New York, N.Y. —Rapper and musicianLil Nas X has disclosed that he is experiencing partial facial paralysis, sharing a series of Instagram videos from a hospital bed on Monday. The 26-year-old star revealed that he has “lost control” of the right side of his face but maintained his characteristic humor throughout the ordeal.
“This is me doing a full smile right now,” he joked in one video while attempting to grin unsuccessfully. “Bro, I can’t even laugh right.”
Despite the setback, Lil Nas X reassured his followers that he is “OK” and encouraged them to stay upbeat: “Stop being sad for me! Shake your ass for me instead!”
In another post, he lightheartedly commented on his appearance: “I’mma look funny for a lil bit but that’s it.” The Grammy-winning artist also shared a video panning across his face, quipping, “We normal over here; we get crazy over here!”
The cause of his condition remains undisclosed, but fans have speculated it could be Bell’s Palsy or Ramsay Hunt Syndrome—both conditions that can cause temporary facial paralysis due to nerve inflammation or infection.
Bieber notably canceled parts of his 2022 tour after being diagnosed with Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, which left him unable to move one side of his face temporarily. Contostavlos has spoken about her experiences with Bell’s Palsy following nerve damage from an accident
Messages of support poured in for Lil Nas X from fans and celebrities alike.
Actress Taraji P. Henson wrote, “Get well baby,” while comedian Wanda Sykes reminded him to rest: “Sometimes your body tells you to sit down somewhere.”
Despite this health scare, Lil Nas X remains optimistic and focused on recovery.
On Tuesday morning, he updated fans via Instagram Stories about slight improvements in mobility on the affected side of his face.
This incident comes as the artist promotes his latest EP Days Before Dreamboy, which serves as a precursor to his highly anticipated second studio album Dreamboy. Speaking about the creative process last month, he admitted that it had been a challenging journey as he worked through personal struggles and artistic expectations.
Lil Nas X has consistently been open about his life and experiences since rising to fame with his record-breaking hit Old Town Road. As an openly gay artist who came out publicly in 2019, he has used his platform to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and self-expression.
The music community eagerly awaits further updates on both his health and upcoming projects as Lil Nas X continues to recover at home with characteristic resilience and humor.
Mexico City — As U.S. President Donald Trump’s policies reshape the landscape of American society, a growing number of U.S. citizens are crossing the border into Mexico—not as tourists, but as expatriates seeking an alternative to life in the United States.
Trump’s administration, marked by its stringent anti-migrant stance and rejection of progressive “woke” ideologies, has prompted a notable migration trend. For many, Mexico offers not just a reprieve but a new home, driven by dissatisfaction with the political and social climate north of the border.
Even before Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, Mexico was a popular destination for American expatriates.
According to a 2023 estimate by the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, roughly one-fifth of the more than five million US citizens living abroad resided in Mexico. The country’s appeal has long rested on its warm climate, rich culture, and affordable cost of living. However, recent years have seen a shift in motivation. Alongside traditional draws, Americans are now citing Trump’s policies—ranging from immigration crackdowns to rollbacks on diversity initiatives—as key reasons for their departure.
Take Oscar Gomez, a U.S. citizen who relocated to Mexico in early 2025.
With seven suitcases and his dog in tow, Gomez left behind a life in Arizona, driven by what he describes as an increasingly hostile environment. “The rhetoric, the discrimination—it’s not the America I grew up in,” he told FRANCE 24. “Mexico feels freer now, ironically.” Gomez is far from alone. Stories like his echo across border towns and expat communities, where Americans are settling in greater numbers.
Trump’s administration has made no secret of its priorities.
Since taking office, the president has doubled down on promises to curb illegal immigration, tighten border security, and dismantle what he calls “woke indoctrination” in schools, workplaces, and public life. These moves have won him support among his base but alienated others who see them as an attack on civil liberties and inclusivity. For some, the erosion of rights—coupled with government cutbacks and a polarized national discourse—has become unbearable.
Mexico, by contrast, has emerged as a refuge.
Its proximity to the U.S. makes it an accessible escape, while its more relaxed pace of life and lower costs provide practical incentives. Expatriates also point to a sense of acceptance they feel is diminishing back home. “Here, I’m not judged for who I am or what I believe,” said Sarah Mitchell, a former teacher from California who moved to Oaxaca in February. “The U.S. feels like it’s closing in on itself.”
Data backs up these anecdotes.
While exact figures for 2025 are still emerging, migration experts note a steady uptick in Americans applying for residency in Mexico since Trump’s election. Real estate agents in cities like San Miguel de Allende and Puerto Vallarta report a surge in inquiries from US buyers, many of whom cite political discontent as a factor. “It’s not just retirees anymore,” said Maria Lopez, a realtor in Guadalajara. “We’re seeing younger families, professionals—people who want out.”
The trend has not gone unnoticed in Washington. Trump has dismissed the exodus, calling it “a loss we can afford” in a recent speech. His administration argues that those leaving are a minority unwilling to embrace his vision of a stronger, more unified America. Critics, however, see it as a sign of deeper fractures. “When citizens feel they have to flee their own country, that’s not a win,” said political analyst David Rivera. “It’s a warning.”
For now, Mexico remains a willing host. The country has historically welcomed American expats, and its government has yet to signal any policy shift despite the growing influx. Still, challenges loom. Some Mexican locals worry about rising costs and cultural shifts in areas with large expat populations, though tensions remain low for the time being.
As Trump’s presidency unfolds, the flow of Americans southward shows no signs of slowing. Whether driven by ideology, economics, or a search for peace, these expatriates are redefining the U.S.-Mexico relationship—one suitcase at a time.
Mahdawi, a legal permanent resident with a green card since 2015, arrived at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office in Colchester expecting a routine interview to finalize his U.S. citizenship. Instead, he was handcuffed and detained, sparking outrage among advocates and Vermont’s congressional delegation.
Mahdawi, who has lived in the U.S. for a decade, was a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University until March 2024. He co-founded the Palestinian Student Union with Mahmoud Khalil, another Palestinian activist recently detained by ICE.
His arrest is seen as part of a broader Trump administration crackdown targeting students involved in campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Khalil, arrested in March, faces deportation as a “national security risk,” a charge Mahdawi’s lawyers fear may be applied to him.
“The Trump administration detained Mohsen Mahdawi in direct retaliation for his advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and because of his identity as a Palestinian,” said Luna Droubi, Mahdawi’s attorney, in a statement. “His detention is an attempt to silence those who speak out against the atrocities in Gaza. It is also unconstitutional.”
Video footage captured by Christopher Helali, a friend, shows Mahdawi being led away in handcuffs, flashing a peace sign.
Helali described Mahdawi as a peaceful demonstrator who worked to foster dialogue about Palestinian struggles.
“He was nervous but resolute in attending the interview because he did nothing wrong,” Helali said. The video, widely shared on social media, has fueled public anger over the incident.
Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, along with Representative Becca Balint, issued a joint statement condemning the arrest as “immoral, inhumane, and illegal.” They demanded Mahdawi’s immediate release, emphasizing that he is a legal resident entitled to due process. “Instead of taking one of the final steps in his citizenship process, he was handcuffed by armed officers with their faces covered,” the statement read.
Mahdawi’s legal team has filed a habeas corpus petition in Vermont’s federal district court, seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent his transfer from the state or deportation. A Vermont District Court judge issued an order on Monday barring his removal from the U.S. pending further legal proceedings. However, concerns persist about his whereabouts, as ICE has not disclosed his current location.
Advertising image for ICE: “Start your #LawEnforcement career as an #ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Deportation Officer.” Photo credit: ICE.
Legal experts call the arrest unprecedented.
“The arrest of a lawful permanent resident, who has not been charged with a crime, at a naturalization interview is highly unusual,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School. “This sends a chilling message that non-citizens must be silenced, undermining First Amendment protections.”
Mahdawi, born in a West Bank refugee camp, has been accepted into a master’s program at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. His family remains in the West Bank, where escalating violence has raised fears about his potential deportation. Advocacy groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, have decried the arrest as an attack on free speech and Palestinian rights.
The incident follows a pattern of ICE targeting pro-Palestinian activists.
Khalil’s detention in Louisiana and a Turkish student’s arrest at Tufts University highlight the administration’s aggressive stance. Critics argue that these actions, coupled with threats to defund universities like Columbia, aim to suppress dissent on college campuses.
As Mahdawi’s case unfolds, supporters rally online with hashtags like #FreeMohsen and #JusticeForPalestinians, urging action. The Council on American-Islamic Relations called for his release, labeling the detention a “blatant attack” on free speech.With legal battles looming, Mahdawi’s arrest underscores tensions over immigration policy and political expression in the U.S.
New York, N.Y. — A growing coalition of civil rights organizations, legal experts, and student advocates is raising alarms over the use of a “distorted definition” of antisemitism that, they argue, is being weaponized to suppress advocacy for Palestinian rights in the United States.
At the center of this controversy is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which critics say conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with anti-Jewish hate, leading to widespread censorship and repression.
Since 2014, Palestine Legal has documented over 1,700 incidents in which individuals and groups advocating for Palestinian freedom have faced false accusations of antisemitism—more than half of all suppression cases the organization has handled in that period. These incidents range from students being censored or disciplined on campus, to church groups and activists facing smear campaigns for supporting boycotts or calling attention to human rights abuses in the region.
The push to codify the IHRA definition into U.S. law and institutional policy has intensified in recent years, particularly following the escalation of violence in Gaza and the resulting surge in advocacy for Palestinian rights.
According to Palestine Legal, this effort is part of a broader strategy by Israel lobby groups to shield Israel from criticism by branding nearly all support for Palestinian rights as antisemitic. Seven out of the eleven examples of contemporary antisemitism cited in the IHRA definition focus specifically on Israel, blurring the line between anti-Jewish bigotry and political speech.
Civil rights advocates warn that the adoption of the IHRA definition has already had a chilling effect on free speech, especially on college campuses. Palestinian-American students and their allies have reported being doxxed, harassed, and punished for expressing support for Palestinian rights, with universities often justifying their actions by referencing the IHRA definition.
In a recent coalition letter to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Palestine Legal and 13 other organizations urged the agency to reject the codification of the IHRA definition, arguing that it would only intensify anti-Palestinian racism and undermine First Amendment protections.
The letter also draws parallels between efforts to codify the IHRA definition and right-wing campaigns to ban Critical Race Theory, noting that both are driven by similar groups and serve to restrict academic freedom and the ability to address systemic oppression.
“OCR must reject right-wing lobbying efforts that seek to address one form of racism while perpetuating another,” said Lina Assi, Advocacy Manager at Palestine Legal.
“The codification of the distorted IHRA definition will only serve as a tool of repression that will intensify the anti-Palestinian racism that activists and students are currently experiencing across the country.”
