Near-Total Abortion Ban Bill Stirs Outrage in Georgia Legislature

 

Demonstrators on both sides of the abortion debate filled a narrow, windowless hallway in the Georgia Capitol on Wednesday, raising their voices and waving signs as legislators debated a bill aiming to outlaw nearly all abortions. Protestors screamed words of contempt and approval, cheering on their constituents side following each testimony. Amongst the chaos, one man in particular screamed "'I’m so thankful that my mom gave me life and did not sacrifice her children'" (Kramon, 25).

The proposed bill would criminalize any abortion occurring after the point of fertilization, the stage in which a baby is considered a person. This bill expands on Georgia's current personhood law that allows tax breaks and child support/care to unborn children. Although Georgia already has a ban on babies with a detectable human heartbeat, this measure is claimed to not be strict enough by Georgia's anti-abortion religious leaders. The bills sponsor, Emory Dunahoo, argues that thousands of babies "made in the image of god" are murdered in Georgia each year, and “'This bill simply ensures that those same laws protecting the lives of people after birth equally protect the lives of people before birth" (Dunahoo, 25).

Not all individuals with anti-abortion mindsets support this bill however, claiming that criminalization of women attempting to have an abortion is a step too far. Critics add on, stating that "it would bar women from lifesaving care," and "women with miscarriages or dangerous health complications during birth wouldn't get the care they need" (Kramon, 25). Representative Shea Roberts recounted her own experience with abortion, highlighting how "'doctors told me that the dream of my child was going to die either inside of me or within minutes outside my body, and it would be suffering'” (Roberts, 25).

The bill does grant some exceptions, citing cases in which the pregnancy results in a spontaneous miscarriage, and procedures needed to save the mother's life are unable to preserve the baby. Opponents argues that these exceptions are irrelevant, as doctors would be too frightened by the bill to provide care anyway. Such claims are backed up by two recent cases in which the mother "died from delayed care tied to Georgia’s abortion law after taking abortion pills" (Kramon, 25).

Doctors warn that the bill would lead to the criminalization of in vitro fertilization, an assisted reproductive technology, which, just last month, was protected by a separate Georgian bill with bipartisan support. Dunahoo assures that the bill will not interfere with in vitro fertilization access, but Dr. Karenne Fru, who runs an in vitro clinic, claims the bill will "put her out of work" (Kramon, 25).

Sources:

- https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ban-georgia-ivf-protest-a3de9cac563b24b420162f335213fdfa#

- https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2025-03-26/a-bill-proposing-a-near-total-abortion-ban-causes-an-uproar-at-georgias-capitol

Greenlanders Unhappy Regarding Upcoming U.S. Visit

Second lady Usha Vance's visit to Greenland this week has been met with anger and confusion by Greenlands citizens. What started out as a celebratory event to appreciate Greenlandic culture has quickly delved into a nationwide protest against recent comments from President Trump, claiming "'the U.S. will gain control of Greenland one way or another'" (Rasmussen, 25). Vice President JD Vance announced this week that he too will be attending the trip, and has shifted the focus of the visit from cultural appreciation to a matter of national security. 

Danish and Greenlandic officials have claimed they "see the uninvited trip as a provocation" (Rasmussen, 25), and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen noted that Vance's inclusion of national security adviser Micheal Waltz was a "'highly aggressive move'" (Rasmussen, 25). Greenlandic politicians claim the trip meddles with their national affairs, highlighting their current negotiation of a new government following the success of an anti-imperialistic party winning the election held this month.

Not all of Greenland is against this trip however, local resident Jørgen Boassen, an outspoken Trump supporter, welcomes Vance and his wife, pointing out that "he helped plan the visit" (Rasmussen, 25). In January, Boassen visited Washington for Trumps inauguration and has become a prominent member of Greenlands pro-independence party, Naleraq. His political activity doesn't stop there, he currently works for an organization called American Daybreak which "was founded by former Trump official Thomas Dans and promotes closer ties between the U.S. and Greenland" (Kirka, 25).

U.S. officials have also expressed interest in Greenland's wealth below ground, hoping to exploit earthly metals if given the chance. This is not the first nation Trump has attempted to intervene in, as reported from the Associated Press: "in January, he has pressured Ukraine into giving the U.S. access to valuable mineral resources, threatened to reclaim the Panama Canal and suggested that Canada should become the 51st state" (Kirka, 25). Nevertheless, Greenland's mineral rich geography is a strong source of Trumps interest. According to a 2023 survey: "25 of 34 minerals deemed "critical raw materials" by the European Commission were found in Greenland" (Reuters, 25). Extraction of petroleum oil and gas is banned in Greenland for environmental protection, and it's mining sector comes under constant attack from local indigenous groups who value the preservation of Greenlands natural beauty.

