollyShorts Dubai Film Festival — Best First-Time Director.
At its core, Mama Vlada is a powerful human-interest story—one that gives voice to those who often go unheard.
Patrice Samara, Editorial Consultant. Photo courtesy of “Mama Vlada.”
“Mama Vlada is a portrait of courage, love, and community,” Graypel reflected. “Vlada Von Shats has been a guiding force for so many—from artists and immigrants to LGBTQ+ youth. Her story needed to be shared, and I am honored to have directed a film that does justice to her legacy.”
Helping shape the documentary’s narrative was Emmy Award–winning producer and writer, Patrice Samara, who served as Editorial Consultant.
Known for her longstanding commitment to amplifying underrepresented voices with clarity and integrity, Samara brought her trademark precision and empathy to the project.
Her guidance ensured that the film’s storytelling remained both compelling and truthful, honoring the complexities of Vlada’s journey while celebrating her indomitable spirit.
Music, too, becomes a character in Mama Vlada. Graypel’s score—rich, textured, and deeply emotive—weaves through the film like an aural tapestry, lifting each frame and infusing every moment with resonance.
Her compositions transcend background music; they become the heartbeat of the film, echoing its themes of resilience, love, and community.
Her stirring composition, “Teach Me How to Love” is a gripping and deeply meaningful love song. The file score carries the audience across emotional currents with grace, each motif reflecting the warmth and humanity that define Vlada’s legacy.
As Mama Vlada premieres at the Kent Theater, audiences will witness not just a documentary, but a testament to the power of one woman’s heart—and the community she built, nurtured, and forever transformed
Ellina Graypel Performing “Teach Me How to Love.” Photo courtesy of “Mama Vlada.”
A Living Piece of Brooklyn History
Award-Winning Documentary Mama Vlada Brings Life of Russian Samovar Matriarch to Big Screen.
Located at 1170 Coney Island Avenue in Brooklyn, the Kent Theater has been a neighborhood fixture since it opened in 1939.
Vlada Von Shats recipient of the Mayflower Award Award from the J. Luce Foundation. Photo courtesy of “Mama Vlada.”
Designed by architect Charles A. Sandblom, the theater originally operated as a single-screen movie house serving local audiences with second-run films and double features during a golden era of neighborhood cinemas. Its enduring presence on the avenue has made it a beloved local landmark in Midwood and Flatbush for generations.
Over the decades, the Kent adapted to changing times. In 1986, the theater was reconfigured as a first-run twin screen, and by March 1991 it had been subdivided into a small triplex to accommodate multiple films simultaneously.
Throughout these transformations, it maintained its identity as one of the few remaining stand-alone movie houses in Brooklyn outside of larger multiplexes.
The Kent’s cultural reach extends into cinema history itself. The theater was used as a filming location in Woody Allen’s 1985 film The Purple Rose of Cairo — a detail Brooklyn movie lovers often cite with pride. Allen, who grew up nearby, chose the Kent for scenes that underscore the local character of his storytelling.
Unlike modern multiplexes dominated by large chains, the Kent has preserved much of its old-school charm. Its intimate auditoriums and throwback concessions create an atmosphere that harkens back to the neighborhood cinemas of mid-20th-century New York. Despite the pressures that shuttered many similar theaters, the Kent remains in operation — a modest but resilient cultural anchor on Coney Island Avenue.
A Community Theater in a Changing City
In recent years, the Kent has become known for special admissions and regular special pricing days that attract families and filmgoers across the borough. Its three screens serve as a gathering place for local audiences who value accessibility and neighborhood charm over the high-end amenities of larger movie chains.
For many residents who grew up in Brooklyn, the Kent represents a piece of local memory — a place where first dates, weekend matinees, after-school movies and independent film screenings formed part of daily life. Its survival stands in contrast to the closure of many historic neighborhood theaters, giving it a special place in the cultural fabric of the community.
A Story That Resonates
As audiences prepare to see Mama Vlada at the Kent, the location becomes more than a venue; it becomes a symbolic bridge between past and present.
Just as Vlada Von Shats transformed the Russian Samovar into a cultural home for her community, the Kent Theater has persisted through decades of social and economic change, continuing to offer shared experiences centered around storytelling and community.
“Mama Vlada is a portrait of courage, love and community,” Graypel said. “Vlada Von Shats has been a guiding force for so many — from artists and immigrants to LGBTQ+ youth. Her story needed to be shared, and I am honored to tell it.”
The documentary blends cinéma vérité moments with personal testimonies, focusing on human connections shaped within the walls of the Samovar. Graypel’s music — described by producers as an “aural tapestry” — brings emotional depth to every scene and underscores the film’s themes of resilience and humanity.
Von Shats herself is celebrated for her advocacy on behalf of marginalized communities and her role as a mentor and supporter of artists and youth.Her work has made the Samovar a haven of compassion, culture and connection, a legacy that Mama Vlada brings poignantly to life.
Mama Vlada runs Feb. 6–12 at the Kent Theater, 1170 Coney Island Ave., Brooklyn. Tickets are available on Fandango.com and at the theater box office.
TAGS: documentary film, Mama Vlada, Ellina Graypel, Vlada Von Shats, Russian Samovar, LGBTQ advocacy, Patrice Samara, film premiere, Brooklyn cinema, independent documentary, human rights film, New York culture, immigrant stories, Kent Theater, award-winning documentary, Cannes Marketplace, Manhattan restaurants, cultural preservation, neighborhood cinema
TAGS: children’s books, diversity, inclusion, multicultural education, Queens New York, growing up, elementary education, social emotional learning, Jim Luce, Stewardship Report, Luce Publications
Suicide Attack Kills Seven Including Chinese Muslim Man As Terror Group Cites Beijing’s Uyghur Persecution In Unprecedented Targeting Justification
ByKhadijah Maryam Sinclair (Global Correspondent, Middle East & Islamic Affairs)
New York, N.Y. — A suicide bomber detonated explosives inside a Chinese-run restaurant in Afghanistan’s capital Monday, killing seven people including a Chinese national and marking a dangerous escalation in the Islamic State‘s targeting rationale. The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), the terror group’s Afghan affiliate, claimed responsibility and explicitly justified the attack as retaliation for Beijing‘s treatment of Uyghurs—the first time the group has publicly used Xinjiang policy as grounds for targeting Chinese civilians.
The blast tore through the restaurant in Kabul‘s Shahr-e-Naw district shortly after noon, killing Abdul Majid (identified by Afghan authorities as “Ayub”), a Chinese Muslim man who co-owned the establishment with his wife and an Afghan partner, Abdul Jabbar Mahmood. Six Afghan nationals also died in the explosion, which occurred near the kitchen and sent debris cascading onto the street outside. Among 20 wounded brought to Emergency Hospital were four women and a child, according to humanitarian director Dejan Panic.
