Mounting apprehension over academic freedom, research funding, and the overall climate for students and scholars in the U.S.
Toronto — A growing number of American students are turning to Canadian universities as U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration intensifies pressure on higher education institutions, experts and university officials report. The trend reflects mounting apprehension over academic freedom, research funding, and the overall climate for students and scholars in the United States.
Stephen Sireci, director of the Center for Educational Assessment at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says Trump’s recent executive orders-aimed at overhauling university accreditation and curbing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives-have alarmed both domestic and international students.
“The message is that universities should get in line and follow everything Trump wants to do, but there’s been a lot of rejection of that message,” Sireci told China Daily.
Since April, the Trump administration has frozen hundreds of millions in federal funding to universities, including Ivy League institutions like Harvard and Columbia, and demanded sweeping policy changes. These actions, coupled with the revocation of student visas and the targeting of foreign students involved in campus protests, have led to a perception that the U.S. is no longer a safe or welcoming destination for international scholars.
The library at McGill University in Montreal.
Data from several Canadian universities supports this shift.
The University of British Columbia (UBC) reported a 27% increase in graduate applications from U.S. citizens for the 2025 academic year compared to 2024. UBC even temporarily reopened admissions for certain graduate programs to accommodate the surge. The University of Toronto, Canada’s largest university, also noted a significant rise in U.S. applications, while the University of Waterloo saw a 15% increase in web traffic from American visitors since September 2024.
University officials attribute much of this interest to the volatile environment in U.S. higher education.
“This, particularly due to the recent crackdown on international student visas in the United States and the establishment of a center monitoring foreign students’ social media,” said UBC Vancouver’s provost. Glen Jones, a professor of higher education at the University of Toronto, explained, “Those who see themselves as negatively impacted by the change in direction associated with the Trump government are more likely to look for new alternatives.”
The Trump administration’s policies have not only affected students but also threaten the broader research ecosystem. Sireci warns that suspending federal funds could have “serious ramifications,” undermining scientific progress and the U.S.’s global academic standing. “To keep up that level of excellence, we need to recruit and retain some of the best stars from across the globe. Any policies that inhibit that are going to affect our global competitiveness,” he said.
The risk of a “brain drain” is real, Sireci added, as both students and faculty may seek opportunities abroad if current trends continue. “If there are policies to discourage people from applying or people who are accepted from coming, that’s going to affect the number of scientists and intellectuals in the United States, for sure.”
Meanwhile, Canadian universities are navigating their own challenges. The federal government has imposed a cap on international student visas for the second consecutive year, limiting the number of spots available to all non-Canadian applicants, including Americans.
Still, university leaders see the influx of US students as a way to offset declines in applications from other countries due to the cap.
The developments in the U.S. have also prompted Canadian institutions to reaffirm their commitment to academic freedom and inclusion. “As Canadian university leaders look at what is happening in the US, they are clearly concerned about the erosion of academic freedom,” Jones said, emphasizing the importance of protecting these values in Canada.
Tags: Trump, U.S. universities, Canadian universities, academic freedom, student migration, higher education, university funding, international students, DEI, brain drain, student visas, University of Toronto, University of British Columbia, University of Waterloo, Harvard, lawsuits, federal funding, research funding
The student was climbing outside the official July-to-September season.
Tokyo — A 27-year-old Chinese student living in Japan was rescued–twice–from Mount Fuji within four days after returning to the mountain to retrieve his lost mobile phone.
The first rescue occurred on Tuesday, April 22, when the climber, ascending the Fujinomiya trail at around 3,000 meters (9,800 feet), lost his crampons and was unable to descend. Authorities airlifted him to safety after he became ill, likely due to altitude sickness.
Over 200,000 climbers tackle the 12,388-foot summit each season.
Despite warnings against climbing outside the official July-to-September season, the student returned on Saturday, April 26, to recover belongings, including his phone. He was again rescued after suffering altitude sickness, with another climber alerting authorities to his condition. He was found at the 8th station and brought down on a stretcher, later handed over to emergency services.
Officials strongly discourage climbing Mount Fuji outside the designated season due to unpredictable weather, closed trails, and unavailable medical facilities, which increase risks for climbers and rescuers alike.
The incident has sparked criticism online, with some suggesting the climber should bear the cost of both rescue operations. Authorities in Shizuoka prefecture reiterated their advice against off-season climbs, emphasizing the dangers and the strain such incidents place on rescue resources.
Mount Fuji, Japan’s tallest peak at 3,776 meters (12,388 feet), attracts over 200,000 climbers each season. In response to overtourism and safety concerns, new regulations for 2025 include a daily cap on climbers and a permit fee.
London — In a significant development for indigenous rights and cultural heritage, the United Kingdom has announced plans to return the remains of Ainu ancestors to Japan. This decision marks a milestone in addressing historical grievances and fostering respect for the Ainu people, Japan’s indigenous community primarily residing in Hokkaido.
The Ainu are an indigenous group with distinct language, culture, and history pre- dating modern Japan. Historically marginalized, subjected to assimilation policies, the Ainu have long sought recognition and preservation of their cultural identity.
Background: The Ainu People and Their Cultural Heritage
Their ancestral remains, taken during periods of colonial and scientific exploration, have been held in museums and institutions worldwide, including the United Kingdom.
The Discovery and Custody of the Remains
The remains in question were collected by British explorers and researchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
These remains were transported to the U.K. for study and display, a practice common at the time but now widely criticized for its ethical implications.
The Ainu community and Japanese authorities have repeatedly requested the repatriation of these remains to honor their ancestors and allow for proper cultural rites.
Diplomatic Efforts and Negotiations
Over the past decade, Japan and the U.K. have engaged in diplomatic discussions to facilitate the return of the Ainu remains. These talks have involved cultural ministries, indigenous representatives, and international heritage organizations. The U.K. government’s recent announcement signals a positive resolution after years of dialogue, reflecting a growing global movement toward repatriation of indigenous artifacts and remains.
The Significance of the Return
Returning the Ainu remains is not merely about repatriation; it symbolizes respect for indigenous rights and recognition of historical injustices.
For the Ainu people, it is an opportunity to reconnect with their ancestors through traditional ceremonies and to reclaim their cultural heritage. The move also aligns with international conventions on the treatment of indigenous remains and cultural property.
Reactions from Stakeholders
Japanese government officials have welcomed the U.K.’s decision, emphasizing the importance of preserving Ainu culture and history. Ainu leaders expressed cautious optimism, highlighting the need for continued support in cultural revitalization efforts. Meanwhile, experts in anthropology and cultural heritage have praised the decision as a model for other countries holding indigenous remains.
Next Steps and Future Implications
The process of returning the remains will involve careful coordination to ensure respectful handling and transportation. Both governments are expected to collaborate closely with Ainu representatives to plan the repatriation ceremonies. This precedent may encourage other institutions worldwide to reconsider their holdings of indigenous remains and artifacts.
The U.K.’s commitment to returning the Ainu remains to Japan marks a meaningful advancement in indigenous cultural rights and international cooperation. It underscores the importance of acknowledging past wrongs and working toward restorative justice. As the Ainu community prepares to welcome their ancestors home, this event offers hope for greater recognition and preservation of indigenous heritage globally.
“We are a country that is so rich that we’re not selfish, and we don’t harass foreigners in the streets to ask for their identity papers.”
Kinshasa — Residents of Kinshasa, the bustling capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo(DRC), have voiced strong reactions to recent comments made by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding migration from their country.
During a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, President Trump stated, “many, many people come from the Congo. I don’t know what that is, but they came from the Congo and all over the world they came in.”
The remarks, made as part of a broader discussion on migration and U.S. border security, have sparked a wave of responses in Kinshasa and drawn international attention.
Local Reactions: Pride and Rebuttal
In Kinshasa, Trump’s comments were met with a mix of frustration and pride. Jonathan Bawolo, a local resident, responded, “We are a country that is so rich that we’re not selfish, and we don’t harass foreigners in the streets to ask for their identity papers.”
Other residents echoed similar sentiments, highlighting the DRC’s natural wealth, hospitality, and openness to foreigners.
“Congo is a prosperous country unlike any of its neighbors. We find everything here… we lack nothing. The important thing is that Congo is a rich and hospitable country. We want foreigners to come so that we can develop this great immense Congo,” said another Kinshasa resident.
Many locals drew comparisons between the DRC’s treatment of foreigners and the rhetoric coming from the United States, expressing disappointment at being singled out in U.S. political discourse. Some noted that this was not the first time African countries had been referenced negatively in U.S. politics, and called for greater mutual respect in international relations.
Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims
President Trump’s remarks are part of a pattern of statements he has made about migrants from various countries, often without supporting evidence. He has repeatedly claimed that countries like the DRC are sending large numbers of migrants, including criminals, to the U.S. However, journalists and independent fact-checkers have found no evidence to support these assertions.
U.S. border officials have encountered migrants from the DRC more than 2,000 times during the Biden administration, but experts on prisons and migration say there is no indication that Congolese authorities are releasing prisoners to send to the U.S.
Lewis Mudge, Central Africa director at Human Rights Watch, stated, “We have looked into this on the DRC side and have seen no evidence of this.” Similarly, Amnesty International’s Central Africa researcher and other experts confirmed there is no substantiated link between Congolese prison releases and migration to the U.S.
The governments of both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the neighboring Republic of Congo have also publicly rejected Trump’s claims, calling them false and unfounded.
Migration Context
While the DRC has faced significant internal displacement due to ongoing violence and insecurity-over 6.2 million people are displaced and 1 million have sought asylum, mostly within Africa – most Congolese refugees in the U.S. arrive through legal channels and must pass security background checks.
Between 2021 and 2022, approximately 12,600 refugees from the DRC arrived in the U.S., with no evidence suggesting these arrivals were part of any government-run effort to send criminals abroad.
Broader Implications
Sociologists and analysts note that Trump’s rhetoric fits a longstanding pattern in U.S. politics, where migrants from non-Western countries are portrayed as threats during election cycles. Such narratives have historically been used to mobilize voters but often lack factual basis.