Ultimately, Trump's attempts to secure Greenland under American control will not be met without a fight. In the words of senior researcher Ulrik Pram Gad, at the Danish Institute for International Studies: "'Greenland has for the past 40 years moved towards self-determination ... All the influence over it's foreign policy and minerals, which it has wrangled from Copenhagen, is not something they want to just hand over to Washington" (Rasmussen, 25).

Sources:

- https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/greenlands-rich-largely-untapped-mineral-resources-2025-01-13/

- https://www.wsj.com/world/greenlanders-are-angry-and-confused-over-unwanted-u-s-visit-87e701c2

- https://apnews.com/article/greenland-future-trump-arctic-independence-denmark-minerals-4711a83c4490de99638db32029b668c9

Measles Outbreak in Texas and New Mexico: A Wake-Up Call for Public Health

A measles outbreak spreading across Texas and New Mexico has now infected over 370 people, with 327 cases in Texas and 43 in New Mexico as of March 25, 2025. Tragically, both states have reported at least one fatality linked to the outbreak (Reuters).

Public health officials warn that nearly all affected individuals were unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status (Houston Chronicle). While measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, outbreaks have resurged in recent years, largely due to declining vaccination rates. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that a 95% vaccination rate is needed to maintain herd immunity, but some communities in Texas and New Mexico have fallen below this threshold (CDC).

This outbreak highlights an important economic concept: negative externalities—costs imposed on society by individual decisions. When people choose not to vaccinate, they don’t just put themselves at risk; they contribute to the spread of disease, increasing healthcare costs, lost productivity, and avoidable deaths. With measles being one of the most contagious viruses in the world, even small declines in vaccination rates can lead to widespread consequences (WHO).

While health officials work to contain the outbreak, this serves as yet another reminder that vaccination isn’t just a personal choice—it’s a public responsibility. If you or your family members haven’t received the MMR vaccine, now is the time to check your records and schedule an appointment.

Tesla’s European Market Decline: A Sign of Waning Dominance?

Tesla’s European market share took a significant hit in February 2025, with sales dropping by 42.6% compared to the previous year. This decline shrank Tesla’s total European market share from 2.8% to 1.8% and its battery-electric vehicle (BEV) market share from 21.6% to 10.3% (Reuters). However, the bigger story here is not just that Tesla is losing ground but why it is happening and what it signals about the future of the EV market.

One key factor is the rise of Chinese EV manufacturers such as BYD and Nio, which are aggressively expanding in Europe. Chinese automakers benefit from lower production costs and government subsidies, allowing them to undercut Tesla on price while still delivering competitive range and features (Financial Times). Additionally, legacy automakers like Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are investing heavily in their EV lineups, leveraging existing brand loyalty and established supply chains to erode Tesla’s first-mover advantage (Bloomberg).

Perhaps most concerning for Tesla is that the overall European BEV market actually grew by 26.1% in the same period (Reuters). This suggests that Tesla’s struggles are not due to declining demand for EVs but rather increased competition and shifting consumer preferences. With European consumers placing greater emphasis on affordability, reliability, and brand reputation, Tesla’s premium pricing and sometimes controversial brand image—exacerbated by Elon Musk’s political and social media presence—may be deterring buyers (The Guardian).

The data suggests that Tesla is at a critical crossroads in Europe. While it still enjoys strong brand recognition and a loyal customer base, price competition, brand perception, and government incentives for non-Tesla EVs are shifting the balance. If Tesla does not respond with more affordable models, localized production to reduce costs, or a branding strategy that reconnects with European consumers, its market share could continue to shrink.

This trend also raises broader economic questions about supply and demand in the EV industry. Tesla’s initial dominance was largely due to a lack of viable competition. Now that the supply of high-quality EVs from multiple manufacturers is increasing, Tesla’s demand is proving more elastic than expected—meaning consumers are more willing to switch brands when given compelling alternatives at lower prices. If this trend continues, Tesla’s ability to maintain its pricing power may erode, forcing it to adapt or risk losing its foothold in the world’s second-largest EV market.

What is Maganomics and How Will It Impact the American Economy?

