Pope Francis Dead at Age 88

 

Pope Francis has died at the age of 88 April 21st, 2025 the day after Easter at his residence in the Vatican's Casa Santa Marta. Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church had announced the death of Pope Francis from the Casa Santa Marta. The Pope had been admitted to the Agostino Gemelli Polyclinic Hospital on Friday, February 14th, 2025 after dealing with bronchitis for several day. While in the hospital, the Pope's sickness worsened and his doctors diagnosed him with bilateral pneumonia on Tuesday, February 18th. He spent 38 days in the hospital but then returned to his Vatican residence at the Casa Santa Maria to continue his recovery. Throughout the Pope's early 20s, he underwent surgery to remove a portion of his lung that had been affected by a severe respiratory infection and as he aged, he suffered and experienced many respiratory illnesses.

Trump gives Memorial Day remarks

As Memorial Day rolls around, President Donald J. Trump is once again on the keys (of his X account). 

“HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY THROUGH WARPED RADICAL LEFT MINDS, WHO ALLOWED 21,000,000 MILLION PEOPLE TO ILLEGALLY ENTER OUR COUNTRY, MANY OF THEM BEING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY INSANE,THROUGH AN OPEN BORDER THAT ONLY AN INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT WOULD APPROVE, AND THROUGH JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER, AND RAPE AGAIN,” said Trump.

It's times like these when I wish that Twitter took that 280 character limit more seriously. It is shocking that nowadays, holiday wishes from the President routinely come with the words "scum," "destroy" and "radical" to describe fellow Americans who happen to have voted for not-him. Also, memorial day is one of the more somber holidays and his general flippancy towards it is somewhat disappointing for the holder of our highest office.

Trump is using the informal power of social media posting for nothing short of inflammatory mischief, causing widespread political division and brouhaha. Calling his opponents names is nothing new for Trump, but it still seems distasteful to be doing so on a national holiday commemorating soldiers, Republican and Democrat alike.

Trump also gave a more formal speech at the Arlington National Cemetery, where he spent some time praising fallen soldiers and their families but also took a few subtle shots at Biden, describing America as a "republic that [he is] fixing after a long and hard four years". 

Trump then went on to muse about the celebration of 250 years of independence coming up next year as well as other events taking place during his term. "In some ways I'm glad I missed that second term where it was because... I wouldn't be your president for that. Most important of all, in addition, we have the World Cup and we have the Olympics. Can you imagine?" Trump said, taking a sharp and confusing turn from the subject of military service and Memorial Day.

Trump and Vice President JD Vance at Arlington National Cemetery.

Sources:
https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-remarks-memorial-day-arlington-cemetery-may-26-2025/

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arlington-memorial-day-eeb602e8b4521ba2b7c79d2447dfefab

https://apnews.com/article/memorial-day-meaning-origin-048c817cd6b2dc2f728415b44385b2ee

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wishes-happy-memorial-day-122943323.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/26/memorial-day-trump-honors-fallen-soldiers-celebrates-political-wins/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/05/26/donald-trump-memorial-day-speech-watch-live/

Putin Strikes Again

In the wake of Russia’s most devastating aerial assault on Ukraine to date, with 367 drones and missiles in a single night, former President Donald Trump finally broke his relative silence on Vladimir Putin. “He’s killing a lot of people,” Trump said, adding that Putin has “gone absolutely crazy.” It's a shift in tone from a leader who has often publicly praised Putin’s tactics, even when they turn incredibly aggressive.   

However, Trump’s reaction, while louder than usual, still feels like it isn't enough. At least 12 civilians were killed in Sunday night’s barrage, with cities like Kharkiv once again under fire. This is not some isolated flare-up. It is the continuation of a brutal and illegal war that is now approaching its fourth year. And while Europe continues to increase sanctions, the U.S. response remains confusing, caught between vague peace talk proposals and threats of tougher action that never seem to happen.

From a policy standpoint, this kind of hesitation is dangerous.  When the U.S. fails to speak forcefully against authoritarian violence, it creates room for tyrants like Putin to push even harder. Trump’s sudden disapproval is a start, but if it is not followed by real consequences, such as meaningful sanctions, it is just noise.

