The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claims Suri has been “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media,” according to Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokesperson. She further alleged that Suri has “close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas.”
On March 15, Secretary of StateMarco Rubio determined Suri’s presence in the U.S. rendered him ‘deportable‘ under a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows expulsion if an individual’s activities are seen as detrimental to U.S. foreign policy.
Suri’s attorney, Hassan Ahmad, has challenged the detention, filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court in Virginia to determine its legality. The petition asserts that the government has provided no specific evidence or details to substantiate its claims against Suri.
“The government has offered no evidence that he committed a crime,” Ahmad told MSNBC, emphasizing that Suri has no criminal record.
The legal filing also suggests that Suri may be targeted due to his wife, Mapheze Saleh, a U.S. citizen of Palestinian descent who has written for Al Jazeera and worked with Gaza’s foreign ministry. The couple believes their views on U.S.-Israel policy have drawn scrutiny.
Georgetown University has expressed support for Suri, stating it is unaware of any illegal activity on his part.
“Dr. Khan Suri is an Indian national who was duly granted a visa to enter the United States to continue his doctoral research,” a university spokesperson said. The institution underscored its commitment to “free and open inquiry, deliberation, and debate,” even on controversial topics. However, it has not received an official explanation for his arrest.
The DHS has not publicly identified the alleged terrorist connection or provided specific examples of Suri’s supposed propaganda. Suri is currently detained at the Alexandria Staging Facility in Louisiana, awaiting an immigration hearing. His case mirrors that of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and green card holder facing deportation under the same legal provision for leading pro-Palestinian protests. Khalil’s detention has been challenged in court, with a judge recently ordering his transfer to New Jersey for further proceedings.
The Trump administration’s actions come amid a broader push to deport foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestinian activities following Hamas’ October 2023 attack on Israel. Critics, including civil liberties groups, argue that such moves infringe on free speech and target political dissent. The administration, however, maintains that these measures are necessary to protect national security. “No one has a right to a student visa,” Rubio has said, defending the deportations.
Suri’s arrest has raised questions about the balance between security and academic freedom. Some observers note that the lack of transparency in the allegations could set a precedent for broader crackdowns on campus activism. Others argue that ties to a group like Hamas, if proven, justify swift action. For now, the case remains in legal limbo, with Suri’s fate hinging on the outcome of his court challenge.
As of March 20, 2025, the story continues to unfold, drawing attention to the Trump administration’s immigration priorities two months into its term. Whether Suri’s deportation proceeds may depend on the evidence—or lack thereof—presented by the government in the coming weeks.
Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil is a legal U.S. resident
New York, N.Y. — In a significant development for the closely watched case of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a federal judge has ruled that his deportation proceedings should be heard in New Jersey, rather than New York or Louisiana.
Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York made the decision on Wednesday, describing Khalil’s case as “exceptional” and warranting careful judicial review. The ruling comes as a setback to the Trump administration, which had sought to have the case dismissed in New York or transferred to Louisiana.
International students admitted to U.S. universities are issued an I-20 (F-1 Students) visa.
Khalil, a 30-year-old Columbia University graduate student and legal U.S. resident, was arrested by federal immigration agents on March 8 near his campus residence. He was initially held at a detention center in New Jersey before being transferred to a facility in Jena, Louisiana.
The activist’s detention is linked to his prominent role in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University last year. The Trump administration has alleged, without providing evidence, that Khalil has ties to Hamas and is sympathetic to terrorism.
Khalil’s legal team vehemently denies these claims, arguing that his arrest violates his First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Mahmoud Khalil is being held in a U.S. detention center in Jena, Louisiana.
In his ruling, Judge Furman maintained his previous order preventing Khalil’s deportation, stating that it will remain in effect unless a district court judge in New Jersey decides otherwise. The judge emphasized the need for careful consideration of the constitutional issues at stake.
Dr. Noor Abdalla, Khalil’s wife who is eight months pregnant with their first child, called the ruling a “first step” in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union. “His unlawful and unjust detention cannot stand. We will not stop fighting until he is home with me,” she said.
The case has drawn significant attention as it is seen as part of a broader crackdown promised by President Donald Trump against student protesters accused of “un-American activity.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited a rarely-used statute giving him broad authority to deport individuals posing “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.“
As the legal battle continues, Khalil remains in detention in Louisiana, where he is scheduled to appear before an immigration judge on March 27.
His lawyers argue that the government’s actions amount to “blatant repression of student activism and political expression.”
The case’s transfer to New Jersey represents a compromise between the positions of Khalil’s legal team, who sought to keep the case in New York, and the government, which pushed for Louisiana.
It sets the stage for what promises to be a closely watched legal battle with significant implications for free speech and immigration rights in the United States.
Los Angeles, CA — On February 23, 2025, Paramount+ launched the second season of “1923,” a prequel to the hit series “Yellowstone,” drawing significant attention from fans and critics alike.
The series, which stars Harrison Ford as Jacob Dutton and Helen Mirren as Cara Dutton, explores the Dutton family’s struggles in the early 20th century, set against the backdrop of prohibition, drought, and economic hardship in Montana. The premiere episode marked a record-breaking debut for Paramount+, pulling in 5.4 million global viewers, a 146% increase over the first season’s debut in December 2022.
“1923” Season 2 picks up where the first left off, following the Duttons as they face mounting threats to their ranch.
Main antagonists Donald Whitfield (Timothy Dalton) and Banner Creighton (Jerome Flynn) continue their scheme to seize the Dutton land, while Spencer Dutton (Brandon Sklenar) and his captivating British wife Alexandra (Julia Schlaepfer) journey separately toward Montana.
The season promises a blend of historical drama and Western action, with episode 5, titled “Only Gunshots to Guide Us,” set to release on March 23, hinting at escalating conflict.
Paramount Global reports that Season 2 viewership is outpacing Season 1 by 56%, with the premiere alone reaching 17 million viewers worldwide within its first month.
New episodes drop every Sunday at midnight ET, exclusively on Paramount+, reinforcing the platform’s strategy of staggered releases to maintain engagement. The eight-episode season, consistent with its predecessor and fellow spinoff “1883,” is slated to conclude in mid-April, wrapping up the story arc originally billed as a limited series.
“1923” blends star power with intricate storytelling.
Created by Taylor Sheridan, known for expanding the “Yellowstone” universe, “1923” blends star power with intricate storytelling. Alongside Ford and Mirren, the ensemble cast includes Darren Mann, Brian Geraghty, Aminah Nieves, and Jennifer Carpenter, who joined in Season 2.
Sheridan’s signature style—rooted in historical accuracy and character-driven narratives—continues to resonate, as evidenced by the show’s dominance on Paramount+ charts since its return.
The series delves into themes of land ownership and survival, reflecting the Dutton family’s legacy a century before “Yellowstone.”
It also explores parallel narratives, such as Teonna Rainwater’s (Aminah Nieves) fight against cultural erasure, which may intersect with the Dutton storyline in later episodes.
Critics have praised the slow-build tension, though some note the lack of Season 1’s frequent shootouts, suggesting Sheridan is saving major action for the finale.
Paramount+ has capitalized on the “Yellowstone” franchise’s popularity, with “1923” joining “1883” and other Sheridan projects like “Tulsa King” and “Landman” on the platform. In the U.K., Canada, and Australia, the series streams exclusively on Paramount+, while “Yellowstone” itself remains on Peacock in the U.S.
The network premiere of Season 2 aired on Paramount Network on March 16, broadening its reach beyond streaming.
Fan reactions on social media highlight excitement for Ford and Mirren’s performances, though some express impatience with the pacing.
Posts on X reflect a mix of anticipation for Spencer’s return to the ranch and speculation about potential crossovers, such as Teonna meeting the Duttons.
As of March 22, 2025, “1923” has aired four episodes, with the latest, “Journey the Rivers of Iron,” released on March 16.
The remaining four episodes will unfold weekly, building toward what cast members have called a definitive conclusion. While Paramount+ has not confirmed a Season 3, the show’s success suggests the “Yellowstone” universe will continue to expand, with projects like “The Madison” and “1944” in development.
For now, “1923” stands as a cornerstone of Paramount+’s original programming, blending prestige talent with a loyal fanbase. Whether it delivers the explosive payoff fans expect remains to be seen, but its early numbers affirm its place in the streaming landscape.
Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren Lead “1923” to New Heights (March 18, 2025)
Racial Justice Champions Inspire Inclusive Fight Against Trump
Washington, D.C. — As Donald Trump’s presidency unfolds in 2025, a powerful coalition of Black leaders has emerged as the backbone of opposition, championing racial justice, social equity, and inclusivity.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY).
Figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Cory Booker, Representatives Ayanna Pressley and Jasmine Crockett, and progressive commentators Touré and Joy Reid, alongside Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), are driving a movement rooted in addressing systemic racism and uplifting marginalized communities.
And they are younger – average age 50.
The average age of Trump and his key appointments is 68. Reid was born in 1968 (57), Booker in 1969 (56), Jeffries in 1970 (55), Touré in 1971 (54), Pressley in 1974 (51), Crockett in 1981 (44), AOC in 1989 (36). Their average age is 50. And, of course, Pete Buttigieg is only 43 years old.
[The average age of Joe, Bernie, Nancy, Chuck, and Elizabeth, by the way, is 80.]
U.S. Senator Cory Booker (NJ).
“How can I help?”
Their collective resistance to Trump’s agenda offers a compelling call to action—not just for Black Americans, but for allies across all identities, including a gay white man such as myself, asking, “How can I help?”
This opposition, largely led by straight Black voices, reflects a deep commitment to dismantling inequities that Trump’s policies—like his rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives—threaten to exacerbate.
Representative Ayanna Pressley (MA).
Jeffries, the first Black House party leader, has been a strategic force, empowering Black women in Congress like Crockett and Pressley to lead with boldness.
Booker, known for bipartisan collaboration, pairs his social justice advocacy with economic reform, appealing to a broad coalition. Meanwhile, Reid and Touré amplify these issues on airwaves and social media, framing Trump’s actions as assaults on progress.
Pressley, a vocal advocate for racial and economic justice, has condemned Trump’s rhetoric as “reckless” and “divisive,” particularly after he blamed DEI for tragedies like the December 2024 plane crash at Reagan National Airport.
Crockett, a rising star from Texas, has called out Trump’s incompetence, likening his leadership to “a real-life bad episode of The Apprentice.”
Progressive commentators Touré .
AOC, while not Black, aligns closely with this group’s progressive vision, pushing for systemic change and defending immigrants—another target of Trump’s policies.
Together, they form a united front, emphasizing that the fight against Trump is about protecting all marginalized communities, not just one group.
For a gay white man looking to contribute, their leadership offers a blueprint for allyship.
Representative Jasmine Crockett (TX).
Jeffries’ strategic inclusivity—seen in his support for freshmen Democrats like Crockett—shows that effective resistance thrives on diverse voices working together. “This is a time that requires leadership, compassion, and decency,” Jeffries said recently, signaling an openness to allies who share these values.