 Maganomics advocates large tax cuts for the rich and import tariffs to boost American businesses. However, these plans could harm consumers and increase wealth inequality.

Donald Trump’s economic approach, also known as Maganomics, combines America-first trade policies, tax cuts, and immigration restrictions to help boost American Industries. With the use of tariffs, Trump aims to reduce foreign competition and encourage more domestic production. His large-scale tax cuts for the rich and deregulation goes back to Reagan and trickle-down economics. The idea behind this is that tax cuts and deregulation for big businesses and the wealthy will help stimulate economic growth which will then eventually benefit everyone as it “trickles down” to everyone else. Lastly, his anti-immigration stance aims to prioritize American workers as it will limit the labor pool.

The effects of Maganomics though would be felt by both consumers and businesses. The new tariffs on imports would raise prices for manufacturers, which would trickle down to consumers in the form of higher costs to make up for the higher-cost goods. Lower and middle-income households would most likely be hit the hardest due to these rising prices as they spend a larger proportion of their income on everyday goods. While the tax cuts to the rich and corporations will just give them more money widening the wealth gap. And while reduced immigration might help boost the amount of job opportunities for Americans there is also a chance where this could create labor shortages making it harder for industries to find affordable workers. 

From a supply and demand perspective, Maganomics would shift the supply curve so that we would see higher equilibrium prices which could lead to inflation. Tariffs would raise input costs which would lead to a reduction in supply shifting the curve to the left driving prices up. Input costs might also go up due to these new labor shortages caused by anti-immigration laws. Ultimately, while Maganomcis aims to boost domestic growth its policies could distort the supply curve that could create lasting economic consequences.

Sources

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/12/maganomics-trump-economic-strategy-crash-crisis

https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/what-maganomics-1066616

https://www.business-standard.com/opinion/columns/what-is-maganomics-the-economics-behind-trump-s-america-first-125021402000_1.html

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Ban Birthright Citizenship

 Trump is asking the Supreme Court to allow him to end birthright citizenship and it is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration has recently asked the Supreme Court to intervene and allow a version of his executive order to ban birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Trump administration wants to clarify that those who were born to illegal immigrant parents or those who were here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas are not citizens by birthright. Trump’s plan would get rid of our nation’s 250-year history of citizenship by birth. So far no court has sided with the Trump administration though multiple district courts have blocked it from taking effect. 

So far around two dozen states and several individuals and groups have sued over this issue arguing that the executive order is both unconstitutional and unprecedented. The states are also arguing that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to those born on US soil.

Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project stated, “The president’s executive order is outrageously illegal and cruel, and it should not be applied to a single baby in this country,” and I couldn’t agree more. The 14th Amendment clearly states that all people born in the US no matter the status of their parents are legally US citizens. The reason why this is also an unpopular opinion is that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of birthright citizenship 127 years ago in the case of U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark. This just further shows why we need to not let this pass as in the past 127 years this decision has been untouched.

Conservatives though have taken a more narrow view of the 14th Amendment’s language specifically the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” Some conservatives claim that people who are illegally in the U.S. are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and are instead under the jurisdiction of their own native country. So overall they claim that children born to undocumented immigrants should not be granted birthright citizenship because the parents are not considered to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. However, this is false as the historical interpretation of the 14th amendment has stated that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen in the case U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark as I stated earlier.

Sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-asks-supreme-court-review-ban-birthright-citizenship

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/politics/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/13/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court-trump

The Influence of Trump's Mass Firings - And What Comes Next

Layoffs have been happening in the public sector since Trump came into office. And it has to change. 

Maybe this is common knowledge, maybe it isn't, but it's happening, and it's very real. When Elon Musk was instated into the US Government, he headed an organization called DOGE, or the Department of Government Efficiency. For simplicity's sake, I'm just going to call it DOGE. In general, this organization has done one thing and one thing only that's of any significance; try and get people fired. This seems... reasonable enough, on paper. I mean, sure, it sucks that people aren't going to be able to bring salaries home to their families for a while, or maybe they'll be behind on rent, but layoffs happen all the time. This is no different!

The issue, though, falls in the fact that it's the federal government that's experiencing these layoffs. A lot of people turn to employment in the public sector because it offers stability and consistency that private organizations do not offer. And now, plenty of federal employees have revealed their stressors when it comes to their lost jobs. One example of this stress includes a 54 year-old suicide prevention manager in the Department of Veteran's Affairs, who says that "when you have a purpose in life... and all of a sudden it's destroyed - you lose all hope." This is what the laid off federal employees, and the US as a whole, face in the wake of this crisis. It's hopelessness. And this feeling of hopelessness is one that's shared among many of the federal employees, no matter where they come from. 