Kinshasa residents continue to express pride in their country’s resources and hospitality, pushing back against what they view as mischaracterizations from abroad. As fact-checkers and officials debunk Trump’s claims, the episode underscores the importance of accurate information and respectful international dialogue.
Tags: Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Donald Trump, migration, U.S. politics, Giorgia Meloni, Congolese migrants, international relations, immigration, Africa
Despite progress toward establishing a special tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders for crimes of aggression in Ukraine, significant obstacles remain. Legal, political, and practical challenges-including issues of jurisdiction, political will, and the immunity of sitting officials-mean it could be months or years before any trials begin. The tribunal’s effectiveness is further complicated by shifting international alliances and the lack of enforcement mechanisms, raising questions about when, or if, Russian officials will be held accountable.
The Hague — As Ukraine and its allies move forward with plans for a special tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders for the crime of aggression, a host of legal and political obstacles threaten to delay, or even derail, the pursuit of justice. While the tribunal represents a major step in international accountability, its path to functioning as an effective court is fraught with complexity and uncertainty.
Tribunal’s Formation and Scope
The push for a special tribunal began in earnest after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, building on earlier calls for accountability following the 2014 annexation of Crimea. With the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacking jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in this context-since neither Ukraine nor Russia has ratified the necessary amendments to the Rome Statute-Ukrainian officials and European partners sought alternative routes to justice.
By early 2025, a “core group” of states, including EU members and Ukraine, completed the technical groundwork for the tribunal, finalizing key legal documents and a draft statute. The tribunal is expected to be hosted in The Hague and will operate under the Council of Europe’s framework, with the aim of prosecuting high-ranking Russian and Belarusian officials responsible for orchestrating the invasion.
Legal and Political Obstacles
Despite these advances, the tribunal faces numerous hurdles:
Immunity of Sitting Officials: As long as Vladimir Putin and other top Russian leaders remain in office, they enjoy immunity from prosecution under international law. The tribunal cannot issue arrest warrants or indictments against sitting heads of state, prime ministers, or foreign ministers unless their immunity is lifted-something only theU.N. Security Council can do, where Russia holds veto power.
Political Will and International Support: The tribunal’s legitimacy and effectiveness depend on broad international support. Recent shifts in U.S. policy, with the current administration refusing to label Russia as the aggressor, have undermined momentum. American representatives have voted against Ukraine’s resolutions at the U.N., raising concerns that the tribunal could become a bargaining chip in future negotiations with Russia.
Jurisdictional Gaps: The ICC’s inability to prosecute the crime of aggression in Ukraine has left a legal vacuum. The special tribunal is intended to fill this gap, but its authority is limited to participating states and may not be recognized universally.
Enforcement Challenges: Even if indictments are issued, the tribunal lacks the means to enforce arrest warrants on Russian territory. Trials in absentia are not planned, meaning prosecution can only occur if suspects are apprehended outside Russia or lose their immunity.
Ongoing Investigations and Evidence Gathering
Ukrainian authorities, supported by the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression (ICPA), have spent years collecting evidence against Russian officials. Investigations target approximately 20 high-ranking political and military figures, but the process is slow and painstaking. Legal experts stress that accountability must extend beyond just the top leadership, drawing parallels to the Nuremberg trials after World War II.
Uncertain Timeline
Even with legal documents in place and political backing from European institutions, the tribunal’s operationalization and the start of any trials could take months, if not years. The process requires not only the formal establishment of the court but also the resolution of immunity issues and the securing of international cooperation for arrests and extraditions.
The Stakes for Ukraine and the International Community
For Ukraine, the tribunal is both a symbol and a mechanism for justice, aiming to deter future aggression and reinforce international law. However, as legal and political experts warn, the speed of its establishment is crucial. If delayed, the tribunal risks being sidelined or used as a bargaining tool in geopolitical negotiations, potentially undermining its purpose.
As Russia’s war in Ukraine continues, the world watches to see whether the promise of accountability will be fulfilled-or whether the hurdles to justice will prove insurmountable.
Tags: Ukraine, Russia, special tribunal, war crimes, crime of aggression, international law, Council of Europe, Vladimir Putin, immunity, accountability, International Criminal Court, European Union, legal obstacles, political challenges
London — For many parents, throwing a birthday party for their child is a cherished tradition—a chance to celebrate with cake, games, and laughter. But as the average cost of a child’s birthday party in the U.K. now reaches £524, growing numbers of families are being forced to scale back or cancel celebrations altogether.
The Rising Price of Party Fun
New research reveals that parents are spending hundreds more than expected on birthday parties, with expenses including venue hire, entertainment, catering, and party bags quickly adding up. A survey by Parenting Insights UK found that nearly 1 in 3 parents have cut back on celebrations due to financial pressures, while 15% have skipped parties entirely this year.
Emma Carter, a mother of two from Manchester, said: “Last year, we hired a soft play centre for my son’s fifth birthday—it cost nearly £800. This year, we’re doing a simple cake and a trip to the park. It’s just not affordable anymore.”
Where Is the Money Going?
The biggest expenses include:
Venue hire (£150-£300)
Entertainment (e.g., bouncy castles, magicians – £100-£250)
Food and cake (£80-£150)
Party bags and decorations (£50-£100)
With inflation pushing up prices, even basic parties now come with a hefty price tag. Social media pressure to host Instagram-worthy celebrations has also contributed to rising expectations—and costs.
Parents Cutting Back
Some families are opting for low-key alternatives:
Home parties (backyard games, homemade treats)
Smaller guest lists (immediate family only)
DIY entertainment (crafts, movie nights)
Single father Mark Reynolds from London shared: “I used to feel guilty if I didn’t throw a big party, but now I realise my daughter just wants to spend time with friends—not an expensive venue.”
Experts Weigh In
Financial advisor Lisa Hammond warns that parents shouldn’t feel pressured into overspending: “Kids remember the fun, not the cost. Setting a budget and sticking to it is key.”
Meanwhile, child psychologist Dr. Rachel Bennett notes: “Children value connection over extravagance. A relaxed, joyful celebration often means more than an expensive one.”
The Future of Kids’ Parties?
As budgets tighten, the trend toward simpler, more intimate parties may continue. Some parents are even embracing “no-gift” parties to reduce financial strain on guests.
For now, the era of lavish children’s parties may be fading—replaced by creativity, not cash.
London – The London Marathon faced an unexpected disruption today when two protesters from the activist group Youth Demand dashed onto the course, throwing red powder paint in front of the elite runners in a demonstration against U.K. ties to Israel amid the ongoing Gaza conflict.
Police swiftly intervened, tackling the demonstrators and arresting them on public order offenses. The incident caused a brief delay before the race resumed.
Chaos on the Course
The protest occurred near the 22-mile mark as the leading pack of elite runners, including Olympic contenders and world-record holders, approached.
Video footage showed two individuals breaking through barriers, sprinting onto the road, and hurling red powder into the air. The substance created a crimson cloud, forcing athletes to swerve or slow momentarily.
Metropolitan Police officers quickly subdued the protesters, dragging them off the course as spectators booed. Organizers later confirmed that no runners were injured, and the race continued with minimal delay.
“We condemn this reckless act, which endangered participants and undermined the spirit of the event,” a London Marathon spokesperson said. “The marathon is a celebration of human endurance, not a platform for political statements.”
Youth Demand’s Justification
Youth Demand, a U.K.-based activist collective, claimed responsibility for the protest, stating it aimed to pressure the British government to end military support for Israel. In a social media post, the group accused the U.K. of “complicity in genocide” and vowed further actions unless demands were met.
“The London Marathon is sponsored by companies profiting from war. We had to disrupt the spectacle to expose the blood on their hands.”
The red paint symbolized the bloodshed in Gaza, where over 50,000 Palestinians have died since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023.
Public and Runner Reactions
Reactions were mixed among spectators and participants. Some runners expressed frustration, while others acknowledged the protesters’ right to demonstrate—just not during the race.
“I get why they’re protesting, but this wasn’t the way,” said marathon finisher Hannah Clarke. “We’ve trained for months, and this put people at risk.”
Police and Political Response
The Metropolitan Police confirmed two arrests and warned against further disruptions.
Former Home SecretaryJames Cleverly condemned the protest as “dangerous and counterproductive,” while Labour leader Keir Starmer reiterated calls for peaceful dialogue.
Marathon organizers said security would be reviewed for future events.
The incident follows a trend of U.K. protests targeting high-profile events, including the Wimbledon tennis tournament and the British Grand Prix.
Race Continues Unscathed
Despite the interruption, Kenya’s Sabastian Sawe and Ethiopia’s Tigist Ketema claimed victory in the men’s and women’s divisions, respectively. Organizers confirmed all runners’ times would stand, as the disruption did not affect official timing systems.
As the marathon concluded, the debate over activism in sports raged on. For now, the focus returns to the runners—but the clash between athletics and advocacy remains unresolved.
Washington, D.C. — President Donald Trump’s first 100 days back in office have been marked by a series of aggressive moves that have alarmed democracy advocates, legal scholars, and press freedom organizations.
In a deeply concerning turn, the Trump administration has begun openly defying Supreme Court orders, invoking sweeping emergency powers, and dismantling protections for journalists-steps many see as straight from the autocrat’s playbook.
From the outset, Trump has taken unprecedented actions: targeting universities, pressuring law firms, prosecuting former aides, and even arresting a local judge who refused to assist in mass deportations.
On his first day, he released hundreds of convicted domestic extremists, who had previously assaulted police officers, effectively creating a loyal militia.
Now, less than 100 days into his term, Trump has crossed a line that no president since the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision has dared approach: he is directly defying the authority of the United States Supreme Court.
In a high-profile case involving a migrant long-settled in Maryland, Trump’s Department of Justice has refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to facilitate the migrant’s return, arguing that the order did not mean what it plainly said.
The Court responded by forbidding the administration from deporting additional migrants to foreign prisons notorious for torture.
The implications are chilling.