Booker’s bipartisan approach suggests that building bridges across identities can amplify the movement’s reach, while Pressley’s call to “actively pursue anti-racist policies” invites personal reflection and action from those outside the Black community.
So, how can an older, gay white man like me be of help?
First, by listening and amplifying these leaders’ messages. Reid’s platform on MSNBC, for instance, offers a nightly masterclass in connecting race, politics, and equity—issues that intersect with the LGBTQ+ struggle against discrimination. Sharing her insights, or Touré’s sharp cultural critiques, on social media can extend their reach to new audiences.
Second, by showing up where it counts: Crockett and Pressley have joined protests against Trump’s mass firings and deportations, spaces where physical presence as an ally can signal solidarity.
Education is another key step.
AOC’s push for a path to citizenship and Pressley’s anti-racism legislation—like the Anti-Racism in Public Health Act—highlight policies that benefit multiple marginalized groups, including queer communities of color.
Understanding these intersections equips allies to advocate more effectively, whether through voting, lobbying, or community organizing. donating to grassroots efforts, like the “State of the People” livestream backed by Crockett and other Congressional Black Caucus members, provides tangible support to counter Trump’s narrative.
The beauty of this opposition lies in its inclusivity. While predominantly Black and straight, its leaders don’t gatekeep the fight. “We don’t need queer voices that don’t want to be queer voices,” Pressley once said, a sentiment that implicitly welcomes authentic allyship from all quarters.
For a gay white man, this means bringing his own lived experience—perhaps the sting of exclusion or the joy of hard-won rights—to the table, enriching the movement without overshadowing its core voices.
As Trump’s administration tests America’s resolve, this coalition’s strength offers hope. Their progressive views on racial justice and equity aren’t just opposition; they’re a vision for a better future.
For allies, the invitation is clear: join the resistance, not as a savior, but as a partner. By amplifying, educating, and showing up, a gay white man can help turn this Black-led momentum into a broader triumph for all.
Unified Opposition: Black Leaders Inspire Diverse Resistance (March 17, 2025)
Equality Isn’t Enough: America Needs Equity to Truly Level the Playing Field
New York, N.Y. — The image of three people watching a baseball game from behind a fence — each standing on a different number of boxes — explains the difference between “equality” and “equity” better than any words.
It’s simple: equality gives everyone the same box, but equity gives each person what they need to see over the fence. The adult may need no box, the teenager one, and the toddler two.
This visual demonstrates why equality alone is not enough — and why equity is crucial to a just society.
In America, we pride ourselves on the belief that everyone should have equal opportunities.
The phrase “all men are created equal” echoes through our national conscience. But the reality is far from equal.
If two people start a race — one with a head start and one weighed down by centuries of systemic barriers — equal treatment doesn’t create a fair competition.
Equity addresses those barriers, ensuring everyone has what they need to succeed.
Consider this: about 22 million households rely on SNAP benefits — what used to be called food stamps — to put meals on the table. Meanwhile, roughly 24 million American households have more than a million dollars in assets.
This is not a coincidence.
Wealth begets wealth. Families who have assets — homes, investments, savings — pass those down to their children. This is called “generational wealth.”
Families denied those opportunities through redlining, discriminatory hiring, and unequal education systems pass down nothing but struggle.
According to the Federal Reserve, the median white family holds ten times the wealth of the median Black family.
This is the cumulative result of centuries of enslavement, segregation, and systemic exclusion from economic opportunities — from the Homestead Act to the GI Bill.
So, what do we do about it?
The Middle Class shrinks while the Upper and Lower Classes expand.
First, we need to stop pretending that equality alone will fix things. We must embrace equity — crafting policies that account for historical injustice and present-day disparities.
That includes targeted investments in education, healthcare, and housing in underserved communities. It also means rethinking taxation and social safety nets to redistribute wealth more fairly.
But equity isn’t just about government policy — it’s about moral responsibility. America owes a debt to those it has systematically disadvantaged. That’s why the conversation must include reparations.
Critics dismiss the idea as radical or impractical, but reparations are about restoring stolen opportunities — from land to labor to the right to build wealth.
Germany paid reparations to Holocaust survivors.
The U.S. compensated Japanese Americans interned during World War II. Why should the descendants of enslaved African Americans — who built this nation’s economy without compensation — be denied the same recognition and restitution?
Equity means acknowledging that some communities need two boxes, not one, to see over the fence.
It means recognizing that generational wealth has been reserved for a privileged few while others have been deliberately left behind. And it means finally having the courage to do something about it.
As a society, we must ask ourselves: Do we want to be a nation that offers everyone the same box — knowing that many will still be left behind — or a nation that ensures everyone gets what they need to thrive?
The answer should be obvious. It’s time for America to embrace equity, tackle systemic racism, and consider reparations — not as an act of charity, but as a long-overdue step toward justice.
Tags: Jim Luce, J. Luce Foundation, Orphans International, The Stewardship Report, social justice, equity vs equality, wealth inequality, SNAP benefits, reparations, progressive leadership
Their approaches diverge sharply, sparking critical debates among policymakers, educators, activists
New York, N.Y. — In an era where terms like “equity” and “equality” dominate social justice discourse, it is vital to recognize their distinct meanings—and fewer grasp the real-world implications of conflating them. While both concepts aim to foster fairness, their approaches diverge sharply, sparking critical debates among policymakers, educators, and activists.
Defining the Divide
“The image of people standing on boxes illustrates he concept of “equality” and “equity” better than any words. Of course, human beings should have equal treatment. But, as we see with the image, equality is not always enough. The adult does not need a box, the youth only one, but the toddler two. This evens the playing field. In America, we must level the field for all as well,” states Jim Luce of Luce Family Charities(J. Luce Foundation, Orphans International, etc.).
“This opens the door to dealing with institutional racism and, further, reparations. That generational wealth has been dneied those with nothing, creating a society of ‘have’s’ and ‘have not’s.’ About 22 million households that receive SNAP benefits — ‘food stamps’ — in the our country, while there are here are approximately 24 million ‘millionaire’ households – families with more than one million dollars in assets,” says Luce.
Social equality advocates for uniform treatment, providing identical resources and opportunities to all individuals. Imagine a food bank distributing the same meal box to every family. While well-intentioned, this approach overlooks varying needs—such as dietary restrictions or family size—potentially leaving some hungry. Equality’s strength lies in its simplicity, but critics argue it risks perpetuating disparities by ignoring systemic barriers like racism, poverty, or disability.
Social equity, however, prioritizes fairness over uniformity. It acknowledges historical disadvantages and adjusts support to bridge gaps. Using the same analogy, an equity-focused food bank might offer larger portions to families in food deserts or culturally specific items for immigrant communities. “Equity isn’t about handouts; it’s about repairing generational cracks in the system,” explains Dr. Lena Torres, a sociologist at Columbia University.
Key Differences in Practice
Approach: Equality’s “one-size-fits-all” model contrasts with equity’s tailored solutions. For instance, equal funding for all schools ignores under-resourced districts needing extra investment.
Resource Allocation: Equity directs resources based on need, such as prioritizing healthcare access in marginalized communities.
Outcomes: Equality measures success by equal access, while equity seeks equal results, like closing racial wealth gaps.
Systemic Recognition: Equity explicitly addresses entrenched inequalities, whereas equality often operates under the assumption of a “level playing field.”
Why the Confusion Matters
Misunderstanding these terms can derail policy. A 2024 U.S. education bill initially framed as “equitable” faced backlash when it proposed equal tech funding for all schools, neglecting rural areas with outdated infrastructure. “Politicians use ‘equity’ as a buzzword without committing to targeted action,” argues Marc Thompson of the Equity Now Initiative.
Conversely, equity-focused programs are sometimes mislabeled as “unfair.” California’s 2023 Affordable Housing Act, which allocated units based on income and disability status, faced lawsuits alleging “reverse discrimination.” Such clashes reveal a societal tension between immediate fairness and perceived favoritism.
The Case for Coexistence
Experts stress that equity and equality are complementary. Equality lays the groundwork for basic rights, while equity addresses deeper imbalances. For example, universal healthcare (equality) ensures access, but equity might prioritize maternal health programs in regions with high mortality rates.
“Equality is the floor; equity builds the stairs,” says UN Human Rights Officer Priya Mehta. “Without both, marginalized groups hit glass ceilings.”
Real-World Applications
Education: Schools in low-income neighborhoods receiving extra funding (equity) versus standardized per-student budgets (equality).
Workplace: Gender-neutral parental leave (equality) versus extended leave for single parents (equity).
Philanthropy: Grants awarded equally to all applicants versus prioritized funding for minority-led nonprofits.
Looking Ahead
As governments and organizations increasingly adopt equity frameworks, backlash persists. Critics argue that equity’s focus on identity-based solutions risks division, while proponents counter that colorblind equality sustains inequity. The challenge lies in balancing individuality with collectivism—a debate unlikely to resolve soon.
What remains clear is that precision in language shapes progress. As Torres notes, “Calling for ‘equality’ when you mean ‘equity’ is like prescribing aspirin for a broken leg. Both matter, but only one heals the root issue.”
In the pursuit of justice, understanding these distinctions aren’t semantics—it’s strategy.
The move has raised concerns about the future of U.S. efforts to promote accurate news and democratic values in areas saturated by foreign propaganda
Washington, D.C. — Voice of America (VOA) and its affiliated networks are facing significant cutbacks following President Donald Trump‘s recent executive order.
On March 15, 2025, VOA Director Michael Abramowitz announced that he and nearly all of the organization’s 1,300 staff members were placed on administrative leave. This action came just one day after Trump signed an order to drastically reduce the functions of VOA’s parent agency, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
The impact of these cuts has been immediate and far-reaching.
Several VOA local-language radio stations have ceased news broadcasts, resorting to playing music instead. Top editors have been instructed to halt their work, leading to expectations that VOA’s global news coverage will soon come to a standstill.
USAGM oversees not only VOA but also other networks such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia. These organizations have also been affected, with their contracts being terminated. The cuts extend to funding for these networks, which provide news to regions including Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, China, and North Korea.
Supporters of the Trump administration argue that these broadcasters are outdated and inefficient. However, critics warn that dismantling these networks could allow countries like China to dominate international airwaves, potentially harming American interests abroad.
The move has raised concerns about the future of U.S. efforts to promote accurate news and democratic values in areas saturated by foreign propaganda. For decades, both Republican and Democratic leaders have supported these initiatives.
As a result of these actions, VOA employees have been barred from accessing their Washington, D.C. headquarters, and freelancers and contract workers have also been prevented from working due to lack of funds. This situation marks the first time in VOA’s 83-year history that it has been effectively silenced.
Its application in this case is unprecedented and unconstitutional since the U.S. is not at war nor facing an invasion by a foreign government
New York, N.Y. –– On Saturday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg temporarily halted President Donald Trump’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of being affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The administration invoked the centuries-old wartime statute earlier in the day, claiming the gang posed a national security threat akin to an invasion. This marked the first use of the law since World War II.