Despite these challenges, there is growing resistance to the IHRA definition.
Academics, activists, and even some Jewish organizations have proposed alternative definitions, such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which seeks to clarify the distinction between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. These efforts aim to protect the rights of all marginalized groups and ensure that advocacy for Palestinian freedom is not mischaracterized as hate speech.
Palestine Legal’s interactive timeline and resource hub document the evolution of the distorted definition, its impact on individuals, and the ongoing efforts to push back against censorship.
The organization emphasizes that advocacy for Palestinian rights is a form of human rights work that should be celebrated, not silenced. As Dima Khalidi, director of Palestine Legal, stated, “We must expose and counter the false narrative that attempts to tar and silence human rights defenders in order to shield Israel from criticism and accountability.”
As the debate continues, advocates are calling on policymakers, educators, and the public to recognize the dangers of conflating criticism of a nation-state with bigotry against a people, and to uphold the fundamental rights of those working for justice and equality in Palestine and beyond.
Washington, D.C. — In a display that left many observers appalled, President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of insults and accusations against CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins during a heated Oval Office exchange on Monday.
Collins, CNN’s chief White House correspondent, pressed Trump on whether he would honor the court’s directive.
Instead of addressing the question, Trump lashed out, deriding Collins.
Trump deriding Collins as a “very low-rated anchor” and accused CNN of “hating” the country. “No one watches you anymore; you have no credibility.”
The president’s anger escalated as Collins persisted, reminding him of his previous statements that he would comply with the Supreme Court if ordered.
Trump, visibly frustrated, retorted, “Why don’t you just say, ‘Isn’t it great that we’re keeping criminals out of our country?’ Why can’t you just say that?” He then accused CNN of biased reporting, claiming, “They don’t understand what’s going on, which is why their viewership is dwindling.”
President Bukele, known for his hardline approach to crime, joined Trump in criticizing the press.
When Collins asked if Bukele would assist in returning Garcia, Bukele dismissed the idea as “preposterous,” labeling Garcia a “terrorist.” Trump’s cabinet members, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and advisor Stephen Miller, echoed the administration’s stance, asserting that Garcia was ineligible for return due to alleged ties to the MS-13 gang—a claim his family and legal representatives dispute.
Collins, undeterred by the president’s attacks, addressed the incident on her evening show, “The Source.” She highlighted that court documents do not support the administration’s claims of Garcia’s gang affiliation and noted that a federal judge found insufficient evidence to label him a terrorist.
Collins also pointed out that the Justice Department admitted the deportation was a mistake and that the Supreme Court had explicitly ordered the White House to “facilitate” Garcia’s return.
The episode drew swift condemnation from press freedom advocates and journalists, who viewed Trump’s conduct as emblematic of his broader hostility toward the media.
Critics argued that the president’s refusal to answer legitimate questions and his personal attacks on reporters undermine democratic accountability and the rule of law.
The White House, for its part, doubled down on its position.
Stephen Miller characterized Collins’s questions as “extremely presumptuous,” insisting that the U.S. should not dictate how El Salvador manages its citizens. Bondi reiterated that the administration would not pursue Garcia’s return unless El Salvador agreed, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The confrontation comes amid heightened scrutiny of Trump’s immigration policies and his administration’s compliance with judicial orders. It also underscores the ongoing tension between the White House and the press, particularly CNN, which Trump has repeatedly targeted throughout his presidency.
Collins’s composure and persistence in the face of presidential ire drew praise from colleagues and viewers alike.
The incident served as a stark reminder of the challenges journalists face in holding power to account—and the lengths to which some leaders will go to avoid answering difficult questions.
Dear Dr. Sami, I am an international student from Germany on a student visa, currently completing my studies an Ivy League university. Last spring, I participated in several protests on campus advocating for Palestinian rights and condemning the devastating civilian casualties in the conflict. As graduation approaches, I’ve grown increasingly anxious. Given the recent news about crackdowns on protest-related activity, I fear being targeted by immigration authorities (ICE). The thought of being arrested in class, unable to graduate, and facing detention or deportation haunts me daily. I’m torn between staying to finish my degree or returning to Germany immediately to avoid potential repercussions. Could you advise me on how to navigate this? Is my fear of arrest rational, or am I overestimating the risks? Would leaving the U.S. prematurely—sacrificing four years of work—be prudent, or are there steps I can take to protect myself while seeing through my graduation? Your perspective would mean the world to me. Sincerely, Terrified
Dear Terrified,
First, let me acknowledge the weight of what you’re carrying right now. It sounds incredibly overwhelming to be facing this uncertainty as you near the end of your senior year—an achievement that’s already a testament to your resilience and dedication.
The fears you’re describing—being arrested, detained, or deported—are understandably consuming your thoughts, especially given the news you’ve been hearing and the experiences you’ve had at the protests.
It’s natural to feel anxious when you’re caught between your commitment to your values, your education, and the looming possibility of consequences beyond your control. I’m here to help you sort through these emotions and find a way to move forward with some clarity and calm.
From what you’ve shared, your fear isn’t irrational—it’s rooted in real events and observations, like those unfamiliar individuals taking photos, combined with the broader political climate you’re witnessing.
The persistent worry about ICE or law enforcement targeting you reflects a deep sense of vulnerability, which is a completely human response when you’re far from home and navigating a system that feels unpredictable.
The fact that this anxiety is disrupting your ability to focus on your studies tells me how much this is weighing on your heart and mind. It’s not just about the “what ifs”—it’s about the toll of living with that constant tension.
That said, it’s hard to know how much of a risk you’re truly facing without more specific information, and that uncertainty itself can amplify your distress.
As a psychotherapist, I can’t assess the legal likelihood of arrest or deportation—that’s something an immigration attorney would be much better equipped to address. What I can do is help you manage the emotional storm you’re in and think through your options so you’re not paralyzed by fear. Let’s start by grounding ourselves a bit.
One thing that might help is breaking this down into what you can control. The idea of being arrested in class or deported is terrifying, but it’s a future scenario, not a certainty in this moment.
When those thoughts spiral, try pausing to breathe deeply for a minute—slow inhales and exhales—and ask yourself: “What’s happening right now?” This can pull you back from the edge of panic and give you space to think. It’s not a fix, but it can help you regain some footing.
You’re also wrestling with a big decision: stay and finish your degree, risking potential repercussions, or leave now and protect yourself at the cost of four years of effort. Both paths come with grief—losing your sense of safety here or losing the culmination of your hard work.
That’s a heartbreaking choice, and it’s okay to feel torn. If you stay, the anxiety might persist, but you’d have your degree in hand, a milestone you’ve earned. If you go, you’d regain some peace of mind, but the regret of leaving could linger. Neither is inherently “right”—it’s about what you can live with, emotionally and practically.
Here’s what I’d suggest as a starting point: connect with an immigration attorney as soon as possible. They can give you a clearer picture of your legal standing—whether your participation in the protests could realistically jeopardize your visa, and what protections might be available to you.
Knowing where you stand legally could ease some of the dread and help you make an informed choice rather than one driven purely by fear.
Many universities offer free legal resources for international students, so check with your school’s international student office or student services. This step isn’t just practical—it’s a way to reclaim some agency in a situation that feels out of your hands.
In the meantime, let’s work on keeping you steady. Surround yourself with support—friends, classmates, or a counselor at your university who can listen without judgment. You don’t have to carry this alone.
Writing down your fears, like you’ve done here, can also lighten the load a bit—maybe keep a journal to process what’s swirling in your head.
And if your focus on studies keeps slipping, try breaking tasks into smaller pieces—15 minutes of reading, a short break, then another 15. It won’t solve everything, but it might help you inch toward the finish line.
Your fear of arrest isn’t baseless, but whether it’s an overestimation depends on factors I can’t evaluate as a therapist. The political climate is tense, and the news about crackdowns is real, but not every protester faces the same outcome. An attorney can help you gauge that risk more precisely.
For now, my heart goes out to you—this is a lot to bear, and your courage in speaking up for what you believe in, even at personal risk, is profound. You deserve to feel safe and supported as you decide what’s next.
Please don’t hesitate to reach out again if you need to talk more. You’re not alone in this.
New York, N.Y. — Donald Trump’s political resurgence has reignited debates about existential threats to American democracy.
Many commentators, including some Republicans, now argue that Trump’s rhetoric and promises—ranging from militarizing police to undermining checks and balances—pose a greater internal threat than the Vietnam War did in the 1960s.
The Vietnam War, while divisive and deadly, never threatened the constitutional order in the way Trump’s critics claim his actions and words do.
Power of Protest Music in the Vietnam Era
During the Vietnam War, music played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion and mobilizing resistance. Folk artists like Phil Ochs and Pete Seeger, Peter, Paul & Mary,Joan Baez and Bob Dylan. along with countless others, wrote and performed songs that directly challenged U.S. policy and gave voice to the anti-war movement.
These songs, from “I Ain’t Marching Anymore” to “Draft Dodger Rag,” became anthems for a generation questioning authority and demanding change. The protest music movement was not monolithic—some songs supported soldiers, others condemned the war—but together, they created a powerful cultural force that helped unify and energize opposition.
The Absence of a Modern Anti-MAGA Music Movement
Despite the widespread view among Trump’s critics that his movement represents an existential threat, there is no comparable wave of anti-MAGA protest music today. Unlike the Vietnam era, where hundreds of songs addressed the conflict and its moral implications, the current political climate has not produced a unifying musical response. This absence is striking given the scale of concern about Trump’s impact on democracy, national security, and civil liberties.
Why the Silence? Shifts in Culture and Media
Several factors may explain the lack of a modern protest music movement:
Fragmented Media Landscape: In the 1960s, radio and television provided shared platforms for music to reach mass audiences. Today, streaming services and social media have splintered audiences, making it harder for protest songs to gain widespread traction.
Changing Role of Music: Music’s centrality to youth culture and political activism has diminished. Other forms of expression—memes, viral videos, podcasts—now compete for attention.
Political Polarization: The deepening divide in American society may make it harder for protest music to find a unifying message or audience.
Commercial Pressures: The music industry’s focus on profitability and branding may discourage artists from taking overtly political stances that could alienate segments of their fanbase.
What Does This Mean for Political Resistance?
The absence of a unifying anti-MAGA protest music movement raises questions about the evolving nature of cultural resistance. While individual artists occasionally release politically charged songs, there is no equivalent to the folk wave that rallied Americans against the Vietnam War. This may reflect broader changes in how Americans engage with politics and culture, or it may signal a need for new forms of artistic activism.
As the U.S. faces what many see as an unprecedented internal threat, the lack of a musical rallying cry is notable. The Vietnam era’s protest songs helped galvanize a movement and shape the national conversation.