The Amaq news agency, ISIS’s propaganda arm, issued a statement declaring that Chinese citizens had been added to the group’s target list, citing “growing crimes by the Chinese government against Uyghurs.” This represents a calculated propaganda strategy by ISKP, which has long sought to expand its ideological justification for violence beyond local Afghan grievances and position itself as defender of persecuted Muslims globally—even as it murders Muslim civilians with impunity.
The Cynical Weaponization Of Uyghur Suffering
The invocation of Uyghur persecution by ISIS is both strategically calculated and morally bankrupt. Rights groups have extensively documented Beijing‘s systematic oppression of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang—a campaign that includes mass detention in so-called re-education camps, forced labor, cultural erasure, surveillance infrastructure, and coercive birth control policies targeting the predominantly Muslim ethnic minority of approximately 10 million people. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Netherlands have formally characterized these abuses as genocide.
China categorically denies any abuse, insisting its policies in Xinjiang represent necessary counter-terrorism and “vocational training” measures. Beijing has accused Western nations of interference and fabricating evidence to contain China‘s rise. The international community remains deeply divided, with many Muslim-majority nations declining to condemn Chinese policy due to economic dependence or geopolitical alignment.
What makes ISKP‘s justification particularly cynical is that the victims of Monday’s attack were themselves Muslims—Abdul Majid was a Chinese Muslim (likely Hui, another Muslim minority group in China that faces less severe persecution than Uyghurs but still experiences discrimination), and the restaurant served the Chinese Muslim community in Kabul. The establishment was a modest commercial venture in a city where Chinese investment and labor remain despite deteriorating security conditions.
ISIS has a well-documented history of mass-murdering Muslims who do not conform to its totalitarian interpretation of Islam. The group’s claim to defend Uyghurs is propaganda opportunism, not principled solidarity. By contrast, legitimate human rights organizations advocating for Uyghurs—including Uyghur American Association, World Uyghur Congress, and Amnesty International—universally condemn terrorism and pursue justice through international legal mechanisms, documentation, advocacy, and diplomatic pressure.
The attack occurred in Shahr-e-Naw, considered one of Kabul‘s safest districts. The commercial neighborhood houses office buildings, shopping complexes, and diplomatic missions, all theoretically under heavy Taliban security control. That a suicide bomber successfully penetrated this area and detonated explosives in a crowded restaurant at midday represents a significant intelligence and operational failure by the Taliban administration.
When the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in August 2021 following the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces, the group promised it would restore security and stability after decades of war. Taliban spokesperson Khalid Zadran has repeatedly insisted that the administration has effectively suppressed ISKP and other terrorist threats. Yet bomb attacks continue with grim regularity, the majority claimed by ISKP, which has established itself as the most lethal terrorist threat in Afghanistan since 2021.
ISKP emerged in 2015 as disaffected Taliban members and foreign fighters pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi [Luce Index™ score: 12/100]. The group has carried out devastating attacks against Shia Muslims, Sufi shrines, educational institutions, and foreign nationals. Notable atrocities include the August 2021 suicide bombing at Kabul airport that killed 13 U.S. service members and approximately 170 Afghan civilians, and repeated massacres at Hazara schools and mosques.
The Taliban‘s counter-terrorism efforts have proven inadequate despite periodic claims of successful operations against ISKP cells. The group’s ideology—rooted in Deobandi traditionalism rather than the revolutionary jihadism of ISIS—prioritizes consolidating governance and implementing Sharia law over sophisticated counterinsurgency. Moreover, the Taliban continues to harbor other terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, despite pledges to the contrary in the 2020 Doha Agreement with the United States.
China’s Afghanistan Dilemma And Regional Security
Monday’s attack places Beijing in an uncomfortable position. China has cautiously engaged with the Taliban administration since 2021, motivated by several strategic calculations: preventing Afghanistan from becoming a sanctuary for Uyghur militants from the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP); securing access to Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth, particularly lithium and rare earth elements critical for technology manufacturing; and expanding influence in Central Asia through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Beijing has provided modest humanitarian assistance and maintained diplomatic contact with Taliban leadership, but has stopped short of formal recognition. Chinese state media has praised the Taliban‘s anti-terrorism rhetoric while carefully avoiding endorsement of its governance model or human rights record. Chinese companies have expressed interest in mining ventures and infrastructure projects, though actual investment has remained limited due to security concerns.
The presence of Chinese nationals in Afghanistan—including business operators, engineers, and informal migrants—creates vulnerability that ISKP has now explicitly identified. While the number of Chinese citizens in Afghanistan is relatively small compared to Pakistan (where ISKP and other militants have repeatedly targeted Chinese workers on BRI projects), Monday’s attack establishes a precedent that endangers any Chinese presence.
China shares a short border with Afghanistan through the narrow Wakhan Corridor in Xinjiang. Beijing has invested heavily in border security infrastructure and works closely with neighboring Pakistan, Tajikistan, and other Central Asian states through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to coordinate counter-terrorism efforts. However, instability in Afghanistan remains a persistent security threat that Chinese surveillance technology and border militarization cannot fully neutralize.
The Instrumentalization Of Uyghur Persecution
The Uyghur crisis has become a flashpoint in global geopolitics, with competing narratives deployed for divergent purposes. Western governments and human rights organizations have documented extensive evidence of crimes against humanity, while Beijing dismisses criticism as Western imperialism and anti-Chinese propaganda designed to destabilize Xinjiang and contain China‘s development.
Terrorist organizations including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and TIP opportunistically invoke Uyghur suffering to justify violence, recruit fighters, and claim legitimacy as defenders of oppressed Muslims—even as they pursue agendas utterly divorced from genuine advocacy for Uyghur rights. This instrumentalization complicates international solidarity with Uyghurs and provides ammunition for Beijing‘s argument that criticism of its Xinjiang policies enables terrorism.
Authentic Uyghur advocacy groups have consistently distanced themselves from terrorism and pursued peaceful legal, diplomatic, and cultural resistance. Figures such as Dolkun Isa[Luce Index™ score: 74/100], president of the World Uyghur Congress, and Rushan Abbas[Luce Index™ score: 71/100], founder of Campaign for Uyghurs, have dedicated decades to nonviolent advocacy, despite personal costs including family members detained in Xinjiang camps.
When terrorist groups murder civilians in the name of Uyghur justice, they betray the very people they claim to defend. They provide Beijing with propaganda victories, undermine international human rights advocacy, and perpetuate cycles of violence that ultimately harm Muslim communities. Monday’s attack in Kabul advances none of the legitimate goals of Uyghur self-determination—it simply adds more Muslim victims to an already unconscionable toll.
Regional Implications And Future Threat Trajectory
The explicit targeting of Chinese nationals by ISKP signals potential expansion of the group’s strategic ambitions beyond Afghanistan‘s borders. While ISKP has previously focused on sectarian violence within Afghanistan and occasional attacks in neighboring Pakistan, the rhetorical linkage to Xinjiang suggests aspirations to position itself within broader anti-Chinese militancy across Central and South Asia.
