SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Citizens " 600 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Trump’s audacious bid to end birthright citizenship was not an entire loss at the Supreme Court
When President Donald Trump used his black Sharpie on his first day back in office to sign an executive order in January 2025 limiting birthright citizenship, he said, “This is a big one.”
Advocates, legal experts react to key SCOTUS decisions
The court upheld both birthright citizenship amid an executive order by President Donald Trump to dial it back,
Advocates, legal experts react to key SCOTUS decisions
The court upheld both birthright citizenship amid an executive order by President Donald Trump to dial it back,
Trump shifts strategy after major defeat on birthright citizenship
WATCH: Angel mom turns tables on sanctuary politicians with basic question about their priorities
Jessica Gorman told lawmakers her daughter Sheridan “was not a talking point" as she accused sanctuary city leaders of failing to protect American citizens.
Jonathan Turley: This is a court that follows principle, not politics
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley argues that the Supreme Court’s upholding of birthright citizenship showcases its integrity and independence on ‘Special Report.’
New York immigration advocates laud birthright citizenship ruling
The 6-3 decision came down Tuesday morning.
Trump calls on Congress to end birthright citizenship after court defeat
The Supreme Court's ruling in the birthright citizenship case poses a political challenge for President Donald Trump.
Amy Coney Barrett Faces Right-Wing Ire Over Recent Rulings
Justice Barrett sided with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal minority to uphold birthright citizenship and mail-in voting practices.
Palace Theater and Downtown Gallatin offer July entertainment
Historic Downtown Gallatin, Inc. and the Palace Theater continue to offer plenty of entertainment and shopping choices to Gallatin citizens, both inside the air-conditioned theater and outside in the July heat. The Kids Summer Movie Series continues all month on Fridays from 10 a.m. until noon. July 3 will feature 2025’s “How to Train Your
Republicans float new ideas to restrict birthright citizenship after ruling
GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson said birthright citizenship has been "overused and abused"
Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump’s proposed limits
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring that children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens. The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the […]
Supreme Court rejects Trump's plan to limit birthright citizenship
The justices said Trump may not revise the Constitution and change citizenship laws in an executive order.
Supreme Court strikes down limits on party spending in federal elections
The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.
Supreme Court upholds principle that almost all born on U.S. soil are American
If the court had struck down birthright citizenship and upheld President Donald Trump’s executive order, the ruling would have had sweeping political, economic and social ramifications.
Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order limiting birthright citizenship
The justices relied on a long-settled understanding of the 14th Amendment
Supreme Court rejects Trump attempt to limit birthright citizenship
The Trump administration sought to upend the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment, which has long been interpreted to extend birthright citizenship broadly.
Fact-checking the Trump administration's challenges to birthright citizenship
Until President Donald Trump, few saw it as controversial.
Supreme Court could rule on birthright citizenship, transgender sports cases today
The Supreme Court is expected to release decisions on birthright citizenship and laws barring transgender girls and women from participating in school sports teams.
The Latest: Supreme Court is set to rule on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.
Supreme Court to rule on birthright citizenship and rights of transgender athletes
The Supreme Court will hand down the final opinions of its term today. Follow for live news updates.
Trump unloads after Supreme Court upholds late mail-in ballots in Mississippi
Trump slams Supreme Court ruling allowing late mail-in ballots, demands Congress pass the SAVE Act requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship.
Supreme Court will weigh Trump-backed Republican push to revive Arizona voting laws
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider a Republican push to enforce strict Arizona voting laws passed in the swing state after the 2020 election. The high court has allowed some similar rules to take effect temporarily before, including Arizona's proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections and a Virginia purge of voter rolls that the state said was aimed at keeping noncitizens from voting. READ MORE: Supreme Court rejects Trump's
Supreme Court to review the legality of mass voter purges in the weeks before an election
The Supreme Court will review the legality of mass voters purges in the final weeks before an election, as part of a larger case the justices are taking up examining the methods Arizona uses to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.
Dave & Buster's Entertainment (NASDAQ:PLAY) Earns Market Perform Rating from Analysts at Citizens Jmp
Citizens Jmp began coverage on Dave & Buster's Entertainment in a report on Monday. They set a "market perform" rating for the company.
Supreme Court issues opinions
Major rulings are anticipated this week in cases involving presidential power, birthright citizenship and transgender rights.
Rock Creek Entertainment District under siege in new lawsuit
A citizens group has sued to block Norman's $1.1 billion Rock Creek Entertainment District, alleging constitutional and Open Meetings Act violations.