The Alien Enemies Act grants presidents sweeping powers during wartime or foreign invasions to detain and deport noncitizens deemed threats to national security. However, legal experts and immigrant rights groups argue its application in this case is unprecedented and unconstitutional since the U.S. is not at war nor facing an invasion by a foreign government.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
The lawsuit was filed by five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention facilities in Texas and New York. Represented by attorneys from the ACLU and Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs challenged Trump’s proclamation as unlawful and lacking justification under the act’s criteria. Judge Boasberg agreed with their arguments, issuing a temporary restraining order that blocks deportations for 14 days.
During a hastily convened hearing on Saturday evening, Judge Boasberg broadened his ruling to cover all noncitizens in U.S. custody subject to Trump’s proclamation. He ordered planes already carrying deportees to Central America to return to the United States immediately. “Particularly given the plaintiffs’ information, unrebutted by the government, that flights are actively departing and planning to depart, I do not believe that I’m able to wait any longer,” Boasberg stated.
President Trump’s proclamation identified Tren de Aragua as a transnational criminal organization engaging in activities such as extortion, kidnapping, and contract killings. He argued that their actions constituted “irregular warfare” against the United States and justified invoking wartime powers for expedited deportations. Critics contend this interpretation stretches the law’s intent beyond its historical use during conflicts like World War II.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign defended the administration’s approach during court proceedings, citing past Supreme Court rulings that upheld presidential authority under the Alien Enemies Act. However, Judge Boasberg questioned whether labeling a criminal gang as equivalent to a foreign government met the statute’s requirements.
Legal analysts predict this case will escalate quickly to higher courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court due to its implications for executive power and immigration policy. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal against Boasberg’s ruling.
Advocates for immigrant rights celebrated Saturday’s decision as a victory for due process protections under U.S. law. Lee Gelernt of the ACLU criticized Trump’s proclamation as “unlawful,” stating it represents an overreach of wartime authority during peacetime.
The temporary restraining order expires in 14 days, with further hearings scheduled next week to determine whether Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act can proceed legally. This high-stakes legal battle underscores ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement and constitutional safeguards in modern America.
Is It Ethical to Continue Using “X”? The Progressive Case for Leaving — or Staying
New York, N.Y. — When Elon Musk rebranded Twitter as “X” in 2023, the shift seemed symbolic of more than just a name change. It marked a dramatic transformation in how the platform operates — from its content moderation policies to its role in public discourse.
Since then, the site has become a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, and unchecked extremism. For many progressives, this raises an uncomfortable question: is it still ethical to stay on “X”?
The Platform’s Transformation
Under Musk’s leadership, “X” has undergone sweeping changes. He slashed content moderation teams, reinstated previously banned accounts (including those of far-right figures), and loosened restrictions on what can be posted. Verified users — now anyone willing to pay for the blue check — often receive priority visibility, regardless of the content’s accuracy or intent.
The result? A platform where misinformation flourishes and engagement rewards the most inflammatory voices. Studies have shown a spike in hate speech and conspiracy theories since Musk’s takeover, leaving users to navigate a minefield of harmful content.
For progressives who once saw Twitter as a tool for activism, community-building, and holding power to account, “X” now represents a moral quandary: does continuing to use the platform enable its worst tendencies?
The Ethical Dilemma
On one hand, staying on “X” allows progressive voices to push back against harmful narratives. Grassroots activists, journalists, and everyday users can still reach broad audiences, challenge misinformation, and promote progressive causes. Abandoning the platform entirely could mean ceding that space to bad actors — leaving it as an unchecked echo chamber for extremism.
Some argue that boycotting “X” sends a clearer, more powerful message. High-profile users, like author Stephen King and actor Jack Black, have criticized Musk’s changes and signaled their unwillingness to engage with the platform. Others have followed suit, migrating to alternatives like Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads.
The key ethical question boils down to this: does staying on “X” make you complicit in its harmful practices, or does it empower you to fight back from within?
Who Profits from Your Presence?
A crucial factor in this debate is the financial side of “X.” Musk has shifted the platform’s revenue model to rely more heavily on subscriptions and advertising. Users who stay — particularly those who engage frequently or pay for verification — contribute to the platform’s profitability and credibility, even unintentionally.
The more engagement “X” attracts, the more appealing it becomes to advertisers and investors. This creates an uncomfortable reality for those who oppose Musk’s vision: their presence fuels the very system they oppose.
However, some argue that quitting entirely isn’t the only ethical response. Many users now treat “X” less as a social platform and more as a battleground — amplifying progressive voices while refusing to give Musk a dime. They advocate using the platform without contributing to its financial success, such as avoiding paid features and reporting harmful content.
Alternatives on the Rise
For those considering leaving “X,” a growing number of alternative platforms offer refuge. Mastodon, a decentralized platform, has attracted users seeking a more community-driven experience. Bluesky — initially funded by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey — has gained traction as an invite-only, more open version of the original Twitter experience. Meta’s Threads, though tied to Instagram, offers a familiar microblogging feel with stricter content moderation.
Still, none have yet reached the scale and influence of “X.” For many of us progressives, the reality is that “X” remains the place where public conversations happen — from breaking news to political organizing. The ethical conflict remains: is visibility worth the cost?
The Personal Choice
Ultimately, the decision to stay or leave “X” is a deeply personal one. For progressives, the answer hinges on balancing impact with integrity:
. • Staying may help counter harmful content and keep progressive ideas visible, but it indirectly supports Musk’s platform. • Leaving sends a clear ethical statement and denies “X” user engagement — but risks losing an influential public space.
Perhaps the real ethical challenge isn’t whether to stay or go, but how to ensure whatever choice you make supports progressive values in the long run. Whether that means fighting from within or building better spaces elsewhere, the goal remains the same: to create a digital world that amplifies truth, compassion, and justice — not hate.
So, the question remains: is it time to walk away from “X”? Or can we progressives still reclaim the platform from the inside?
1987 Moscow: The Beginning of Trump’s Russia Connection?
New York, N.Y. — In the summer of 1987, a 41-year-old Donald Trump — then a rising New York real estate developer — visited Moscow, hosted by the Soviet Ambassador. On the surface, it seemed like just another business trip. But former KGB officials, including ex-Soviet spy Yuri Shvets, later claimed this visit was no ordinary venture. Instead, they suggest it was part of a broader Soviet strategy to cultivate Trump as a potential political asset — a claim that continues to provoke debate decades later.
The Moscow Visit: A Turning Point?
Trump’s 1987 trip came at a time when the Soviet Union, under Mikhail Gorbachev’s leadership, was shifting its approach to the West. Seeking to undermine U.S. influence globally, Soviet intelligence operatives reportedly sought Western figures who could help sow division — particularly those with ambition, ego, and influence.
According to Shvets, Trump fit the profile. He was wealthy, politically curious, and — perhaps most importantly — flattered by the high-level attention. The Soviets, he claims, believed Trump could be nudged into promoting policies that aligned with their interests.
When Trump returned to New York, his behavior seemed to shift. Just two months later, he spent nearly $100,000 on full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers — including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe. The ads criticized America’s foreign alliances, urging the U.S. to stop defending Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Western Europe and let those nations “pay their own way.”
For a man with no political experience at the time, the move was baffling — and strikingly aligned with Soviet interests. The ads mirrored long-standing Kremlin narratives aimed at weakening Western alliances like NATO.
Follow the Money: Trump’s Russian Ties Deepen
Fast forward to the 2000s, and Trump’s business dealings took an increasingly international turn — with a noticeable pattern of Russian connections.
The Trump Organization sold numerous luxury properties to anonymous shell companies, many of which were later linked to Russian oligarchs. While legal, such transactions raise questions about who was behind the purchases and why they were made.
In 2008, one deal stood out: Trump sold his lavish Palm Beach estate, Maison de L’Amitié, to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million — nearly double its market value. Rybolovlev never lived in the mansion and later demolished it. The sale raised eyebrows among financial analysts, some of whom speculated the inflated price could have been a covert financial favor or backchannel transaction.
During a real estate conference that same year, Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., even remarked: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets… we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Coincidence or Pattern?
While no definitive proof has emerged that Trump knowingly worked with Russian intelligence, the series of events — from the 1987 Moscow trip to later business deals — leaves a trail of unanswered questions. The timeline suggests more than a random collection of coincidences:
• 1987: Trump invited to Moscow by the Soviet Ambassador, reportedly cultivated by Soviet intelligence. • 1987: Trump returns to the U.S. and publishes ads urging a pullback from foreign alliances — echoing Soviet interests. • 2000s: Trump sells properties to anonymous shell companies, some traced back to Russian oligarchs. • 2008: Trump sells his Palm Beach mansion to a Russian billionaire for nearly double its value.
Whether this pattern points to a deliberate strategy or a series of fortuitous business moves remains a subject of intense speculation.
Donald Trump surrounded by women on the TV show “The Apprentice.”
The Bigger Picture
Decades after his first Moscow trip, Trump’s presidency was marked by an unusual affinity for Russian leadership, particularly Vladimir Putin. He repeatedly questioned the value of NATO, criticized America’s European allies, and cast doubt on Russian election interference — positions that eerily echoed the ideas he first published in his 1987 newspaper ads.
Was Trump’s Moscow visit a pivotal moment in shaping his worldview? Was he an unwitting player in a larger geopolitical game — or a man whose personal ambitions simply aligned with the Kremlin’s goals?
The truth may never be fully known. But one thing is clear: the echoes of that 1987 trip still resonate in today’s political landscape.
For those looking to connect the dots, one mantra remains: follow the money.
Former KGB officials, including Yuri Shvets, claim this visit was part of a Soviet strategy to cultivate Trump as a potential asset. Just two months after returning to New York, Trump paid nearly $100,000 for full-page ads in major newspapers, urging the U.S. to abandon its allies and let them fend for themselves. Sound familiar?
Fast forward to the 2000s:
🔍 The Trump Organization sold numerous properties to anonymous shell companies—many linked to Russian oligarchs. 🔍 In 2008, Trump sold his Palm Beach estate, Maison de L’Amitié, to Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million—nearly double its market value.
Coincidence? Or a pattern?
Tags: Donald Trump, Moscow, 1987, Soviet Union, KGB, Yuri Shvets, Russian oligarchs, Dmitry Rybolovlev, real estate, politics, Cold War, U.S. foreign policy
From Pandemonium to Peace: A Couple’s Journey with 12 Canine Companions
New York, N.Y. — It surprises some people to learn that my partner and I have 12 dogs. Shih Tzu or Shih Tzu-Havanese mixes. Of course, I never imagined our life would revolve around rescued dogs, each with a story etched into their soulful eyes.
Max naps in our living room to classical music.