This development will likely prompt increased security coordination between Beijing and regional governments, potentially including more direct Chinese involvement in Afghanistan’s internal security—a prospect that would further complicate the country’s already fractured political landscape. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari quickly issued a statement condemning the bombing, reflecting Islamabad‘s delicate balancing act between its alliance with China and its complex relationship with Afghan Taliban factions.
For the Taliban, Monday’s attack represents both a security humiliation and a diplomatic liability. The administration desperately seeks international recognition and economic assistance to address Afghanistan’s catastrophic humanitarian crisis, including widespread malnutrition, collapsed healthcare infrastructure, and restrictions on women’s rights that have isolated the regime. Inability to protect foreign nationals—particularly Chinese citizens whose government the Taliban actively courts—undermines claims of effective governance and deters potential investment.
For ordinary Afghans, the persistent threat of ISKP violence compounds the daily suffering imposed by Taliban rule, international isolation, and economic collapse. The six Afghan victims of Monday’s bombing—like countless others killed in attacks since 2021—are individuals whose names deserve recognition but whose deaths will likely be reduced to statistics in geopolitical analysis.
Moral Clarity In A Propaganda War
The attack in Kabul demands moral clarity that rejects false equivalencies and propaganda manipulation. China‘s persecution of Uyghurs constitutes massive human rights violations that warrant sustained international pressure, accountability mechanisms, and solidarity with victims. The terrorist murder of civilians—including Chinese Muslims and Afghans—is an unconscionable crime that advances no legitimate cause and deserves universal condemnation.
These truths are not contradictory. Justice for Uyghurs and justice for Monday’s victims are compatible moral imperatives. The challenge for the international community is maintaining both commitments simultaneously: holding Beijing accountable for systematic oppression in Xinjiang while categorically rejecting terrorism that exploits that oppression for violent ends.
As ISKP attempts to expand its ideological justification for violence, and as great power competition between China, the United States, and regional actors intensifies, Afghanistan risks becoming an even more dangerous theater where geopolitical rivalries override human security. The seven people killed Monday—individuals with families, aspirations, and inherent dignity—are casualties of intersecting failures: Taliban incompetence, ISIS nihilism, and an international system that has largely abandoned Afghanistan to its fate.
Their deaths deserve more than propaganda exploitation. They demand accountability, justice, and renewed commitment to human rights that transcends geopolitical convenience—for Uyghurs in Xinjiang, for Afghans under Taliban rule, and for all people targeted by those who instrumentalize suffering to justify violence.
Dr. William M. (Bill) Bauer is a licensed clinical counselor in the rural Mid-Ohio Valley area who was a former classroom teacher, principal, and college professor. He has worked with children and adults with disabilities all of his life and hopes that this book brings an understanding to children with disabilities, their teachers, and their classmates. Dr. Bauer was born with a severe hearing impairment.
“I have had the pleasure of working with Dr. Bauer in the professional education and mental health fields for over two decades, and this book series is his latest outstanding work to help young people understand and accept differences. Each title focuses on a uniqueness and assures us that “it is OKAY!” – Dr. Stephanie Starcher, Public School Superintendent
“Being different is OK! Every effort to erase stigma surrounding our differences is important. The earlier we start, the better chance we have at preventing stigma from even occurring. I had the honor of meeting Dr. Bill Bauer when I was in college, and it is no surprise his work as a mental health advocate would transpire into this series of books. I’m thankful for his commitment to celebrating our differences.” – Nick Gehlfuss, MFA, Actor, film and television. Currently, Dr. Halstead, Chicago Med.
“This book series by Dr. William Bauer – my good friend Bill – fills a niche in children’s literature that embraces diversity and self-esteem. This series is not only important, but extremely fun. As founder of Orphans International, I look forward to reading these stories to children of all faiths and abilities around the world. This book is indeed a living testament to Bill’s own son. The world is a better place because of Bill Bauer! #GrantSpeed” – Jim Luce, Founder, Orphans International Worldwide
Aloha kakou. E komo mai. Hello and welcome.
In our Pre-K classroom, you’ll find many things you would expect: a schedule, a calendar, a globe, toys, puzzles, art supplies, books, learning canters. You may be surprised, however, to discover our Diversity Center. Here, you will see posters of children of all nationalities and with all types of disabilities. You will find dolls that I altered to represent these unique children.
We have a doll with glasses, a doll with a hearing aid, a doll on crutches, a doll with one arm, and a doll in a wheelchair. We have books written in different languages: Hawaiian, Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, English, Braille. We have books written about all sorts of families from all over the world.
Our prize possessions, however, are our books written by Dr. Bauer.
My students choose to visit the Diversity Center so they can cuddle up with one of our dolls and Dr. Bauer’s books. They have so many questions about the children in the books… leading to countless discussions and even more questions. When we have story time outdoors, students request that we sit together and read one of these books.
I truly believe that “Anakala (Uncle) Bill’s Books,” as we fondly call them, have been instrumental in teaching us about compassion, caring, and empathy towards all human beings. What a beautiful gift to our classroom! What a beautiful gift to our keiki (children)! What a beautiful gift to our future! “Anakala Bill” knows the meaning of ALOHA (love, peace, compassion, affection) and has shared that with us all.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) for making such a difference in our lives! – Kumu Michelle and Pre-K students, Volcano, Hawai’i
TAGS: Dr. Bill Bauer, children’s literature, family cancer, bilingual children’s book, emotional health, disability inclusion, And It’s Okay series, cancer education for kids, mental health awareness, family resilience, storytelling for healing, Luce Publications
How the shift from Biden to Trump transformed identical marriage-based naturalization interviews into life-changing moments of hope and despair
By Liz Webster, Senior Editor
New York, N.Y. – The waiting room at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan looks the same regardless of who occupies the White House. The same fluorescent lights. The same hard plastic chairs. The same nervous couples clutching folders of documents proving their marriages are real.
But for same-sex couples navigating the U.S. immigration system, everything else has changed.
Jim Luce and his husband Jonathan (Pasathorn) sat in that waiting room in fall 2023, their carefully assembled scrapbooks and photo albums ready for inspection.
In 2017, Jim Luce knelt before Jonathan and asked for his hand in marriage – in front of 200 surprised dinner guests at a charity gala. Jon said ‘yes’ and the crowd erupted. Photo credit: Tequila Minsky.
See Below: 10 Things LGBTQ+ Binational Couples Must Know About Marriage-Based Immigration in 2025
Matthew Collin Marrero (right) with Allan Michael Dabrio Marrero on their first date (March 2023). Matthew writes about their experience in The Huffington Post. Courtesy of Matthew Collin Marrero.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officer who interviewed them was friendly, professional. He gave their documentation a perfunctory look. Jonathan, a graduate of the University of Bangkok who had spent months studying for this moment, answered every question perfectly.
As they walked out, Luce asked for the officer’s contact information for their immigration lawyer. The officer smiled. “You are not going to need it.”
A few weeks later, the letter arrived scheduling Jonathan’s naturalization ceremony. In December 2023, he became a U.S. citizen.