Even more concerning is that Trump also turned his criticism toward President Vladimir Zelensky, accusing him of saying things that “cause problems.” That kind of thinking isn't just backward, it's also reckless. Ukraine is defending its sovereignty and its people from constant bombardment. If anything, it is Putin’s missiles and drones that are escalating the conflict, not Zelensky’s words.

This war is not only about borders. It is about whether democracies are willing to defend international law, human rights, and the idea that countries cannot simply take what they want by force. Calls for peace talks are important, but peace without justice is just surrender in a different outfit. The U.S. cannot afford to walk away if things get complicated. It must remain firm, not just with statements, but with action that actually reflects its values.

In the end, the US's reaction to the actions in this war are about deciding between appeasement and accountability, yet we've struggled immensely with that. And history has shown us what happens when we hesitate to draw that line.

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2wz74jdzo

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/25/politics/trump-putin-ukraine-airstrikes

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israeli-airstrikes-in-gaza-kill-38-people-including-children-as-noem-visits-israel

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-25/trump-says-he-s-absolutely-weighing-sanctions-against-russia

The Immigrant Reality TV Show

 Last Friday, a spokeswoman for The Department of Homeland Security said that the agency is considering creating a tv show that would include a number of challenges for immigrants to prove that they are the most American in order to obtain American citizenship. She says that it would be created to celebrate “what it means to be an American,” but when looking at it in the context of the struggle that immigrants are facing because of Trump administration policies, it can seem like a slap in the face.

To many immigrants American citizenship represents a new and hopeful life, and to play on that hope at the same time doing things like deporting children who are legal US citizens, seems in bad taste. 

However, is it really all that different from something like a Mr Beast challenge. Many Mr Beast contestants have dreams, things they could do if they won the money from the challenge that would greatly increase their quality of life, similar to how immigrant’s lives would improve with US citizenship. However, there are a few key differences. One, Mr Beast is not a legal entity, and there is a certain respect that can be expected from our government, which The Department of Homeland Security doesn’t appear to be showing in this situation. Secondly, Mr Beast contestants are very much getting a prize for very little work, whereas immigrants are simply looking for an opportunity to work hard, to strive for the American Dream.

Sources: 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/children-who-are-u-s-citizens-deported-along-with-foreign-born-mothers-attorneys-say 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/16/us/politics/homeland-security-immigration-reality-show.html 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/16/politics/dhs-vetting-immigrant-reality-tv-show 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/05/16/reality-show-immigrant-competition-dhs/

Australia’s devastating flooding

On May 18, 2025, a slow-moving low-pressure system (simply put, a big rain cloud that makes more big rain clouds) brought massive flooding to New South Wales. So far there have been 4 confirmed deaths from the flooding and around 50,000 people have been displaced and isolated by the floodwaters. Nearly 10,000 homes are at risk of flooding and farmers have lost entire crops and herds of animals, livelihoods that they have been building for decades.

It is interesting to note that the titles of both the articles from NPR and the BBC on this situation focus on the deaths and people missing instead of the economic impact and long term devastation that will haunt the people whose homes are destroyed. 4 deaths is a drop in the bucket of the number of people who die to preventable causes every day, but a drop in the economic output of an entire area of Australia, and the price to rebuild will have lasting effects on tens of thousands.

This is not to take away from the sorrow that people died in a sudden disaster, or from the pain that their families will experience at losing a loved one, but in trying to make a clickable title, it is interesting to think about how news outlets can often report things in a way that makes it difficult to differentiate from the massacre of 20 people in a shooting, and 4 dead in a flood.

The Australian government will likely respond to this crisis economically similarly to how they would respond to a recession. This is because there will be a drop in economic output, and the government will need to increase fiscal stimulus to bring the economy back to life. However, beyond spending to rebuild, there will not be so major a dip in the economy that it will lead to major changes in interest rates or other more drastic economic measures.