My partner, Bix, and I live in a New York City apartment that hums with the chaos and love of our unconventional furry family. It’s a life of constant motion—laundry spinning, carpets steaming, and a symphony of barks greeting us at the door.
Yet, amid the pandemonium, there’s a peace that settles over us, a rhythm we’ve learned to dance to with our twelve canine companions.
Our life revolves around our furry family, a mix of rescues with complex needs
Our days are shaped by their needs. Five of our boys wear diapers due to urinary incontinence, a condition that demands round-the-clock care. We’re up early, changing pads, washing soiled linens, and wielding the steam cleaner like it’s an extension of our hands.
It’s messy, relentless work, but it’s worth it. These dogs—discarded by others for their imperfections—deserve dignity. I look into their trusting eyes and know we’re giving them that, one clean diaper at a time.
Coming home is an event. The moment the front door opens, “puppy-monium” erupts—a tornado of barks and furiously wagging tails. Bix laughs, calling it “a tornado of love,” and he’s right.
It’s overwhelming for about sixty seconds until they settle, reassured we’re back where we belong.
The UPS guy, a regular witness to this chaos, grins and says we’re running a canine hotel. He’s not wrong. Even meal prep is a logistical feat—bowls stretch across the kitchen, dining room, and living room, each tailored to specific dietary needs. It’s a circus, but it’s our circus.
Grooming is another beast entirely
Bix and our boys in the kitchen.
Every six weeks, each dog needs professional ear cleaning, gland expression, and nail trims—a $500 monthly expense that dwarfs my own haircut costs.
I’ve set up a grooming station at home to manage half the sessions myself, brushing out tangles and trimming where I can. But the pros handle the delicate stuff.
Twelve dogs, twelve appointments—it’s a logistical puzzle, but their wagging tails and freshly fluffed fur make it a triumph.
They are always within ten feet of me, whether I’m writing in my office, cooking in the kitchen, or taking a shower. Many people ask me how we can have so many dogs in a New York City apartment.
Well, even if we lived in a mansion, they would always be within ten feet of me… Six of them sleep on the bed with us. It’s rather comforting to be touching all six and my partner as I sleep.
They are extremely intuitive. They know when you’re upset, they know when you’re sad. Their emotional intelligence often stuns us. One guy, blind in one eye, bit my finger by accident the other day.
He followed me into the bathroom as I bandage my finger. Head bowed, nuzzling my bandaged hand with his one good eye, he looked devastated. Dogs know. Of course, I forgave him.
Intuition and Heartbreak
Life with twelve dogs isn’t all cuddles and loyalty. We have had our loses, and it hurts. A diabetic rescue, Mushu, passed away despite round-the-clock care. Another, Rogi, succumbed to kidney disease. Another, who arrived with distemper, had to be put to sleep.
Walking the gang along the Roosevelt Island Promenade under the 59th Street Bridge.
The hardest goodbye was Remi, a dog with unexplained aggression linked to a neurological disorder. He bit me so badly I needed hospitalization.
We tried for another year after that, but he was unable to learn acceptable behavior through positive reinforcement, desensitization, and counter-conditioning techniques now matter how hard we tried.
The vet explained his brain was irreparably damaged. We held him as he crossed that so-called rainbow bridge. He wasn’t a bad dog—just a broken one. And we never stopped loving him.
The Price of Compassion
Financially, the commitment can be staggering. Grooming costs exceed $500 monthly, and specialized diets, medications, and diapers add thousands annually.
Yet, whatever. These dogs were discarded. Who else would take a senior with incontinence or a ‘problem’ dog?” We just try to give them a soft landing.
A Balancing Act
Despite the challenges, we find joy in small victories. Teaching a formerly abused mix to trust again or watching an old dog learn a new trick fuels our resolve. They’re survivors. Every tail wag feels like a middle finger to whatever they endured before.
But it can be hard. We rarely travel together because we cannot find a pet sitter who can deal with so many dogs at the same time – especially given their special needs.
You can’t just ‘clock out’ with this many dogs. It’s exhausting, but quitting isn’t an option. They’re family.
Bix and Jim Luce, Clover and Yap Yap returning form the groomers by subway.
Lessons from the Pack
For us, our dogs have redefined love. Their presence has also taught us patience. When six dogs follow you into the bathroom, we learn to laugh instead of scream.
Perhaps our story will inspire others to consider adopting overlooked pets—seniors, special-needs animals, or those labeled “difficult.” Perfect dogs don’t exist. But every one of them deserves a chance to be loved, even if it’s messy. And, truly, each is perfect in his own way.
It’s late at night as I finish this piece. Our home is quiet. Our dogs are curled into a collective heap under my desk, their breathing syncing into a contented rhythm.
I survey the scene: a laundry pile of diapers, a few wee pads, and a oriental carpet that’s seen better days. This may be chaos, but it our chaos. And we wouldn’t trade it for the world.
Tags: Animal rescue, pet care, dog behavior, urinary incontinence in pets, pet grooming, multi-dog households, emotional bonds with pets, senior dog care, veterinary challenges, dog rehabilitation
I recently received my green card as part of my journey to become a U.S. citizen after marrying my American husband. I’m gay, and we’ve built a life together here that means everything to me. But now I’m facing a heartbreaking dilemma. My mother recently passed away in Indonesia, and I feel a deep need to attend her funeral and settle her estate. It’s a responsibility I can’t ignore, yet I’m terrified that if I leave the U.S., I might be denied reentry. The thought of losing my husband, my home, and the career I’ve worked so hard for is overwhelming. Should I risk going to Indonesia, or stay here and let this go unresolved?
– Balancing Act
Dear Balancing Act,
I am so sorry for your loss. Losing a parent is heartbreaking enough, but to have that grief compounded by immigration fears makes it all the more overwhelming. You’re standing at a painful crossroads—between honoring your mother and protecting the life you’ve built with your husband.
First, let’s address the legal concerns.
As a green card holder, you have the right to travel internationally, but there are risks. If you stay outside the U.S. for too long or if immigration authorities question your intent to remain a permanent resident, you could face complications upon reentry. To minimize these risks, take the following steps:
1. Consult an Immigration Attorney – Before making any decisions, speak with a lawyer who specializes in immigration law. They can review your case and help ensure your return is as smooth as possible.
2. Carry Strong Documentation – If you decide to travel, bring proof of your ties to the U.S., including your marriage certificate, employment records, lease/mortgage, and tax filings. These documents reinforce your commitment to living here.
3. Limit Your Time Away – Short trips (ideally under six months) are less likely to raise concerns. If necessary, explore whether estate matters can be handled remotely or through legal representation in Indonesia.
4. Consider a Reentry Permit – If you anticipate needing more time abroad, applying for a reentry permit before you leave may provide additional security.
Now, for the emotional side.
Grief doesn’t always wait for immigration logistics to fall into place, and the idea of not being present for your mother’s funeral is a heavy burden. If the risk of leaving feels too high, find ways to honor her memory from afar. Hold a ceremony with loved ones here, contribute to a cause she cared about, or engage in a personal ritual that connects you to her.
This is an agonizing choice, but you are not alone. Your husband, your chosen family, and your community can help you navigate this moment. Prioritize both your heart and your future—you deserve to grieve and to keep the life you’ve worked so hard to build.
U.S. President Questions Denmark’s Historical Claim to Greenland
Washington, D.C. — During a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Thursday, President Donald Trump expressed confidence that the United States would annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.
Trump described Greenland as essential for U.S. national security and suggested NATO could play a role in facilitating the acquisition. “I think it will happen,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, underscoring his belief that the Arctic island is crucial for international security.
Trump also questioned Denmark’s historical claim to Greenland, stating, “Denmark is very far away from Greenland… A boat landed there 200 years ago or something. They say they have rights to it—I don’t know if that’s true.” He added that the United States already has a military presence on the island and hinted at increasing troop deployments.
NATO Secretary General Distances Himself
Mark Rutte responded cautiously to Trump’s remarks, emphasizing that discussions about Greenland were outside NATO’s purview. While acknowledging the strategic importance of the Arctic region amid growing Chinese and Russian influence, Rutte made clear he did not want NATO involved in Trump’s annexation plans.
Greenland and Denmark Push Back
Greenland’s leaders swiftly rejected Trump’s statements. On Friday, all five political parties in Greenland’s parliament issued a rare joint declaration condemning Trump’s comments as “unacceptable.” The statement emphasized that Greenland belongs to its people and reaffirmed their commitment to self-determination.
Outgoing Prime Minister Múte Egede described Trump’s approach as “completely unacceptable,” while Jens Frederik Nielsen, leader of the pro-business Demokraatit party that recently won Greenland’s parliamentary elections, echoed similar sentiments. Nielsen called for unity among Greenlandic leaders to resist external pressure.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen also dismissed Trump’s remarks, reiterating that Greenland is not for sale and emphasizing Denmark’s commitment to respecting Greenlanders’ autonomy.
Political Context in Greenland
Greenland recently held parliamentary elections, with the center-right Demokraatit party emerging victorious over Egede’s Inuit Ataqatigiit party. The Demokraatit party advocates for gradual independence from Denmark but has no intention of aligning with Washington. Despite political shifts within Greenland, all major parties remain unified in opposing U.S. annexation.
Greenland has a population of approximately 56,000 and operates as a self-governing territory under Denmark’s kingdom. While Denmark retains authority over foreign and defense policy, Greenland achieved home rule in 1979 and gained further autonomy in 2009, including the right to hold referendums on independence.
Strategic Importance of Greenland
As climate change opens new shipping routes in the Arctic and reveals extensive mineral resources, Greenland has gained global strategic significance. The U.S. already maintains a military base at Thule Air Base on the island, which plays a critical role in missile defense systems and Arctic surveillance.
Trump has repeatedly cited national security concerns as justification for acquiring Greenland, claiming it is vital to counter threats from Russia and China. However, his rhetoric has sparked widespread criticism both internationally and within Greenland itself.
Public Reaction and Protests
Trump’s remarks have fueled protests across Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, where hundreds gathered outside the U.S. consulate to oppose his annexation plans. Protesters carried signs demanding respect for Greenlandic sovereignty and rejecting external interference.
A January poll revealed that 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States—a sentiment echoed by political leaders across party lines.
Trump’s renewed push for annexing Greenland has heightened tensions between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk while drawing criticism from NATO allies wary of escalating geopolitical disputes in the Arctic region. As Greenland continues its path toward greater independence from Denmark, its leaders remain steadfast in rejecting any attempts at U.S. control.
Donald Trump’s friend Elon Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa in 1971. He remains a South African citizen, as well as a Canadian citizen – and a U.S. citizen in 2002.
The U.S. has expelled South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool in a dramatic escalation of diplomatic tensions between the two countries
Washington, D.C. — The U.S. has expelled South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeling him a “race-baiting politician” who “hates America and Trump.”
This rare diplomatic move escalates tensions between the nations after the Trump administration cut aid to South Africa and criticized its land expropriation policies. Rasool’s remarks accusing Trump of promoting white supremacy further fueled the fallout.