The Luces. Jim (left) and Jonathan (right) tie the knot at their 2018 wedding. Photo courtesy of Jonathan Luce.
When Hope Turns to Handcuffs
Fast forward to early 2025. Matthew Collin Marrero and his husband entered the same building for what should have been a routine green card interview. They had been married for more than two years. Under U.S. immigration law, Jonathan’s husband was legally entitled to permanent residency.
Writing in The Huffington Post, Marrero described what happened next: “My husband was this close to getting his green card. then the officer’s tone changed — and ICE appeared.”
The officer’s demeanor shifted mid-interview. Questions became accusations. Then Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents appeared. Marrero’s husband was detained on the spot, taken into ICE custody while his marriage-based application hung in limbo.
“After more than two years of marriage, he is legally entitled to a green card,” Marrero wrote. “Instead, he was ambushed.”
Matthew Collin Marrero (left) and his husband Allan Michael Dabrio Marrero on their wedding day, October 2023. Photo courtesy of Matthew Collin Marrero.
The Legal Framework That Changed Everything
The contrast between these two experiences reflects a seismic shift in how LGBTQ+ couples navigate marriage-based immigration. But it’s worth remembering how recent these rights actually are.
Jonathan and Jim Luce exploring New York, from the City to the Hamptons and Upstate.
Until 2013, same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized under federal law. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) explicitly prohibited same-sex couples from accessing the 1,138 federal benefits tied to marriage—including immigration sponsorship.
When the Supreme Court struck down DOMA in United States v. Windsor, it opened the door for same-sex binational couples to finally use marriage as a pathway to legal permanent residence.
Two years later, Obergefell v. Hodges guaranteed marriage equality nationwide. For the first time in American history, a U.S. citizen could sponsor their same-sex spouse for a green card just as opposite-sex couples had done for decades.
Luce and Jonathan married in 2018, in the relative stability of that legal framework. Jonathan received his green card approximately two years later. By 2023, when they applied for naturalization, the process felt almost routine.
Their biggest preparation was assembling years of photographs, joint bank statements, lease agreements—the mundane paperwork of shared lives that proves a marriage is genuine, not a fraud to circumvent immigration laws.
The officer barely looked at it. Jonathan’s knowledge of American civics and history was enough.
Administrative Discretion Becomes a Weapon
What changed between Luce’s experience and Marrero’s isn’t the law itself—it’s how that law is enforced.
Immigration enforcement has always involved tremendous administrative discretion. Officers at USCIS and agents at ICE make dozens of judgment calls daily about who deserves scrutiny, who gets the benefit of the doubt, and who gets detained.
Matthew Collin Marrero, Allan Michael Dabrio Marrero and their family dogs. Photo courtesy of Matthew Collin Marrero.
Presidential administrations signal priorities through executive orders, agency memos, and enforcement guidance that trickle down to individual officers making split-second decisions.
Under the Biden administration, USCIS emphasized family unity and processing efficiency. Enforcement priorities focused on serious criminals and national security threats.
Same-sex couples weren’t singled out for additional scrutiny. Officers like the one who interviewed Jonathan had permission to be human, even encouraging.
The Trump administration’s approach represents a dramatic reversal. Early executive orders have expanded immigration detention, increased deportation priorities, and signaled that all undocumented immigrants—regardless of family ties or criminal history—are enforcement targets.
Officers who might have once smiled and said “you won’t need that lawyer” now call in ICE agents mid-interview.
For LGBTQ+ immigrants, the stakes are even higher. Many come from countries where same-sex relationships are criminalized, where coming out means losing family, employment, or physical safety. The U.S. immigration system becomes their only path to building lives with the people they love.
Jonathan and Jim Luce with Dexter in their Roosevelt Island living room. Today, they count a dozen fur babies as their children. Photo credit: The Stewardship Report.
The Arbitrary Nature of Justice
The most disturbing aspect of Marrero’s story isn’t just that his husband was detained—it’s the arbitrariness of it.
Jonathan Luce with Tokio and Teddy – with Jim behind the lens.
Same building. Same legal framework. Same type of marriage. Different outcome entirely.
This lottery-like quality transforms immigration interviews from bureaucratic procedures into existential gambles.
Which officer will you get? What mood are they in? How literally are they interpreting this week’s enforcement memo?
Did your case file get flagged by an algorithm that flags certain countries or certain name patterns?
Luce and Jonathan prepared scrapbooks. Marrero and his husband surely prepared similar documentation.
One couple walked out planning a citizenship ceremony. The other walked out separated, with one partner in detention facing possible deportation.
The cruelty isn’t just in the policy—it’s in the uncertainty.
Same-sex binational couples now face an impossible calculus: Do we risk the green card interview, knowing ICE might be waiting?
Do we stay in the shadows, unmarried, hoping for another administration change? Do we give up on the United States entirely?
Outside the Federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan after Naturalization Ceremony for Jonathan Luce.
Royal Cuisine, American Dreams
Today, Jonathan co-owns a Thai restaurant in Hell’s Kitchen specializing in Royal Thai Cuisine—the elaborate, labor-intensive dishes once prepared for Thailand’s monarchy. It’s a fitting irony. He spent years navigating America’s bureaucratic monarchy, proving himself worthy of citizenship, only to serve the cuisine of the country he left behind.
And there’s another irony worth noting: Thailand recently legalized same-sex marriage. The law passed parliament and received royal approval in 2024. Luce and Jonathan are considering getting remarried in Bangkok on their tenth anniversary in 2028, under Thai law this time.
Thailand, long considered conservative on LGBTQ+ rights, moved forward. The United States, which guaranteed marriage equality in 2015, is now making that equality feel conditional, precarious, subject to the whims of whoever sits in the Oval Office.
With a U.S. green card or passport, Jonathan can travel freely to visit family in Bangkok – or holiday with his husband in Aruba. Photo courtesy of the couple.
What LGBTQ+ Couples Need to Know
For same-sex binational couples considering marriage-based immigration in 2025, the landscape has fundamentally changed. Here’s what advocates recommend:
First, document everything obsessively. Immigration officers have always looked for “marriage fraud”—couples who marry solely for immigration benefits. But scrutiny has intensified. Joint leases, joint bank accounts, shared insurance policies, photographs spanning years, affidavits from friends and family—assemble more documentation than you think you need.
Second, hire an experienced immigration attorney. This is not the time for DIY applications. A good lawyer knows which officers are more or less sympathetic, understands current enforcement priorities, and can potentially prevent ICE from being called if an interview goes sideways.
Third, understand the risks before the green card interview. If your spouse has any history of visa overstays, unauthorized work, or previous deportation orders, those issues could surface during the interview. An immigration lawyer can assess whether it’s safer to wait, whether you qualify for any waivers, or whether you should consider processing the application through a U.S. consulate abroad instead.
Fourth, have a plan if ICE appears. Know your rights. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. ICE agents may pressure your spouse to sign voluntary departure papers or waive their right to a hearing—don’t sign anything without consulting a lawyer first.