Sources: 

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/23/g-s1-68617/eastern-australia-floods-leave-4-dead 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/22/nsw-floods-drowned-herds-towns-underwater-farmers-nsw-devastation 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c861gqdd8x0o

Job Security and The Unstoppable Train of AI

Just the other day, Anthropic, one of the biggest names in AI right now and the creator of Claude, a "safety-first" AI model, said that their new model could work 7 hours in a row. This model is reportedly approaching working for a full workday without any outside prompts from a human. This is obviously a little worrying for us humans that this model is gunning to replace. Recently, with the nonstop advancements in AI on top of the deregulation of it (as covered in a Hitchhiker's blog on May 22, 2025), there is a question and fear of whether AI will eventually turn back around to create more jobs than it destroys in the long run.

One point often brought up by AI enthusiasts is that previous technological shifts - big ones that come to mind are the industrial revolution and the rise of personal computing - have ended up creating new jobs. These prior large shifts in technology have caused a sort of burn and rebuild in which jobs are first destroyed and then eventually in the wake of this destruction many more are recreated. However, there are a few conceptual flaws with this idea. Something that seems minor but is actually pretty major is the lives of the few who are ruined. While the loss of jobs may be temporary for most, for a select few, this initial burn will leave scars that will never heal. In the past, people who have specialized their lives for one profession have been left behind in the wake of technological advancement. A more broad and pressing flaw is that just because something has happened in the past does not mean it will happen in the future. These past technological advancements have been mechanical muscle - replacing human effort - whereas AI is more of a mechanical mind (Artificial Intelligence, duh) - replacing human thought. Instead of an aid, AI operates more as an alternative. A calculator still needs a person to punch in the right numbers. Anthropic's Claude can read the problem, come up with the equations, punch the numbers, and give the answer, for nearly seven hours on end without human intervention. And as we've seen, this will only get stronger, cheaper, and more widely accessible. 

This wide accessibility is something of a double edged sword. In the article "The distributive consequences of automation," the author expresses a central fear of automation redistributing wealth into already bulging pockets. This is certainly a justified fear. We already see AI taking jobs like Uber drivers and clerical roles, among others. Based on where we're standing right now, AI becoming more accessible looks like it will only allow these large companies to cut less important workers to pocket more profit. However, AI is still new, and we're seeing new forms of it emerging that work in different ways. ChatGPT is a closed-source model, meaning users cannot own or modify it, but they can still use it. There are new models, however, that fall under the bracket of "open-weight," which means that versions of the model are being released for free, for download, each version usable by anyone on any device they own powerful enough to run it (this is often referred to as "open-source," but is technically separate in the way that full control is still not given to users). Models like Meta's Llama or the recent breakout DeepSeek use this strategy for release. This is so important because, despite what the majority of news coverage and discussion might have you believe, chatbots prompted by individual users are a rather small portion of the use of AI in comparison to that by companies, in which many companies are building frameworks on top of these AI tools. This is all important because the rapidly increasing popularity of open-weight, and hopefully eventually open-source models will hopefully put power back into the hands of smaller companies and individuals, who will have easy access to industry-grade tools, applicable without a larger company's chokehold. Right now, AI is making the rich richer, but hopefully, as the technology progresses and becomes more accessible and cheap, the scales will swing back.

Graph from Aviso AI - https://www.aviso.com/blog/open-vs-closed-source-ai-sales-forecasting-dynamics

It's not clear how strongly AI will hurt job security or aid job creation in the long run, there is only the fact that there is much more nuance in this discussion than appears on the surface. Where we see hope for job creation, the uniqueness of AI's position instills doubts, but where we see fear of job destruction, the rapid advancement of this technology inspires hope for the little guy. Trump appears to want to give this train free reign to run wild, to advance as fast as possible, as seen through his "big beautiful bill" hoping to ban limiting AI development and regulation. The only question that remains is whether this technology will be a net positive, whether it will innovate and push society more than it confuses and harms it.