No fines have been levied, no officials held in contempt, and much of the public remains unaware of the constitutional crisis unfolding.
The core issue is not merely immigration policy, but whether any institution can check a president’s claim to near-limitless power under the guise of a “national emergency.”
Trump’s repeated declarations of emergencies-on immigration, energy, and trade-have allowed him to bypass Congress and trample longstanding legal norms.
This week, the crisis deepened as Attorney GeneralPam Bondi announced the Justice Department would resume the controversial practice of obtaining reporters’ records in leak investigations, reversing Biden-era policies that had protected journalists from secret surveillance.
The new regulations permit prosecutors to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to compel journalists to reveal sources, provided such actions are “narrowly drawn” and approved at the highest levels.
Bondi justified the move as necessary to prevent leaks that “undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people.”
Yet press freedom groups warn this will have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, undermining the public’s right to know and weakening one of the last effective checks on government power.
“Strong protections for journalists serve the American public by safeguarding the free flow of information,” states Jim Luce, published of The Stewardship Report. “Some of the most consequential reporting in U.S. history… was and continues to be made possible because reporters have been able to protect the identities of confidential sources,” he said.
The administration’s actions have drawn comparisons to authoritarian regimes, where the judiciary and press are systematically weakened to consolidate executive power. The Supreme Court, for now, appears to be resisting, but its lack of enforcement mechanisms leaves it dependent on the executive branch to uphold the rule of law. If Trump can ignore the Court’s orders and label critics as “enemies,” the risk grows that dissenters-including journalists and judges-could face retribution under the pretext of national security.
This erosion of democratic norms is not theoretical.
As recent history in other countries has shown, the failure to act early against such overreach can lead to a rapid decline in freedoms. The United States now faces a pivotal moment: whether its institutions can withstand mounting autocratic pressure, or whether the constitutional checks and balances that have defined American democracy will be swept aside.
His father highlighted his son’s anti-establishment views and lifelong struggles with mental health.
Moscow —Michael Gloss, the 21-year-old son of CIA Deputy Director for Digital Innovation Juliane Gallina and Navy veteran Larry Gloss, was killed in April 2024 while fighting for Russia in Ukraine’s Donetsk region. His story, first reported by Russian investigative outlet Important Stories and confirmed by the CIA, has shocked both the intelligence community and the public, raising questions about radicalization, personal conviction, and the unpredictable consequences of global conflict.
A Journey Marked by Activism and Disillusionment
Gloss’s path to the front lines was unconventional. Raised in Virginia, he attended the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, a school known for environmental activism. He became involved in climate protests, including an arrest in Washington, D.C., and was active in the Rainbow Family, a countercultural group rooted in 1970s peace activism. Friends and family described him as passionate about environmental causes and eager to help the disadvantaged.
Michael Gloss took part in Rainbow Family gatherings, a countercultural group rooted in 1970s peace activism. Then he fought for the Russians against Ukraine and died.
His father, Larry Gloss, recounted that Michael struggled with mental health issues, including episodes of grandiosity and intense fixation on causes such as water purification. Michael’s dream was to develop a system to provide clean water to those in need, and he believed that Russia offered the best opportunity to realize this ambition.
Students at the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, a school known for environmental activism, where Michael Gloss attended. Photo credit: College of the Atlantic.
From Activism to the Battlefield
Michael’s travels took him across Europe, Turkey–where he helped with earthquake recovery–and Georgia, where he mingled with fellow Rainbow Family members.
By August 2023, he had entered Russia, sharing photos and updates with friends. In September, he was documented at a Moscow recruitment center known for enlisting foreign nationals into the Russian military.
Gloss’s social media presence reflected his growing disillusionment with the United States, particularly its foreign policy and support for Israel, and his increasing sympathy for Russia’s position in the Ukraine conflict.
He posted images of himself in Moscow’s Red Square, voiced anti-American sentiments, and expressed support for Russia’s war effort.
Wagner Group mercenary fighters claim full control of the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. Photo credit: Concord Press Service.
Enlistment and Death in Ukraine
Gloss joined the 137th Ryazan Airborne Regiment, training alongside a group of Nepalese recruits. He aspired to obtain Russian citizenship, believing military service would expedite the process and allow him to pursue his environmental goals.
In December 2023, Gloss was deployed to the front lines in Ukraine. He was assigned to an assault unit northwest of Soledar, near the embattled city of Bakhmut.
On April 4, 2024, he died from massive blood loss during an artillery barrage while reportedly attempting to aid a wounded comrade. His death was confirmed to his family by U.S. consular officials in June.
Family and Official Response
The CIA described Michael’s death as a “private family matter,” emphasizing that it posed no national security risk. Both parents expressed profound grief, with Larry Gloss highlighting his son’s anti-establishment views and lifelong struggles with mental health.
Former CIA officials and commentators have called the incident a personal tragedy, noting that while thousands of Americans have traveled to support Ukraine, only a handful have fought for Russia. The case underscores the unpredictable paths of radicalized individuals and the deeply personal dimensions of international conflict.
A Story of Conviction and Loss
Michael Gloss’s journey-from environmental activism in the United States to the battlefields of Ukraine-reflects a complex interplay of personal conviction, mental health struggles, and the global forces shaping young lives today.His death, while not a matter of national security, remains a poignant reminder of the far-reaching consequences of war and ideology.
These Beijing-backed groups present glowing accounts of China’s human rights record, often contradicting credible reports of repression, creating a challenging environment for legitimate NGOs advocating for persecuted populations.
The investigation, based on interviews and public records, highlights a concerted effort by Beijing to influence U.N. proceedings at the Palais Wilson and Palais des Nations, the headquarters of the U.N.’s top human rights bodies.
Since 2018, the number of Chinese organizations with U.N. credentials has nearly doubled, with many gaining accreditation after a 2018 U.N. report raised alarms about the detention of over a million Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The surge aligns with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s push to expand China’s global influence, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2020 stating it “vigorously supported and guided domestic NGOs to ‘go global.’”
These groups, often referred to as government-organized NGOs (GONGOs), participate heavily in Human Rights Council sessions. In 2024 alone, 33 Chinese NGOs made nearly 300 appearances, delivering statements that consistently praise China’s policies without criticism, according to data from the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).
Their delegates often disrupt or drown out testimony from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which document abuses such as the internment of Uyghurs, forced separation of Tibetan children, and crackdowns on Hong Kong democracy activists.
“The U.N. is one of the only forums where we can raise our cause,” said Zumretay Arkin, vice president of the World Uyghur Congress, in an interview. “It’s become one of the places where these governments carry out their repression.” Arkin described a hostile environment in Geneva, where NGO officials report being monitored and threatened, with some activists avoiding U.N. premises due to fears of retribution against their families in China or Hong Kong, especially after the 2020 National Security Law criminalized “colluding with foreign forces.”
The investigation points to a broader strategy by Beijing to counter scrutiny of its human rights record.
Chinese GONGOs often align with the Like-Minded Group, a coalition of primarily authoritarian states that resist country-specific human rights resolutions. This group, including nations like Russia and Cuba, fills speakers’ lists with supportive statements during China’s Universal Periodic Reviews, diluting critical voices. In 2019, during China’s review, six of the ten NGOs allowed to speak were GONGOs, according to ISHR.
The case of Cao Shunli, a Chinese human rights defender detained in 2013 while traveling to Geneva and later dying in custody, underscores the risks for critics. In March 2024, over 30 organizations called for accountability for her death, a demand echoed by nine European human rights ambassadors. Despite such calls, Beijing denies intimidation, with embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu asserting China’s “people-centered approach” has expanded education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation, contributing “constructively to global human rights governance.”
The U.N. Human Rights Office acknowledges the challenge but says distinguishing between “authentic” and “non-authentic” NGOs is unworkable and risks abuse. Kenneth Roth, former Human Rights Watch director, told ICIJ that China’s efforts to deter condemnation, particularly of Uyghur detentions, threaten the global human rights system.
“Beijing has proposed to rewrite international human rights law,” he said, noting restrictions on independent experts’ access to China and efforts to block exiled critics in Geneva.
The proliferation of Beijing-linked NGOs has drawn concern from diplomats and activists.
In 2023, Reuters reported China lobbied non-Western countries to praise its human rights record ahead of its Universal Periodic Review, a tactic critics say exploits economic ties through initiatives like the Belt and Road. While some developing nations align with Beijing, others, including progressive Latin American governments, face pressure to address China’s influence in multilateral forums.
As the U.N. Human Rights Council continues its work, the growing presence of Beijing-backed NGOs raises questions about the integrity of global human rights advocacy. For now, Geneva remains a battleground where legitimate NGOs struggle to amplify the voices of the persecuted against a tide of state-backed narratives.
Sources: The Washington Post, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, International Service for Human Rights, Reuters, Human Rights Watch.
The Rise of Meadowscaping: Transforming Lawns Into Wildflower Havens
New York, N.Y. — Across neighborhoods once dominated by perfectly manicured lawns, a colorful revolution is taking root. Homeowners are embracing “meadowscaping”—replacing traditional grass with vibrant wildflowers and native plants—to support biodiversity, save water, and reduce maintenance. This growing movement isn’t just eco-friendly; it’s reshaping urban landscapes into thriving ecosystems.
“Lawns are ecological deserts,” says Dr. Emily Carter, a botanist.
Why Meadowscaping?
The classic green lawn has long been a status symbol, but its environmental cost is steep. Maintaining turf grass requires frequent mowing, chemical fertilizers, and excessive watering. In contrast, wildflower meadows attract pollinators like bees and butterflies, require minimal upkeep, and naturally resist pests.
“Lawns are ecological deserts,” says Dr. Emily Carter, a botanist. “Meadows, on the other hand, provide food and shelter for wildlife while sequestering carbon.”
How to Get Started
Transitioning from lawn to meadow doesn’t mean letting your yard go wild overnight. Experts recommend:
Assess Your Space – Choose a sunny area and test soil quality.
Select Native Plants – Opt for species adapted to your region.
Phase Out Grass – Sheet mulching or solarization can help eliminate turf.