Finally, connect with LGBTQ+ immigration advocacy organizations. Groups like Immigration Equality provide legal services, know-your-rights training, and emotional support for same-sex binational couples navigating this system.
New York’s Marriage Equality Act became law when Governor Andrew Cuomo signed it in June 2011, allowing same-sex couples to legally marry in the state. A Supreme Court decision made it legal across the entire U.S. in June 2015.
The Human Cost of Policy
Marrero’s Huffington Post piece ends without resolution. His husband remains detained. Their future together is uncertain. The legal entitlement to a green card means nothing when administrative discretion can override statute.
Luce’s story ended happily—Jonathan became a U.S. citizen in December 2023, can vote, can travel freely, can never be deported. But that happy ending now feels less like justice and more like luck. Right place, right time, right administration, right officer.
The U.S. immigration system has always been broken, slow, expensive, and emotionally brutal even when it works correctly. But for LGBTQ+ couples, it now carries an additional burden: the knowledge that your legal rights might not matter as much as which administration happens to be in power when your number is called.
Somewhere in Hell’s Kitchen, Jonathan hosts Royal Thai Cuisine as an American citizen. Somewhere else, Marrero’s husband sits in immigration detention, his marriage to a U.S. citizen not enough to keep him free.
Same law. Same building. Different administrations. Different fates.
10 Things LGBTQ+ Binational Couples Must Know About Marriage-Based Immigration in 2025
Marriage-based immigration remains one of the most common — and most scrutinized — pathways to lawful permanent residence in the United States. For LGBTQ+ binational couples, legal equality exists on paper, but the practical risks, costs, and emotional toll have increased sharply in 2025.
Here’s what couples need to know.
1. Document Your Relationship Obsessively
USCIS expects overwhelming proof that your marriage is genuine. This includes joint bank accounts, shared leases or mortgages, insurance policies, tax filings, travel records, years of photographs, and affidavits from friends and family. The standard is not “reasonable” proof — it’s excessive proof.
2. Hire an Immigration Attorney
This is no longer a process to handle alone. The current enforcement climate makes professional legal representation essential, especially for LGBTQ+ couples who may face implicit bias or heightened scrutiny. A qualified immigration attorney can prepare you for interviews, anticipate red flags, and intervene if enforcement escalates.
3. Understand ICE’s Expanded Role
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may now appear at USCIS interviews or become involved in cases that were previously considered routine. Before entering any federal building — including locations like 26 Federal Plaza — know your rights, your attorney’s contact information, and your legal posture.
4. Know Which Forms Are Required
At minimum, most marriage-based cases involve:
I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative)
I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status)
I-864 (Affidavit of Support)
These forms must be accompanied by extensive supporting documentation. Errors or omissions can delay your case or trigger further scrutiny.
5. Prepare for Intensive Questioning
USCIS officers may ask highly personal questions about your relationship, home life, daily routines, and shared history. LGBTQ+ couples should prepare together, review timelines, and ensure consistency. The goal is not perfection — it’s credibility.
6. Budget More Than You Expect
Marriage-based immigration is expensive. Between filing fees, attorney costs, medical exams, translations, and document preparation, total expenses commonly exceed US$5,000–10,000. Financial strain should be anticipated, not treated as an exception.
7. Understand the Timeline
Processing times remain unpredictable:
Green card: 10–24 months
Naturalization: 8–12 months
Total timeline (marriage to citizenship):5–7 years minimum
Delays are common. Plan your life accordingly.
8. Connect With LGBTQ+ Immigration Organizations
Specialized organizations understand the unique challenges LGBTQ+ couples face. Groups such as Immigration Equality, GLAD, and Lambda Legal provide legal referrals, advocacy, and sometimes direct representation.
9. Consider Consular Processing Carefully
If the non-citizen spouse has a complicated immigration history, applying through a U.S. consulate abroad may be safer than adjusting status inside the United States. This decision carries risks and benefits and should be made only with legal advice.
10. Have a Contingency Plan
Assume the unexpected. If ICE becomes involved, know:
Which detention facility your spouse could be taken to
How to contact your attorney immediately
Never assume you must sign documents on the spot
Preparedness can be the difference between delay and disaster.
Bottom line: Marriage equality did not eliminate immigration risk. In 2025, LGBTQ+ binational couples must approach marriage-based immigration as a legal strategy, not a formality — with documentation, counsel, and contingency planning at the center of every decision.
A Living Editorial Tool Measuring Who Truly Uplifts Humanity In Public Life
New York, N.Y. — In an era defined by noise, polarization, and performative influence, one question cuts through the din with increasing urgency: Who is actually uplifting humanity? Not merely accumulating followers, winning elections, or dominating headlines—but advancing dignity, justice, and hope in ways that endure.
That question sits at the heart of The Luce Index™, an ambitious and evolving editorial framework developed by The Stewardship Report in collaboration with The James Jay Dudley Luce Foundation. The Index ranks thought leaders and global citizens based on their demonstrated ability to uplift humanity across ten carefully weighted criteria, ranging from moral character and social justice to clarity of communication and audience reach.
Unlike popularity rankings, algorithm-driven influence scores, or partisan “greatness” lists, The Luce Index™ is designed as a moral and civic compass. It highlights individuals—living and historical—whose work has measurably advanced human rights, interfaith understanding, ethical leadership, and compassionate engagement with the world.
Why The Luce Index Exists
The contemporary public sphere is saturated with metrics: likes, shares, polls, approval ratings, market capitalization, box office receipts. What these measures often fail to capture is moral substance.
The Luce Index™ exists to fill that gap.
Rooted in the editorial values of The Stewardship Report, the Index asks not who dominates attention, but who deserves it. It assesses leaders across public life, the arts, education, activism, science, philanthropy, and governance, asking how effectively they:
Defend human dignity
Communicate truth with clarity
Build bridges across difference
Model ethical conduct under pressure
Translate ideas into tangible social good
The result is not a verdict, but a map—a living portrait of those shaping the moral imagination of our time.
What Makes The Luce Index Different
Not A Popularity Contest
The Index explicitly rejects fame as a proxy for value. Some of its highest-scoring figures are household names; others are known primarily within specific movements, disciplines, or regions. Influence matters, but only insofar as it is used responsibly.
Holistic And Evidence-Based
Each Luce Index™ score reflects a holistic review of publicly available evidence, including speeches, writings, interviews, institutional impact, crisis leadership, and long-term consequences of a person’s work. The precise methodology remains confidential, preserving editorial independence and preventing score manipulation.
Dynamic And Updateable
Unlike static “greatest of all time” lists, The Luce Index™ is designed to evolve. Scores can be updated as new information emerges, reputations change, or leaders rise and fall in their alignment with the Index’s values.
The Ten Criteria Explained
The Index evaluates individuals across ten core dimensions. Together, they form an integrated portrait of ethical leadership in action.
Thought Leader
Originality, clarity, and coherence of ideas that expand moral understanding and uplift humanity.