The distributive consequences of automation:

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2011/03/08/the-distributive-consequences-of-automation

Sources:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-4

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/tech/ai-anthropic-claude-4-opus-sonnet-agent

https://www.steveglaveski.com/blog/ai-and-the-coming-productivity-paradox

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/open-source-technology-in-the-age-of-ai

Joe Biden diagnosed with aggressive cancer

On May 18th, former president Joe Biden's office issued a statement saying that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. His cancer was estimated at a Gleason score of 9, meaning that it is one of the most aggressive forms of prostate cancer and has reportedly spread to his bone, which makes it more dangerous than earlier-caught cancer. Dr. Matthew Smith of Massachusetts General Brigham Cancer Center said that his condition was "very treatable, but not curable" and that treatments have the potential to significantly increase his life expectancy.

Because of Biden's prominence as a public figure, his diagnosis has caused a great deal of speculation, misinformation, and all-around political brouhaha.

Joe and Jill Biden with their cat -- an image shared the Monday after the diagnosis.

Joe Biden received well wishes from various figures on both sides of the aisle, including the Obamas, former second couple Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff, Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, and current president Donald Trump.

However, since his initial message of sympathy, Trump has changed his tune; he has long criticized Biden's health as a detriment to his leading abilities and has used the diagnosis to cast further doubt upon Biden's condition while he was in office.

Trump has made statements criticizing the doctors who previously deemed Biden fit for office: "Why wasn't the cognitive ability, why wasn't that discussed? And I think the doctor said he's just fine. And, it's turned out that's not so. It's very dangerous. Look, this is no longer politically correct. This is dangerous for our country." Trump also said "somebody is not telling the facts," implying that doctors and other people around Biden were deceiving the American public about his health and possible leadership.

People around Trump have followed suit, with Vice President JD Vance saying: "We [need] to be honest about whether the former president was capable of doing the job," reinforcing a common republican talking point that Biden's age made him unfit for office (despite the fact that Trump himself is only 3 years younger and 78 is not exactly spry).

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., recently tweeted in response to a post by an account called "Raging Americans" speculating that Joe Biden has had cancer for two years, saying "Everyone was in on the cover-up!" and asking, "Who was running the country?" which is a rather blatant way of implying that Biden was a political puppet or part of some broader conspiracy. According to DW News, these dangerous claims, including the original claim that Joe Biden has had cancer for two years are unproven. Also worth noting is that in the video, Biden is seemingly referring to common and mild non-melanoma cancer that he had previously gotten removed, not the serious prostate cancer that he is currently afflicted with.

Donald Trump Jr.'s X post.

During an examination last year, then-White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor described Biden as a “healthy, active, robust 81-year-old.” Obviously, Biden is no longer healthy nor robust in light of his diagnosis, but is this change a cause for speculation as Trump seems to be implying? 

According to a recently published book by CNN and Axios journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, "Original Sin," Joe Biden has been on a dramatic mental and physical decline that his staff worked to cover up. The book has been praised by the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and several other publications. This combined with his general public image for the past couple of years does support the idea that he was probably experiencing decline, but the speculative and sometimes outlandish claims made by Trump and his allies should still be taken with a grain of salt.

Sources:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-to-know-about-bidens-prostate-cancer-diagnosis

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-misinformation-after-bidens-cancer-diagnosis/a-72605716

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/former-president-joe-biden-diagnosed-prostate-cancer-rcna207571

https://abc7.com/post/trump-says-somebody-is-not-telling-facts-biden-cancer-diagnosis/16480205/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-george-clooney-hollywood-fundraiser-2024-original-sin-book-rcna206640

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/trump-allies-suggest-biden-hid-cancer-diagnosis-rcna207659

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/can-democrats-blame-problems-biden-rcna206307

Harvard Bans Incoming International Students

With political tension in the air, Harvard University has faced an obstacle in enrolling incoming international students which has been directly linked to the actions of the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Universities must be certified under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is overseen by the Department of Homeland Security in order to enroll international students on F-1 or M-1 visas. With this certification, it allows schools to issue the I-20 form which is used for students to apply for their visas. 

On May 22, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem ordered the department to terminate Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification (SEVP). The DHS revoked Harvard’s SEVP certification with the concerns over campus security for Jewish students. These concerns stem from the protests happening such as the many international conflicts like those involving Gaza that sometimes ultimately lead to tense or hostile environments.  