Imagine spending your entire life building a career, finding a place where you feel like you belong, where you're making a difference...

...Only for it to be upended by a multi-billionaire throwing a chainsaw around. That doesn't seem fair. 

But the federal layoffs don't only influence the employees put out of work. Obviously. It’s held sway in plenty of other industries that affect the public’s mental health and their lives. The education department, in particular, has suffered a lot of changes. For starters, over 1,300 employees were fired on a single day less than a week ago. The effects of this change are causing anxiety among several people that are involved with the education department in one way or another. Alberto Carvalho, an LA superintendent for his local school district, for example, talked about the 750 million dollars his district receives for "poor students, English language-learners, students with disabilities..." In a word, minorities. These are people that rely on the Department of Education, even if they don't know it. Almost every US citizen relies on some department of the government, even if they don't know it.

But nobody cares. 

There might be some faint glimmer of hope, though. With the way our nation is today, a lot of people don't really trust due process anymore, which is reasonable. Mass media hasn't really helped with that. But the legal side of America is still strong, and it can still fight back if it has to. Even if it feels like Trump. Musk, and all of the people associated with them are going to get away with this, there are still people that think what they're doing is wrong. One of those people is the District Court Judge William Alsup. 

Just a few days ago, Alsup ordered almost 20,000 probationary employees firings to be blocked in the following departments: The Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Treasury. So it's a lot. The Trump Administration, of course, is trying to return fire. They claim that what Alsup is doing is a dangerous breach of authority, and that if Alsup wants some kind of executive power, "they can try and run for President themselves." Which is, of course, very mature. Still, Alsup realizes that what the Trump Administration and DOGE is doing is ultimately unlawful, and if they want to downsize the federal workforce, they'll have to do it right. It's definitely a start, and we can only hope that the public attention that the case is garnering will bring more attention to the issue of the mass layoffs.

Trump Administration Cuts $400 Million in Federal Funding to Columbia Over Antisemitism Allegations; Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Arrested

The Trump administration announced on Friday, March 7, that it was cutting $400 million in federal contracts and grants to Columbia University over antisemitism allegations. 

The statement said the funding pullback was "the first round of action" and that "additional cancellations are expected to follow." According to the federal government, Columbia University currently holds more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments, indicating that further financial repercussions could be imminent.

Columbia University said in a statement that “we take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting antisemitism and ensuring the safety and well-being of our students, faculty and staff.” 

This decision follows a series of attacks by Trump on higher education, including an executive order signed in January on combating antisemitism, focusing on "leftist" universities, and a recent threat made on Truth Social that federal funding will "STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests" (although what constitutes "illegal" was not specified, and the right to protest is a First Amendment protection). At least nine other universities -- including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, and UC Berkeley -- are also under investigation by the Department of Justice for antisemitism. 

Just one day later, Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent Palestinian activist who helped lead Columbia University's pro-Palestinian protests last year, was arrested and detained over the weekend for protests that Trump claimed supported Hamas. Khalil, a permanent US resident with a green card, was taken into custody from his university-owned apartment building by ICE and flown to an immigration jail in Louisiana, where his green card may be revoked. He is the first person known to be detained for deportation under Trump's promised crackdown. "We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity," Trump stated on a social media post. "We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country -- never to return again."

Civil rights groups and free speech advocates have condemned the administration's actions, warning that they threaten academic freedom and could have a chilling effect on protected speech. 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/nyregion/trump-administration-columbia-grants-cancelled-antisemitism.html

https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-protests-antisemitism-palestine-israel-9c209ce040e4b60d2702b40b9c2fb321

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/us/columbia-trump-colleges-antisemitism.html

https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-6964107d218dba43eb995d6dbbe528b1

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/doj-hhs-ed-and-gsa-announce-initial-cancelation-of-grants-and-contracts-columbia-university-worth-400-million

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-authorities-arrest-palestinian-student-protester-columbia-university-students-2025-03-09/

Trump halts tariffs on Canada and Mexico then threatens Canada of new tariffs

On Thursday, just a couple of days after placing the tariffs, Trump announced a temporary halt to tariffs on long time trade allies, Mexico and Canada for one month. Half of the goods coming in from Mexico and 38% of the goods from Canada that comply with the North American Trade Deal Trump enacted during his first presidency would be exempted from the 25% tariffs he enacted on Tuesday. 