Trump likely to ‘lose’ on birthright citizenship case, political analyst says
Fox News senior political analyst Juan Williams discusses the Supreme Court set to issue a ruling on birthright citizenship on ‘Special Report.’
Discovery Education Earns Five 2026 CODiE Award Nominations Spanning Math, Science, Digital Citizenship, and Immersive Learning
Discovery Education Earns Five 2026 CODiE Award Nominations Spanning Math, Science, Digital Citizenship, and Immersive Learning
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
How should European scientists respond to the US AI kill switch?
Earlier in June, Europe’s worst fears of technological dependence were confirmed when the White House ordered the AI firm Anthropic to stop non-US citizens using its leading models. This kill-switch moment crystalised anxieties in Brussels that the continent, lagging the US on the creation of leading-edge AI models, is now a technological of vassal of Washington. The shock has specific implications for European scientists and universities. Some governments are now worried that with AI being integrated into labs, Donald Trump now has his finger hovering over an off switch for European science. “Having restrictions on this tool, it can have an impact on our own research,” said France’s research minister, Philippe Baptiste, at the VivaTech conference in Paris on June 18.Baptiste, himself a former academic, said that colleagues in mathematics had recently warned him they were now cut off from leading-edge US models, risking their work. “This model is not available anymore now because of the US restriction, and for the first time this had an impact on mathematics,” a field where large language models (LLMs) are making a significant contribution, said Baptiste. So, should European scientists avoid relying on US models in the future? Or would this be a self-harming overreaction? And how is AI being used in science, anyway? What happened?On June 12, it emerged that Washington, citing cybersecurity concerns, had ordered Anthropic to stop non-US citizens using two models: Claude Mythos 5, and Claude Fable 5, a version of Mythos but with guardrails to prevent abuse. Anthropic said Washington’s concerns were overblown. But forced to follow the order, yet with no way to check who was using the models, the company suddenly shut down access for everyone, US citizens included. There’s still no agreement on how to restore broad access. But last week, Bloomberg reported that select US companies, and the US government, still had access to Mythos despite the ban, but the EU’s cybersecurity agency Enisa had been shut out. Class division of researchersIn the longer term, access outside the US should be restored, said Marcel Salathé, co-director of the AI centre at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne (EPFL), because a permanent restriction would be financially ruinous to US AI firms. “Even Trump will eventually budge to economic pressure,” he said.However, US AI firms might end up operating rather like banks, doing due diligence on users of their leading-edge AI models, he went on.European scientists are unlikely to fall foul of such checks, he said. But having a Chinese postgraduate in their lab, or doing a type of research the US disapproved of, could potentially result in access being denied. “It will create a sort of class division of researchers,” he said. More than frontier modelsHowever, successfully deploying AI in science is about far more than just having access to leading LLMs such as Mythos.Instead, many science-specific tools, most famously Alphafold, which predicts protein folding structures, require “far less” computing power to train than frontier models, well within the capabilities of European supercomputers, according to a recent analysis by the Arq Foundation, a Brussel-based AI think tank. Instead, tools such as Alphafold are possible because certain fields, like protein folding, weather prediction or astronomy, have large, clean, standardised datasets that can be used to train predictive models. Rather than compute, “data is the central constraint for AI for science,” the report says. For example, a less powerful physics model trained on CERN’s data “will be more valuable than the best model without certain data,” said Bengüsu Özcan, author of the report. European advantage?Europe could therefore steal a march by using its scientific data and infrastructure to create models US digital giants cannot. “They might actually match or go even beyond what these big [US] companies are doing,” said Özcan.Indeed, some European start-ups hope to create automated testing labs to create the kind of standardised data that could speed up the discovery of new materials. Materials scientists say there’s currently too little data to train models. AI scientistsHowever, even if the bottleneck for AI in science is often data, rather than compute, being at the mercy of the US for LLM access could still become a problem for European scientists. A new class of “AI scientists” based on leading LLMs is also emerging, Özcan’s report says.Unlike domain-specific tools like Alphafold, these try to automate day-to-day scientific work, by providing an overarching tool that coordinates specific models to synthesise existing literature, generate hypotheses or run analysis of data. The problem for Europe, however, is that these tools are sometimes based on US leading models. Google Deepmind’s AI Co-Scientist, for example, is built on Google’s Gemini LLM. Systematic failureThese scientific automation tools are still in their early stages, and still exhibit “systematic failures on scientific tasks,” Özcan’s report says. One of the problems is that the messy, day-to-day process of scientific discovery is largely not documented, meaning LLMs don’t have a