The DHS claims that the environment on campus may be unsafe for the Jewish students because of these protests as well as Harvard not sharing enough information about international students who may have been involved in those protests or disciplinary actions. The DHS chief also decided that Harvard should lose its SEVP certification because of its “failure to adhere to the law.” Noem also claims that the Ivy League institution had “plenty of opportunity to do the right thing,” but “it refused.” It is also believed that the removal of Harvard’s SEVP is a warning to other universities across the country which could potentially mean this could happen to other institutions in the future. 

Harvard has passionately opposed this decision and has filed a lawsuit against the DHS. Harvard argues that the revocation violates basic constitutional protections including due process and free speech rights. Harvard has also continuously maintained that they did not willingly withdraw from the SEVP certification and has been framing the DHS action as politically motivated, aimed to punish the university for its stance on diversity and equity.

With the DHS revoking Harvard’s SEVP certification it deepens tensions between the federal authorities and academic institutions over issues such as immigration, free speech, and also political expression. The Trump administration’s stance on this also reflects its broader goals to ultimately tighten immigration controls and limit foreign influence within these top U.S. universities. This deeply affects international students because it means that there is increased uncertainty and more barriers they have to face in order to pursue education in America’s top universities. 

This situation has led to a lot of anxiety among international students as some fear that they may not be able to return to the U.S. after summer break or even be able to graduate. The ban has affected more than 7000 current visa holders studying at Harvard . The controversy around this follows the broad crackdown on higher education institutions particularly those with the recent pro- Palestinian protests. China has also criticized the U.S. for politicizing education and warned that this ban can damage America’s international reputation later on.

Harvard has been an institution that has been fostering diversity and inclusion welcoming students from all backgrounds and countries. With the DHS revoking its SEVP certification, Harvard has emphasized that its policies and practices are meant to support a diverse student body. The university argues that punishing it for maintaining an open environment undermines core values and the ultimate goal and mission of higher education. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5315316-dhs-blocks-harvard-from-enrolling-international-students-what-to-know/ 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2k0pl3ex7o 

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/harvard-sues-trump-international-student-enrollment.html

The proposal to ban AI regulation in states

 As of late there has been much development in the world of Artificial Intelligence. This leads to the question of will all of these innovations be regulated? And how? Recently Trump proposed what he calls the “ big beautiful bill” and according to the plan enclosed in this bill, there would be a ban on limiting AI development and regulation for a period of 10 years, an additional clause included by Republicans in the House. The clause specifically says, ““no state or political subdivision may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems” (AP News). As AI continues to develop, it continues to be incorporated into more and more industries, expanding beyond just the tech industry and into industries such as healthcare and employment hiring systems. The bill’s proposal to ban states from imposing limits and regulation on AI could potentially cause harm to many. There is a large divide between the two parties over this proposal. This bill is especially controversial due to the fact that AI’s power without regulation and with no set parameters could potentially be a danger to the public. Many states have written in opposition to this bill as they believe taking away state’s rights to protect its citizens from potential harms created by AI is wrong and an over usage of their federal power. This bill while controversial did in fact progress through the House Budget Committee and after it will be facing the Senate for further examination. 

AI is currently making big waves in the tech industry but given that it is still experimental, the extent of its power is still unknown. Yet it is still continuing to be integrated into society in many ways. So should there be precautions taken when it comes to AI incorporation into our everyday society? Without regulation, it leaves room for harmful technology to be created and incorporated into our everyday lives because no one can predict what AI innovations will be created in the next 10 years or the full impact AI will make. Some have argued that this 10 year period could act as a time for people to learn more about AI and become more familiar with it. However at the same time, AI is a powerful tool that can be extremely beneficial to all but it can also have harmful effects so it is important to have limitations and regulations. 

Sources: 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/tech/house-spending-bill-ai-provision-organizations-raise-alarm

https://apnews.com/article/ai-regulation-state-moratorium-congress-39d1c8a0758ffe0242283bb82f66d51a

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/ai-regulation-ban-meets-opposition-state-attorneys-general-over-risks-us-2025-05-16/

On the Verge of Famine: Current Aid to Gaza is not Enough

Following Israel’s lift on the ban on humanitarian aid to Gaza in early March, trucks have begun to provide food, medicine, and more to suffering Palestinians. As much as this seems like a victory, aid agencies lament that the aid they are allowed to provide is not nearly enough to avoid spiraling into crisis. 