Following the move, Canada's finance minister said they would hold off on a second round of retaliatory tariffs on US products. Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau announced on Thursday that he had a "colorful" talk with Trump over the tariffs where the President numerously used profane language. He also told reporters that the two countries will likely end up in a trade war and will move towards removing all the tariffs. 

On the other hand, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum thanked Trump for the temporary stop, and said she had an "excellent" call with Trump adding that the two countries would work together to stop the flow of opioid fentanyl from Mexico and the distribution of guns going the other way. 

The next day, Trump threatened new tariffs on Canadian lumber and dairy products. Trump stated that, "Canada has been ripping us off for years on lumber and dairy products," referencing Canada's roughly 250% tariff on US dairy exports. Canadian trade minister Mary Ng denied that they were "ripping" the US off and Trump's reciprocal tariffs are "unjustified." 

In response, US senior vice president of trade and workforce policy at the International Dairy Foods Association, Becky Rasdall Vargas thanked Trump holding Canada accountable for their tariffs but fears that the trade war could disrupt trade and lead to higher costs for US dairy farmers, processors, and rural communities. She hopes the countries can come up with a quick solution to prevent further damage. 

Trump has been criticizing the Canadian tariffs on US lumber for weeks and claims that the US will be fine without Canada's lumber. However, industry experts argue that that may not be the case. Despite having a large amount of timber (300 billion trees), they explain that the US lacks industrial capacity to produce enough lumber that meets the demand. Tariffs could lead to increased lumber and building costs, worsening the housing affordability crisis. 

The back and forth nature of Trump's tariff decision creates uncertainty within the stock market. Investors now have to face unpredictability and the increased risks associated with future profits. The immediate response to Trump's tariffs were a dip in stocks but rose after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's statement on the positive future of the economy, it rose slightly, highlighting investor sensitivity to economic signals and how quick the market can shift based on government actions. 

In this case, Trump's temporary tariff removal and the subsequent threats can be seen as relatively inelastic. For example, lumber is a vital material to make houses and dairy products are often essential to consumer diets. Even if their prices increase, the demand for lumber and dairy products won't decrease as builders still need lumber and people will continue to consume dairy making them less responsive to price changes. 

On the other hand, goods such as televisions and air conditioners have high elasticity as consumers can delay their purchase if the price increases. They are more price sensitive and the tariffs could affect their demand.  

We may be in for a long ride as Trump's back and forth nature of tariff decisions and the uncertainty within the industry and market is shaping us up for a rough future. 

Sources: 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/07/business/tariffs-trump-canada/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y03qleevvo

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gmjmymg0no

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/trump-administration-floats-exemptions-tariffs-canadian-mexican-goods-rcna195110

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/economics/trump-puts-tariffs-thousands-goods-canada-mexico-risking-higher-prices-rcna194542

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/canadians-drop-politeness-after-trump-tariffs-rcna195420

Trump issues "last warning" to Hamas, demanding the release of hostages

On Wednesday, March 5, Trump issued his "last warning" to Hamas, demanding that all the hostages in Gaza be released immediately. He even went far as to threaten that members of Hamas would be killed if they did not comply, stating on Truth Social, "Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you." 

This news comes a couple hours after US confirmed that they were negotiating directly with Hamas, which contradicts the tradition of not directly interacting with groups it considers to be terrorist organizations, with exceptions such as 9/11. 

Recently, Israel approved a plan from the US special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff that would have continued the first stage of the ceasefire through Ramadan and Passover instead of entering the second phase of peace negotiations. His plan included releasing half of the hostages, including the bodies of those who have died, on the first day and the rest on the day a permanent ceasefire deal is approved. However, Hamas rejected that offer as they preferred the original multiphase ceasefire arrangement. On Sunday, after the deadline for the first phase expired, Israel blocked humanitarian aid to Gaza in response to Hamas not complying to their new proposal. 

Trump's comments have caused some backlash as Hamas spokesperson Hazem Qassem comments his remarks would "complicate matters regarding the ceasefire agreement." He also confirmed that Hamas has fulfilled their side of the first phase agreement and the Israeli government was "evading negotiations for the second phase."