Plant Strategically – Scatter seeds in autumn or early spring for best growth.
Success Stories
In suburban Vermont, Sarah and Mark Reynolds replaced their half-acre lawn with a mix of milkweed, coneflowers, and clover.
“Within a year, we had butterflies, birds, and even fireflies returning,” says Sarah. “Plus, we spend less time mowing and more time enjoying nature.”
Cities are taking note too. From London to Austin, municipal programs now incentivize meadowscaping to combat urban heat islands and boost pollinator populations.
Challenges and Solutions
Some worry about neighbors’ reactions or local ordinances favoring short grass. Advocates suggest starting small—converting just a portion of the yard—and educating communities on meadowscaping’s benefits.
The Future of Landscaping
As climate concerns grow, meadowscaping offers a practical, beautiful solution. “It’s not just gardening,” says Carter. “It’s stewardship.”\
Autocrat’s Playbook Defies Supreme Court, Puts Rule of Law in Crisis
New York, N.Y. — One hundred days into Donald Trump’s presidency, the alarm bells for American democracy are ringing louder than ever.
Yet, however scared you might be, you are not scared enough. From the moment he reclaimed the White House, Trump has meticulously followed the autocrat’s playbook, dismantling checks and balances with chilling precision.
His actions—targeting universities, extorting law firms, prosecuting former aides, arresting a local judge, and attacking the press—reveal a leader unbound by the rule of law. Most alarmingly, he is now defying the United States Supreme Court, a move unprecedented since Marbury v. Madison established judicial authority over two centuries ago. Worse still, he is getting away with it.
The case at the heart of this crisis involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant in Maryland raising a family and training as a sheet metal worker.
Yet, Trump and his Department of Justice have brazenly disregarded these rulings, asserting that the court’s words don’t mean what they say.
This defiance is not just about one man—it’s about whether any institution can check Trump’s claim to near-limitless power under the guise of a national security “emergency.”
The look of a real invasion.
For years, Trump and his allies have labeled unauthorized migration an “invasion,” a term steeped in fearmongering rather than reality.
Migrants, like our ancestors, come seeking better lives, taking jobs—picking fruit, cleaning hotels, roofing houses—that native-born Americans often shun.
Contrast this with Russia’s actual invasion of Ukraine, where the goal is death and conquest, not employment.
Yet Trump has doubled down, issuing executive orders citing migration as an “emergency” to justify mass deportations to foreign prisons.
He’s also declared energy and economic “emergencies” to bypass environmental laws and impose tariffs, despite Congress’s constitutional authority over taxation.
The stakes are highest in Trump’s use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, which grants extraordinary powers during a literal invasion.
By labeling MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as “terrorists” and “invaders,” Trump claims authority to act beyond judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court’s resistance in the Garcia case and the Venezuelan deportations marks a critical stand against his autocratic tendencies.
But what happens if the court explicitly orders Garcia’s return or rules the Alien Enemies Act inapplicable absent a declared war? If Trump refuses to comply, the future of our democracy hangs in the balance.
This is the terrifying reality: Chief Justice John Roberts commands no army, no police force. Neither does Congress. Our system relies on the executive—Trump and the military and law enforcement under his control—to honor the Constitution.
If he can unilaterally declare criminal gangs “invaders” to justify extrajudicial powers, what stops him from labeling protesters, journalists, or judges as “enemies of the people”? Why not imprison them or ship them to El Salvador’s torture prison?
These scenarios sound alarmist because America’s normalcy bias assures us such things ‘can’t happen here.’ But that same complacency failed to predict January 6, when Trump’s mob stormed the Capitol.
Lifelong conservative Judge Harvie Wilkinson, appointed by Reagan, warned in a recent opinion: “If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens?”
His chilling conclusion urged the executive to uphold the rule of law “while there is still time.” But time is running out. Trump’s first 100 days have exposed a republic teetering on the edge, with no fines, no jail time, and little public outcry to hold him accountable. Many Americans remain unaware of the crisis unfolding before us.
The question now is whether our institutions—and we, the people—can summon the courage to act. If Trump continues to defy the courts, sideline Congress, and weaponize “emergencies,” the America we know may not survive. We must shed our normalcy bias, recognize the autocrat’s playbook for what it is, and demand accountability before it’s too late. Our democracy depends on it.
Beacon of Hope in Darkness: His Absurdist Masterpieces Changed Literature
Dublin – Few writers have left as indelible a mark on modern literature as Samuel Beckett. Born in Dublin in 1906, Beckett’s works—ranging from plays to novels—challenged conventional storytelling, embracing existential themes with dark humor and profound humanity.
Though often associated with bleakness, his writing ultimately reveals resilience, making him one of the most uplifting figures in 20th-century literature.
Early Life and Influences
Beckett grew up in a middle-class Irish family, excelling in academics and sports. After studying at Trinity College Dublin, he moved to Paris, where he became an assistant to James Joyce, another literary giant. This mentorship deeply influenced Beckett’s experimental style.
His early works, like Murphy (1938), displayed his sharp wit and fascination with human futility. However, it was after World War II—during which he joined the French Resistance—that Beckett’s writing took its definitive shape, blending despair with unexpected warmth.
Waiting for Godot: A Masterpiece of Hope in Despair
Premiering in 1953, Waiting for Godot became Beckett’s most famous work. On the surface, it’s a play about two men waiting endlessly for someone named Godot, who never arrives. Yet, beneath its absurdity lies a powerful message: even in uncertainty, human connection and humor sustain us.
Critics initially debated whether the play was pessimistic or strangely hopeful. Beckett himself resisted interpretations, but audiences worldwide found solace in its honesty. The play’s success cemented Beckett’s reputation as a pioneer of the Theatre of the Absurd.
Later Works and Nobel Prize
Beckett’s later works, like Endgame and Krapp’s Last Tape, further explored isolation and memory. His sparse, poetic style made every word count, earning admiration from writers and philosophers alike.
In 1969, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for “his writing, which—in new forms for the novel and drama—in the destitution of modern man acquires its elevation.” Characteristically, Beckett avoided the ceremony, sending his publisher instead.
Legacy: Why Beckett Still Matters
Beckett passed away in 1989, but his influence endures. His works remind us that even in life’s uncertainties, there is beauty and laughter. Directors, actors, and writers continue to reinterpret his plays, proving their timeless relevance.
Far from being a prophet of doom, Beckett was a realist who found light in darkness. As his famous line from Worstward Ho goes: “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
In an age of rapid change, Beckett’s message—of persistence amid chaos—resonates more than ever.
Tags: Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot, Nobel Prize in Literature, Absurdist Theatre, Modernist Literature, Irish Writers, 20th Century Theatre, Literary Genius, Existentialism
Dear Dr. Sami, I am reaching out because I’m struggling to process and move forward from a painful and confusing relationship. My ex-boyfriend threatened suicide multiple times during our relationship, especially when I tried to set boundaries or discuss ending things. He often used these threats to keep me from leaving, and I felt trapped by guilt and fear. Over time, his behavior escalated-he demanded constant access to my phone, pressured me into phone sex, and became physically violent during arguments. I now realize these were forms of control and abuse, but at the time, I was overwhelmed and unsure how to respond. Since ending the relationship, I’ve been haunted by guilt, anxiety, and self-doubt. I worry that I could have done more to help him, or that leaving made things worse for him. At the same time, I know I had to protect myself and that his actions were manipulative and harmful. I’m trying to rebuild my sense of self-worth, but I often feel isolated and ashamed for not recognizing the abuse sooner. How do I move past the guilt and fear that linger from this relationship? How can I trust myself again and build healthy boundaries in the future? I want to heal, but I’m not sure where to start. Any guidance you can offer would be deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Trying to Heal
Dear Trying to Heal,
Thank you for sharing your story and for trusting me with such a vulnerable and difficult experience. What you describe-suicide threats, controlling behavior, and violence-are all forms of emotional and physical abuse. It’s understandable that you feel guilt and fear, as abusers often manipulate their partners into believing they are responsible for the abuser’s well-being and actions.
First, please know that you are not to blame for your ex-boyfriend’s choices or threats. Using suicide as a means of control is a form of emotional manipulation and is never your responsibility to manage. It’s common for survivors to feel guilt or wonder if they could have done more, but your primary responsibility is to your own safety and well-being.
Rebuilding self-trust after abuse takes time and patience. Consider these steps:
Acknowledge the Abuse: Recognizing that what you experienced was abuse is a crucial first step. This clarity can help you separate your ex’s actions from your own responsibility.
Seek Support: Connecting with a therapist, support group, or trusted friends can provide validation and help process your emotions. Professional guidance is especially helpful in addressing trauma and rebuilding confidence.
Practice Self-Compassion: Remind yourself that you did the best you could in a difficult situation. Healing is not linear, and it’s okay to have setbacks.
Educate Yourself: Learning about the dynamics of abuse can help you understand why you felt trapped and why leaving was so difficult. Knowledge can empower you to set healthier boundaries in the future.
Set Boundaries: Practice saying no and prioritizing your needs, even in small ways. Boundaries are essential for healthy relationships and self-respect.
Focus on Healing: Engage in activities that bring you comfort and joy. Journaling, mindfulness, or creative outlets can help process emotions and foster resilience.
Remember, healing is a journey, not a destination. You are not alone, and reaching out for help is a sign of strength. With time, support, and self-care, you can move forward and build the healthy, fulfilling life you deserve.
Trump’s Executive Order Mandates Proof of Citizenship for Voters, Sparks Legal and Civil Rights Debate
Washington, D.C. — President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, igniting a nationwide debate over voting rights, federal authority, and the potential impact on millions of Americans.
The order, announced in late March, marks one of the most consequential election reforms of Trump’s current term, and is expected to face immediate court challenges from civil rights organizations and state officials.
A New Federal Standard for Voter Registration
The executive order mandates that all individuals seeking to register to vote in federal elections must provide documentary evidence of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport. This directive modifies the federal voter registration form and compels state and local authorities to verify citizenship before allowing registration. The action also requires all ballots to be received by Election Day, eliminating postmarked ballots that arrive later.