Aid workers face obstacles in many different ways. Aid agencies may drive trucks in, but the roads they are allowed access to by the Israeli government are highly crowded and at high risk for looting by those who are desperate. So far, two trucks have been looted. Further, the Israeli government has begun to enforce new restrictions on transporting aid. Further, OCHA writes that aid such as “hygiene products” and “fuel” are not allowed, critical products for palestinian survival and comfort. According to one aid team, they were stopped and told to wait for the “green light” to bring in the supplies, but after waiting they were unable to deliver. Setbacks such as these put those suffering at great risk. The new restrictions have not been clearly outlined as of now. 

Palestinians face the biggest challenge when it comes to malnutrition. The NBC cites an Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Report stating as much as 470,000 civilians are facing “catastrophic hunger”, with the entire population facing “food insecurity.” Further, a substantial portion of the population relies on water trucks as they are unable to access the water network, but these trucks are limited due to the restrictions on fuel. 

If aid continues to go in this way, the risk of political radicalization, desperation, and crime grows.  

https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/22/middleeast/gaza-aid-trickles-un-not-enough-intl

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/gaza-israel-palestinian-territories-netanyahu-aid-hamas-food-medicine-rcna208440 

Minnesota Attorney General Battles Transgender Scapegoating

 

       This post comes about a month late because I had to regain access to this email. I apologize.

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has taken a legal step by filing a preemptive lawsuit against the Trump administration, intended to protect the state from federal threats regarding the participation of transgender athletes in sports. The lawsuit is a reaction to the administration's recent actions against states like Maine, with warnings that Minnesota could face similar consequences if it continues to permit transgender girls and women to compete on teams that match their gender identity. Ellison argues that President Trump’s executive orders and enforcement measures violate the U.S. Constitution by circumventing Congressional authority and undermining the state’s established legal protections for transgender individuals. The dispute revolves around the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. The administration now says that this law prevents trans girls from participating in girls’ sports teams. However, Minnesota contends that this interpretation is ideologically motivated and legally incorrect. In his lawsuit, Ellison underscores how Minnesota’s own anti-discrimination laws and human rights statutes, some of which have been in place since 1993, take precedence over any conflicting executive orders. He argues that compelling the state to adhere to these federal directives would be unconstitutional and would deny transgender youth the chance to engage fully and safely in school sports.

Ellison's position has faced backlash from state Republicans, who claim he is focusing on political drama rather than ensuring student safety and fairness in sports. House Speaker Lisa Demuth criticized the lawsuit as a misuse of taxpayer money and raised concerns about perceived unfair competition. However, the lawsuit's supporters, including medical experts, parents of transgender children, and human rights activists, argue that the true damage stems from exclusion. They highlight that transgender youth already experience marginalization, and preventing them from participating in sports not only strips away essential opportunities for connection and health but also conveys a harmful message about their value and identity.

Steve Karnowski/AP

With federal courts providing inconsistent interpretations of Title IX and similar lawsuits emerging nationwide, the resolution of Minnesota's legal dispute could establish a significant precedent. As the Trump administration intensifies its executive actions against gender identity in educational settings, states like Minnesota are asserting their rights, championing both their independence and the dignity of their most vulnerable youth. As Ellison stated, this issue transcends policy; it is fundamentally about values. In Minnesota, the principles of inclusion, fairness, and protection for all children are non-negotiable.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/us/minnesota-transgender-sports-ban-lawsuit/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/minnesota-trump-transgender-athletes.html

https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-attorney-general-ellison-transgender-trump-c0a7c21a0b020b48c134b60ea3b8d08e

- Adam Pauling

Judge Orders Continued Custody of Migrants Meant to Be Deported to War-Torn Sudan

 Once again, as a result of the Trump administrations’ rapid deportations, the federal court is being met with immigration lawyers representing a group of migrants planning on being deported to South Sudan–a country currently in crisis. 