South Africa called the expulsion “regrettable” but reaffirmed its commitment to U.S. relations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the decision late Friday on X (formerly Twitter), declaring Rasool “persona non grata” and accusing him of being a “race-baiting politician” who harbors animosity toward America and President Donald Trump.
Rubio’s statement marks a rare move in international diplomacy and reflects the deteriorating relationship between Washington and Pretoria under Trump’s second term. The expulsion follows Rasool’s public criticism of Trump, whom he accused of leading a global white supremacist movement during a recent webinar.
Rubio responded sharply, stating that Rasool’s comments left “nothing to discuss” and that his presence in the U.S. was unwelcome.
The diplomatic fallout comes amid broader tensions over South Africa’s domestic policies and international stances.
Earlier this year, Trump froze financial aid to South Africa, citing its controversial land expropriation law aimed at addressing racial disparities in land ownership. The law has been criticized by Trump and allies like Elon Musk as targeting white Afrikaner farmers unfairly—a claim South Africa denies.
Rasool’s vocal support for South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC) has also drawn ire from Washington. The ambassador has been described as one of Pretoria’s most ardent pro-Palestinian voices, further straining ties with the US, a staunch ally of Israel.
In response to the expulsion, South Africa’s presidency issued a statement calling the decision “regrettable” and urging diplomatic decorum. It emphasized that South Africa remains committed to fostering a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States despite current challenges.
This incident underscores the deepening rift between the two nations. Former US Ambassador to South Africa Patrick Gaspard described relations as being at their “lowest point,” highlighting the urgent need for repair amid significant geopolitical stakes. Meanwhile, critics argue that Trump’s administration is leveraging racial tensions for political gain domestically and abroad.
As tensions rise, this expulsion signals a precarious moment in US-South Africa relations, with potential repercussions for broader international diplomacy.
Big Brother in the Sky: Iran’s Drone-Powered Hijab Enforcement
New York, N.Y. — In a startling development, the United Nations has reported that Iran is employing advanced surveillance technology, including drones and mobile applications, to enforce its mandatory hijab laws. This intensified crackdown on women’s dress code violations marks a significant escalation in the Islamic Republic‘s efforts to maintain strict control over its citizens’ appearance and behavior.
State-Sponsored Vigilantism and Digital Surveillance
The U.N.’s Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran has uncovered a pattern of “state-sponsored vigilantism” that utilizes digital surveillance to punish women who defy the country’s mandatory hijab laws.
This comprehensive digital monitoring framework is being used to stifle opposition, with a particular focus on women who choose not to comply with the strict dress code.
Drone Surveillance
Iranian authorities are deploying drones to monitor women’s adherence to hijab laws in public areas, particularly in Tehran and southern regions of the country. These aerial surveillance devices provide a bird’s-eye view of public spaces, allowing officials to identify and target individuals who are not complying with the dress code.
Facial Recognition Technology
In addition to drones, the government has implemented facial recognition systems to keep tabs on female students. For instance, such technology has been installed at the entrance of Tehran’s Amirkabir University. This invasive measure allows authorities to identify and potentially punish students who do not adhere to the hijab requirements.
Mobile Applications
One of the key elements in this technological crackdown is the government-backed Nazer app. This application enables both police and “vetted” members of the public to report alleged violations by women in vehicles, including those in ambulances, mass transit, and taxis. The app allows users to upload the vehicle’s license plate, location, and time of the alleged violation, triggering real-time alerts to the police and warnings to vehicle owners.
Iranian military officers at the starting ceremony of two days of military drills to showcase and test drones hitting air, ground and sea targets. [Courtesy of the Iranian government]
Consequences of Non-Compliance
The consequences for women who challenge these laws or protest against them can be severe. Punishments range from arrests and vehicle seizures to physical assault and even sexual violence while in custody. This harsh treatment has created an atmosphere of fear and oppression, with many women feeling constantly monitored and exposed.
Ongoing Protests and Resistance
Despite the threat of violent arrests and imprisonment, protests against the mandatory hijab laws continue. These demonstrations were initially sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish woman who died in custody in 2022 after being detained by the morality police. Witnesses claimed that Amini was severely beaten during her detention, although authorities dismissed claims of mistreatment and attributed her death to “sudden heart failure.”
International Concern and Human Rights Implications
The U..N report highlights the systematic discrimination faced by women and girls in Iran, both in law and in practice. This discrimination permeates all aspects of their lives, particularly with respect to the enforcement of the mandatory hijab. The international community has expressed concern over these human rights violations and the increasing use of technology to enforce restrictive laws.
As Iran continues to tighten its grip on women’s freedoms through technological means, the struggle for personal autonomy and human rights in the country intensifies. The use of drones, facial recognition, and citizen-reporting apps represents a new frontier in state control, raising important questions about privacy, individual liberty, and the role of technology in enforcing social norms.
New York, N.Y. — Rail networks have long been a pillar of transportation infrastructure worldwide. From high-speed trains racing across countries to regional networks connecting cities, rail systems define how people travel efficiently. When comparing China, Europe, North America, and Japan, key differences emerge in speed, coverage, technology, and cultural approach. Let’s explore how these regions stack up — and where they diverge.
Train at the platform of Tengzhou East Railroad Station.
China: The Modern Giant
China has revolutionized its rail infrastructure in just over two decades. The country’s high-speed rail (HSR) network now exceeds 42,000 kilometers (26,000 miles) — more than the rest of the world combined. Trains regularly hit speeds of 350 km/h (217 mph), connecting major cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou in record times.
The Chinese government heavily subsidizes the system, investing trillions of yuan to support economic growth, urbanization, and carbon reduction efforts. A notable example is the Beijing-Shanghai route — a 1,318 km (819 mi) journey that takes just 4.5 hours by train, compared to 2.5 hours by plane (plus airport wait times).
However, China’s rapid development comes with challenges. The system carries massive debt, and some lines in less populated regions operate at a loss. Still, the network remains a symbol of China’s global infrastructure ambition, including projects like the Belt and Road Initiative that extend its rail expertise internationally.
France’s new generation of TGV trains.
Europe: A Tapestry of Rail Networks
Europe boasts an extensive, interconnected rail system, with high-speed lines crisscrossing countries like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. While no single country rivals China’s scale, Europe’s strength lies in its diversity and cross-border integration.
The French TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) reaches 320 km/h (199 mph), linking Paris to major hubs like Lyon and Marseille. Germany’s ICE trains prioritize comfort and reliability, while Spain’s AVE network is among the fastest, connecting Madrid to Barcelona in 2.5 hours.
The European Union has prioritized rail as a greener alternative to short-haul flights, though the continent faces hurdles in harmonizing different national systems, track gauges, and ticketing platforms. Unlike China’s state-controlled approach, Europe relies on a mix of public and private operators, resulting in varied pricing and service quality.
A northbound Amtrak Acela Express passing through Old Saybrook, Connecticut in 2011. Photo credit: Wikipedia.
North America: Lagging Behind
North America’s rail landscape stands in sharp contrast. The United States — despite having a vast geography similar to China — lacks high-speed rail on a comparable scale. Amtrak’s Acela Express, running between Boston, New York, and Washington, D.C., reaches 240 km/h (150 mph) but averages much lower speeds due to shared tracks with slower freight trains.
High Speed Rail Canada – Train à grande vitesse au Canada.
High-speed rail projects, like California’s ambitious but delayed bullet train, face funding, land acquisition, and political resistance. Meanwhile, Canada has limited intercity rail services, with VIA Rail’s Corridor service between Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa offering moderate speeds but no high-speed connections.
One exception is Mexico’s development of the Maya Train — designed to boost tourism and economic development in the country’s southeast — though it’s more regional than high-speed in nature.
North America’s rail infrastructure remains heavily freight-focused, with passenger services struggling to gain momentum amid car culture, airline dominance, and sprawling urban development.
Bullet train at Fukuoka railway station, Japan, East Asia. Photo credit: Wikipedia.
Japan: The Pioneer
Japan remains the gold standard in high-speed rail technology. Its Shinkansen (“bullet train”) debuted in 1964, reshaping global perceptions of rail travel. Today, the network covers 3,000 kilometers (1,864 miles), with trains reaching 320 km/h (199 mph) — though newer models, like the maglev under development, aim for speeds over 600 km/h (373 mph).
The Shinkansen is renowned for its punctuality — delays average less than a minute per year — and safety, with zero passenger fatalities in its 60-year history. The trains prioritize efficiency, comfort, and reliability, reflecting Japan’s dedication to precision engineering.
However, Japan’s high-speed rail primarily serves densely populated areas, leaving rural regions dependent on slower, local trains. Additionally, operating costs remain high, and tickets are more expensive than in China or Europe.
Key Takeaways: Efficiency vs. Accessibility
. • China leads in scale and speed, with an expansive network that supports economic growth but faces high debt. • Europe prioritizes cross-border connectivity and sustainability, balancing public and private operators. • North America lags, with fragmented services and few high-speed options, hindered by geography and politics. • Japan remains the technological and safety leader, though its network is more compact and premium-priced.
Each region reflects its unique priorities — whether speed, accessibility, or innovation — shaping the future of global rail travel.
New York, N.Y. –– Let’s give a round of applause to Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his bold vision of diplomacy: loyalty oaths to Donald Trump. In a move that screams “diplomatic genius,” Rubio declared South Africa’s ambassador persona non grata because—brace yourselves—the ambassador dared to criticize Trump.
Apparently, in the new world order, expressing disdain for the former president is tantamount to treason against America itself.
Rubio’s latest masterpiece raises an intriguing question: what happens if we apply this standard globally? Spoiler alert—Washington would look like a ghost town. By my calculations, 120 countries would lose their diplomatic representation in the U.S., leaving only about 30 embassies standing. And what a distinguished group that would be! Russia would lead the charge, followed by paragons of democracy like North Korea, Belarus, and Eritrea. Truly, a coalition to inspire confidence.
The Survivors’ Club: Trump’s Inner Circle
Let’s take a moment to appreciate the countries that would remain in Washington under Rubio’s loyalty test. Among them are such luminaries as:
Russia: Because nothing says “Make America Great Again” like cozying up to Vladimir Putin.
North Korea: Kim Jong-un did write those “beautiful letters” after all.
Saudi Arabia: Where human rights violations are just another Tuesday.
Eritrea: A nation so free it has been dubbed the “North Korea of Africa.”
Yes, these are the nations Rubio envisions as America’s closest allies in his new diplomatic utopia. Forget NATO and the European Union; we’re building alliances with autocrats now.
The Departed: Allies Who Dared to Criticize
Meanwhile, traditional allies like Germany, France, and the U.K. would be shown the door for their unflattering assessments of Trump. Let’s not forget their unforgivable sins:
Germany: President Frank-Walter Steinmeier once called Trump “a danger” due to his unpredictability.
France: Former President François Hollande said Trump’s rhetoric “makes your stomach turn.”