good source of data to learn how scientists actually work. Meanwhile, some tasks, such as literature synthesis, don’t typically require access to leading edge models.However, the performance of AI scientific assistants could improve as companies such as Google pour resources into developing them. Rely on US“Unfortunately, for scientific assistants, there is not much we can do right now except rely on US frontier AI,” said Antoine Bosselut, a natural language processing expert based at EPFL. Chinese-built open models, which can run on local computers, lessening the risk of a shutdown, are touted as one alternative to US dependence. There’s also Mistral, once seen as Europe’s main AI hope, but the Paris-based company has seen its recent models fall behind in performance. But the Chinese alternatives are generally not as capable as US frontier AI models, said Bosselut, unless paired with fiddly, custom tools that allows them to act as independent agents. “Most scientists do not have the time,” he said. Don’t jump ship yetAlthough the kill switch moment is seen a warning shot for European scientists, it doesn’t mean labs should abandon US AI tools immediately. “I do not think the right response is simply to abandon US-based models and systems under the banner of sovereignty or independence,” said Mattias Björnmalm, secretary general of the Cesaer university association. “That would be an overreaction.”Related articlesEuropean sovereignty in AI requires ‘ugly trade-offs,’ say experts Robotic lab start-up makes case for €500M EU-funded materials testing facilityAI in science: is it useful? Instead, European researchers need to ask themselves whether they’re becoming dependent on technology that could be turned off in Washington, said Özcan. “They might not see this today, but they should really start asking this question,” she said. European researchers need a plan B, said Salathé. “I would recommend to every researcher, very proactively explore alternatives.”Own toolsIn addition, Björnmalm and others want European research institutions to develop their own scientific AI tools.Instead of signing AI deals with US digital giants, European universities should be using this money to create their own models, which may end up being superior for research, said Sabine Leonelli, an expert on the use of AI in science at the Technical University of Munich. “Universities in Europe seem to be happy to sign commercial contracts with US companies on the assumption [their AI tools] are better,” she said. But US frontier LLMs are typically opaque, and have been developed without independent scientific input, she said. “This is not good enough for science.”Last year, Swiss researchers released Apertus, an LLM designed to be completely transparent, from its development methods to its training data. The idea is that this makes scientific tools built on top of the model far more reproducible than with closed, commercial alternatives.“Europe needs more of this: serious capacity-building that gives researchers, universities and companies credible options,” said Björnmalm.
Trump abruptly cancels signing housing bill, blindsiding Republicans
Trump is pressuring senators to focus on his proof-of-citizenship voting bill even though it doesn't have the votes to pass
Federal judge bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.
Dunnellon to mark America 250 with fireworks, entertainment
This year’s Fourth of July carries extra meaning for many citizens, as it represents the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. For the first time in
Trump refuses to sign landmark housing bill, demanding Congress pass voter ID law
Trump demanded that Congress pass the SAVE America Act, the proof-of-citizenship voting bill, before he would consider the housing legislation.
Trump abruptly cancels signing housing bill, blindsiding Republicans
Trump is pressuring senators to focus on his proof-of-citizenship voting bill even though it doesn't have the votes to pass
Trump abruptly cancels signing housing bill, blindsiding Republicans
Trump is pressuring senators to focus on his proof-of-citizenship voting bill even though it doesn't have the votes to pass
The hidden stakes of the birthright citizenship case: healthcare for babies
The birthright citizenship case in front of the US Supreme Court is about much more than just citizenship. It’s also about an issue that was little discussed in court arguments: babies’ immediate access to safety net programs and medical tests that need to be done within the first couple days of life.
Arrests of immigrant parents create mental health crisis for children
An estimated hundreds of thousands of kids, most of them U.S. citizens, have been separated from a parent by the Trump administration’s deportation policies.
Ending birthright citizenship could be a public health disaster
If the Supreme Court upholds the executive order ending birthright citizenship, it could “have stark consequences at the intersection of bioethics and public health.”
Federal Citizenship Data Tool Cannot Be Used to Screen Voters, Judge Rules
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s providing federal data to states to check and purge their voter rolls violated several laws prohibiting the disclosure.
Judge blocks use of database to check citizenship in voting
The judge ruled that the system aggregated Americans' sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from voter rolls
Judge blocks use of database to check citizenship in voting
The judge ruled that the system aggregated Americans' sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from voter rolls
New Citizen Science Lab opens in Pittsburgh’s Hill District
The Citizen Science Lab cut the ribbon on its new innovation center in the heart of the Hill District on Friday.