Social Justice
Demonstrated advocacy for equity, inclusion, and structural fairness, particularly for marginalized communities.
Human Rights
Active defense of basic freedoms, safety, and dignity, locally or globally.
Interfaith
Bridge building across religions, cultures, and worldviews, with respect and intellectual humility.
Specific Talent
Excellence within a distinctive field—whether arts, governance, education, science, or activism—used in service of the public good.
Moral Character
Integrity, accountability, consistency between values and actions, and ethical conduct under scrutiny.
Public Speak
Public speaking that is coherent, compelling, accurate, and constructive rather than incendiary.
Prose
Written work that is accessible, insightful, and influential over time.
Digital Media
Effective use of visual and digital media to communicate uplifting, truthful messages.
Reach Audience
Breadth and diversity of audiences engaged, with sustained impact rather than fleeting virality.
Who Appears In The Index
The current Index spans continents, generations, and disciplines. It includes:
Heads of state and diplomats
Grassroots organizers and human rights defenders
Writers, artists, and cultural critics
Scientists, educators, and innovators
Philanthropists and institutional leaders
Some figures are controversial. Some are revered. Some are reassessed as history unfolds. That tension is intentional. The Luce Index™ does not aim to canonize perfection, but to evaluate contribution.
Editorial Responsibility And Moral Risk
Assigning moral scores is not without risk. The Stewardship Report acknowledges the inherent subjectivity involved in evaluating human lives and public legacies.The Index therefore functions not as a final judgment, but as an editorial tool—an invitation to dialogue, disagreement, and deeper inquiry.
What matters most is transparency of values. The Index is explicit about what it honors: dignity over domination, clarity over cruelty, justice over convenience.
Why This Matters Now
At a time when authoritarianism is resurging, disinformation spreads effortlessly, and ethical leadership often feels scarce, tools like The Luce Index™ serve a vital civic function. They remind readers that leadership is not merely about power, but about responsibility—and that history ultimately judges not by volume, but by values.
As students, journalists, educators, and global citizens search for models of principled leadership, The Luce Index™ offers a curated starting point: a living archive of those who, in different ways and imperfect forms, have helped move the world toward greater compassion and justice.
Luce Index™ scores
50 Abbott Greg 75 Abrams Bobby 96 Abzug Bella 93 Abzug Liz 97 Achebe Chinua 58 Adams Trump 97 Akiba Tadatoshi 98 Al Hussein Haya Bint 71 Alafoyiannis Loula Loi 88 Albanese Francesca 88 Alexander Lewis 88 Ali Khan Ustad Amjad 77 Alleman-Luce Frances D. 99 Allen Steve 87 Amdetsion Fasil 97 Angelou Maya 99 Annan Kofi 94 Aquino Corazon Cojuanco 90 Aquino Nino 93 Araki Takeshi 94 Arnett Robert 99 Aronson Jane 99 Attias Cecilia 53 Bakker Jim 83 Baraka Ras 87 Baratz Nati 92 Bard Stanley 88 Bassett Sam 94 Begin Menachem 88 Behar Joy 99 Belafonte Harry 95 Bernstein Leonard 77 Bezos Jeff 94 Bhutto Benazir 80 Biden Joe 93 Biko Steve 35 bin Salman Mohammed 92 Bing Jonathan 80 Blinken Antony 96 Bloomberg Michael 88 Böll Heinrich 38 Bondi Pam 99 Booker Cory 97 Botstein Leon 83 Bottcher Erik 74 Bowser Muriel 98 Boyle Danny 93 Brandin Charlotte 87 Brandt Willy 98 Brockman Miguel 94 Brokaw Tom 95 Browne Carla 95 Buck Pearl S. 84 Buddha Akim Funk 98 Buffet Peter 85 Buffet Warren 42 Bukele Nayib 99 Buttigieg Pete 96 Camus Albert 86 Carnegie Dale 96 Carter Jimmy 91 Chang-Rodriguez Raquel 97 Chavez César 98 Chen Stephen 38 Cheney Dick 63 Cheney Liz 92 Cheng Nerou “Neil” 90 Chopra Deepak 90 Churchill Winston 87 Cialdini Robert 98 Clark Helen 92 Cliburn Van 82 Clinton Bill 94 Clinton Hillary 98 Clooney George 84 Clyburn Jim 94 Coffin William Sloan 88 Cohen Ira 98 Colbert Stephen 56 Collins Susan 99 Coomaraswamy Radhika 89 Cornelius Wayne 87 Cornwell Grant 93 Couture CharlElie 93 Cox Bradley 94 Crockett Jasmine 95 Cronkite Walter 89 Cullen Deborah 93 Cummings e.e. 66 Cuomo Andrew 93 Cushman Bob 89 Cushman Brad 98 D’Harcourt Emmanuel 81 da Silva Luiz Inácio Lula 92 Dambach Chic 87 Daniels Charlie 96 Danson Ted 88 Dash Damon 87 Davidson Richie 81 de Blasio Bill 97 de Fernández Margarita Cedeño 85 DeLarverie Storme 92 Delatour Mario L. 78 DeMeo William 99 Deng Francis M. 94 Depp Johnny 93 Desai Vishakha 88 Diaz Junot 98 Dinkins David 91 Dokoudovsky Vladimir 99 Donahue Phil 88 Doyne Maggie 93 Dromm Danny 93 Duane Tom 85 Duc Tho 94 Duchamp Marcel 47 Dulles Allen 89 Dutruit Anouk 93 Edelman Marian Wright 95 Einstein Albert 87 Ekman Paul 95 Eliot TS 21 Epstein Jeffrey 35 Erdoğan Recep Tayyip 77 Espín Mariela Castro 55 Falwell Jerry 81 Farid Andeisha 87 Felix Katleen 86 Fiedler Arthur 88 Fierstein Harvey 95 Frank Anne 88 Frankl Viktor 72 Frederiksen Mette 98 Frei-Pearson Jeremiah 89 Friedman Thomas 82 Fu Derrick 37 Gabbard Tulsi 99 Gandhi Mahatma 89 Geisel Theodor 83 Geisha Funky 99 Geldof Bob 97 Geleta Bekele 93 Gere Richard 92 Gerson Joseph 94 Gibson Judy 89 Ginsberg Allen 88 Gioia Eric 35 Giuliani Rudy 93 Glick Deborah 84 Golob Robert 89 Gonzalez Annabella 94 Gorbachev Mikhail 95 Gore Al 82 Gotbaum Betsy 94 Gottfried Dick 89 Green Mark 93 Guterres António 92 Gutlove Paula 75 Habibie B.J. 98 Hammarskjöld Dag 98 Hanh Thich Nhat 98 Harris Kamala 97 Harrison George 75 Hart Gary 88 Hastings Anne 35 Hegseth Pete 93 Hemingway Ernest 95 