Additionally, the order instructs states to purge noncitizens from their voter rolls, encourages data sharing between state and federal agencies to identify and prosecute election crimes, and authorizes federal agencies to provide states with immigration and Social Security data for voter eligibility checks.
Rationale and Political Context
The Trump administration argues that the order is necessary to “enforce basic and necessary election protections,” citing concerns about election integrity and alleged, though rare, instances of noncitizen voting. Trump has long criticized U.S. election processes, particularly mail-in voting, and has promoted the idea that stricter safeguards are needed to prevent fraud, despite a lack of evidence for widespread issues.
Voting rights advocates and legal experts argue that the executive order oversteps presidential authority and could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly naturalized citizens, minorities, and those lacking ready access to citizenship documents. States have traditionally held broad powers over election administration, with federal standards typically set through legislation rather than executive action.
Critics warn that reliance on outdated or incomplete databases could mistakenly flag naturalized citizens as noncitizens, leading to wrongful removal from voter rolls. Previous state-level efforts to purge noncitizens have resulted in eligible voters being excluded.
Civil rights groups are preparing to challenge the order in court, contending that it violates federal law and constitutional protections. They argue that the directive could disproportionately impact marginalized communities and suppress voter turnout.
Broader Immigration Policy Context
The executive order comes amid a broader push by the Trump administration to tighten immigration enforcement and registration requirements. Recent policies have included efforts to register noncitizens and use that information to facilitate arrests, prosecutions, and deportations, further fueling concerns among immigrant communities and advocates.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security stated that the administration is using all available tools to fulfill Trump’s campaign promises on immigration and election security. The registration process, they noted, is intended to encourage undocumented immigrants to self-identify and leave the country, with the threat of criminal charges and deportation for noncompliance.
State and Local Reactions
Many state election officials have expressed concern about the feasibility and legality of the new requirements. Some states, particularly those with large immigrant populations, have indicated they may resist implementing the order, setting up potential legal and political battles over federal funding and state autonomy.
What’s Next?
The executive order’s implementation timeline and legal fate remain uncertain. As lawsuits are filed and states weigh their options, the debate over voting rights, citizenship, and federal authority is expected to intensify in the lead-up to the next federal election.
Beijing – In a bold step for lunar exploration, China and Russia have announced plans to construct a nuclear-powered energy plant on the moon by the mid-2030s.
The project, a key part of their joint International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), aims to provide a sustainable power source for long-term lunar missions, potentially paving the way for human colonization.
Why Nuclear Power on the Moon?
Solar energy has been the primary power source for most lunar missions, but it has a critical limitation: the moon’s two-week-long night leaves solar panels useless for extended periods.
A nuclear reactor, however, could provide uninterrupted electricity, supporting habitats, research labs, and mining operations.
According to statements from the China National Space Administration (CNSA) and Roscosmos, the two nations will collaborate on developing, transporting, and installing the nuclear facility between 2033 and 2035.
Technical Challenges and Safety Concerns
Chinese leader Xi Jinping with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Building a nuclear reactor on the moon presents major hurdles:
Transportation: Safely launching nuclear materials from Earth without risking radiation leaks.
Automation: The reactor must operate autonomously or with minimal human oversight.
Heat Management: The moon’s extreme temperature swings could affect reactor efficiency.
Both countries have experience in space nuclear technology. Russia has used radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) in missions like Lunokhod, while China is developing kilopower-style reactors for lunar and Mars missions.
Geopolitical Implications: A New Space Race?
This collaboration strengthens the China-Russia space alliance, positioning them as key competitors to the U.S.-led Artemis Accords, which aims to return humans to the moon by 2026.
China’s Ambitions: After successful lunar rover missions (Chang’e) and its own space station (Tiangong), Beijing is pushing for a permanent moon presence.
Russia’s Role: Despite setbacks like the Luna-25 crash, Moscow remains a crucial partner in space nuclear tech.
The U.S. has also explored nuclear power for the moon under NASA’s Kilopower Project, but no firm timeline exists for deployment.
What’s Next?
If successful, the Sino-Russian lunar reactor could:
✔ Enable 24/7 energy for moon bases. ✔ Support future Mars missions using similar technology. ✔ Shift global space dominance away from Western-led initiatives.
However, experts warn of potential risks, including nuclear contamination and geopolitical tensions over lunar resource claims.
The China-Russia moon nuclear plant marks a major leap in space exploration. While challenges remain, the project could redefine humanity’s presence beyond Earth—ushering in a new era of interplanetary energy solutions.
Migrant Children Face Incarceration Again Under Trump’s Immigration Policy
New York, N.Y. — The Trump administration is once again detaining migrant families-including young children-at U.S. immigration centers, a move that has reignited fierce condemnation from lawmakers, medical experts, and human rights advocates.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is preparing to reopen family detention facilities in Texas, inviting private prison companies to bid for contracts to house thousands of parents and children.
Trump Revives Family Detention: A Disgusting Return to Cruelty
This policy reversal marks a return to one of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s first term: the incarceration of families as a deterrent to migration through the southern border. During the Biden administration, families were allowed to remain in the U.S. under monitoring programs while their cases proceeded, but Trump’s new directive abandons these humane alternatives in favor of mass detention.
The facilities at Karnes and Dilley, Texas-capable of holding over 3,800 people combined-are being reactivated to accommodate families once again. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already begun relocating families to the Karnes center, despite the well-documented psychological and physical toll such detention inflicts on children.
The disgust among experts and lawmakers is palpable. Senate Democrats have called on President Trump to abandon what they describe as a “cruel, ineffective, and costly practice” that inflicts lasting trauma on children and families. Medical and child welfare authorities, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, have repeatedly warned that even short-term detention poses a “high risk of harm to children and families,” violating basic child welfare standards and leading to permanent damage.
Family detention is not just damaging to children and families; it is also costly and ineffective. It does not deter migration. It simply inflicts suffering while draining taxpayer funds at an exorbitant cost.
The Trump administration’s justification is a familiar one: upholding the rule of law and deterring unauthorized migration. A DHS spokesperson insisted, “The preferable course of action for undocumented individuals is to voluntarily depart. If they do so now, they may still have a chance to return and pursue the American dream.” But critics counter that such rhetoric cannot mask the reality: children are once again being locked in detention centers, with no evidence that this approach deters migration or improves border security.
The history of Trump’s family detention and separation policies is stained with reports of overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, minimal food, and children forced to care for each other in the absence of adult supervision7. The infamous “zero tolerance” policy of 2018 led to the separation of more than 5,500 children from their parents, many of whom suffered lasting psychological harm and, in some cases, were never reunited with their families.
Despite the public outcry and the clear scientific consensus on the dangers of family detention, the Trump administration is doubling down. ICE field offices have been ordered to ramp up arrests, with targets of at least 75 detentions per day, even as the agency struggles with staffing shortages and inadequate space. The administration is also seeking to expand detention capacity and eliminate legal protections that limit how long children can be held.
Alternatives to detention, such as community-based case management, have proven far more effective and humane, ensuring high compliance rates with immigration proceedings at a fraction of the cost. Yet, the administration persists with a policy that experts agree is a moral and humanitarian failure.
The return of family detention under Trump is not just a policy misstep-it is a national disgrace. It prioritizes cruelty and political theater over the welfare of children and families, squandering taxpayer money and America’s reputation as a nation of compassion and justice.
As the administration moves forward, the disgust and outrage among advocates, lawmakers, and the public only grow louder, demanding an end to this shameful chapter in U.S. immigration history.
Trump’s refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s order risks a constitutional crisis, undermining rule of law and endangering Americans’ rights.
New York, N.Y. — It’s hard to overstate our disbelief and frustration as we watch President Donald Trump openly defy a direct order from the Supreme Court. The justices, including even his staunchest allies, have demanded that the administration attempt to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man wrongfully deported to a notorious Salvadoranprison. Yet, the White House response has been to stall, obfuscate, and-in the eyes of many-simply ignore the highest court in the land.
This is not just another episode of political theater. This is an extremely dangerous moment for our republic. The Supreme Court’s authority is not ceremonial; it is foundational. If a president can disregard its rulings with impunity, what remains of our checks and balances? What’s to stop any future leader from acting as an autocrat, unconstrained by law or precedent?
The Chilling Consequences
The consequences of Trump’s refusal to obey the Supreme Court’s order are not abstract. They are immediate and deeply personal for all Americans.
If the executive branch can flout the judiciary, then the rights of citizens-documented or not-become little more than “parchment barriers,” as James Madison warned.
Today, it’s an immigrant wrongfully deported. Tomorrow, it could be any one of us denied due process or protection under the law.
The administration’s actions have already set off alarm bells among legal scholars. Some warn we are teetering on the edge of a constitutional crisis, with the executive branch openly daring the judiciary to enforce its will.
The courts can hold officials in contempt, threaten fines, or even disbar government lawyers involved in defiance. But with the president likely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts, and with Congress unwilling or unable to muster the votes for impeachment, accountability feels out of reach.
The Path Forward
Where do we go from here? The courts can only do so much if their orders are ignored. Congress could, in theory, act-but the political will is lacking. Ultimately, the responsibility falls to the American people to demand accountability, to insist that no one-not even the president-is above the law.
We must raise our voices, contact our representatives, and refuse to accept this erosion of constitutional norms. The future of American democracy depends on it.
Contact your senators and representatives. Demand they uphold the rule of law and protect the independence of our courts. Share this story, and talk to your neighbors. Democracy only survives when citizens refuse to be silent.