Today, in the face of a different kind of existential crisis, America’s soundtrack is largely silent. Whether this changes in the coming years may depend on both artists’ willingness to engage and the public’s appetite for a new wave of protest music.
New Delhi — For generations, the Indian pot belly was a mark of status, comfort, and even humor. In literature and cinema, it signified a life of plenty, often used to depict bureaucrats, indulgent uncles, or politicians in satirical cartoons. In rural India, a protruding belly was once a clear indicator that a person “ate well,” a sign of prosperity in a country long familiar with food scarcity.
Today, however, this cultural icon has become a symbol of a mounting health crisis. India is experiencing a surge in obesity, with the pot belly—technically known as abdominal obesity—emerging as a particularly dangerous trend.
India recorded the world’s second-highest number of overweight or obese individuals, totaling 180 million, second only to China.
A recent study in The Lancet projects that by 2050, this figure could reach 450 million, nearly one-third of India’s expected population. Abdominal obesity, characterized by excess fat around the waist, is more than a cosmetic issue. Medical research since the 1990s has established a strong link between belly fat and chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular conditions. Unlike generalized obesity, which involves uniform fat distribution, abdominal obesity is concentrated around the trunk, posing unique health risks.
The National Family Health Survey, which uniquely measures waist and hip circumference, found that about 40% of Indian women and 12% of men have abdominal obesity. Among women aged 30 to 49, nearly half are affected. Urban populations are particularly at risk, with high waist-to-hip ratios serving as critical warning signs.
Indian health guidelines define abdominal obesity as a waist circumference exceeding 90 cm (35 inches) for men and 80 cm (31 inches) for women. The prevalence of this condition is rising rapidly, especially among children, raising alarms among healthcare professionals1.
One key factor behind the increase in belly fat is insulin resistance, where the body struggles to regulate blood sugar due to excess abdominal fat. This not only complicates diabetes management but also increases the risk of heart disease.
Research shows that South Asians, including Indians, tend to have more body fat than Caucasians at the same Body Mass Index (BMI), with fat accumulating around the trunk and under the skin rather than as visceral fat deep within the abdomen.
While this may mean less of the most dangerous visceral fat, studies suggest that inefficient fat storage can lead to fat infiltrating vital organs like the liver and pancreas, further increasing health risks.
The reasons for these fat distribution patterns are not fully understood.
Genetic studies have yet to identify a single responsible gene, but some experts suggest an evolutionary adaptation to historical famines, with the abdomen serving as a primary energy storage site. As food availability has increased, this adaptation may now be contributing to harmful levels of fat accumulation.
In response to the crisis, the Indian Obesity Commission has revised its criteria for obesity among Asian Indians, introducing a two-stage system that considers both fat distribution and associated health risks. The first stage involves high BMI and abdominal obesity without complications, where lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise are recommended. The second stage includes abdominal obesity with health complications, requiring more aggressive interventions, including new weight loss medications like semaglutide and tirzepatide.
Healthcare providers attribute the rise in abdominal obesity to lifestyle changes, including increased consumption of processed foods, takeout meals, and high-fat home cooking. Between 2009 and 2019, India saw one of the fastest increases in per capita sales of ultra-processed foods and beverages globally.
Experts stress that Indians may need to adopt more rigorous lifestyle changes than Western populations. While 150 minutes of weekly exercise may suffice for Europeans, South Asians are advised to aim for 250-300 minutes to counteract slower metabolism and less efficient fat storage. As Dr. Anoop Misra, a leading diabetes specialist, notes, “Our bodies simply aren’t as efficient at managing excess fat.”
The Indian pot belly, once a source of pride and humor, now serves as a stark warning. As obesity rates climb, urgent action is needed to address this growing public health emergency.
Tags: urban health, obesity, pot belly, abdominal obesity, public health, diabetes, India, lifestyle, health crisis, South Asia, cultural change, medical research, Indian women, Indian men, exercise, diet, health policy, cardiovascular disease
Boston, MA — In a dramatic escalation of tensions between the Trump administration and higher education institutions, the federal government has frozen $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts allocated to Harvard University.
The unprecedented move comes after the Ivy League school rejected demands from the White House to overhaul its diversity programs and implement stricter policies on campus protests.
The funding freeze was announced late Monday night, hours after Harvard President Alan Garber publicly condemned the administration’s demands as an attack on academic freedom and a violation of constitutional rights.
“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” — Harvard President Alan Garber
Demands Spark Controversy
The Trump administration had issued a series of directives to Harvard and other elite universities in recent months, citing concerns over rising antisemitism during pro-Palestinian demonstrations linked to the Gaza conflict. Among the demands were calls to abolish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives; ban masks at campus protests; implement merit-based hiring and admissions practices; and increase oversight of foreign students.
Officials argued that these measures were necessary to ensure compliance with civil rights laws and protect Jewish students from harassment on campuses nationwide. However, critics accused the administration of using antisemitism as a pretext for advancing a conservative agenda aimed at dismantling progressive policies in academia.
Harvard’s Defiance
Dudley Gate at Harvard, named after Governor Thomas Dudley of the Massachusetts Bay Colony who signed the Harvard Charter almost four centuries ago.
Harvard’s refusal to comply with these demands marks a significant act of defiance against the administration’s broader crackdown on perceived liberal bias in higher education. “No government has the authority to dictate what universities can teach or whom they can admit,” Garber asserted.
Shortly after Harvard’s rejection became public, the administration announced it would halt all federal funding earmarked for the university—a decision that could have devastating consequences for research programs and student aid initiatives dependent on government support.
The funding freeze also affects high-profile projects at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where nearly half of its budget relies on federal grants for groundbreaking research into diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s. Dean Andrea Baccarelli described the freeze as “a direct assault on scientific progress” that jeopardizes critical health advancements benefiting millions worldwide.
Broader Implications
Poster: “Criticism of the Israeli Government is NOT Anti-Semitism.”
The standoff between Harvard and the Trump administration is part of a larger battle over free speech and academic independence in American universities. Other institutions are also under scrutiny; Columbia University recently faced a $400 million funding cut for failing to address alleged “antisemitism” during campus protests.
In addition to freezing funds, the administration has begun revoking visas for hundreds of international students and researchers across more than 80 universities—actions that critics say are politically motivated and disproportionately target individuals with minor infractions or perceived ideological affiliations.
Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who previously served as Harvard’s president, called the funding freeze “punitive” and “unlawful.” He warned that such actions undermine democratic principles by allowing political agendas to dictate educational policies.
Legal Challenges Ahead
Experts predict that the legality of the funding freeze will be challenged in court. A key issue is whether the administration’s actions violate constitutional protections for academic freedom and free speech or exceed its authority under federal law.
“This is an unprecedented situation,” said one legal scholar specializing in presidential powers. “While universities undoubtedly need reform in some areas, using federal funds as leverage to impose political demands crosses a dangerous line.”
Political Fallout
The clash between Harvard and the Trump administration has reignited debates about the role of government in regulating higher education institutions. Supporters of the funding freeze argue that taxpayer dollars should not support universities perceived as hostile to conservative values or unwilling to address antisemitism effectively.
However, opponents view it as an alarming example of government overreach designed to stifle dissent and erode academic independence. “This is not about combating antisemitism,” said one critic from a national civil liberties organization. “It’s about punishing institutions that refuse to conform to a narrow political ideology.”
As legal battles loom and public opinion remains divided, one thing is clear: this high-stakes confrontation will have far-reaching consequences for both higher education policy and broader debates about free speech in America.
This story highlights escalating tensions between academia and government while emphasizing themes of autonomy, constitutional rights, and political retaliation within a shocked yet analytical tone fitting public discourse today.
The Far-Right Group Fueling a Chilling Crackdown on Pro-Palestinian Students
New York, N.Y. — Betar U.S., the American arm of a militant Zionist movement founded in 1923 by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, has re-emerged as a powerful force in the United States, aggressively targeting pro-Palestinian activists—especially students—by collecting and sharing their personal information with the Trump administration.
The group, which describes itself as “loud, proud, aggressive and unapologetically Zionist,” has taken credit for providing the names of noncitizen protesters to federal authorities, urging their deportation under new executive orders aimed at combating antisemitism on college campuses.
From Doxxing to Deportation: Betar’s Tactics
Betar US’s methods have drawn sharp criticism from civil rights advocates, legal experts, and the very students it targets.
The group has publicly posted names, images, and even home addresses of pro-Palestinian activists, claiming these individuals support Hamas or espouse antisemitic views.
In one high-profile case, Betar boasted on social media about adding Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil to its “deport list,” sharing his whereabouts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and celebrating his subsequent arrest. The group has also distributed “deport alerts” and encouraged its followers to harass activists, tactics that many see as thinly veiled threats.
Betar’s spokesperson, Daniel Levy, has openly stated that the group has submitted “hundreds” of names to the Trump administration, targeting not only students but also academics and naturalized citizens of Middle Eastern descent.
While the Department of Homeland Security denies direct collaboration with Betar, the group insists its dossiers are influencing government action.
Privacy Violations and Chilling Effects
The aggressive doxxing and surveillance campaign orchestrated by Betar U.S. has sparked widespread alarm about privacy violations and the erosion of free speech on American campuses.
Students and faculty profiled by Betar report being mischaracterized, harassed, and subjected to threats, with some experiencing severe anxiety and depression as a result. Critics argue that Betar’s tactics amount to a campaign of intimidation, designed to silence dissent and stifle constitutionally protected protest.
Legal experts warn that the group’s actions raise serious questions about the balance between public safety and individual privacy. While the Trump administration claims to use “all available technology” to vet visa holders, the reliance on information from ideologically motivated outside groups like Betar sets a dangerous precedent. The Anti-Defamation League has listed Betar among organizations promoting extremist or hateful ideologies, a charge Betar dismisses as a smear. See the ADL page describing Betarhere.
Backing, Reach, and Ideological Roots
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder.
Betar U.S. is part of a global network with branches in multiple countries, but its recent resurgence in the US has been fueled by the political climate following the October 2023 Hamas attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza. The group’s ideology is rooted in Jabotinsky’s vision of Jewish militarism and territorial expansion, and it has a long history of militant activism, including past associations with far-right and even “Jewish fascist” elements.
Betar’s renewed activism is closely aligned with the Trump administration’s hardline stance on campus protests and immigration. The group has found common cause with other pro-Israel organizations, but its willingness to publicly name and target individuals sets it apart as one of the most aggressive actors in the current crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism.
Betar members at Pro-Palestine rallies, Columbia University, New York City.
Civil Liberties at Risk
The legality of the Trump administration’s deportation orders is hotly contested, with civil rights advocates arguing that they violate the First Amendment and amount to an unlawful assault on free speech.