United Kingdom: Even David Cameron couldn’t hold back, labeling Trump’s comments “divisive” and “unhelpful.”
These are countries that have stood by the U.S. through wars and crises—but alas, they failed the ultimate test of swearing fealty to Trump.
Collateral Damage: Global Institutions
Rubio’s policy wouldn’t just alienate individual nations; it would also sever ties with global institutions that have dared to cross Trump:
The World Health Organization (WHO): Remember when Trump pulled out during a global pandemic? That move surely won him no friends among countries prioritizing public health.
Paris Climate Agreement Signatories: On day one of his presidency, Trump withdrew from this pact because who needs clean air or water anyway?
By alienating these groups, Rubio ensures that America stands alone—not as a leader but as an outcast.
The Irony of “America First”
Rubio’s strategy is a perfect reflection of Trump’s “America First” doctrine—except it seems more like “America Alone.” Traditional allies are dismissed as nuisances while authoritarian regimes are embraced with open arms. This isn’t diplomacy; it’s a high school popularity contest where only sycophants get invited to sit at the cool kids’ table.
And let’s not overlook how this impacts America domestically. Shuttering embassies means fewer opportunities for cultural exchange, trade negotiations, and international cooperation on issues like terrorism and climate change. But hey, who needs all that when you’ve got Twitter posts declaring your enemies persona non grata?
A Warning from History
History is littered with examples of leaders who prioritized loyalty over competence or collaboration—and it never ends well. Rubio might want to brush up on his history books before he isolates America further on the global stage.
In conclusion, Rubio’s approach is less about diplomacy and more about enforcing ideological purity tests on behalf of Donald Trump. If this continues, Washington might as well replace its embassies with statues of Trump himself—gold-plated and larger than life, naturally.
Izaguirre Ranch: A Chilling Glimpse into Cartel Brutality
Mexico City — In a chilling revelation that has sent shockwaves through Mexico and beyond, a volunteer search group has uncovered what appears to be a cartel “extermination camp” at the Izaguirre Ranch in Jalisco. The discovery, made in early March 2025, has brought to light the horrifying extent of cartel violence in the region and raised urgent questions about the fate of thousands of missing persons in Mexico. Official figures indicate that more than 110,000 people are currently missing in the country.
This photo released by the Jalisco State Attorney General’s Office shows investigators inspecting the Izaguirre Ranch where skeletal remains were discovered in the municipality of Teuchitlan, Mexico, Tuesday, March 11, 2025. Photo credit: Jalisco State Attorney General’s Office.
The Warrior Searchers of Jalisco, a group dedicated to finding disappeared individuals, made the grim discovery after receiving an anonymous tip. Upon entering the ranch, located approximately 60 kilometers west of Guadalajara, they found a scene that defied their worst nightmares.
At the heart of the discovery were three underground cremation ovens, containing incinerated skeletal remains hidden beneath layers of earth and brick slabs. The searchers also uncovered a vast array of personal belongings, including over 200 pairs of shoes, hundreds of articles of clothing, backpacks, identification documents, and even children’s toys.
Indira Navarro, a representative of the Warrior Searchers, described the site as a “forced recruitment and extermination center.” She explained that while the existence of such facilities was an “open secret,” this was the first time they had encountered one firsthand.
The Jalisco Attorney General’s Office revealed that the ranch had initially been discovered in September 2024 during a Mexican National Guard operation.
At that time, authorities arrested ten individuals, rescued two kidnapping victims, and found one deceased person. However, they failed to detect the hidden remains and crematoriums, which were concealed using methods previously unknown to law enforcement.
The discovery has sparked outrage and demands for a thorough, independent investigation. A coalition of human rights organizations and families of the missing has raised concerns about potential collusion between local officials and criminal groups. They argue that it is “inconceivable” that such a large-scale operation could have functioned without some level of official knowledge or involvement.
Mexico’s Attorney General, Alejandro Gertz Manero, echoed these concerns, stating that it was “implausible” for local authorities to have been unaware of the site’s existence. The federal government has since taken charge of the investigation, with forensic teams working tirelessly to process the evidence and identify the remains.
The Izaguirre Ranch is believed to have served as a hub for the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), one of Mexico’s most powerful and violent criminal organizations. Activists suggest that the site was used not only for disposing of victims’ remains but also for the forced recruitment and training of cartel operatives.
This gruesome discovery is just the latest in a series of similar findings across Mexico in recent years.
In 2011, authorities uncovered mass graves containing 193 bodies in Tamaulipas. In 2017, investigators determined that a jail in Piedras Negras had been used by the Zetas cartel as a base for disposing of victims. More recently, in Tamaulipas, authorities have identified at least 15 “extermination sites,” with one location yielding over 1,100 pounds of human bones.
The scale of these discoveries underscores the ongoing crisis of disappearances in Mexico. Official figures indicate that more than 110,000 people are currently missing in the country, with many families left in a state of perpetual uncertainty and grief.
Rosario Magaña, whose son Carlos disappeared in 2017 at the age of 19, expressed the frustration felt by many families of the missing. “I still feel hopeless, as it has been eight years and I remain in the same predicament,” she said, highlighting the slow pace of investigations and the lack of progress in many cases.
As forensic teams continue their work at the Izaguirre Ranch, questions linger about the true extent of the atrocities committed there and the identities of the victims. The discovery has reignited calls for more robust action against cartel violence and increased support for the families of the disappeared.
The uncovering of this “extermination camp” serves as a grim reminder of the human cost of Mexico’s ongoing drug war and the urgent need for effective strategies to combat organized crime and protect vulnerable populations.
As the investigation unfolds, many hope that it will not only bring closure to grieving families but also lead to meaningful changes in how Mexico addresses the intertwined issues of drug trafficking, corruption, and human rights abuses.
Palestinian refugees to settle in Sudan and Somalia?
Washington, D.C. — In a startling development that has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, the United States and Israel have reportedly reached out to officials of three East African nations to explore the possibility of resettling Palestinians displaced from the Gaza Strip. This revelation, based on information from American and Israeli officials speaking to The Associated Press (AP), marks a significant escalation in the implementation of President Donald Trump‘s controversial postwar plan for the region.
The countries approached for this unprecedented proposal include Sudan, Somalia, and the self-declared region of Somaliland. This move underscores the determination of both the U.S. and Israel to advance a plan that has been met with widespread condemnation and has raised serious legal and moral questions.
At the heart of Trump’s proposal is the permanent relocation of Gaza’s more than two million residents.
The plan envisions the United States taking ownership of the Gaza territory, overseeing an extensive cleanup process, and ultimately developing it as a real estate project. This idea, once considered a fringe concept among Israel’s ultranationalist circles, has gained traction since Trump presented it at a White House meeting last month.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has embraced the plan, hailing it as a “bold vision.”
However, the proposal has been met with strong opposition from Palestinians and human rights advocates, who view it as a form of forced displacement disguised as voluntary migration.
The selection of Sudan, Somalia, and Somaliland as potential destinations for Palestinian resettlement has raised eyebrows and concerns. All three regions face significant challenges, including poverty and, in some cases, ongoing violence. This reality casts doubt on Trump’s stated goal of resettling Gaza’s Palestinians in a “beautiful area.”
Soldiers in Somalia where violence continues.
Responses from the African nations involved have been mixed.
Officials from Sudan have reportedly rejected overtures from the U.S., while representatives from Somalia and Somaliland have stated that they were unaware of any such contacts. The lack of transparency surrounding these discussions has fueled speculation and criticism from various quarters.
The international community has largely condemned the proposal.
Arab nations, in particular, have slammed the idea, instead proposing a $53 billion reconstruction initiative aimed at keeping Palestinians in place. Human rights groups have warned that coercing or pressuring an entire population to leave could potentially constitute a war crime.
Despite the backlash, the White House has maintained that President Trump “stands by his vision.” U.S. and Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have confirmed that backdoor discussions with the African nations are ongoing, although the extent of progress in these talks remains unclear.
The proposal comes against the backdrop of a protracted conflict in Gaza.
The recent escalation began in October 2023 when the Palestinian militant group Hamas conducted a cross-border attack on southern Israel, which subsequently prompted an Israeli military response in the Gaza Strip. The ensuing conflict has claimed tens of thousands of lives over the past 17 months.
Critics argue that the resettlement plan ignores the root causes of the conflict and violates international law.
The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of civilians from occupied territories. Moreover, the plan has amplified longstanding fears among Palestinians regarding the possibility of being forcibly removed from their ancestral homes.
The proposal has also raised concerns about the potential impact on the receiving African nations. Questions about integration, resource allocation, and the long-term consequences of such a massive population transfer remain unanswered.
As news of this plan spreads, it is likely to face increasing scrutiny from the international community. The United Nations, European Union, and other global bodies have yet to officially respond to these reports, but their reactions could significantly influence the plan’s viability.
The coming weeks and months will be crucial in determining the fate of this controversial proposal.
As discussions continue behind closed doors, the world watches closely, aware that the outcome could reshape not only the Middle East but also parts of East Africa, with far-reaching geopolitical implications.
For now, the future of Gaza’s Palestinians hangs in the balance, caught between the devastation of ongoing conflict and the uncertainty of potential forced relocation. As this story develops, it will undoubtedly remain at the forefront of international attention, challenging long-held notions of sovereignty, human rights, and the quest for peace in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
The Jairan, an Iranian cargo ship operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), departed from Zhuhai Gaolan, China, on March 10, 2025. It is suspected of carrying sodium perchlorate, a chemical used to produce ammonium perchlorate, which is essential for solid propellant in missiles. This shipment is part of a reported effort by Iran to enhance its missile capabilities, following the arrival of the first ship, Golbon, in Bandar Abbas, Iran, on February 13, 2025.
Washington, D.C. — This development has sparked concerns among Western countries, particularly the U.S., about Iran’s potential violation of international sanctions. Both ships are under U.S. sanctions, and the cargo could significantly boost Iran’s missile production. The U.S. State Department is aware of the reports but has not commented on intelligence matters, while China asserts compliance with export controls.
The cargo, sodium perchlorate, is estimated at over 1,000 tons for both ships combined, sufficient to produce approximately 260 mid-range Iranian missiles, such as the Kheibar Shekan or Haj Qasem, according to European intelligence sources cited by CNN. This quantity underscores the potential scale of Iran’s missile production capacity, raising concerns about regional security and proliferation.
Geopolitical Implications
This shipment has significant implications for international relations, particularly U.S.-Iran and U.S.-China dynamics. The U.S. has imposed sanctions to curb Iran’s weapons programs, and any entities involved in these transactions could face further sanctions. The involvement of Chinese ports and companies raises questions about enforcement of export controls and potential violations, which could strain relations with Western countries.
Regional security is also at stake, with Iran’s enhanced missile capabilities potentially escalating tensions in the Middle East, especially given recent conflicts and attacks on Iranian facilities. The international community, including members of the Missile Technology Export Control Regime, is likely to monitor these developments closely, possibly leading to diplomatic efforts or increased naval patrols to interdict such shipments.