Tags: Supreme Court, constitutional crisis, rule of law, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Trump, democracy, Taiwan, physician-assisted death, public opinion
Platform-Specific Social Media Blurbs
X (Twitter): Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. What happens when the president ignores SCOTUS? #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS bit.ly/SCOTUSdefiance
Bluesky: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. What are the risks if a president ignores the highest court? #RuleOfLaw #Democracy bit.ly/SCOTUSdefiance
LinkedIn: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. President Trump’s refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order signals a potential constitutional crisis, undermining judicial authority and threatening the foundation of American democracy. The precedent set here could have profound implications for the rule of law, business stability, and the rights of all Americans. Professionals must stay informed and engaged. #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #Democracy stewardshipreport.org/trump-scotus-defiance
Truth Social: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. What are the consequences if a president ignores SCOTUS? #SCOTUS stewardshipreport.org/trump-scotus-defiance
Mastodon: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. The president’s refusal to follow a direct order from the nation’s highest court risks a constitutional crisis, undermining judicial authority and Americans’ rights. What does this mean for the future of democracy? #RuleOfLaw stewardshipreport.org/trump-scotus-defiance
Instagram: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. The president’s refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order puts our democracy at risk. Speak up and demand accountability. #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #Democracy Link in bio.
Facebook: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. President Trump’s refusal to follow a Supreme Court order risks a constitutional crisis, undermining the rule of law and endangering Americans’ rights. What happens when the president ignores the highest court? #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS stewardshipreport.org/trump-scotus-defiance
Reddit: Trump’s Supreme Court Defiance Threatens American Rule of Law. President Trump’s refusal to comply with a Supreme Court order risks a constitutional crisis and undermines the rule of law. What do you think are the long-term consequences if a president can ignore the judiciary? #RuleOfLaw stewardshipreport.org/trump-scotus-defiance
Texas has emerged as a stronghold for conservative values, particularly on the issue of abortion.
Dallas, TX — In the heart of Dallas, Texas, a simple yet provocative phrase adorns countless front yards: “Abortion is Murder.” These yard signs, easily purchased on platforms like Amazon, have become a visible symbol of the state’s deep-rooted pro-life sentiment.
Under the leadership of Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas has emerged as a stronghold for conservative values, particularly on the issue of abortion. But what exactly do these three words mean to those who display them, and why do they resonate so strongly in the Longhorn State?
The phrase “Abortion is Murder” encapsulates a belief held by many in Texas and across Red America: that abortion is the moral equivalent of taking a human life.
For supporters, the statement is rooted in the conviction that life begins at conception. From this perspective, an embryo or fetus is a person with inherent rights, and terminating a pregnancy is akin to an unlawful act of killing. This view is often grounded in religious teachings, particularly among evangelical Christians, who make up a significant portion of Texas’ population.
Gov. Greg Abbott, a vocal advocate for pro-life policies, has signed some of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, including the Texas Heartbeat Act of 2021, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks. These laws have amplified the visibility of pro-life messaging, with yard signs serving as a grassroots expression of support. For many Texans, displaying such a sign is both a personal declaration of faith and a political statement aligned with the state’s conservative leadership.
The signs themselves are straightforward, often featuring bold red or black lettering on a white background. Their availability on e-commerce platforms like Amazon has made them an accessible tool for activism, allowing individuals to broadcast their views without crafting custom signage. In Dallas neighborhoods, from suburban enclaves to urban centers, these signs dot the landscape, sparking both solidarity and contention among residents.
To those who oppose the phrase, “Abortion is Murder” is not just a statement of belief but a loaded accusation. Critics argue it oversimplifies a complex issue, ignoring the nuances of reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and medical necessity. They contend the term “murder” is inflammatory, as it implies criminal intent and disregards the legal status of abortion in certain contexts, even in Texas’ restrictive environment. For pro-choice advocates, the phrase can feel like a judgment, alienating those who support abortion access or have undergone the procedure.
The debate over the phrase reflects broader national divisions. According to a 2023 Pew Research Center poll, 61% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in most cases, while 37% believe it should be illegal in most cases. In Texas, however, public opinion leans more conservative, with a 2022 University of Texas poll showing 45% of residents opposing abortion in most circumstances. These statistics underscore why “Abortion is Murder” resonates in Dallas, where cultural and political conservatism often dominate.
Beyond the moral and legal arguments, the phrase also serves as a cultural marker. In Dallas, yard signs are more than decor; they’re a way to signal identity in a polarized climate. For some, displaying “Abortion is Murder” is an act of defiance against perceived liberal overreach, particularly following the 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. For others, it’s a call to action, urging neighbors to reflect on the sanctity of life.
The prominence of these signs has not gone unnoticed. Local media outlets have reported on their prevalence, particularly during election cycles when abortion becomes a flashpoint issue. Community discussions, both online and in person, reveal a spectrum of reactions—from fervent support to outright dismay. Yet, regardless of one’s stance, the phrase is undeniably effective in its brevity, cutting through the noise to provoke thought and debate.
As Texas continues to navigate its role in the national abortion conversation, “Abortion is Murder” remains a potent symbol of the state’s values and divisions. In Dallas, under the shadow of Gov. Abbott’s policies, these yard signs are more than words—they’re a testament to the enduring power of belief in shaping public discourse.Whether viewed as a cry for justice or a divisive oversimplification, the phrase is unlikely to fade from the Texas landscape anytime soon.
Americans in Russia face an increased risk of arbitrary arrest and may be subject to harassment by Russian government security officials, including the Federal Security Service (FSB).
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Department of State has reaffirmed its highest-level travel advisory for Russia, urging American citizens to avoid travel to the country due to significant security and safety risks. The advisory, classified as “Level 4: Do Not Travel,” highlights ongoing concerns such as arbitrary enforcement of local laws, wrongful detentions, harassment, and the impact of Russia’s ongoing military actions in Ukraine.
According to the State Department, Americans in Russia face an increased risk of arbitrary arrest, particularly those involved in activities deemed sensitive by Russian authorities.
The advisory specifically warns that U.S. citizens may be subject to harassment by Russian government security officials, including the Federal Security Service (FSB).
There have been multiple reports of Americans being detained under ambiguous circumstances, sometimes accused of espionage or other serious charges.
The advisory also points to the unpredictable nature of Russian law enforcement and judicial processes. U.S. citizens have experienced prolonged detentions and limited access to consular assistance.
The State Department notes that its ability to provide emergency services to Americans in Russia is severely restricted due to the ongoing reduction of embassy staff and strained diplomatic relations.
With no ceasefire in Ukraine, is the bromance between Trump and Putin beginning to unravel?
In addition to legal and diplomatic challenges, the advisory warns of increased risks stemming from the conflict in Ukraine. The U.S. government has noted that Russian military mobilizations and security operations can occur with little warning, potentially affecting foreign nationals.
The situation remains volatile, with periodic escalations in military activity and heightened security measures in major cities and border regions.
The advisory also cautions travelers about the possibility of limited commercial flight options and the potential for border closures. Since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, several international airlines have suspended flights to and from Russia, complicating evacuation and travel plans for foreign nationals.
The State Department urges Americans currently in Russia to depart immediately using available commercial transportation.
U.S. citizens are further advised to avoid all public demonstrations and to exercise heightened caution in public places. The Russian government has implemented strict laws regarding public assembly and speech, and foreign nationals have been detained for participating in or observing protests. The advisory underscores that Americans may be subject to surveillance and monitoring by Russian authorities, especially in areas frequented by foreigners.
The State Department’s guidance reflects ongoing diplomatic tensions between the United States and Russia. The U.S. Embassy in Moscow has reduced its operations and staffing, limiting its ability to assist Americans in distress. Consular services, including passport renewals and emergency assistance, may be delayed or unavailable.
In light of these risks, the State Department encourages U.S. citizens to enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive security updates and to maintain regular contact with family and friends. Americans are also advised to have contingency plans for emergencies, including alternative travel arrangements and access to funds.
The travel advisory is part of a broader effort by the U.S. government to ensure the safety of its citizens abroad. The State Department regularly updates its guidance based on evolving security conditions and diplomatic developments. As the situation in Russia remains unpredictable, officials emphasize the importance of vigilance and caution for anyone considering travel to or residing in the country.
While the advisory does not prohibit travel, it serves as a strong warning of the potential dangers. The State Department continues to monitor the situation closely and will update its guidance as necessary to reflect changes on the ground.
Under Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the MID has faced scrutiny for its assertive policies, including the 2014 Crimea annexation and the 2022 Ukraine invasion
This institution plays a pivotal role in shaping Russia’s international relations, negotiating treaties, and representing the nation abroad. But what exactly happens inside this iconic building, and what is its historical significance?
What Is the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
The MID is the government body responsible for implementing Russia’s foreign policy. Led by the Foreign Minister—currently Sergey Lavrov—it manages diplomatic relations, issues visas, negotiates international agreements, and coordinates with embassies worldwide. The ministry advises the Kremlin on global affairs and represents Russia in organizations like the United Nations and BRICS.
What Occurs Inside the Building?
The Moscow headquarters is a hub of diplomatic activity. Key functions include:
Policy Formulation: Officials draft foreign policy strategies for presidential approval.
Diplomatic Communications: The ministry liaises with foreign embassies and handles crisis diplomacy.
International Negotiations:Treaties, trade deals, and security discussions are conducted here.
Consular Services: Though most public services are handled elsewhere, high-level consular decisions are made in the building.
Press Briefings: The MID regularly updates media on Russia’s diplomatic stance.
History of the Building
The ministry’s main building, one of Moscow’s Seven Sisters Stalinist skyscrapers, was completed in 1953. Designed by architects Vladimir Gelfreikh and Adolf Minkus, its imposing 27-story structure symbolizes Soviet-era grandeur.
Initially, it also housed the Ministry of Foreign Trade. During the Cold War, it was a nerve center for Soviet diplomacy, hosting critical negotiations with the U.S. and Europe. Post-USSR, it became the diplomatic headquarters of the Russian Federation.
The building’s interior features marble halls, historic meeting rooms, and Soviet-era décor, blending functionality with political symbolism. A 2016 renovation modernized infrastructure while preserving its heritage.
Modern Role and Controversies
Under Lavrov, the MID has faced scrutiny for its assertive policies, including the 2014 Crimea annexation and the 2022 Ukraine invasion. The ministry defends these actions as protecting national interests, while Western nations impose sanctions in response.