Universities, caught in the crossfire, face mounting pressure to protect their students from doxxing and harassment, even as federal authorities ramp up enforcement actions based on information provided by groups like Betar.
As Betar U.S. continues to push for more deportations and a faster process, the chilling effect on campus activism is unmistakable.The group’s campaign has not only endangered the privacy and safety of individual students but also raised urgent questions about the role of private organizations in shaping government policy and undermining fundamental rights.
The Oath of Betar
According to the organization’s website, Betar members take an oath – many at a young age – which they vow to follow their entire life. Betar’s ideology follows this oath, which includes:
Only Eretz Israel has the power to solve the problem of the Jewish people and to ease the suffering of the Diaspora.
All decisions stem from this. Is it good for the Jews?
Hebrew is the national language, sole and eternal, of the Jewish people. A Jew who does not know Hebrew – is not a complete Jew.
“It is good to die for your country.”
Military preparedness. Betar demands that its members understand force and weapons. We are prepared for physical battle and protection.
Opposes arm-chair Zionism – being the type of Zionism which lacks true actualization of one’s beliefs. We stand up loud and clear.
Buenos Aires ––Argentina is once again confronting its painful legacy as a postwar refuge for Nazi fugitives.
On March 24, the government announced it will declassify a new trove of documents, including banking and financial records, that allegedly facilitated the escape and resettlement of high-ranking officials from Hitler’s regime in South America.
The decision, confirmed by Cabinet Chief Guillermo Francos, follows a meeting between President Javier Milei and representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a prominent human rights organization dedicated to tracking Nazi war criminals.
The Center presented Milei with a letter from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging Argentina to cooperate in investigations into the role of financial institutions—most notably Credit Suisse—in aiding Nazi fugitives.
Unveiling the “Ratlines”
The files set for declassification are expected to shed new light on the so-called “ratlines”—clandestine escape networks that enabled thousands of Nazis and other fascist war criminals to evade justice after World War II. Historians estimate that up to 10,000 Nazis and collaborators fled to Argentina and other countries in the Americas, including Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Notorious figures such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” from Auschwitz, were among those who found sanctuary in Argentina before moving elsewhere in South America.
The escape routes often involved complex journeys with some routes receiving unofficial support from Vatican officials.
The escape routes often involved complex journeys through Germany, Spain, and Italy, with some routes receiving unofficial support from Vatican officials. These networks were not only used by Nazis but also by U.S. intelligence to relocate scientists for Cold War projects.
Financial Networks Under Scrutiny
A central focus of the declassified documents is the role of banking and financial operations in facilitating these escapes. The files are expected to include records from Argentina’s Defense Ministry and financial institutions, potentially revealing how money was transferred to support fugitives’ new lives in South America.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has previously obtained a list of 12,000 Nazis living in Argentina, many of whom held accounts at what is now Credit Suisse. There are longstanding suspicions that some of these funds were looted from Holocaust victims.
The Argentine government’s move comes amid renewed international scrutiny. The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has specifically requested Argentina’s cooperation in investigating Credit Suisse’s alleged assistance to Nazi escapees, citing a 2021 internal probe that found “significant connections” between the bank and individuals involved in the ratlines.
Commitment to Transparency
President Milei’s initiative aligns with his broader commitment to government transparency and historical accountability. The declassified materials will be stored in Argentina’s General Archive of the Nation and made available for public and academic research. This step mirrors similar efforts in other countries, such as Israel’s recent release of documents related to the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann.
Human rights advocates and historians have welcomed the move as a potential watershed moment. “We’ve long suspected that key financial institutions helped facilitate these escapes, but this access could finally provide concrete evidence,” said Jim Berk, CEO of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Happy Nazis. From left: Richard Baer, commander of the Auschwitz death camp, Dr. Josef Mengele and Rudolf Hiss; 1944.
A Painful Reckoning
Argentina’s role as a haven for Nazi fugitives has long been a source of controversy and national soul-searching. While some Argentine leaders in the 1930s and 1940s welcomed a growing Nazi presence, later governments attempted to investigate and curtail these activities—often with limited success due to political upheaval and the destruction of key records.
The declassification of these documents is seen as a crucial step in addressing this dark chapter of history. It offers the possibility of justice for Holocaust victims and their descendants, and a chance for Argentina to reckon with its past.
As the files are made public, researchers hope to gain a clearer understanding of the networks that enabled war criminals to evade prosecution and the local support systems that protected them. The revelations may also prompt further investigations into the complicity of financial institutions and the fate of assets looted during the Holocaust.
For Argentina, the process is both a moral obligation and an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to transparency, justice, and the memory of those who suffered under the Nazi regime
Argentina Moves to Declassify Files on Nazi Escape Networks (April 15, 2025)
Tags: Argentina, Nazi fugitives, declassification, ratlines, World War II, banking operations, financial records, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Javier Milei, Holocaust, war criminals, South America, historical archives, Credit Suisse, human rights
Vargas Llosa speaks about Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize, the state of literature, inter-American relations and politics.
New York, N.Y. — Four hundred years ago an Inca princess bore the son of a Spanish Conquistador. Their child, Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, grew up to write the first Spanish-American masterpiece, The RoyalCommentaries (Comentarios reales).
Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa explains a finer point to the author (2010).
“Comentarios reales” tell the incredible story of the Inca world turned upside down. The Royal Commentaries, published in Lisbon in 1609 before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, tell the incredible story of the Inca world destroyed as the Spanish concluded their bloody conquest of Peru.
There was a backlash to the excesses of Iberian power. According to The Royal Commentaries:
“The mestizos, the sons of the conquerors of the empire by the Indian women, were… accused of having conspired with Prince Túpac Amaruand the other Incas to rise in revolt…
All those of Cuzco of twenty years or more and capable or bearing arms were arrested. Some were condemned to torture.
“As the Spanish prepared to execute the prince in Cuzco, leader of the Inca nation, 300,000 people watched. The majority of the population there was indigenous, vastly outnumbering the Spanish colonizers, and they were very angry.
“The Inca raised his right arm with his hand open, then brought it to his ear, and dropped it gradually to his thigh.
“From this, the Indians understood that they were being told to be silent and the shouting and crying ceased, as they became so quiet that it seemed as if there was not a living soul in the whole city, to the great astonishment of the Spaniards…
In controlling his own people, Túpac showed that he was the legitimate and moral ruler of Peru. However, power often trumps morality, and the civilization based in Cusco was over.
As a boy, Mario Vargas Llosa told the standing room-only crowd in Spanish, he read TheCommentaries but felt little. At the university, however, he got it. He felt connected to the epic book.
Inca Garcilaso de la Vega’s Coat of Arms.
“I read it and re-read it. I was amazed at the incredible antidotes of ancient times. I could taste the colors of the words,” he said in Spanish.
Mario pointed out how the language used in The Commentaries was a “revolutionary act,” as it combined the softness of Quechua – the Inca language – with the European’s Spanish, creating a hybrid that changed not only Peru but the world.
“Underneath this new language hybrid was a feeling of richness and melancholy,” the author explained. This new Spanish captured the mestizo’s world and became used universally.
As an adult, he can now see that the book expressed an ideology of a Latin American identity, of a nationalism not trying to subjugate others, but to unify them.
The evening was launched by a welcome by Susan L. Segal, president and C.E.O. of the Americas Society. Susan came to the Society as a Partner and the Latin American Group Head at JPMorgan Partners/Chase Capital Partners.
The distinguished session, chaired by Alfred Mac Adam, explained Comentarios reales from their respective academic perspectives.
Dr. Thomas Wardof Loyola University in Maryland discussed modern nativist readings of Garcilaso in Peru.
The symposium co-organizer is Daniel Shapiro, Director of the Literature Department at the Americas Society.
An hour long interview in Spanish between Mario Vargas Llosa and Dr. Raquel Chang-Rodríguez followed. Raquel, who organized the event, is Distinguished Professor at the City College-Graduate Center of CUNY.
The event was co-organized by Daniel Shapiro, Director of Literature at the Americas Society.
Mario Vargas is one of the world literature’s most important novelists.
Some critics consider him to have had a larger international impact and worldwide audience than any other writer of the Latin American Boom. A thought leader in literature and literary criticism.
A global citizen, he holds a Spanish passport and lives between Lima and London.
Like many Latin American authors, Vargas Llosa has been politically active throughout his career. Like most Latin American intellectuals, he supported Castro in the early 1960s, but gradually became disenchanted.
Vargas Llosa ran for the Peruvian presidency in 1990 with the center-right Frente Democrático coalition,advocating neoliberal reforms. He has subsequently supported moderate conservative candidates.
Dignified, intelligent, intellectual, with gray hair and gray tie, Mario reminded me of Walter Cronkite, circa 1975. He appeared trustworthy, sober, thoughtful, compassionate – and humorous.
Associated with the Boom avant-garde literary movement in Latin America in the 1960s through such masterworks as The Green House, Conversations in the Cathedral, and The Feast of the Goat,he has written numerous other novels. He also writes essays, plays, and works of literary criticism.
Under the editorship of Raquel Chang-Rodríguez, a book collecting all papers presented at he symposium will appear in April by the Fondo Editorial of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru.
A special issue of Review: Literature and Arts of the Americas focusing on the Inca Garcilaso and His Legacy, will be published in November and launched at the Society on November 12, 2009. Review is published by Routledge on behalf of the Society. (Info here)
The Americas Society
“Ignorance of our neighbors is neither sensible nor safe, neither smart nor neighborly, neither good economics, nor good manners…”
The Americas Society where he spoke is the premier forum dedicated to education, debate, and dialogue in the Americas. The room sparkled under crystal chandeliers,the well-dressed audience reflected in its gilded mirrors.
The Americas Society where he spoke is the premier forum for the Americas.
In 1965, a group of noted businessmen led by David Rockefeller founded the Center for Inter-American Relations.
As the Center’s mission was articulated in 1970, “Ignorance of our neighbors is neither sensible nor safe, neither smart nor neighborly, neither good economics, nor good manners…”
The Center for Inter-American Relations was absorbed into the Americas Society in 1985.
Since that time, the Americas Society has played a pivotal role in disseminating the cultural achievements of Latin America, the Caribbean, and Canada in the U.S.
Its mission is to increase public awareness and appreciation of the diverse cultural heritage of the Americas, as well as the importance of the inter-American relationship.
I asked Vargas Llosa what he thought of Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He admitted he was as surprised as anyone, and believed that the prize was awarded for what the world hopes will be, not what is.
I believe that Vargas Llosa fans around th eworld will not be surprised the morning he is awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Tags: Mario Vargas Llosa, Inca Empire, Americas Society, Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, Royal Commentaries, Latin American literature, Peruvian history, CUNY symposium, Barack Obama, Nobel Prize, inter-American relations, cultural heritage, literary criticism, mestizo identity, Park Avenue, New York
The LGBTQ+ community in Hungary now faces the prospect of criminalization for simply gathering in public, while the government’s use of surveillance technology raises fears of broader repression against all forms of dissent.