Citizen Science Lab’s new home brings hope to Herron Avenue corridor
The Citizen Science Lab expanded into the newly renovated, previously long-abandoned Martin Luther King, Jr. Reading and Cultural Center in the Hill District.
For one inning, NBC Sports Philly cameraman became the main attraction
For a few minutes, the man usually behind the camera became the center of attention at Citizens Bank Park.
Diapers for Dignity: Program helps seniors access free incontinence supplies
The Area Agency on Aging Pasco-Pinellas is seeing an increase in the number of senior citizens who can’t afford incontinence supplies.
From Genocide to Africa’s Healthcare ‘Beacon’: Inside Rwanda's Turnaround
When global healthcare organization Partners In Health was invited to Rwanda in the early 2000s to support the country’s new universal healthcare program, it discovered a nation that had yet to recover from a 1994 genocide that killed up to 1 million citizens and decimated infrastructure. At a ...
Supreme court to release opinions with several high-stakes rulings to come including birthright citizenship
Trump’s immigration agenda is on the supreme court docket with rulings still to come on birthright citizenship and TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants
OhioHealth agrees to void contracts that allegedly punished payers for including competitors in-network
The U.S. Department of Justice said the settlement will save citizens of the state money and open up the market to competition.
Exclusive: Trump administration ramps up effort to revoke citizenship from naturalized Americans
The Trump administration plans to file at least 250 denaturalization cases by October, significantly intensifying its effort to revoke citizenship from people naturalized in the United States, according to a senior Justice Department official.
Exclusive: Salem business owner faces denaturalization by US DOJ
Officials are seeking to revoke the citizenship of a Keizer resident and Salem business owner, the first such case in Oregon in Trump's second term.
Latvia pilots citizen engagement in research grant evaluations
Latvia has introduced an element of citizen engagement to the evaluation of nationally funded research grants. The aim is to both create more connections between science and society, and to improve the quality of its evaluations. The move comes as research funders across Europe are experimenting with ways to improve evaluation processes in the face of a sharpened focus on science’s impact on society. Evaluators of grant applications submitted to Latvia’s Fundamental and Applied Research Programme (FLPP), the country’s main research funder, will this year have the option of consulting citizen feedback on challenges the public thinks science should focus on to inform their decisions. “In recent years, both public discussions and policy-level debates in Latvia have highlighted the importance of demonstrating how publicly funded research contributes to society, the economy and the resolution of real-world challenges,” said a source at the Latvian Council of Science (LCS), which manages the FLPP. “At the same time, research institutions themselves expressed interest in improving the project evaluation framework while continuing to ensure that funding is awarded to the highest-quality projects,” the source added. The citizen input comes from a survey that was conducted between 25 February and 16 March 2025, to which 1,737 people responded. It gathered information on what the public views as problem areas for Latvia, and the role of science and technology in providing solutions to these problems. A summary of these responses has been included as an annex to the FLPP 2026 call for proposals that evaluators can refer to, purely in an advisory manner, when judging proposals. Results from the survey show that the main problem areas identified by the public were in healthcare and public health, followed by the development of new treatment methods and medicines, and then digital technology, data security and cyber security. At the bottom of the list was research aimed at acquiring new knowledge about the universe, matter and the laws of nature. Further analysis looked at the public view of the possible role of science in solving these problems. The survey charted 4,167 individual responses based on open-ended questions that were derived from the participants’ answers. The analysis again found that medical and health sciences topped the scoring, with 788 responses referring to the field. Humanities and the arts were bottom of the list, with 625. Digging further into the details, the survey suggests citizens are aware of and concerned about a number of research areas. This includes technologies and innovation to improve the environment or reduce pollution, the development of modern military technologies and cybersecurity tools, and the development and application of artificial intelligence, among others. “We hope this initiative will help strengthen public trust in science and create a more meaningful dialogue between researchers and society,” the LCS source said, adding that it offers benefits to researchers, evaluators and to the general public. More space for citizen engagement in evaluationsThere is a gradual but increasing use of citizen engagement in research evaluation processes around Europe, especially in healthcare, but it remains relatively rare, said Henry Sauermann, a professor at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin and an expert in citizen science.