On the other hand, Trump's supporters have been glazing him with praise and offering their total support. US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted, "This is why I believe President Trump is the right man at the right time to deal with the bad guys and bring peace to the world." Additionally, Former US Middle East envoy Jason Greenblatt said, "President Trump's methods may be different for some, but his methods get real results, especially in the tough world we live in!"

From an economic standpoint, the opportunity cost for the US is at its all-time peak right now as they have to consider their limited resource allocations to Israel, pursue military operations, and address domestic needs. The money spent for those resources could have been used for domestic purposes, such as healthcare and education. Additionally, direct involvement in the conflict risks straining relations with other countries which could have long-term diplomatic and economic consequences.

Trump will now have to consider the trade-off of balancing security, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid. By interacting with Israel and negotiating with Hamas, he may worsen the tensions in the region but could also work towards releasing the hostages and creating a peaceful resolution. He will also have to think at the margin and evaluate the cost and benefit of changes in his strategy. 

Is this move of demanding Hamas to release the hostages worth the cost of escalating tensions, risking diplomatic isolation, and diverting resources from other pressing domestic and international concerns?

Sources:

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-844891

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-holding-talks-hamas-release-hostages-rcna194897

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/middleeast/trump-hamas-gaza-hostages-negotiation-israel-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/05/trump-hamas-hostages-over-dead-release/81668659007/

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mwln4p87do

https://apnews.com/article/hamas-israel-trump-ceasefire-bdc21f862b073dd478e0960ebfbf71e3

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-final-ultimatum-hamas-after-direct-talks-last-warning-2040279

Trumps First Month in Office

    Trump's first month in office has been a stressful time for many, with many workers being laid off and anger in government with the executive decision to create DOGE to cut “excess” federal spending, the first month has been nothing short of eventful. 

On January 20th 2025, President Trump signed an executive order creating DOGE, a temporary organization led by Elon Musk, with the goal of reducing wasteful federal spending and eliminating excessive regulations. This was a surprise to many as people are angered that Trump is able to make this happen. The democrats have complained that elon musk is in no way cut out to be in control of government and it is dangerous to give him this much power.

The next day President Trump’s immigration policies sparked legal and political controversy. His national emergency declaration at the U.S.–Mexico border redirected military funds for a border wall, raising concerns over executive overreach. Labeling Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations strengthened federal action but risked escalating tensions with Mexico. His attempt to end birthright citizenship challenged the 14th Amendment, facing legal backlash. Supporters saw these moves as necessary for national security, while critics argued they undermined constitutional rights and congressional authority.

On the 23rd of January, a highlight for many, Trump signed off on the declassification of assassination records, Trump explained he wants to promote transparency, allowing the public to access previously hidden information about historically significant events. It helps address lingering doubts, supports historical research, and strengthens trust in government by reducing secrecy around major political assassinations.

On the 28th the government made the Deferred Resignation offer likely aimed to reduce the federal workforce in a controlled manner by incentivizing voluntary resignations. By allowing employees to resign early while still receiving salary and benefits for several months, the government could cut long-term payroll costs, streamline operations, and manage budget constraints without abrupt layoffs. This approach also helps employees transition smoothly to new opportunities rather than facing immediate job loss.

On February 6th Trumps administration announced the dismantling of USAID, which involved plans to reduce around 2,000 domestic positions within the agency and place global personnel on leave, signaling a significant shift in U.S. foreign aid and international development priorities. USAID, which has historically played a key role in providing aid to developing countries, promoting democracy, and addressing global challenges like poverty and disease, faced substantial cuts under this initiative. Proponents of the decision argued that it would reduce government spending and refocus foreign aid efforts, while critics saw it as a retreat from international leadership, potentially undermining humanitarian efforts and the U.S.'s influence on the global stage. The move also raised concerns about the long-term impact on global stability and development.

Trumps CPAC speech on February 22nd, President Trump highlighted key accomplishments of his administration, including tax cuts, deregulation, and a tough stance on immigration. He also emphasized his efforts to strengthen the economy, secure the southern border, and challenge the political establishment. Trump framed his presidency as a fight against corruption and globalism, positioning himself as a champion for the American people. He reiterated his opposition to the radical left and showed confidence in the continued strength of the conservative movement.