Despite tensions, the MID remains central to Russia’s global engagements, from Middle East diplomacy to energy partnerships with China. Its work—whether praised or criticized—continues to shape international dynamics.
I met Jean-Michel briefly at a party at Andy Warhol’s Factory. I found him to be aloof if not rude – the price of fame?
New York, N.Y. —Jean-Michel Basquiat, a defining figure of the 1980s New York art scene, used his neo-expressionist paintings to confront systemic racism with unflinching clarity. His work, characterized by raw energy, vibrant colors, and layered symbolism, served as both artistic expression and social critique. Basquiat’s art didn’t just reflect the world around him—it challenged it, exposing the deep-rooted racial inequalities that shaped American society.
New York Artists Keith Haring, Any Warhol and Jean-Michel Basquiat in the East Village.
I lived in the East Village in the early 1980’s and met Jean-Michel briefly at a party at Andy Warhol‘s Factory. I found him to be aloof if not rude. I thought maybe because I was white, but then Andy–also white–was his mentor, so that didn’t make sense.
But when you are a famous genius, I guess you can be whatever you wish… Keith Haring and Madonna were around the East Village then as well.
I often saw Keith doodling on the walls of the Astor Place subway station, while Madona and her dancers would circle the neighborhood in a limousine.
Born in Brooklyn in 1960 to Haitian and Puerto Rican parents, Basquiat’s multicultural background informed his perspective. He rose from a graffiti artist, tagging New York City streets under the pseudonym SAMO, to an internationally celebrated painter.
His meteoric ascent in the predominantly white art world was both a triumph and a paradox, as he navigated spaces often hostile to Black voices. This tension fueled his work, which tackled themes of racial injustice, identity, and power dynamics.
One of Basquiat’s most poignant works, Irony of a Negro Policeman (1981), encapsulates his critique of systemic racism. The painting depicts a Black police officer in a stark, almost cartoonish style, surrounded by chaotic lines and fragmented imagery. The title alone underscores the contradiction: a Black man enforcing a system that historically oppressed his community. Basquiat’s use of text and symbols, like crowns and skeletal forms, further amplified the painting’s commentary on authority and marginalization.
His works often blended historical references with contemporary issues.
In Untitled (History of the Black People) (1983), Basquiat reimagined the African diaspora, drawing on Egyptian iconography and slave trade imagery to trace a narrative of exploitation and resilience. The painting’s fragmented composition mirrors the disjointed experience of Black identity in a racially divided society. By juxtaposing ancient motifs with modern struggles, Basquiat highlighted the enduring impact of systemic racism across centuries.
Basquiat’s style—rooted in graffiti’s spontaneity and neo-expressionism’s emotional intensity—gave his social critiques visceral power. His canvases, filled with scribbled text, distorted figures, and bold colors, demanded attention. Pieces like Defacement (The Death of Michael Stewart) (1983) directly addressed racial violence. Inspired by the death of a young Black artist at the hands of police, the painting features two officers looming over a skeletal figure, a raw indictment of police brutality and institutional racism.
The art world’s reception of Basquiat was complex. While collectors and galleries celebrated his talent, some critics dismissed his work as primitive or overly political. This criticism often reflected the very biases Basquiat sought to expose. His ability to infiltrate elite spaces while remaining an outsider gave his art a unique vantage point, amplifying its critique of systemic inequities.
Basquiat’s influence extended beyond the canvas.
His collaborations with Andy Warhol and his friendships with figures like Madonna and Debbie Harry bridged the art world and popular culture. Yet, he remained acutely aware of his position as a Black artist in a white-dominated industry. His paintings often included references to commodification, such as price tags or brand logos, critiquing how Black bodies and culture were exploited.
Today, Basquiat’s legacy resonates in museums, galleries, and public discourse.
Major exhibitions, like the 2017 retrospective at the Brooklyn Museum, have reframed his work as a vital contribution to conversations on race. His paintings fetch millions at auctions, with Untitled (1982) selling for $110.5 million in 2017, a testament to his enduring impact. Yet, his art’s value lies not in its price but in its ability to provoke and educate.
Scholars and curators continue to unpack Basquiat’s symbolism.
His use of crowns, for instance, is widely interpreted as a reclaiming of dignity for Black figures, from jazz musicians to everyday people. His work also draws parallels with contemporary movements like Black Lives Matter, which echo his calls for racial justice. As curator Dieter Buchhart noted, “Basquiat’s art is a mirror held up to society, forcing us to confront uncomfortable truths.”
Basquiat’s life was tragically short—he died of a drug overdose in 1988 at age 27—but his impact endures. His paintings remain a powerful lens through which to view systemic racism, blending beauty with brutal honesty. From New York’s subway walls to the world’s most prestigious galleries, Basquiat’s voice continues to challenge, inspire, and demand change, cementing his place as one of the 20th century’s most visionary artists.
“If we turn our back, she will die.” – Sam Bassett
New York, N.Y. — Storme, a documentary by Sam Bassett based on the life and times of Stonewall VeteranStorme DeLarverie screened last week to a receptive audience in Manhattan.
The film ‘Storme’ screened this week in Manhattan. Photo: Linda Troller.
The Storme film is a triumphant tribute to a great American original. The screening featured a Tape Sculpture Monument dedicated to Storme along Eleventh Street in the East Village.
The film’s producer and director Sam Bassettdescribed the significance of the momentary Monument to me:
“The Tape Monument is dedicated to Storme, as well as the past, present, and future. United we stand for greatness, creativity, compassion, and follow through.
“It means to me ‘Rosa Parks equals Viva Storme DeLarverie equals Martin Luther King equals Barack Obama equals our united future.’ I say, ‘History makers step forward. Support and respect!’
From the documentary, ‘Storme.’ Photo: Linda Troller.
Sam had hoped to have Storme present, but she is not able to leave her new home in a senior center in Brooklyn, after recently vacating her decades-long home in the Hotel Chelsea. The director spoke with me after the screening, stating:
“I am feeling so drained from not being able to do more to get Storme out of that home. She is very sane. The people around her in the home in Brooklyn are ‘gone.’ I do not believe Storme has dementia. She is just a bit old, but there. NOT dementia.
“I think this diagnosis is shocking and wrong. They give that diagnosis in this case because Storme is just too cool to bother with certain memories. She is a true artist, and that’s how true great artists roll.”
Sam Bassett is a long-time friend of Storme’s. Photo: Linda Troller.
After the screening, Sam spoke to those gathered to reflect on Storme’s legacy about freedom. The Chelsea Hotel’s legendary Stanley and Phyllis Bard then spoke of the importance of protecting special people that through their sensitivity change, and shape the world.
Sam told me:
“I have directed, produced, and edited seven feature films. The Storme film I completed in 2008. Last week was the first time I screened it for the public which was very lovely to see the film on the big screen.
“My film work is all about thinking and understanding life to a higher degree. Because of this, the film work has been slow to be excepted. As I said, the Storme film I finished in 2008.
From the documentary, ‘Storme.’ Photo: Linda Troller.
“One man doing everything in his power to create history for the people by the people. Ahead of the curve”.
Sam has a vision for Storme’s future, which entails getting her out of the public nursing home and back to the Chelsea Hotel, surrounded by her community. He told me in his artistic style:
“We can do this. We will do this. Will require a meal service, nurse visiting. Possibly a nurse that’s stays with her at times.
I made a feature film of the poet, filmmaker, photographer Ira Cohen. He now has a full time nurse who takes care of him and is rock and roll. Life saving and elegant creating.
From the documentary, ‘Storme.’ Photo: Linda Troller.
“Storme returns to the Hotel Chelsea. We set her up proper. Allow her to sit in the lobby and have polite conversation. Meals delivered. Let people cherish her. Let her history spread to the people. We create history and our civil rights legend will live until 115 years old. Miracles happen. Let’s make as many beautiful miracles as possible.
“The Hotel Chelsea truthfully is very much like a nursing home. Very similar in truth to the nursing home she is in now. It’s just the rules and style of the Brooklyn nursing home are for death, not life. Not civil rights legend status characters.
“It is not dignified and its heart breaking. Storme would never complain in this moment. She is too selfless. Too elegant to complain. She is so rare, a beautiful butterfly. But like all beautiful butterflies they are delicate. If we turn our back, she will die.
“I believe it’s in our power to pull this off and then sit back and enjoy the golden years, properly supported and taken care of. Elegantly marching in dignity to our golden age.
Sam wrote me after my story in The Huffington Post, “Storme sends her love and thanks you for your efforts. Big moment in history. Torch holders step forward.”
The civil rights activist who probably threw the first punch in the Stonewall Riot that sparked Gay Rights.
New York, N.Y. — I know dementia. My father and grandmother both died with it. But they had both resources and families to protect them – and neither were living cultural and historical treasures.
None of which can be said for the civil rights activist who probably threw the first punch in the Stonewall Riot that sparked Gay Rights.
Storme DeLarverie lived at the Hotel Chelsea for decades. Photo by Sam Bassett.
It is sad for any elderly to be poor in New York City, with no family and few friends. It is especially sad to have historic figures languish with little support from their own communities, in this case my own community – the LGBTQ+ community.
I am particularly saddened by this situation and have reached out to leaders in the LGBTQ+ community to see how they can help Storme.
And how they can help protect others who have paved the way for Gay Rights.
I also reached out to gay and gay-friendly elected officials to hear their thoughts and ideas on safeguarding leaders like Storme when they become impoverished and incapacitated. Would declaring such aging leaders official “Living Treasurers” make a difference?
Storme DeLarverie thrived on the atmosphere created by the many writers,musicians, artists, and actors at the Hotel Chelsea. Photo by Sam Bassett.
The New York Timescovered Stormé’s plight in an article June 27, 2010 entitled, “A Stonewall Veteran, 89, Misses the Parade,” when she was not allowed out to ride in the lead car of the Pride parade last month. The Timesreported:
At noon on Sunday, thousands of marchers filled Fifth Avenue for New York City’s annual gay pride parade. Nearly six miles away, on the sixth floor of a nursing home in Brooklyn, the frail, white-haired woman in beige pajamas and brown slippers in Room 609 sat motionless at the edge of her bed, staring out her window.