In response, Federal Judge Brian E. Murphey ordered U.S. officials to keep the migrants in custody to ensure they can safely return in the case of an unlawful deportation. Further, Murphey ordered the current administration to see those who are being removed, assess how much notice they received, and evaluate whether they feel a risk of persecution should they be removed. The administration has not responded to these demands. 

Through both a state travel advisory and the use of a temporary protection for South Sudanese immigrants the U.S. has consistently shown an understanding of the danger in living in Sudan currently, with Sudanese citizens facing human rights violations and domestic conflicts. This case reflects others earlier instances of supposed deportations to Africa and other countries not of the immigrants’ origins. 

This is once again a case utilizing the core American principle of Due Process. Judge Murphy is ordering the Trump administration to keep custody of the group of immigrants to ensure they are fairly assessed before any type of action takes place. Moreover, this case also illustrates checks and balances in action: executive actions are overseen by the judicial branch. 

The case, along with other similar instances–raise questions about the Trump administration's policy priorities. Unlike previously, the current administration prioritizes rapid deportations coming at the cost of safety with plenty of opportunity for confusion. Judge Murphy's response is opposition to this trend, highlighting the need for a more cautious approach.

Sources

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/lawyers-battle-trump-admin-deporting-immigrants-war-torn-south-sudan-rcna208114 

https://apnews.com/article/deportation-immigration-south-sudan-department-of-homeland-security-300e8c704402e2cb3c920d251b7fa876 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/20/migrants-may-have-been-deported-south-sudan-despite-court-orders-lawyers-say/ 

-Katerina Russell

Google’s addition to the AI overtake

 In recent times there has been a significant rise of AI technology. With its rising popularity, tech companies are facing more and more difficulty trying to stay in the lead. Artificial Intelligence continues to be developed further and incorporated into other technologies. After the creation of Chatgpt created by OpenAI back in 2022, Google has been fighting to keep its reign as the leading search engine. Pushing Google to create an AI chatbot of their own. For twenty or so years Google has been the most commonly used search engine but now following the development of AI, there have been predictions that will no longer be the case. Leading to the development of the new Google AI tool. A new mode of Google search that provides an option of a chatbot. Google’s goal is to gain back their lead in the tech industry after the rise of AI chatbot technology. It is meant to be a new take on google search but will it be as successful as they hope? The Google company themselves are still skeptical of AI and if they should contribute significant amounts of resources to this development. Much of the revenue made by Google can be attributed to their google search. However this is because people rely on its ability to generate correct information, and as AI is still experimental and new, there have been cases where past Google AI tools such as AI overview have had generative output that was incorrect. Given that this will be a major decision for the Google company, they have to be sure that there will be a future in AI. 

It was only until recently that Google noticed a sudden drop in the usage of their search engine. The cause? People are choosing to use AI over using Google. This is the first time Google has ever seen a fall off such as this one. The company had held off for some time given that AI is still relatively new and difficult to regulate. However Google in fear of losing to its long time competitors decided to put their worries aside and contribute their own AI developments. Creating the newly launched AI mode, in hopes of it being a new future in Google AI incorporation. As well as hopes that it will be more successful than previous AI tools launched by Google. This new AI creation is meant to be a step toward further AI incorporation by Google. 

On another note Google has had several antitrust cases in the past. Given that the business does hold a significant amount of power in the technology industry, there is much speculation surrounding the company debating whether the business holds too much power in the industry. Google not only has its search engine but it also controls advertisements and the google app store. Leading to many monopoly allegations and criticisms. After the newest AI breakthrough from Google, the US government decided it was only fair if other AI systems were allowed to use data on Google. Many web publishers are also unhappy with Google’s newest AI tool as it provides snippets of information without having to view the actual websites themselves which saves time for users but causes web publishers to lose people coming across their sites. As AI developments continue to expand, issues and criticisms like these will only continue not even just for Google but for other tech businesses as well. So has AI development gone too far? The question of how all of these AI developments will be regulated or if they will be regulated remains unanswered.

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/20/google-ai-mode-search-engine-developers-conference https://www.forbes.com/sites/rashishrivastava/2025/05/20/the-prompt-googles-new-ai-mode/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/technology/personaltech/google-ai-mode-search.html