Budapest — The Hungarian Parliament delivered a stunning blow to civil liberties on Monday, passing a constitutional amendment that grants the government sweeping authority to ban all public events organized by LGBTQ+ communities.
The move, orchestrated by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s right-wing Fidesz-KDNP coalition, passed with 140 votes in favor and 21 against, strictly along party lines.
The amendment, which required a two-thirds majority, codifies into the nation’s highest law a ban on LGBTQ+ public gatherings, including the popular Budapest Pride parade that draws thousands each year.
Legal scholars, human rights advocates, and opposition politicians have condemned the measure as a grotesque escalation in Orbán’s campaign against LGBTQ+ rights and a chilling step toward outright authoritarianism.
Jim Luce, head of the Luce Family Charities, stated, “It is definitely and purely and strictly about humiliating people and excluding them, not just from the national community, but even from the community of human beings.”
“Child Protection” as a Pretext
The government claims the amendment is necessary to “protect children,” declaring that children’s rights to moral, physical, and spiritual development supersede all other rights except the right to life. This language, critics argue, is a thinly veiled pretext for erasing LGBTQ+ visibility and criminalizing public expression of queer identities.
Hungary’s so-called “child protection” legislation already prohibits the “depiction or promotion” of homosexuality to minors under 18. The new constitutional amendment embeds these restrictions, giving the government unchecked power to ban any event it deems contrary to its narrow definition of family values.
Surveillance and Punishment
The law goes further, authorizing authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify attendees at prohibited events, such as Budapest Pride. Those identified can face fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints (about $546), a move rights groups say is designed to intimidate and silence dissent.
Protest and Police Crackdown
The amendment’s passage was met with outrage and protest. Opposition lawmakers and activists attempted to blockade the entrance to parliament’s parking garage, binding themselves together with zip ties. Police forcibly removed the demonstrators, underscoring the government’s determination to quash resistance.
A Pattern of Repression
This is the 15th amendment to Hungary’s constitution since Orbán’s party unilaterally rewrote it in 2011. The new language also asserts that the constitution recognizes only two sexes, male and female, further marginalizing transgender and intersex individuals and reinforcing a previous ban on same-sex adoption.
The government insists the changes are not an attack on individual self-expression but a “clarification that legal norms are based on biological reality.” Critics, however, see a calculated campaign to erase LGBTQ+ people from public life and dismantle the last vestiges of democratic rights.
International and Domestic Backlash
Rights activists, legal scholars, and European officials have condemned the amendment as a grave violation of human rights and democratic norms. The LGBTQ+ community in Hungary now faces the prospect of criminalization for simply gathering in public, while the government’s use of surveillance technology raises fears of broader repression against all forms of dissent.
As Hungary cements its anti-LGBTQ+ stance in law, the disgust and alarm among rights defenders is palpable. The country’s slide toward authoritarianism, critics warn, is accelerating—and the cost is being borne by its most vulnerable citizens.
Tags: Hungary, LGBTQ, Viktor Orbán, Budapest, Parliament, Constitutional Amendment, Human Rights, Authoritarianism, Civil Liberties, Pride Parade, Fidesz, Child Protection Law, Facial Recognition, Protest, Europe
The statement, made alongside U.S. President Donald Trump, has ignited alarm over the fate of García and the broader implications of the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation policies, which aim to expel over one million immigrants.
García, a 29-year-old father of three, was deported on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 court order granting him protection from removal to El Salvador, where he faced threats of violence. Having lived in the U.S. since 2011, García built a life in Maryland with his U.S.-citizen wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and their children.
His deportation, which the Trump administration admitted was an “administrative error,” has become a flashpoint in the debate over due process and human rights.
Bukele’s remarks came in response to a reporter’s question about García’s fate.
“How can I return him to the United States? Am I going to smuggle him?” Bukele said, dismissing the query as “preposterous.” He labeled García a “terrorist” and claimed he lacked the authority to release him, even within El Salvador.
Kilmar García has lived in in Maryland with his U.S.-citizen wife and children since 2011.
The Trump administration echoed this stance, with Attorney General Pam Bondi asserting that García’s return was “up to El Salvador,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that U.S. courts cannot dictate foreign policy.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, ruled on April 10, 2025, that the Trump administration must “facilitate” García’s return, upholding a lower court order by Maryland District JudgePaula Xinis.
Xinis called García’s deportation “wholly lawless,” noting he has no criminal record in the U.S. or El Salvador.
Despite this, Trump officials have doubled down, alleging—without substantiated evidence—that García is a member of the MS-13 gang, designated a terrorist organization.
García’s attorneys, led by Benjamin Osorio, vehemently deny these claims, pointing to a 2019 immigration judge’s finding that García faced persecution in El Salvador.
The case has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates, who see it as a troubling precedent. “The cruelty is the point,” said Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), accusing Bukele and Trump of flouting the rule of law.
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) demanded sanctions against officials ignoring court orders, warning of a constitutional crisis. Vanessa Cárdenas of America’s Voice called the situation “a reminder why immigration is the tip of the spear for Trump’s assault on democracy.”
García’s family, meanwhile, is grappling with despair.
Vasquez Sura, speaking at a rally near the White House, tearfully pleaded, “My husband is not a criminal. He’s a loving father. Bring him home.”
Faith leaders and local officials, including Prince George’s County State Attorney Aisha Braveboy, have joined the call, urging accountability for what they describe as a grave miscarriage of justice.
Bukele’s refusal aligns with his role as a key Trump ally.
Since January, El Salvador has accepted over 200 deportees, mostly Venezuelans, under a $6 million deal to house them in CECOT, a facility criticized for human rights abuses. Trump praised Bukele as a “great friend” during the meeting, even floating the idea of sending U.S. citizens to the prison—a proposal that alarmed critics like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who called it “un-American.”
Legal experts warn that García’s case exposes vulnerabilities in the U.S. immigration system, particularly under Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to bypass due process. “This is a deliberate catch-22,” said Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University. “The U.S. says it can’t act because García is in El Salvador, and Bukele says he can’t act because it’s a U.S. issue. It’s a mockery of justice.”
García remains in CECOT, a facility known for harsh conditions and overcrowding.
As the standoff continues, García remains in CECOT, a facility known for harsh conditions and overcrowding.
His attorneys have asked Judge Xinis to hold the Trump administration in contempt, arguing that delays violate the Supreme Court’s directive. With daily updates ordered but little progress reported, the case underscores broader fears about unchecked executive power and the erosion of judicial authority.
For García’s family and supporters, the fight is personal. “Kilmar deserves to be here,” Vasquez Sura said, clutching a photo of her husband. “We won’t stop until he’s home.” As the nation watches, García’s fate hangs in the balance, a stark symbol of the human cost of mass deportation policies.
New York, N.Y. — In the sprawling refugee camps of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, home to over a million Rohingya fleeing persecution in Myanmar, a fresh crisis looms.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), long a lifeline for these displaced communities, has drastically reduced its funding, sending shockwaves through an already fragile humanitarian ecosystem. The cuts, part of a broader policy shift under President Donald Trump’s administration, threaten to unravel years of support, leaving refugees like Majuna Khatun grappling with fear for her six-month-old child’s future.
“It’s terrifying,” Khatun said, cradling her baby at a rehabilitation center in Kutupalong camp. “Without aid, how will we feed our children? How will we survive?” Her words echo a growing despair among the Rohingya, whose survival has depended on international assistance since the 2017 exodus driven by Myanmar’s military crackdown, labeled a genocide by the United States.
In the sprawling refugee camps of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, home to over a million Rohingya fleeing persecution in Myanmar, a fresh crisis looms. Photo credit: World Health Program.
The USAID reductions, announced earlier this year, have slashed contributions that once accounted for nearly half of all aid to the Rohingya, totaling $2.4 billion since 2017. The impact is immediate and stark.
TheUnited Nations World Food Programme(WFP), a primary channel for U.S. aid, warned that without new funds, food rations for refugees could drop from $12.50 to $6 per month—far below what’s needed for basic nutrition. In March, the WFP slightly reduced rations, a move officials said was unavoidable amid a global shortfall exacerbated by the U.S. cuts.
“These camps are ground zero for the impact of budget cuts,” U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said during a March 2025 visit to Cox’s Bazar. “People will suffer, and people will die if we don’t act.” His warning underscores the ripple effects: five U.S.-funded hospitals have scaled back services, affecting 300,000 refugees’ access to healthcare, according to camp officials. Cholera and scabies outbreaks, already straining resources, now risk spiraling unchecked as water sanitation projects falter.
For refugees like Forid Alam, a 36-year-old father at Balukhali camp, the cuts feel like a betrayal. “We’re grateful for past help, but now we’re forgotten,” he said. “No jobs, no freedom to move—aid is all we have.” The camps, tightly controlled by Bangladeshi authorities, offer little opportunity for self-reliance, making external support critical. Yet, the scabies, coupled with some European donors also pulling back, has left a gaping hole in funding.
The crisis compounds existing challenges.
About 70,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh in 2024 alone, driven by hunger and conflict in Myanmar’s Rakhine state, where the Arakan Army’s clashes with the junta displaced thousands more. Repatriation, seen by Bangladesh as the ultimate solution, remains elusive. Myanmar’s verification of 180,000 refugees as eligible to return—out of 800,000 proposed—has stalled, with refugees like Shafiqur Rahman dismissing it as “eyewash.” Past attempts in 2018 and 2019 failed when Rohingya refused to return, citing fears of renewed persecution.
Aid workers warn that the funding shortfall could fuel darker outcomes.
David Bugden, coordinator for NGOs in Cox’s Bazar, noted that reduced services correlate with rising crime, human trafficking, and radicalization risks. “When people are desperate, they’re vulnerable,” he said. Reports of militant groups like the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army recruiting young men from the camps add urgency to the need for stability.
A glimmer of relief came in late March when the U.S. pledged $73 million through the WFP, a move refugees welcomed as a “gift” before Eid al-Fitr. But experts say it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the $15 million monthly shortfall the WFP faces to maintain full rations. “It’s not enough,” said Mohammed Mizanur Rahman, Bangladesh’s refugee commissioner. “We need consistent, long-term commitment.”
Bangladesh’s interim government led by Muhammad Yunus, in power since August 2024, has leaned on international visits—like Guterres’—to spotlight the crisis. Yet, with global attention scattered and donor fatigue setting in, the Rohingya risk slipping further into neglect. “The international community cannot turn its back,” Guterres urged, pointing to climate-driven floods that further endanger the camps.