…And many of those who marched down Fifth Avenue on Sunday would be hard pressed to realize that this little old lady — once the cross-dressing M.C. of a group of drag-queen performers, once a fiercely protective (and pistol-packing) bouncer in the city’s lesbian bars — was one of the reasons they were marching.
In 2009, a social services group, the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (JASA), was appointed her legal guardian by a judge. In March, she was hospitalized after she was found disoriented and dehydrated at the Chelsea Hotel, her home for decades. No one occupies her room on the seventh floor of the hotel, but it remains unclear if she will ever return.
A small group of friends, including some of her neighbors at the Chelsea Hotel, visit her regularly. A social worker with the nonprofit group SAGE, which provides services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender older people, has been assisting Ms. DeLarverie since 1999, when she was at risk of eviction from the hotel.
One of her neighbors, photographer and documentarian Sam Bassett, asked to speak with me recently about Stormé.
As a gay man, I was shocked to learn that the woman who had committed her life so that one day I might marry my partner had completely lost her ability to care for herself.
Storme DeLarverie. Photo by Sam Bassett.
With no family and insufficient support from the LGBT community, the court granted her guardianship to the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (JASA).
I spoke at length with JASA’s Director of Adult Protective and Guardian Programs, Cecille Hershkovitz, and one of their outside attorneys, Susan Robbins of Miller Canfield.
It is a challenge for any senior to grow older in New York City.
When there is no family, no money, and few friends, it becomes more difficult for any elderly person. When dementia is added, the situation becomes critical, and the City intervenes, hopefully for the best of the person.
Through appointment by the New York City courts, JASA was appointed the guardian for Storme – providing her with crisis intervention, financial management, intensive case management, and oversight of daily activities. This program is funded by the New York City Human Resources Administration.
Attorney Susan Robbins who works with JASA focuses primarily on guardianship work and knows her stuff. She represents all three not-for-profit community guardian programs in New York City which are funded by the city to provide guardianship services to elderly and incapacitated persons.
Storme needs more support, I believe. Where can it come from? SAGE?
Susan was court-appointed counsel for prominent New York City philanthropist Brooke Astor.
“My clients say that my background as a social worker allows me to understand the unique challenges of acting as a guardian.” What Susan cannot do is wave a wand to produce additional funds to give Storme more support.
Incorporated by lesbian and gay activists and aging service professionals in 1978 as Senior Action in a Gay Environment, SAGE (now Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders) is the world’s oldest and largest non-profit agency addressing the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender elders.
Programs like Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders are an important safety net for LGBT elders.
SAGE works with LGBT elders to address and overcome the challenges of discrimination in senior service settings, while also being an essential component in the creation of informal care-giving support, and development of new “family” networks.
Storme DeLarverie is now in a nursing home in Brooklyn. Photo by Sam Bassett.
I reached out to SAGE’s very capable executive director Michael Adams, in Chicago for a SAGE event. Mike told me what SAGE was doing in regard to Stormé DeLarverie.
“Storme’s story is a powerful reminder of the difficulties of getting old in a county that too often fails to provide for our elders and in a system that, until recently, has consistently ignored the particular needs of LGBT older people.
“As in the cases of so many other LGBT elders, SAGE has been there for Stormé when there was nobody else. We have worked closely with Storme for many years, starting 11 years ago when we worked to ensure that she was not evicted from her home in the Chelsea Hotel.
“In the decade since, a SAGE social worker has provided many different forms of assistance to ensure that Storme could live at home for as long as possible. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.
“While we have faith in the nursing care provided by our partners at JASA, we know from our work with thousands of LGBT elders over 32 years that the supports available for our community’s pioneers are woefully inadequate.
Storme DeLarverie. Photo by Sam Bassett.
“SAGE does the best that it can with limited resources and has made a huge difference in Stormé’s quality of life over the past decade.
But the real solution lies in a dramatic increase in the resources available to LGBT elders from our own community and from government. Only then will heroes like Stormé get the heroic treatment they deserve.”
“Storme’s plight is so sad. It highlights the reason why LGBT seniors have special needs. Having met Stormé on a number of occasions, I know how special she is.
“Her contributions to the movement are monumental. I worry that someday I might be in the same position. I’m sure however, that JASA will help her get through this difficult time.”
Then I reached out to an old acquaintance, Gay City News columnist David Noh. David said:
“The impassioned efforts of people like Stormé to effect lasting change stand in marked contrast to this country’s current attitude of passivity and unquestioning acceptance in the face of blatant government mendacity (the Bush era), corporate greed, and senseless war.
“The plight of a true hero like Storme is everyone’s worst nightmare come true, something that crosses the minds of many in our community, especially those who may be living outside the conventional framework of family (although the acquisition of children is no 100% guarantee, either, of loving care in one’s advanced years, as certain examples have shown me).
“It’s a horrendous scandal that this should happen to Stormé and an indictment of this ever more age-ist and elitist country’s attitude towards the elderly and disenfranchised. The idea of deeming people “National Treasures” is a laudable one, and something that has gone in, say, Japan, for years.”
I e-mailed my friends at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law Association of Greater New York (LeGaL), an association of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) legal community in the New York metropolitan area. LeGaL Interim Executive Director Brad Snyder responded:
As an association of LGBT lawyers, we are always concerned when we hear about the challenges facing members of our community, especially the senior community and those who have given so much to the cause of equality. That is one of the reasons while we are currently working with our community partners to develop legal assistance projects specifically aimed at assisting LGBT seniors.
Last weekend the 2008 documentary by Sam Bassett on the life of Storme DeLarverie was screened for the first time, here in New York City.
Of course, the man better connected than anyone in the gay and lesbian community is my friend Dirk McCall, who I met as a poll watcher for Jessica Lappin ions ago. He now heads the Bronx Community Pride Center. Dirk told me:
“I am saddened to hear this sad news about Stormé, who has been a friend and inspiration for years. We must stand up for the pioneers of our movement and something must be done to ensure she is being treated with dignity and respect.
“Social isolation of LGBT seniors highlights why we need an LGBT retirement/assisted living facility in NYC and the need for intergenerational programs to make sure we are not left alone in our times of need.
“We need to organize now both for Storme as well as for our own sake. This should certainly be a call to arms.”
One friend suggested an effort be made to move Stormé to the Lillian Booth Actors’ Home of The Actors Fund in Englewood, New Jersey. This friend is approaching New Jersey Congressman Steve Rothman and Bergen County Executive Dennis McNerney for assistance.
Storme DeLarverie. Photo by Sam Bassett.
JASA’s Cecille Hershkovitz told me that she hoped as many friends from the GLBT as possible would visit Storme because human interaction is vital to mental and physical well being.
Attorney Susan Robbins suggested the possibility of the GLBT community creating a fund specifically to cover additional health aides for GLBT leaders so that they could get out of their facilities more frequently.
Perhaps SAGE would be the best vehicle for such a fund. I understand as little as $10,000 per year could make a significant impact in the life of someone such as Stormé.
I acknowledge the assistance SAGE has given, but I find it an outrage that our community cannot do more to support our leaders.
We need to make sure that our living cultural and historic treasures are not warehoused until they die. Alone and forgotten.
Warning for U.S. citizens: Do not travel to Russia due to the consequences of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian military forces. U.S. citizens may face harassment or detention by Russian security officials, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, and limited flights into and out of Russia.
New York, N.Y. – As Russia’s capital and largest city, Moscow stands as a symbol of national power, history, and cultural pride. Home to over 12 million people, it is the country’s political nerve center, economic engine, and a global hub for arts, education, and diplomacy.
But what defines this sprawling metropolis, and how has it shaped—and been shaped by—Russia’s turbulent past and present?
Political Powerhouse: The Kremlin and Beyond
Moscow’s political significance is anchored by the Kremlin, a fortified complex that has been the seat of Russian authority since the 15th century. Today, it houses the presidential administration, key government offices, and historic cathedrals. Nearby, the State Duma (Russia’s parliament) and the Russian White House (government headquarters) reinforce the city’s role as the nation’s decision-making core.
The city also hosts foreign embassies and international organizations, making it a focal point for global diplomacy. Events like the annual Moscow Conference on International Security highlight its geopolitical influence.
Economic Engine of Russia
Moscow contributes nearly 25% of Russia’s GDP, driven by finance, technology, and energy sectors. The Moscow Exchange is the country’s largest financial market, while corporate giants like Gazprom and Rosneft have headquarters here. Despite Western sanctions, the city remains a key player in global trade, with its skyscraper-filled Moscow International Business Center (MIBC) symbolizing its economic ambitions.
Yet, wealth disparity is visible—luxury boutiques in Tverskaya Street contrast with Soviet-era residential districts, reflecting economic divides.
Cultural and Historical Legacy
Moscow’s cultural identity is deeply tied to its landmarks:
Red Square & St. Basil’s Cathedral – Iconic symbols of Russia, blending medieval and imperial history.
Bolshoi Theatre – A world-renowned stage for ballet and opera.
Tretyakov Gallery & Pushkin Museum – Housing Russia’s finest art collections.
Moscow Metro – A subterranean palace of Soviet-era architecture.
The city has also nurtured literary giants like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, while modern Moscow thrives with theaters, film festivals, and a vibrant nightlife.
Urban Development & Challenges
Moscow has transformed dramatically since the Soviet era. Major projects like Zaryadye Park (a futuristic urban space near the Kremlin) and the Moscow Central Circle (a revitalized railway system) showcase modernization efforts. However, challenges persist:
Traffic congestion, despite an extensive metro system.
High cost of living, especially in elite districts.
Political tensions, with the city often at the center of protests and crackdowns.
Moscow in the 21st Century
Today, Moscow balances tradition with global ambitions. It hosts major events like the 2018 FIFA World Cup and competes with cities like London and New York in finance and culture. Yet, its identity remains unmistakably Russian—a city where golden domes stand beside glass towers, and where history weighs heavily on contemporary politics.