To top off it off in in a tense meeting at the White House, President Trump and JD Vance joined Ukrainian President Zelensky in the Oval Office, where the conversation quickly escalated into a shouting match. Trump attempted to assert dominance, trying to come across as tough and "alpha," but instead just looked childish, arguing for the sake of arguing. JD Vance, trying to bring a level-headed approach, emphasized that diplomacy was the key to ending the war between Ukraine and Russia. Zelensky, however, explained that his country had already made numerous attempts to negotiate and signed agreements with Putin, only to have them broken every time. The atmosphere grew more uncomfortable as Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky, effectively making him beg for America's continued support, warning that Ukraine would crumble without it. Meanwhile, those present couldn't help but mock Zelensky’s attire, as he was dressed casually, not in the typical suit expected in the White House. By the end of the meeting, Trump and Vance’s approach had shifted global perceptions, leaving many seeing America more as a bully than a leader.

Trump's first month has been packed with controversy as expected, but hopefully he can make up for some of his decisions and become the leader he needs to be.

Sources:

https://nypost.com/2025/03/01/opinion/dems-lead-zelensky-ukraine-off-a-cliff-with-pressure-to-reject-mineral-deal/?utm_source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iyc4vuKFPo&utm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6tdzXqp-3w&utm 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-celebrates-mass-federal-firings-in-his-speech-to-supporters-at-cpac 

https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressmen-cohen-schweikert-and-burchett-write-trump-seeking-release 

Concerns about DOGE

 Well known Billionaire and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk, has been appointed by President Trump to be the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Which is a new department Trump has made to cut unnecessary federal spending. 

DOGE is tasked with identifying wasteful expenditures and implementing measures to streamline government operations. Its mission includes reforming policies and evaluating federal agencies to cut costs, often through privatization or eliminating redundant services. However, the department’s push for cost-saving measures could come at the expense of critical public services, making it a potential threat to programs that support vulnerable communities.

Musk came up as a self made tech genius comin dropping out of stanford after being accepted for physics, and made to tech startups in the “Dotcom boom” era, one notable startup being paypal. He then ploughed his fortune into SpaceX and Tesla which panned out well for him. Musk is a very debatable business man as he has made risky statements regarding what he has planned for the future of his business regarding human advancements. In the 2024 election he endorsed Trump and has become close friends with him. Enough to become the president of a federal spending department in government. Notice how not once has his past had anything to do with the government.

Musk’s experience in the private sector has largely been focused on pushing for less regulation and more market-driven solutions. Like trying to find cost effective ways to make profit. While this works well for a tech billionaire like Musk, the public sector operates under very different priorities. Government agencies are responsible for addressing social equity and public well-being, not maximizing profit margins. Musk’s approach could favor privatization, potentially leading to the loss of vital public services that many people rely on for their livelihoods, including healthcare, education, and social programs.

One of the most pressing concerns is Musk’s stated desire to reduce federal spending, which could result in cuts to essential social programs. If DOGE pushes to cut services that protect vulnerable populations, such as affordable housing, food assistance, and healthcare for the elderly—could be severely reduced. These cuts could disproportionately affect low-income communities and marginalized groups who are already living paycheck to paycheck or dealing with limited access to basic services.

Additionally, Musk’s lack of experience in managing public services raises doubts about his ability to implement policies that prioritize people over profits. While his companies like SpaceX and Tesla thrive in a competitive, capitalist environment, the role of the government is inherently  different. Public services are not designed to make a profit but to meet the needs of all citizens. If Musk’s policies mirror the business strategies that made him a billionaire, we could see the most vulnerable members of society left behind in favor of efficiency goals that only benefit the wealthy.

Ultimately, while efficiency is a necessary goal for the government, it must not come at the expense of equity. If Musk’s leadership at DOGE has the mindset of a business, over providing equitable access to services, we could see even greater divisions in society. The future of programs that millions rely on is uncertain. But hopefully Musk will come with the mindset of keeping the people first and making sure the vulnerable are being protected.

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doge/elon-musk-trump-doge-executive-order-rcna191751 

https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/elon-musk 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp820y16xvlo 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyjz24ne85o 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-doge-elon-musk-findings-trump/ 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/musk-treasury-social-security-access-federal-payment-system-trump/ 

            In the ongoing fight of Ukraine to resist Russia’s threat of invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and President Trump have been engaged in a lasting (and quite eventful) meeting over this past week to decide on the next course of action. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be a smooth deal for America to gain more access to Ukrainian rare earth metal deposits in exchange for the over $180 billion the US has provided to Ukraine and future aid devolved into a heated banter between the two presidents in front of the media. Trump, painting himself as a mediator and a middle party, said that Zelenskyy was “gambling with World War III” and was being “very disrespectful” to the USA, which has backed Ukraine. Zelenskyy went into the White House looking to gain backing from Trump and to persuade Trump to move away from Putin; instead, Zelenskyy was met with shouting and challenges to his character and decision making–keep in mind this is supposed to be one of the most formal settings possible, with two leaders discussing war and peace. 