Hesse Herman 94 Hitchcock Alfred 35 Hitler Adolf 99 Hogg David 90 Hsu Cindy 98 Huffington Arianna 96 Hunt Swanee 91 Idriss Shamil 95 Izu Kenro 87 Jackson Michael 95 Jacobson Guy 92 Jagdeo Bharrat 96 Jean Wyclef 98 Jeffries Hakeem 75 John Paul 98 Jolie Angelina 96 Kahlo Frida 87 Kapur Shekhar 88 Karri Nagendra 96 Kawabata Yasunari 91 Kellner Micah 95 Kelly Grace 90 Kennedy Caroline 95 Kennedy John F. 93 Kennedy Ted 91 Kerry John 23 Khamenei Ali 100 Khan Aga 96 Ki-Moon Ban 84 Kiang Dan Chin Yu 98 Kidjo Angelique 94 King Carol 99 King Martin Luther 94 Kinnamon Michael 75 Kins Gloria Starr 93 Kipling Rudyard 89 Kōbō Abe 87 Kohona Palitha 99 Korczak Janusz 88 Krishnamurti Jiddu 98 Kroc Joan B. 89 Kuriansky Judy 93 Kuroda Seitaro 87 Kuru Ahmet 89 Kyi Aung San Suu 92 Lai Ching-te “William” 86 Lambert Adam 89 Lander Brad 89 Lang k.d. 94 Lang Lang 95 Langer Ana 92 Lappin Jessica 93 Le Roy Alain 91 Lear Norman 92 Lecoq Catherine 96 Lee Chang-Rae 86 Lee Eugene 74 Lee John 91 Leeper Steven 96 Lehrer Tom 94 Lennon John 93 Letterman David 94 Levine James 95 Lewis John 99 Lewis Sinclair 98 Limjaroenrat Pita “Tim” 90 Linares Guillermo 90 Liu John 40 Loomer Laura 99 Luce “Harry”
96 Luce Clare Boothe 93 Luce Henry III 93 Luce Henry Winters 90 Luce Jim 87 Luce Leila Hadley 88 Luce Stephen Bleecker 83 Luce, Jr. Stanford L. 99 Ma Yo Yo 73 Macron Emmanuel 99 Maddow Rachel 20 Maduro Nicolás 94 Maloney Carolyn B. 93 Mam Somaly 95 Mamdani Zohran 100 Mandela Nelson 94 Mann Thomas 87 Mannan Mosud 43 Marcos Bongbong 94 Marek Matthew 95 Markowitz Marty 96 Marks Havana 94 Marquez Gabriel Garcia 97 Marsalis Wynton 90 McCall Dirk 86 McEnroe John 91 McGovern George 87 McGovern Jim 91 Meltzer David 93 Méndez Juan E. 89 Merten Kenneth 85 Miclat Banaue 97 Milk Harvey 86 Millard Betty 52 Modi Narendra 79 Monaco Albert of 84 Moreno Rita 86 Morissette Mayer 96 Morrison Toni 87 Moskowitz Eva 97 Moulitsas Markos Zúniga 98 Moyers Bill 92 Mulyani Trie Edi 93 Murakami Haruki 75 Murdoch Rupert 56 Murkowski Lisa 55 Musk Elon 35 Mussalini Benito 93 Nader Ralph 87 Nair Mira 89 Neidhardt Nicolas 93 Nelson Willie 51 Netanyahu Benjamin 94 Newsom Gavin 82 Newton-Tanzer Gavin 94 Nimmons David 38 Noem Kristi 98 O’Donnell Lawrence 90 O’Brien Mark 100 Obama Barack 99 Obama Michelle 100 Ocasio-Cortez Alexandra 35 Ogles Andy 90 Omar Ilhan 93 Ono Yoko 39 Orbán Viktor 80 Osterwalder Konrad 56 Pahlavi Reza 95 Pape Jean 93 Papp Joseph 85 Parikh Ravi 85 Parks Rosa 84 Patel Dev 84 Patterson David 96 Patterson Lynne 81 Pavel Petr 97 Pei IM 98 Pelosi Nancy 96 Perlman Itzhak 72 Petro Gustavo 87 Philippe Joseph 83 Pinto Freida 93 Pitt Brad 88 Podesta John 92 Pounds Ian 94 Pressley Ayanna 86 Preval Rene 87 Pu-Folkes Bryan 33 Putin Vladimir 89 Quinn Christine 61 Rabin Yitzhak 61 Rajapaksa Mahinda 81 Ramaphosa Cyril 94 Randall Tony 82 Rangel Charlie 97 Rania Queen 77 Reagan, Sr. Ronald 99 Reid Joy 95 Rivera Diego 55 Robertson Pat 96 Robinson Marcia Lowry 98 Robinson Mary 74 Rockefeller John D. 98 Rockefeller Susan Cohn 98 Rockefeller, Sr. David 98 Romero Oscar 89 Romm Ethel Grodzins 99 Roosevelt Eleanor 97 Roosevelt Franklin Delano 94 Roosevelt Teddy 87 Rosenthal Robert 96 Rubin Donald 97 Rubin Shelley 48 Rubio Marco 87 Rudin Jim 93 Rushdie Salman 97 Sachs Jeffry 95 Sachs Sonia 97 Sadat Anwar 93 Said Stephan 99 Sanders Bernie 98 Sarandon Susan 95 Sartre Jean-Paul 90 Sato Eisaku 91 Schell Jonathan 93 Schiff Adam 84 Schlefer James Nyoraku 90 Scholz Olaf 89 Schumer Chuck 92 Schweitzer Albert 91 Scorsese Marty 94 Selvadurai Shyam 91 Sharpless Andy 98 Sheinbaum Claudia 93 Shiraz Ghalib Dhalla 91 Shivdasani Aroon 88 Shuler Heath 87 Shyamalan M 83 Siegel Norman 98 Silvia Queen 96 Singer Isaac Bashevis 97 Siv Martha Pattillo 98 Siv Sichan 52 Sliwa Curtis 90 Smith Liz 93 Smythe Patty 92 Sochua Mu 94 Soros Annaliese 89 Soros George 87 Speirs Martha 86 Staple-Clark Jennifer 80 Starmer Keir 39 Stefanik Elise 98 Steinbeck John 93 Stern Isaac 98 Stevers Paul 93 Stone Ganga 95 Stone Oliver 97 Streisand Barbara 87 Sukarno 98 Sulzberger, Jr. Arthur Ochs 89 Suu Kyi 50 Swaggart Jimmy 97 Swibel Brian 97 Tagore Rabindranath 94 Tagore Sundaram 71 Tatsumura Kazuko Hillyer 93 Taue Tomihisa 90 Teresa Mother 96 Terzi Giulio 85 Tho Le Duc 70 Thompson Jim 93 Thunberg Greta 88 Tlaib Rashida 96 Toer Pramoedya Ananta 30 Tojo 35 Trump Donald 87 Tsuyama Keiko 97 Tully Bill 100 Tutu Desmond 94 Udall Mo 91 Valdez Julio 89 Vance Joyce 96 Vargas Mario Llosa 99 Veneman Ann 93 Verne Jules 95 Vichea Chea 98 von Furstenberg Betsy 96 Vuong Ocean 96 Wadsworth Susan 90 Wahid Abdurrahman 95 Walcott Derek 93 Wallach Eli 86 Wang Steven 98 Warren Elizabeth 91 Washington Denzel 93 Weiner Tony 91 Welch Lucas 89 Wickramasuriya Jaliya 73 Widodo Joko 100 Wiesel Elie 99 Williams Brian 88 Williams Montel 90 Wilson Woodrow 99 Winfrey Oprah 96 Wonder Stevie 92 Wong Joshua 51 Xi Jinping 99 Yarrow Peter 98 Yunus Mohammad 97 Zappa Frank 87 Zelenskyy Volodymyr 78 Zopa Tenzin 82 Zuckerberg Mark 89 Zuckerman Bob 94 Zugazagoitia Julián 93 Beyoncé 99 Bono 98 Dalai Lama 93 Duke Frantz (Bavaria) 93 Hahn-Bin 90 Lady Gaga 100 Madonna 75 Pope John Paul 96 Prince Albert (Monaco) 96 Princess Diana 99 Princess Margarita (Romania) 98 Queen Noor (Jordan) 99 Queen Rania 99 Queen Silvia (Sweden) 45 Suharto 88 Sukarno 98 Touré
Companion Explainer Graphics And Listicle
Explainer Graphic: “How The Luce Index™ Evaluates Moral Leadership (10 Criteria Visualized)”
Listicle Companion: “10 Ways Ethical Leadership Shows Up Beyond Power And Popularity”
Late-night host skewers president’s Insurrection Act threat amid Minneapolis protests over federal immigration crackdown.