For now, refugees cling to hope amid uncertainty.
“We pray for help,” said Abdur Salam, an 80-year-old camp resident. “Without it, we are simply going to starve.” As USAID’s retreat reverberates, the world faces a test of its resolve to protect the Rohingya—one of the most vulnerable populations on earth. The clock is ticking, and for many, survival hangs in the balance.
New York, N.Y. — For more than 137,000 first responders, survivors, and families affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program has been a critical lifeline—providing free medical care for cancers, respiratory diseases, PTSD, and other conditions linked to Ground Zero toxins.
But now, that lifeline is fraying under the Trump administration’s sweeping federal workforce cuts, leaving heroes who sacrificed their health in the nation’s darkest hour in fear and uncertainty.
World Trade Center attack responders. Photo credit: Anthony Correia / Shutterstock.com.
Staffing Cuts Paralyze Care
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced mass layoffs at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Photo credit: White House Photographer / Flickr.
In February 2025, the Trump administration fired thousands of probationary federal employees, including 20% of the WTC Health Program’s staff—social workers, nurses, and researchers essential for patient care.
Then, on April 1, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced mass layoffs at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which oversees the program.
Among those initially terminated was Dr. John Howard, the program’s administrator, whose reinstatement came only after fierce bipartisan backlash.
For more than 137,000 first responders, survivors, and families affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program has been a critical lifeline—providing free medical care for cancers, respiratory diseases, PTSD, and other conditions linked to Ground Zero toxins.
But 16 staff members in Cincinnati and Morgantown were not so lucky—their positions were eliminated entirely, crippling the program’s ability to:
Certify new patients for enrollment
Approve cancer treatments and high-cost procedures
Process petitions to expand covered conditions (e.g., autoimmune diseases, cardiac issues)
Oversee research grants studying 9/11-related illnesses.
But now, that lifeline is fraying under the Trump administration’s sweeping federal workforce cuts, leaving heroes who sacrificed their health in the nation’s darkest hour in fear and uncertainty.
“This Is Bureaucratic Cruelty”
Michael Barasch, a lawyer representing thousands of 9/11 survivors, called the cuts “bureaucratic cruelty.” Many of his clients—firefighters, cops, office workers—now face delayed chemotherapy, unchecked PTSD, and unanswered questions about whether their next doctor’s visit will be covered.
“You’ve got people with PTSD from picking up body parts that day—now their anxiety is skyrocketing,” Barasch said. “Who’s going to pay for my chemotherapy? Do I go for my annual physical? Is that still scheduled?”
Andrew Ansbro, a 9/11 first responder diagnosed with WTC-linked skin cancer, fears his next treatment won’t be approved: “If I was diagnosed with another skin cancer tomorrow, it’s not getting treated. Because no one at NIOSH is left to approve it.”
Lower Manhattan After South Tower Collapse, September 11, 2001. Photograph courtesy of New York City Police Detective Gregory Semendinger.
Political Backlash and Broken Promises
The cuts have sparked rare bipartisan fury. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) condemned the administration for using “our nation’s heroes as political pawns,” while Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY) led GOP efforts to reinstate Dr. Howard, calling the firings an “unfortunate mistake.”
Even Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who helped pass the Zadroga Act establishing the program, accused RFK Jr. of breaking a promise: “He committed to protecting this program. These firings break that promise.”
A Pattern of Disregard
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has targeted the WTC Health Program. In 2018, it proposed dismantling NIOSH, and earlier in 2025, it attempted to cut research grants before reversing course under pressure. Advocates warn these “chainsaw” cuts—not “scalpel” efficiencies—are deliberate, jeopardizing a program meant to last until 2090.
What Comes Next?
While Dr. Howard’s return offers a glimmer of hope, staffing shortages persist, and long-term funding remains uncertain. With over 81,000 enrollees already suffering from certified 9/11 illnesses, the human cost of these cuts could be deadly.
As John Feal, a leading 9/11 advocate, starkly put it: “This is the most reckless, vile act against the 9/11 community since September 11 itself.”
For the heroes of that day, the fight for care is far from over.
TAGS: 9/11 first responders, World Trade Center Health Program, Trump administration cuts, HHS layoffs, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Dr. John Howard, Zadroga Act, NIOSH, CDC, bipartisan backlash
Authorities have confirmed the fire was an act of arson, leaving significant damage to the historic property. The incident occurred around 2 a.m. during Passover, a sacred Jewish holiday, intensifying concerns about potential motives behind the attack.
The suspect, identified as 38-year-old Cody Balmer of Harrisburg, was apprehended later that day.
According to Col. Christopher Paris of the Pennsylvania State Police, Balmer had homemade incendiary devices in his possession.
Josh and Lori Shapiro have four children, the oldest 22 years old. Photo credit: Josh Shapiro/X)
Charges including attempted murder, terrorism, and aggravated arson are expected to be filed by Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo.
Investigators are still probing whether the attack was motivated by antisemitism or political grievances.
Balmer has faced criminal charges on several occasions over the past decade, including for assault, forgery, and traffic-related offenses.
In 2023, Balmer was charged with three counts of simple assault in a case that is ongoing. In 2016, he pleaded guilty to one felony count of forgery and was sentenced to 18 months of probation.
Governor Shapiro expressed gratitude to law enforcement and first responders for their quick action in containing the blaze and ensuring his family’s safety.
“My family and I are deeply thankful for the brave efforts of those who protected us during this terrifying ordeal,” he stated in a social media post.
The fire inflicted considerable damage on the residence but did not result in injuries. Shapiro’s family, including his wife Lori, their four children, two dogs, and another visiting family, were safely evacuated. The Harrisburg Bureau of Fire swiftly extinguished the flames.
This attack comes amid rising threats against public officials in recent years.
Incidents such as the 2023 plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and the attack on then-Speaker of the House residence Nancy Pelosi resulting in a hammer attack on her husband highlight an alarming trend of violence targeting elected leaders.
Governor Shapiro’s Jewish identity adds another layer of complexity to this incident.
Shapiro is one of six Jewish governors currently serving in the U.S., alongside Jared Polis (CO), J.B. Pritzker (IL), Josh Green (HI), Matt Meyer (DE), and Josh Stein (NC). Jews represent just over 2% of the U.S. population and hold approximately 6% of seats in Congress, with 35 Jewish lawmakers serving in the 119th Congress. The Senate majority leader of New York, Chuck Schumer, being one.
The timing of the arson—during Passover—has raised questions about whether it was a hate crime aimed at Shapiro’s faith or an act of political extremism. While no motive has been officially confirmed, advocacy groups have called for increased security measures for Jewish leaders and institutions nationwide.
Jewish Americans have long faced antisemitism despite their significant contributions to U.S. society.The Jewish population in Pennsylvania is approximately 434,165 individuals or 3.3% of the state’s total population—among the highest percentages in the country.
The Shapiro family 2022 Thanksgiving card. Image credit: Josh Shapiro/Instagram.
As investigators continue their work, public officials and community leaders have condemned the attack as an assault on democracy and religious freedom.
“This heinous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against hatred and violence,” said Rabbi David Katz of Harrisburg’s Congregation Beth El.
The Pennsylvania Governor’s Residence has stood as a symbol of leadership since its construction in 1968. The damage caused by this arson attack underscores growing concerns about threats to public officials and their families.
Shapiro has vowed to rebuild and continue serving Pennsylvanians with resilience and determination. “This will not deter me from my commitment to justice and equality,” he affirmed.
This Jewish holiday that commemorates the Exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. It is celebrated for seven or eight days and is rich with themes of social justice, human rights, and empowerment.
New York, N.Y. Passover, or Pesach, is a Jewish holiday that commemorates the Exodus of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. It is celebrated for eight days (seven in Israel and among Reform Jews) and is rich with themes of social justice, human rights, and empowerment. Here are some ways these themes are emphasized during Passover:
Liberation and Freedom
Historical Context: Passover marks the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, symbolizing the universal quest for freedom and dignity.
Modern Parallels: The story of Passover is often linked to contemporary struggles for freedom and justice, such as civil rights movements, anti-slavery efforts, and campaigns for the rights of oppressed groups around the world.
Social Justice
Seders and Social Issues: The Seder meal, which is central to Passover celebrations, includes discussions about current social justice issues. Many families and communities use this time to reflect on ongoing injustices and to commit to action.
Inclusivity: Passover Seders often include elements that highlight solidarity with marginalized groups. For instance, an orange on the Seder plate has become a symbol of inclusion, particularly of LGBTQ+ individuals within the Jewish community.
Human Rights
Universal Message: The message of Passover transcends Jewish history and speaks to universal human rights. It calls for the recognition and respect of the inherent dignity and rights of every person.
Awareness and Activism: Many use Passover as a platform to raise awareness about human trafficking, refugees, and other human rights abuses. It serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting the freedoms of all people.
Minority Empowerment
Empowerment Through Memory: Remembering the plight of the Israelites empowers modern Jews to stand against oppression. It is a reminder that minority communities can overcome great adversity.
Solidarity with Others: Passover encourages solidarity with other minority groups facing discrimination and persecution. It fosters a sense of global community and shared responsibility.
Rituals and Symbols
Matzah: The unleavened bread, matzah, represents both the affliction of slavery and the hastiness of the Israelites’ departure from Egypt, symbolizing the transition from oppression to freedom.
Four Cups of Wine: These symbolize the four expressions of redemption promised by God. They remind participants of the importance of hope and perseverance in the face of oppression.
Educational Aspect
Telling the Story: The Haggadah, the text recited during the Seder, emphasizes the importance of retelling the story of the Exodus. This act of storytelling is a powerful tool for educating about justice, freedom, and human dignity.
Intergenerational Transmission: Passover is an opportunity to educate younger generations about their heritage and the values of justice and human rights, ensuring these lessons are passed down.
Passover is more than a historical remembrance; it is a call to action. It invites participants to reflect on their roles in advancing social justice and to be vigilant in the fight against oppression in all its forms.
The majority of American men — 50.5% — groom their pubic hair.
New York, N.Y. — In recent years, male pubic hair grooming has become a topic of growing interest in the United States, reflecting shifts in personal hygiene, aesthetics, and cultural norms.
A 2017 study published in the American Journal of Men’s Health found that approximately 50.5% of U.S. men aged 18 to 65 engage in regular pubic hair grooming, defined as trimming, shaving or waxing within the past three months.
Of these, trimming is more common than shaving, with about 47% of groomers opting to trim and roughly 35% reporting they have removed all pubic hair at least once. Waxing, either at home or in a salon, is often used for full removal.
The distinction between trimming and shaving is notable, as trimming involves shortening hair with scissors or electric clippers, while shaving typically uses razors for a closer cut or complete removal.