The talks went well for the first half hour, with both sides showing a mutual respect and admiration for the other until Zelenskyy raised the issue of not trusting Putin’s promises to end the fighting. Zelenskyy asserts that Ukraine will not enter peace talks with Russia to end the three-year-long war–as he believes Putin is not yet willing to stop in his goal of conquest–until Ukraine is guaranteed security against another attack. And to be honest, it makes perfect sense from a logical standpoint. Ukraine has been resisting Russia’s advances since 2014, and it needs to know whether it can depend on the US as an ally or not. Instead of being assured by the American president, they were booted out of the White House for being “disrespectful” and unready for peace with JD Vance viewing this ‘transgression’ as broadcasting Zelenskyy’s disagreements with Trump to the public. Trump, expressing his anger at the insufficient gratitude shown by Zelenskyy towards the US, turned on the mineral deal, saying the Ukrainian leader does not have the cards right now and put himself and his country into a dangerous position (despite the war starting with an unprovoked attack from Moscow). 

In short, this does not bode well for Ukraine. Because of our administration’s fragile egos and constant need to be revered, the Trump-Zelenskyy fall out has been spectacular, as well as publicly covered by the media, and it leaves us and the whole of Ukraine wondering if relations will be repaired to continue providing aid that Ukraine still desperately needs.

Sources:

https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-security-guarantees-trump-meeting-washington-eebdf97b663c2cdc9e51fa346b09591d 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/a-timeline-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/trump-zelensky-europe-leaders.html 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/28/trump-ukraine-russia-zelensky/ 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2erwgwy8vgo 

National Parks at Risk Amid Layoffs and Budget Cuts

  

    Trump’s budget cuts of 2025 are his attempt to reduce the federal workforce, supposedly saving the nation money and staying in line with the Republican values of having a more hands-off government. However, protecting America’s national parks is an ongoing, nationwide project to keep pockets of nature preserved and beautiful, and these budget cuts are going to make that much, much more difficult. As of last week, 700 park rangers/employees have taken buyouts offered by the Trump administration, adding to the 1,000 employees laid off on Valentine's Day. Why, you might ask? Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has offered federal employees an incentive to resign now but keep their salaries through September, especially appealing to older employees. The unelected multi-billionaire jams his foot in the door of government once again, this time threatening our natural wonders that are so often taken for granted.

    In January, the Trump administration rescinded job offers for thousands of seasonal employees hired by the National Park Services who are essential in getting the parks ready to deal with the busy summer season, without whom millions of vacation plans would be disrupted and the health of our parks severely threatened. However, this past week, due to public outcry, the administration has reversed their aggressive firings and instead opted to hire an additional 3,000 workers for the busy season, bringing the total allocated number of seasonal employees up to 7,700, more than the last three years’ average. Despite this doubling back on their layoff policy, these temporary workers will not be able to make up for the loss of permanent employees who provide park expertise and operate facilities like restrooms and visitor centers, as the NPS has already been understaffed and working with 20% fewer staff than in 2010.

    Our national parks are extremely vulnerable; without proper oversight, problems with litter, graffiti, and even damage to the natural habitats run rampant, and larger issues like wildfire control, detecting poachers, and search and rescue will have even fewer people dedicated to managing them. To protest these budget cuts, park workers at Yosemite National Park exercised their right to free speech this week by hanging an upside-down American flag from the top of El Capitan, a gesture that traditionally signals extreme distress. For rangers and park staff who already don’t have an incredibly high salary, these positions are passion projects and dream jobs that allow them to protect, to educate, and to take in the natural beauty of our world. And we shouldn’t allow that to be ruined by a man who cares more about internet memes than what’s outside.

Sources:

• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-26/more-than-700-national-parks-employees-take-buyout 
• https://coloradosun.com/2025/02/24/national-park-service-usfs-mass-firing-rehiring/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20—%20The%20Trump%20administration%20is,plan%20to%20downsize%20the%20agency. 
• https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5164129-national-parks-hours-services-trump-federal-government-cuts/ 
• https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/24/us/national-park-rangers-layoffs/index.html 
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/upside-us-flag-hung-yosemite-national-park-protest-employee-cuts-rcna193409