By John Laing, Editor
We are not here to inflame — we are here to clarify.
New York, N.Y. – The latest clash between Donald Trump [Luce Index™ score: 35] and his critics of his immigration crackdown has spilled from the streets of Minnesota onto late‑night television, where comedian Stephen Colbert [Luce Index™ score: 98] is skewering the administration’s deployment of federal agents as “masked armed goons” victimizing American citizens.
All across America, citizens are demanding that masked ICE goons stop hurting their neighbors.
Colbert targets Trump’s Minnesota crackdown
On Thursday’s episode of “The Late Show,” Colbert devoted a central segment of his opening monologue to Trump’s response to escalating protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis and other Minnesota communities.
The host mocked the president’s vow to flood the state with additional federal officers and his threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, describing Minnesota as “under siege by masked goons victimizing its residents.”
Colbert riffed on protest signs that read “ICE go home,” joking that demonstrators supposedly wanted the agents to “come back in a tank,” a line meant to underline the administration’s militarized approach to immigration enforcement. He then interrupted himself to note that his “fun fact” about the Insurrection Act was not “fun” at all, underscoring the gravity of using combat‑trained troops for domestic policing.
Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act
Trump’s public warning came in a Truth Social post declaring that if “corrupt politicians” in Minnesota fail to stop what he labeled “professional agitators and insurrectionists” from confronting ICE officers “who are only trying to do their job,” he will “institute the INSURRECTION ACT.”
The message followed a night of renewed clashes in Minneapolis after an ICE agent shot a Venezuelan man during what officials described as a “targeted traffic stop.”
The Insurrection Act is a set of federal statutes dating to the nineteenth century that authorize a president, in limited circumstances, to deploy active‑duty U.S. military forces or to federalize NationalGuard troops to suppress an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy within a state or territory.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower used theInsurrection Act for good: to have National Guard escort frightened black students through hostile white protestors at a Little Rock high school, Arkansas, 1957.
Guard units to enforce federal law or suppress rebellion when local authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain order. Legal scholars warn that using the act against largely civilian demonstrators—rather than an organized armed uprising—would stretch those provisions and risk normalizing military involvement in routine domestic law enforcement.
Minneapolis on edge as ICE presence grows
CBS announced it would cancel ‘The Late Show’ with Stephen Colbert after a 33-year run. This #1 late-night program follows a major settlement between CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, and Donald Trump. Colbert has publicly criticized the settlement on air, calling it a “big fat bribe.”
Minnesota has become the focal point of Trump’s renewed mass deportation drive, with roughly 2,000 ICE agents already sent to the state and another 1,000 U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers expected to arrive, according to reports citing federal officials.
Local activists and immigrant‑rights groups say agents have been going “door‑to‑door” in Minneapolis, appearing at residences and workplaces in operations they describe as sweeping and aggressive.
Those tactics have fueled street protests outside ICE facilities and downtown federal buildings, where demonstrators have decried the shooting of the Venezuelan motorist and called for a halt to deportations targeting residents with deep ties to Minnesota communities.
City officials, under pressure from both the White House and local residents, are scrambling to balance civil liberties concerns with fears of further violence if federal and local officers continue to clash with protesters.
Local McDonald’s and a Hilton Hotel in Minneapolis have posted signs stating ICE agents are not welcome.
Culture‑war flashpoint on late‑night TV
Colbert’s critiques place him squarely in a broader media battle over the administration’s immigration policy, with right-wing outlets accusing the host of “smearing” ICE by portraying agents as “masked armed goons” and suggesting that Minnesota is being “invaded” by Trump’s forces.
MAGA commentators argue that Colbert’s framing‘demonizes’ law‑enforcement officials tasked with carrying out congressional mandates, while progressive audiences see his satire as a rare mainstream platform amplifying immigrant‑rights concerns. How can demonizing the demonic be controversial?
The episode continues Colbert’s long‑running role as one of Trump’s sharpest television critics, using humor and ridicule to question the legality and morality of hardline immigration strategies such as family separations, expanded detention, and large‑scale workplace raids.
His latest monologue weaves together the Minnesota crackdown, Trump’s legal pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and even a bizarre “monkey emergency” in the Midwest, reinforcing the show’s portrayal of a presidency lurching from crisis to crisis.
What is at stake in Minnesota
Behind the punchlines lies a substantive debate about how far a president should go to enforce immigration law in cities that politically oppose federal deportation campaigns.
Critics of Trump’s approach warn that routine deployment of paramilitary‑style units and potential use of the Insurrection Act could chill constitutionally protected protest, further strain relationships between immigrant communities and local police, and set troubling precedents for future administrations.
Supporters contend that the federal government has a duty to enforce immigration statutes uniformly across the country and that the presence of additional ICE and border‑protection personnel in Minnesota is a proportionate response to what they characterize as lawless “sanctuary” policies and violent attacks on officers.
With the 2026 midterm season already underway, both sides are seizing on the protests and the president’s threat as rallying points—on one hand to highlight alleged authoritarian overreach, and on the other to emphasize promises of “law and order” and border security.
“Burning of Union Depot During the Railroad Riot July 21st and 22nd 1877, Pittsburgh, PA.” The Insurrection Act, penned by Thomas Jefferson, was used to quell one of the most violent episodes of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, which was a nationwide labor uprising caused by wage cuts and poor working conditions during an economic depression.