Wiki-how Offers Manscaping Advice
Wiki-how provides instructions on “How to Remove Male Pubic Hair Safely Without Shaving.” This advice, co-authored by Adarsh Vijay Mudgil, M.D. and Aly Rusciano, covers the whole host of options related to this topic:
Often Wiki-how is a barometer of American cultural trends.
Depilatory Creams include common brands such as Nair Shower Cream and Veet In-Shower Hair Removal Cream. The best way to remove hair from male private parts is to first try using a depilatory cream.
Depilatory creams designed for the pubic area are gentler on the skin and can prevent hair from growing for up to 2 weeks. Simply follow the instructions on the product.
Male and female pubic hair is chemically identical (keratin-based), with no inherent structural difference requiring distinct depilatory formulations, per WebMD.
However, male pubic hair is often coarser or denser, leading to products like Nad’s for Men Down Under, which use thioglycolic acid and aloe vera for sensitive areas.
Female-targeted creams (e.g., Veet Sensitive or Nair Bikini Cream) prioritize hydration with ingredients like shea butter or coconut oil to reduce irritation on thinner skin areas, as noted in product descriptions. Both types use similar active ingredients (thioglycolates) to break down hair proteins, but application times and patch-test recommendations vary slightly due to skin sensitivity differences.
The company Manscaped uses humor to deal with the delicate topic of male grooming. In one video that has racked up 16 million views, celebrity Pete Davidson introduces a fictitious “Ball-Ber Shop” but a very real “Lawn Mower® 5.0 Ultra.” Manscaped has over 54 million followers on YouTube.
The data reveals differences in grooming practices based on sexual orientation.
A 2008 study in Body Image comparing gay and heterosexual men found that gay men are more likely to groom regularly, with 82% of gay men in an Australian sample reporting some form of pubic hair removal compared to 66% of heterosexual men.
While U.S.-specific figures are less comprehensive, trends suggest gay men may groom more frequently and are more likely to remove all pubic hair, often citing appearance and partner preferences as motivations. Heterosexual men, conversely, tend to prioritize hygiene or sexual preparation, with 73% of men aged 25 to 34 grooming for sexual activity, per the 2017 study.
When comparing male and female grooming in the U.S., women groom at higher rates.
A 2016 JAMA Dermatology study reported that 84% of American women have engaged in pubic hair grooming, with many citing societal expectations or partner preferences.
Men’s grooming, while increasingly common, remains less prevalent and is often less influenced by external pressures. Internationally, male grooming varies widely.
In countries like Brazil and Australia, male pubic hair removal is popular, driven by beach culture and media. In contrast, European countries like France and Germany often embrace a more natural look, with lower rates of male grooming, though data is limited.
Professionals Offering Pubic Hair Grooming
Health spas, particularly men’s grooming salons, offer pubic hair grooming as part of “manscaping” services, including waxing or trimming. Some upscale barber shops, such as those listed on Yelp for “manscaping,” provide these services as well.
Health considerations play a role in grooming decisions.
Pubic hair serves as a protective barrier, reducing friction during sexual activity and potentially preventing bacteria from entering the genital area, according to Medical News Today.
Trimming is considered safer, as it avoids cutting close to the skin, minimizing risks like ingrown hairs or infections. Shaving, however, can lead to complications.
A 2017 JAMA Dermatology study noted that 25% of groomers reported injuries, such as cuts, rashes, or infections, with razors being the primary culprit.
Frequent shaving is also linked to a higher risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) due to micro-abrasions, per a 2017 Sexually Transmitted Infections study.
Relationship status influences grooming habits.
The 2017 American Journal of Men’s Health study found that men in relationships or those sexually active groom more often, with 50% to 72% citing sexual preparation as a motivator. Single men or those not dating are less likely to groom regularly, though no specific percentages isolate this group.
Partner preferences also matter. A 2015 Healthline survey indicated that 20% of women prefer a partner with trimmed or no pubic hair, while a 2017 Cosmopolitan survey found 46% of men favor a bare partner, suggesting reciprocal expectations. Data on gay men’s preferences is scarcer, but anecdotal evidence from Body Image suggests they value grooming for aesthetic and sexual reasons.
Pubic hair grooming remains sensitive and visual representation requires care.
Images of bushes or natural landscapes, as metaphors, are socially acceptable and avoid explicit content.
Such visuals align with neutral discussions, maintaining respect for diverse preferences without objectification. Panoramas of greenery can subtly nod to the topic while keeping the tone professional.
As grooming trends evolve, the conversation around male pubic hair in the U.S. reflects broader themes of body image, health, and personal choice.
Whether trimming for hygiene, shaving for aesthetics, or embracing a natural look, men navigate a landscape shaped by individual and societal factors. With ongoing research, the understanding of these practices will likely deepen, offering insights into health and cultural dynamics.
The threatened defunding would impact more than 170,000 K-12 students in Maine through special education, school lunches, teacher training, and mental health support services.
Portland, ME — In a stunning escalation of the culture war surrounding transgender rights, the Trump administration announced its intention this week to withhold federal K-12 education funding from the state of Mainein response to the state’s refusal to bar transgender students from participating in school sports according to their gender identity.
The move—unprecedented in its scope—signals a ruthless and deeply troubling shift in federal education policy, weaponizing public school funding to punish states that support trans-inclusive policies. The U.S. Department of Education, reinstated under Trump with staunch conservative leadership, issued a letter to Maine officials warning that their failure to comply with the administration’s newly revised Title IX guidance could lead to the forfeiture of millions in federal education grants.
Maine has been vocal in its support of LGBTQ+ youth, with state law permitting students to participate in sports in accordance with their gender identity.
The state’s Department of Education has maintained that such policies are consistent with both federal precedent and basic human decency. Yet Trump’s administration has made the targeting of transgender rights a centerpiece of its second-term agenda.
“This is nothing short of a vendetta,” said Sarah McMillan, Executive Director of Maine Youth Equality, a statewide advocacy group. “They are threatening the futures of thousands of children just to make a cruel political point.”
The administration’s letter, signed by newly installed Education Secretary Mark Greene—a former Fox News contributor with a long record of anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric—cites “biological fairness in women’s sports” as the primary justification. The administration claims Maine’s refusal to adopt federally recommended policies violates Title IX as reinterpreted by the current administration, effectively redefining the law in a way that excludes transgender identities.
Critics argue this aggressive reinterpretation of Title IX flies in the face of both legal precedent and ethical standards. The Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision in 2020, though related to employment law, established that discrimination based on transgender status is a form of sex discrimination. Civil rights groups have already signaled they intend to sue.
“What we are witnessing is a deliberate attack on vulnerable students,” said ACLU attorney Jorge Aranda. “Denying education funding to an entire state because it supports trans kids is unconscionable and legally indefensible.”
The threatened defunding would impact more than 170,000 K-12 students in Maine, hitting rural and low-income school districts hardest. Funds at risk include those allocated for special education, school lunches, teacher training, and mental health support services—resources already stretched thin in the state’s post-pandemic recovery efforts.
Educators, superintendents, and parents across Maine expressed shock and outrage.
“We are being strong-armed into betraying our students,” said Carol Jennings, principal of a middle school in Bangor. “This isn’t about sports. It’s about stripping away dignity from children for political theater.”
Republican leaders in Washington have praised the move as a bold stand for “traditional values.” At a rally in Ohio this week, President Donald Trump declared, “If they want boys in girls’ sports, they don’t deserve our tax dollars.” The crowd erupted in applause.
Main Governor Janet Mills: Withholding education funding punishes students who have nothing to do with this debate. Maine will not comply.”
But back in Maine, the backlash is fierce. Governor Janet Millscalled the administration’s decision “an outrageous misuse of federal authority.”
“We can have a national conversation about fairness in sports without holding our kids hostage,” she said in a press conference Friday. “Withholding education funding punishes students who have nothing to do with this debate. Maine will not comply.”
LGBTQ+ advocates fear the Maine situation could be the beginning of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to force conservative social policies onto blue and swing states through financial coercion.
Several other states, including California, Illinois, and New York, have similar trans-inclusive policies that could come under threat.
“This is about more than Maine,” said Lambda Legal’s Policy Director Mia Lin. “It’s about whether a federal government can blackmail states into betraying their most vulnerable citizens. Today it’s trans kids. Tomorrow it’s anyone who doesn’t fit their ideology.”
As lawsuits loom and protests erupt, Maine’s refusal to back down may become a defining flashpoint in the battle over civil rights in American schools—a battle now dangerously centered not on education, but on political revenge.
Tags: Trump administration, transgender athletes, Maine education, Title IX, LGBTQ+ rights, federal education funding, Department of Education, civil rights, youth advocacy, political retaliation
The Brigade empowers individuals to reclaim civil discourse and foster critical thinking.
New York, N.Y. — The Indivisible “Truth Brigade” is a grassroots initiative dedicated to countering disinformation and misinformation that threaten democracy.
With thousands of volunteers across the United States, this community of truth-tellers employs innovative strategies to neutralize harmful narratives and promote factual information.
By avoiding direct engagement with disinformation and instead sharing positive, unifying messages, the Brigade empowers individuals to reclaim civil discourse and foster critical thinking.
Founded by the progressive organization Indivisible, the Truth Brigade began as a pilot program in Colorado before expanding nationwide.
Volunteers are trained to craft “Truth Sandwiches,” a messaging technique designed to counter falsehoods without amplifying them.
This method opens with shared values, introduces factual counterpoints, and closes by reinforcing the truth. The Brigade’s efforts have resulted in over 234 million social media impressions and tens of thousands of disinformation-disrupting posts.
The Truth Brigade operates through biweekly campaigns where members personalize and share model messages provided by leadership. These campaigns address specific disinformation topics identified by experts, ranging from election integrity to legislative initiatives like voting rights and infrastructure bills. Volunteers use platforms like Slack and Zoom for coordination, ensuring their efforts are both strategic and impactful.
Leah Greenberg, co-founder of Indivisible, emphasizes the importance of proactive messaging over reactive fact-checking.
By spreading progressive narratives rooted in truth, the Brigade aims to “inoculate” audiences against disinformation. This approach is particularly vital in combating coordinated misinformation campaigns that exploit social media algorithms.
Truth Brigade Campaigns on Pride, Education, and Book Censorship
The Indivisible Truth Brigade has become a vital force in combating disinformation across a range of social issues. Through its targeted campaigns, the Brigade not only counters false narratives but also uplifts progressive values. Recent campaigns have focused on critical issues such as LGBTQ+ rights during Pride Month, resisting book censorship in schools, and advocating for equitable education for children.