The departure of the Jairan on March 10, 2025, marks a continuation of Iran’s efforts to import critical missile components, raising concerns about proliferation and sanctions enforcement. As the ship progresses toward Iran, the international community remains vigilant, with potential responses ranging from diplomatic protests to increased monitoring.
This situation underscores the ongoing challenges in curbing Iran’s missile program and the complex interplay of international sanctions and trade.
Washington, D.C. — The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a national cultural landmark, has been at the center of controversy since early 2025. President Donald Trump, who has never attended a show there, appointed himself chairman and made sweeping changes to the board.
This included firing the previous chairman, David Rubenstein, and president, Deborah Rutter, and replacing them with allies like Richard Grenell as interim president. These changes have led to the cancellation or postponement of over 20 performances, including a planned staging of “Hamilton,” whose producers stated they “cannot presently support” the institution under the new leadership.
This “takeover” has been criticized as an attempt to align the center with the administration’s cultural vision, with Trump promising a “Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture.”
Kennedy Center & ducks at dusk, Georgetown, D.C. Photo credit: Flikr.
The public and artistic community have expressed dismay.
Hollywood figures like Issa Rae and Shonda Rhimes cutting ties with the institution. Staff and audience members have voiced concerns about the politicization of a traditionally non-partisan cultural space, with some describing it as “ruined” by these changes.
On the evening of March 13, 2025, the Kennedy Center hosted a concert by the National Symphony Orchestra, featuring performances of Stravinsky’s “Petrushka” and Shostakovich’s Violin Concerto No. 2, with Greek violinist Leonidas Kavakos. The event was scheduled to start at a set time but was delayed by 25 minutes due to security checks for Vice President J.D. Vance‘s attendance.
Vance, accompanied by his wife, Usha, who was recently appointed to the Kennedy Center board, entered the balcony box tier as pre-concert announcements were underway.
Upon their entrance, the audience, numbering nearly a sold-out house, erupted in boos and jeers, with some shouting “You ruined this place!” and others yelling expletives. The reaction was captured in a video shared by The Guardian‘s global affairs correspondent, Andrew Roth, on X, which has since garnered over a million views.
The booing lasted for nearly a minute, drowning out the announcements and creating a highly unusual atmosphere for a classical music concert, known for its polite and restrained demeanor.
Despite the hostile reception, Vance smiled and waved at the audience, taking a sip of his drink and appearing composed. His wife, Usha, was seen accompanying him, and the vice president briefly spoke to her during the disruption. The National Symphony Orchestra, already seated onstage, waited through the commotion before proceeding with the performance, which went uninterrupted thereafter.
Reactions and Statements
Richard Grenell, the interim president appointed by Trump, responded to the incident in an email to Kennedy Center staff, reviewed by The Washington Post. He expressed disappointment, stating, “I received several messages from Kennedy Center staffers sharing their embarrassment over more than a few Symphony patrons loudly booing the Vice President and his wife last night.” Grenell attributed the reaction to the “intolerant Left,” suggesting it reflected broader political divisions.
Audience members had mixed reactions.
Some continued to express disapproval, with one telling The Washington Post, “It’s disheartening to see our national cultural institution being used as a pawn in political games.” Others, however, were seen waving back at Vance, and a few whistles were heard amidst the boos, indicating not everyone shared the negative sentiment.
Implications and Broader Context
This incident underscores the growing intersection of politics and culture in the United StatesUnited States of America, particularly under the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape cultural institutions. The booing of Vance, a prominent figure in the administration, reflects public discontent with these changes, especially given the Kennedy Center’s role as a national symbol of arts and culture. The event has sparked widespread discussion on social media, with hashtags like #KennedyCenter and #JDVance trending, amplifying the controversy.
The delay caused by Vance’s security checks, requiring audience members to undergo full Secret Service screening, also contributed to frustration, as noted in reports from The Independent. This added to the perception of the administration’s heavy-handed approach, further fueling the audience’s reaction.
To provide perspective, symphony orchestra audiences are typically known for their decorum, making this incident particularly notable. NPR highlighted that such rowdiness is rare, suggesting the booing was a spontaneous expression of political protest rather than typical concert behavior. This aligns with reports of similar incidents at other cultural events, where political figures have faced public disapproval, reflecting broader societal tensions.
The booing of Vice President J.D. Vance at the Kennedy Center concert on March 13, 2025, highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration’s cultural policies and public sentiment. While the concert proceeded without further disruption, the incident has amplified debates about the role of politics in cultural institutions, with implications for future events at the Kennedy Center and beyond.
Dhaka — The recent incident in Bangladesh, where an eight-year-old girl died following a rape, has triggered significant public and legal responses, with Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus playing a key role in official reactions. This report provides a comprehensive overview, expanding on the key points and integrating additional context for a thorough understanding, set on March 15, 2025.
An eight-year-old girl was allegedly raped recently while visiting her elder sister’s house in Magura, Bangladesh. Her mother filed a case, leading to the arrest of her sister’s 18-year-old husband, his parents, and his brother, who are now on remand. The girl was admitted to Dhaka’s Combined Military Hospital (CMH) in critical condition and died shortly after after three cardiac arrests, despite medical efforts to stabilize her.
The Daily Star noted that Mohammed Yunus, Chief Adviser, “expressed deep sorrow over the incident and has instructed the authorities concerned to bring the perpetrators to justice without delay.”
Similarly, The Business Standard reported that he “expressed deep shock at her death and called for a swift trial of the accused.” Jagonews24 added that Yunus “ordered bringing the accused to book through speedy trial,” as stated by his Deputy Press Secretary Apurba Jahangir.
Public demands for justice, as protests erupted nationwide following the girl’s death
Yunus’s statements align with public demands for justice, as protests erupted nationwide following the girl’s death, with calls for the death penalty and legal reforms. His instruction for a speedy trial reflects the government’s response to public outrage, especially given the High Court’s order to complete the investigation in 30 days and the trial in 180 days, as reported by bdnews24.com.
This legal directive, combined with Yunus’s call for action, underscores the urgency of the situation.
Bangladesh’s 2020 law mandates capital punishment for child rape, but enforcement remains a challenge, with calls for faster trials and better implementation, as seen in recent protests. Data from the Law and Arbitration Center reveals 3,438 child rape cases over the past eight years, with 539 victims under six and 933 aged seven to twelve, underscoring the scale of the issue, as per The Times of India.
Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is a minimally invasive surgery to remove the prostate
New York, N.Y. — Robotic Prostate Surgery has two types—the radical version is for prostate cancer, and the simple version is for benign prostatic hypertrophy, a condition in which the prostate gland is enlarged but not cancerous.
Mount Sinai doctors performed the first robotic radical prostatectomy in New York. This operation uses a state-of-the-art robotics surgical system to remove the prostate through a few small incisions instead of one large incision, as was traditionally done in the open surgical approach.
At Mount Sinai, where they use their Precision Urology approach, they focus on integration of multiple variables and imaging data in a decision support system. This is key in assuring men with prostate cancer of our commitment to a patient-centric, personalized diagnostic approach and excellent outcome while minimizing the side effects of treatment.
Precision Urology reflects Mount Sinai’s utilization of advanced technologies and incorporation of molecular and genomic analysis to identify markers of aggressive disease. This allows them to rigorously stage disease to determine if intervention is needed and if so, tailor the treatment accordingly.
Robotic Prostate Surgery Technique: ART
The robotic prostate surgery approach used by Dr. Tewari is known as ARTT (Advanced Robotic Technique) prostatectomy.
This is a highly successful approach to curing prostate cancer while minimizing side effects in select patients. Dr. Tewari and his team have developed and refined ART over the past decade based on the thousands of surgeries they have performed, their discoveries in prostate anatomy, and other leading-edge research.
ART is highly individualized, reflecting a patient’s unique anatomy, cancer location and neural structure. Indeed, for Dr. Tewari, ART is truly an art. He routinely makes anatomical drawings of prostates on which he operates in order to map out a cancer’s spatial relationships to the fascia, muscles and nerves that surround the prostate.
By drawing the anatomy of individual cases, he continues to fine tune ART™ and improve cancer control while sparing nerves. He also uses the drawings as a teaching tool for students as well as his peers worldwide who are eager to learn his technique.
The crux of the ART technique is the delicate removal of the prostate from the top of the nerve hammock with maximal clearance for preserving sexual and urinary function. Not only are nerves not handled, but oxygenation of the nerves is monitored during this phase of the technique so these preserved nerves are greater in number and also healthy and vascular.
The ART approach consists of not just one technique but a group of techniques, including those for diagnosis. Mount Sinai uses a new state-of-the-art technique known as targeted biopsy, to precisely diagnose prostate cancer. This technique fuses highly detailed MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) with real-time ultrasound using the Artemis device.
The procedure typically takes 15 to 20 minutes and is done in Mount Sinai offices under local anesthesia. It provides highly accurate information about the location of cancer and its relation to nerves and sphincters. Mount Sinai is one of a few medical facilities in New York City with the Artemis device.
Outcomes
Cancer control – ART™ has proven to provide low margin rates (less residual cancer). As a consequence, there is less need for radiation and hormone therapy post surgery and men have less reason to feel anxious about future rises in their PSA.
Benefits
Robotic prostate surgery is extremely precise, which offers a variety of benefits over traditional (open) prostate surgery, including:
. • Smaller incisions • Shorter hospital stay • Less pain • Less risk of infection • Less blood loss and transfusions • Less scarring • Faster recovery • Superior cancer control • Superior nerve sparing
In addition, with robotic prostate surgery, a temporary catheter remains in place for considerably less time (five to seven days instead of two weeks), and there is less risk of urinary incontinence and impotence following the robotic prostate surgery procedure. This approach results in complete removal of cancer for nearly 95% of all patients whose cancer is confined to the prostate.
In published long-term follow-up studies performed by Mount Sinai Urology Chair Ashutosh (“Ash”) K. Tewari, MD, this also means that these patients have an extremely good chance (95%) of reaching the 10-year survival mark.
Robotic prostate cancer surgery is extremely safe in experienced hands, but some complications are possible in any abdominal procedure. Possible complications may include bleeding, infection, blood clotting, heart attack, hernias, permanent urinary incontinence, impotence, and strictures.
While intraoperative mortality is almost unheard off, it is possible with any anesthesia and surgery. Equipment malfunction is rare, happening in less than 0.4% of cases; Mount Sinai has three backup robots to address this remote possibility. Surgical Outcomes
Mt. Sinai reports that they usually evaluate the outcome of primary prostate cancer treatment by looking at cancer control, preservation of urinary continence, and preservation of sexual function. The Advanced Robotic Technique, developed by Dr. Tewari, is highly successful on all three measures, producing minimal disruption to your daily life.
. • Cancer control is the ability of the surgeon to remove all cancerous tissue from the body. Mt. Sinai measure this by looking at the surgical margins (the rim or border of the tissue removed in surgery). Once they complete the procedure, they send the prostate to the Pathology Department to test for margins and cancer grade (of any remaining malignancy). If the margins are “clean” or cancer-free, they assume that we have removed all of the malignant tissue and we have achieved cancer control. • Urinary incontinence is determined by whether the bladder and surrounding anatomy are unaffected by removal of the prostate. • Sexual potency is about sexual functioning, a chief concern of men undergoing prostate cancer treatment.
da Vinci Robot
The da Vinci surgical system is a sophisticated robotic platform designed to expand the surgeon’s capabilities and offer a state-of-the-art minimally invasive option for prostate surgery.
With da Vinci, small incisions are used to insert miniaturized instruments and a high-definition 3-D camera. Seated comfortably at the da Vinci console, Dr. Tewari views a magnified, high-resolution 3-D image of the surgical site inside the body.
At the same time, the latest robotic and computer technologies scale, filter, and seamlessly translate Dr. Tewari’s hand movements into precise micro-movements of the da Vinci instruments.
Although it is often called a “robot,” the da Vinci surgical system cannot move or operate on its own; Dr. Tewari is 100 percent in control.
Faster return to urinary continence
ART incorporates a novel surgical technique to minimize or prevent urinary leakage, even with exertion, and provide a strong urinary stream. It involves reconstruction of the supporting structures responsible for urinary continence that are typically either removed or disorganized during removal of the prostate.
Dr. Tewari developed a detrusor wrap procedure that creates an additional wrap that serves as a sphincter and sling to provide enhanced and accelerated return to continence. Most of our patients who are continent before the surgery are continent 18 months after surgery.
Hood technique
Dr. Tewari performs approximately 400 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies every year.
The procedure takes around 30-40 minutes, with an additional 30 minutes for real-time pathology. When removing the prostate, we want to leave as much of the prostate’s surrounding tissue intact as possible, as this will minimize the disruption of urinary mechanisms.
The surgical technique used at Mount Sinai allows for careful separation of the detrusor apron from the anterior prostate. The detrusor apron allows the bladder to store urine, and contracts during urination to release urine. It overlies the prostate and extends from the bladder neck to the pelvis. Because the detrusor apron covers this important area, we call this area, and the procedure we do to protect it, the “Hood.”
In addition, with the ART technique, patients and their families have been able to benefit from faster convalescence, shorter hospital stays, small incisions with less scarring, significantly less blood loss during surgery, and less pain following surgery. The majority of our patients are discharged and return home within 24 hours of their robotic surgery.
Outcomes and Implications
Less than 10% of men experience complications after prostatectomy, and these are usually treatable or short-term. The two most common post-surgery problems are urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Less than 5% of men younger than age 50, and less than 15 percent of men age 70 or older, are incontinent after radical prostatectomy.
Most men are able to have sex after prostatectomy while using ED medicines (such as Viagra or Cialis), an external pump, or injectable medications. The younger the man, the higher the chance of maintaining potency after prostatectomy. A period of penile rehabilitation is often necessary.
Sparing the nerves that can cause urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction is the hallmark of a skilled surgeon. A patient who has a radical prostatectomy by a surgeon at an advanced prostate cancer center has a better chance of maintaining sexual and urinary function.
Cancer control – ART has proven to provide low margin rates (less residual cancer). As a consequence, there is less need for radiation and hormone therapy post surgery and men have less reason to feel anxious about future rises in their PSA.
High rates of erectile function recovery – The aim of ART is to preserve every nerve fiber responsible for the fine balance between erection, orgasm, and bladder function.
The benefits of the ART technique for sexual function are significant. ART™ allows for stronger erections and orgasms, a reduction in penile shrinkage and a reduction in the risk of climacturia (involuntary release of urine at the moment of orgasm).
In order to protect the delicate nerves involved, which do not handle heat, traction, or manipulation very well, Mount Sinai usse a nerve-sparing, completely athermal and “traction free” technique (no use of cautery or heat energy) during robotic prostatectomy- a technique pioneered by Dr. Tewari and his team. A majority of their patients who experience normal sexual functioning and are candidates for nerve-sparing, return to normal sexual function after ART surgical treatment.
The best case scenario at Mount Sinai is when patients are young, cancer is early and organ-confined, and baseline sexual functions are very high. Dr. Tewari can perform Grade I nerve-sparing that can achieve excellent potency (ability to have intercourse) with or without use of oral medications.
Tel Aviv — On March 13, 2025, a growing sentiment among Israelis has placed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under intense scrutiny. Recent surveys, including one from the Israel Democracy Institute, reveal that approximately 70 percent of the public believes Netanyahu should resign, either immediately or after the ongoing Gaza conflict concludes.
This figure reflects a deep dissatisfaction with his leadership, rooted in several key issues that have unfolded since the devastating events of October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.
The Israel Democracy Institute’s survey, released earlier this week, found that 87 percent of respondents believe Netanyahu should accept responsibility for the security failures that allowed the October 7 attack to occur—the deadliest single assault in Israel’s history.
Of those surveyed, 48% call for his immediate resignation, while 24.5% suggest he step down once the war ends. This widespread attribution of blame stems from the perception that Netanyahu, who has led Israel longer than any other prime minister, failed to prevent the intelligence and military lapses that left the nation vulnerable.
Netanyahu’s tenure has been marked by polarizing decisions, and his handling of the subsequent war in Gaza has only deepened public discontent. The conflict, now in its 17th month, has resulted in over 48,200 deaths in Gaza, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry, and displaced most of its population.
While Netanyahu has maintained that his goal is the total destruction of Hamas, critics argue that his refusal to pivot toward a broader consensus has alienated a majority of Israelis. In the 2022 election, his coalition secured just 48.4 percent of the vote, yet he has governed without seeking to bridge the gap with the opposition or the public’s center.
Political analyst Ori Goldberg notes that Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining his far-right coalition—despite its unpopularity—has fueled the resignation calls. The coalition, described as the most right-wing in Israel’s history, includes figures like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has threatened to collapse the government if a permanent ceasefire is agreed upon.
This dynamic has left Netanyahu in a precarious position: ending the war risks losing his coalition, while continuing it further erodes public support. A separate poll by The Times of Israel indicates that if elections were held today, his bloc would fall to 48 seats, with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett outpolling him as a preferred leader.
Beyond the war, Netanyahu’s leadership style has drawn criticism for prioritizing personal and political survival over national unity. His ongoing corruption trial, now in a critical phase, and his 2023 attempt to overhaul Israel’s judiciary—widely seen as an effort to weaken democratic checks—linger in the public’s memory. These issues compound the perception that he is out of touch with the majority. Even among coalition voters, 75% reportedly believe he should resign, a striking indicator of his diminishing support base.
The ceasefire deal ratified in January 2025, which paused the fighting after 15 months, has also spotlighted Netanyahu’s disconnect. While many Israelis credit U.S. President Donald Trump for brokering the agreement, Netanyahu ranks low in public approval for its execution.
His repeated assertions that the ceasefire is temporary—and that Israel retains the right to resume fighting—contrast with the public’s growing fatigue and desire for a lasting resolution. Posts on X reflect this frustration, with users noting that over 70 percent of Israelis want him gone, a sentiment echoed across political divides.
Netanyahu’s response has been to double down, resisting calls for a state commission of inquiry into October 7, which 75% of Israelis support. He argues that such an investigation must wait until the war’s end, a stance critics see as an attempt to delay accountability. Meanwhile, the resignations of key military figures, like General Yaron Finkelman, have intensified pressure for a reckoning—one that many believe should include the prime minister.
As Israel navigates this turbulent period, the question remains whether Netanyahu can weather the storm.
With 70% of the public turning against him, his leadership appears increasingly untenable. For now, he clings to power, ignoring the majority’s call for change—a gamble that may determine not just his fate, but Israel’s future.
New York, N.Y. — On March 14, 2025, a far-right pro-Israel group, Betar US, claimed it has submitted “thousands of names” to Trump administration officials as part of a broader effort to deport international students involved in pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. college campuses.
The announcement follows the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia University graduate, whose detention has sparked both support and outrage across the nation. Betar US, labeled an extremist organization by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), stated it has been compiling a “deportation list” targeting visa holders who participated in such demonstrations, alleging they “terrorize America.”
The arrest of Khalil, who was a key figure in Columbia’s Gaza solidarity encampment, aligns with President Donald Trump’s recent executive order aimed at combating antisemitism. Trump hailed Khalil’s detention as “the first of many to come,” a sentiment echoed by Betar US, which took credit on social media for providing his name to authorities.
The group’s spokesperson, Daniel Levy, told the Guardian that their list includes students and faculty from institutions like Columbia, UCLA, and Syracuse University, supported by “documentation, including tapes, social media, and more.” Betar claims to be coordinating with high-ranking officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller, though neither the White House nor the State Department has confirmed these collaborations.
Ross Glick, Betar US’ former executive director, revealed that the list began taking shape last fall, with its momentum boosted by Trump’s election victory. Glick said the group has relied on tips from students, faculty, and even advanced facial recognition technology to identify protesters, including those wearing masks. He cited meetings with lawmakers like Senator Ted Cruz, who reportedly discussed Khalil’s case days before his arrest, though Cruz’s office declined to comment.
Khalil’s arrest has ignited a firestorm of debate.
Free-speech advocates rallied outside a Manhattan federal courthouse on Wednesday, waving flags and demanding his release from a Louisiana detention center, arguing that his detention violates democratic principles. Videos of Khalil at a Barnard sit-in, circulated by pro-Israel accounts like Canary Mission, fueled calls for his deportation, with some accusing him of supporting Hamas—a charge he denies.
In emails to Columbia’s administration before his arrest, Khalil described a “dehumanizing doxxing campaign” and pleaded for protection, citing death threats and Betar’s claim that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) knew his whereabouts.
White House push to deport students divides American Jewish communities.
The ADL welcomed the effort as a counter to campus antisemitism but stressed the need for due process. Conversely, progressive Jewish groups, including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, condemned it as a threat to free speech, warning that such policies could be turned against minority communities, including Jews, as they have in the past. David Myers, a UCLA professor of Jewish history, called Betar’s actions “horrifying” and accused the administration of weaponizing antisemitism to undermine universities as progressive strongholds.
Betar is not alone in its campaign. Canary Mission, an online database targeting alleged anti-Israel figures, celebrated Khalil’s arrest and released names of five additional Columbia affiliates it wants deported. Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt accused Columbia of shielding “pro-Hamas” individuals, a claim the university has not addressed.
As protests continue, with flag-waving demonstrators on both sides of the issue, Khalil’s case remains in legal limbo. His detention is under challenge in federal court, while Betar vows to expand its efforts, even hinting at targeting naturalized citizens—a move Trump has suggested but which faces significant legal hurdles.
The controversy underscores a deepening national rift over free expression, immigration, and the role of universities in politically charged times.