Pride Campaigns: Celebrating LGBTQ+ Rights
During Pride Month, the Truth Brigade launched a campaign to counter disinformation targeting LGBTQ+ communities. The campaign focused on amplifying messages of inclusion and equality while debunking harmful myths perpetuated by anti-LGBTQ+ groups. Volunteers shared personalized messages celebrating the contributions of LGBTQ+ individuals and highlighting the importance of protecting their rights.
By framing the conversation around shared values like love, acceptance, and community, the campaign successfully shifted online narratives to a more positive and affirming tone.
One key strategy was the use of “Truth Sandwiches” to address false claims about gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ representation in media. For example, volunteers began posts with affirmations of shared values like equality, presented factual information about the safety and necessity of gender-affirming care, and closed with a call to support policies that protect LGBTQ+ youth. This approach not only countered disinformation but also fostered empathy among audiences.
Fighting Book Censorship: Protecting Access to Knowledge
The Truth Brigade has also taken a strong stance against efforts to ban books in schools and libraries. In response to coordinated campaigns targeting books by authors of color or those addressing LGBTQ+ themes, the Brigade launched a series of messages emphasizing the importance of intellectual freedom and diverse perspectives in education.
Volunteers highlighted how book bans harm students by limiting their exposure to different cultures, histories, and ideas. They shared stories of how literature fosters critical thinking and empathy, urging communities to resist censorship efforts.
The campaign also provided resources for parents and educators to advocate for inclusive curricula at school board meetings and within their communities.
By framing book censorship as an attack on democracy and freedom of expression, the campaign resonated widely. It encouraged individuals to see themselves as defenders of knowledge and inspired grassroots action against censorship efforts nationwide.
Advocating for Progressive Education
Educational equity has been another central focus for the Truth Brigade. Recent campaigns have addressed disinformation surrounding progressive education policies, such as inclusive curricula that teach honest accounts of history or promote social-emotional learning (SEL). The Brigade worked to counter false claims that these initiatives are “indoctrination” or “anti-American.“
Volunteers shared factual messages about how SEL improves student outcomes by fostering emotional intelligence and resilience. They also emphasized how inclusive history lessons create a more informed and empathetic citizenry.
By tying these messages to broader themes like preparing children for a diverse world and strengthening democracy, the campaign effectively neutralized fear-based rhetoric.
Additionally, the Brigade spotlighted disparities in school funding and resources that disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
Volunteers amplified calls for increased investment in public education, particularly in low-income areas, as a means of closing achievement gaps. These efforts underscored the need for systemic change while inspiring hope through stories of progress made in schools that embrace equity-focused reforms.
Impactful Grassroots Action
Through these campaigns, the Truth Brigade has demonstrated how grassroots activism can disrupt disinformation while promoting positive change. By equipping volunteers with tools like sample messages, graphics, hashtags, and training webinars, Indivisible ensures their efforts are both strategic and impactful.
The success of these initiatives lies in their ability to connect with audiences on an emotional level while providing actionable solutions. Whether celebrating Pride Month, resisting book bans, or advocating for educational equity, the Truth Brigade continues to inspire individuals to stand up for truth and justice.
The Truth Brigade exemplifies how grassroots activism can disrupt the flow of falsehoods while fostering a culture of truth. Its success demonstrates that ordinary citizens can play a pivotal role in safeguarding democracy.
Pak was known for advocating for the Chinatown community in San Francisco, and often being the connection between politicians and the growing Asian American population in the city.
Pak was known for her fearless leadership and ability to connect San Francisco politicians with its growing Asian-American population.
Despite never holding elected office, she wielded immense influence through her work with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and as an organizer of the Chinese New Year Parade.
Her efforts included raising funds for political campaigns and championing projects that benefited Chinatown residents. Notably, she played a pivotal role in electing Ed Lee as San Francisco’s first Chinese American mayor in 2011.
Pak’s activism was not without controversy.
The Rose Pak Democratic Club, one of the city’s most prominent progressive Asian political organizations, announced in January it has decided not to recharter with the San Francisco Democratic Party, saying the Democratic brand has become toxic to local Asian voters.
She faced scrutiny over alleged ties to the Chinese government and accusations of political favoritism.Her strong advocacy for naming Chinatown’s subway station after her sparked protests even years after her death in 2016.
Nonetheless, her commitment to uplifting Chinatown and ensuring its respect in city politics earned her admiration from many.
In January 2025, the Rose Pak Democratic Club announced its decision to sever ties with the San Francisco Democratic Party, citing concerns that the party’s brand had become toxic to local Asian voters.
This move underscores Pak’s enduring influence on Asian-American political activism in San Francisco.
Pak’s legacy is further celebrated through cultural tributes like Rally, a documentary premiering at the San Francisco International Film Festival in April 2025. The film explores her life, achievements, and controversies, offering insights into how she shaped Chinatown’s political landscape.Pak passed in 2016 at the age of 68.
Tags: Rose Pak, Chinatown, San Francisco politics, Asian-American activism, Ed Lee, Rose Pak Democratic Club, Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Rally documentary, Chinatown subway station controversy
New York, N.Y. — Below is a list of individuals and institutions that have stood up to the Trump Administration. For detailed actions and context, each name links back to the original stories.
INDIVIDUALS
Howell, Beryl (Judge)
Nakamura, Beth (Photojournalist)
INSTITUTIONS
Perrelli, Thomas (Chair, Jenner & Block)
Vought, Russell (Former OMB Director)
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
Chávez’ story resonates not just with farmworkers, but with anyone who believes in the dignity of labor and the pursuit of justice.
Chávez’ life was a gift to the marginalized, a reminder that justice, once planted, can grow into something extraordinary.
The César Chávez Monument at San Jose University, California includes Dolores Huerta and Mahatma Gandhi.
San Francisco, CA – In the tapestry of American history, few figures shine as brightly as César Chávez, a beacon of hope and justice for farmworkers across the nation. As we pause to remember Chávez, we celebrate a man whose life was a testament to the power of compassion, resilience, and nonviolent resistance. His legacy as a labor leader and civil rights icon continues to inspire generations, reminding us of the strength found in unity and perseverance.
César Estrada Chávez was born on March 31, 1927, in Yuma, Arizona, into a Mexican Americanfamily of migrant farmworkers. His early years were shaped by the harsh realities of agricultural labor—long hours, meager wages, and relentless uncertainty. When the Great Depression struck, the Chávez family lost their small farm, thrusting them into the migratory life that defined so many during that era. These experiences planted the seeds of empathy and determination that would later bloom into a movement for change.
In 1962, Chávez took a bold step that would alter the course of labor history.
Alongside Dolores Huerta, he co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which evolved into the United Farm Workers (UFW). Their mission was simple yet revolutionary: to secure fair wages, safe working conditions, and respect for the farmworkers who toiled to feed the nation.
Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Chávez embraced nonviolence as his weapon of choice, proving that peaceful action could topple injustice.One of Chávez’ most triumphant moments came with the Delano grape strike, launched in 1965.
Farmworkers in Delano, California, demanded better pay and conditions from grape growers who had long ignored their plight.
Chávez organized a 300-mile march from Delano to Sacramento, a pilgrimage that captured the nation’s attention and rallied support for the cause.
What followed was a five-year boycott of table grapes, a grassroots effort that united consumers, activists, and workers. In 1970, the growers relented, signing a historic contract that marked a victory for farmworkers and a milestone in labor rights.
Chávez’ vision extended beyond the fields.
He recognized the toll of pesticides on workers’ health and pushed for environmental protections, blending labor advocacy with ecological awareness. His commitment often took personal sacrifice—most notably through hunger strikes, like the 25-day fast in 1968, which he undertook to reaffirm his dedication to nonviolence and galvanize the movement. These acts of courage drew allies from all corners, amplifying the farmworkers’ voice.
The ripple effects of Chávez’ work are felt today.
The UFW remains a vital force, advocating for those who harvest our food. His famous phrase, “Sí, se puede” (“Yes, we can”), has transcended its origins, becoming a universal anthem of empowerment.
Schools, streets, and holidays bear his name, a tribute to a man who turned adversity into action.
Chávez’ story resonates not just with farmworkers, but with anyone who believes in the dignity of labor and the pursuit of justice.
Reflecting on Chávez’ life, we see a roadmap for change.
He showed that one voice, amplified by community and conviction, can challenge entrenched power. His nonviolent philosophy reminds us that progress need not come through conflict, but through solidarity and shared purpose.
In a world often marked by division, Chávez’ example offers a timeless lesson in hope.
As we remember César Chávez, we honor a legacy built on sacrifice and triumph.
His journey from the fields of Arizona to the forefront of a national movement speaks to the potential within us all to effect change. Today, his spirit lives on in the farmworkers who carry forward his fight, in the activists who echo his call, and in the simple yet profound belief that yes, it can be done. Chávez’ life was a gift to the marginalized, a reminder that justice, once planted, can grow into something extraordinary.
From mass protests to legal challenges, individuals and groups stand firm in defense of democracy, civil rights, and justice.
New York, N.Y. — The week of April 7–13, 2025, showcased powerful resistance to President Donald Trump’s policies. From mass protests to legal challenges, individuals and groups stood firm in defense of democracy, civil rights, and justice.
This column highlights three notable examples of courage during this period, followed by The Stewardship ReportIndex of Opposition Heroes.
Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Profile 1: The Headliner – Judge Beryl Howell
On April 7, Judge Beryl Howell issued a landmark ruling blocking a Trump administration executive order that sought to revoke security clearances from law firms previously involved in investigations against him.
Citing First Amendment violations, Howell’s decision was hailed as a defense of judicial independence amid political intimidation.
Her history of standing up to Trump—including overseeing grand jury matters during the Mueller investigation—underscores her commitment to fairness despite personal attacks from MAGA-aligned groups.
Profile 2: The Under-the-Radar – Beth Nakamura
Photojournalist Beth Nakamura captured the essence of the April 5 “Hands Off!” protests, where over 600,000 people rallied nationwide against Trump’s immigration policies and proposed social program cuts.
Her viral images and subsequent column exposing local officials’ complicity sparked public scrutiny and investigations.
Despite losing freelance opportunities due to MAGA backlash, Nakamura’s work exemplifies the power of independent journalism to hold leaders accountable.
Profile 3: The Group Effort – The Indivisible Movement
The “Hands Off!” protests on April 5 were organized by indivisible in collaboration with advocacy groups like MoveOn.
hese demonstrations targeted Trump’s policies on Medicaid cuts, immigrant expulsions, and authoritarian governance.
With events spanning all 50 states and beyond, the coalition mobilized grassroots resistance against systemic injustice, proving the strength of collective action.
Judge BerylHowell, Beth Nakamura, and the Indivisible movement demonstrate that courage takes many forms—legal rulings, journalistic integrity, and mass mobilization. Their actions remind us that democracy thrives when individuals and communities resist oppression.
Who will step forward next? Send us your stories for next week’s column.