“Given that we are at a point where citizen involvement is extremely limited, there is presumably space for more, but it's not that we should do it just because we want to do it,” he told Science|Business. He said some research lends itself better to having citizen input, and this usually tends to be on the applied end of the science spectrum where the public can offer useful feedback based on their experiences. He added that advising scientists on certain topics to study is also a useful approach, in the way that Latvia is doing. “The public does fund a lot of science, there's a lot of tax money going into this. We of course do want to preserve academic freedom, but it's also not unreasonable to incorporate more feedback or input from citizens where possible,” he said. Related articlesCitizen science: where, when, and how to let the public contribute to researchHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?Data Corner: Horizon Europe’s AI, digital and data call success rate is 5.2%There are several ways of involving citizens in science funding. The most minimal way is having a few representatives on a panel, such as members of a patient group or union. The most direct way is crowdsourcing funding for specific projects. There is an increasing number of online platforms that allow the public to chip in to support scientific proposals.Sauermann studied this in a recent paper and found that it can have its uses, but it still is not clear if there are benefits to it. There are various assumptions linked to citizen engagement, for example that it increases public trust in science, or that it provides a representative view of what the public thinks about science. These are not necessarily true, Sauermann found. People who participate in engagement activities tend to already be very trusting of science, and, on the whole, it is generally the well-off and well educated who contribute, giving a narrow view of public opinion. On whether citizen input can help manage the increasing number of proposals that are being submitted due to assistance from AI, Sauermann is more sceptical. “The obvious answer to the flood of AI-written proposals is AI-driven evaluation,” he said, adding that it doesn’t mean citizen engagement shouldn’t be a part of evaluations in a well thought-out manner. Southern Denmark’s successful approachOne successful example of citizen engagement in science evaluations was implemented in southern Denmark. Between 2019 and 2025, citizens in the region were invited to vote to fund one of five pre-selected projects in the field of healthcare. The project, called A Healthier Southern Denmark, was a collaboration between regional authorities, the University of Southern Denmark, and two media partners. Over the seven years, there were 75,000 votes and significant public engagement online and on social media. “It was a bit of a wild project, we’d never done something like that before and we were a bit nervous about what would be said in the media about it. But actually, people were very positive,” said Anne Kathrine Overgaard, one of the main organisers of the project from the University of Southern Denmark. The university and its researchers have learned a lot from the experience, particularly about engaging with society and shaping their research to match real-world needs. This is important with Europe’s increasing focus on competitiveness and bringing innovations to market faster, Overgaard said. She hopes to see more citizen engagement in evaluation processes and in science more broadly. “For many years, citizen engagement has been a bit of an add-on to proposals, just to check a box. But I think things are changing,” she said. It’s less about citizens just gathering data and more “about the dialogue between the public and the scientists,” she said. The initiative ended last year as the team wanted to regroup to find fresh momentum. The development of AI and AI-written proposals has made Overgaard reflect on how the project could be reworked to help evaluators. She hopes to bring it back in the future. “It could be a good idea to try this initiative again in a slightly re-worked format,” she said.
Beijing’s New Message to Its Citizens: Your Money Belongs at Home
Eager to keep capital within its borders, China is restricting the ways individuals can engage with global markets.
Supreme Court to decide if migrants detained for months must receive bond hearings
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the government may hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing, a case that could have significant implications for the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
Forty Fort business hits the mark: The Hatchet Factory earns $10,000 award
Denise Ogurkis’ ax-throwing gathering spot earns recognition from Citizens as one of the bank’s 20 recipients, from nine states, of its 2026 Small Business Community Champion Award.
Forty Fort business hits the mark: The Hatchet Factory earns $10,000 award
Denise Ogurkis’ ax-throwing gathering spot earns recognition from Citizens as one of the bank’s 20 recipients, from nine states, of its 2026 Small Business Community Champion Award.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Politics Unusual: NYC Schools Chancellor investigation, city budget conversation
In this episode of Politics Unusual, FOX 5 NY's political reporter Morgan McKay peaks with Andrew Rein, the president of the Citizens Budget Commission, about a potential finalized budget deal for New York City. Also, a conversation with Madina Touré, an education reporter at Politico, about the allegations the Schools Chancellor is now facing.
Google exits CBRS SAS administration business
The company is not accepting new customers and is giving existing customers until June 10, 2027, to tr | Google is shutting down its Spectrum Access System (SAS) business and telling Citizens Broadband Radio Services (CBRS) customers to migrate to a new SAS provider by June 10, 2027.
Hawaii law challenges Citizens United. Why it faces a lawsuit
A free speech group is suing Hawaii over a new law that restricts corporate spending in political campaigns.
The MAX welcomes daughter of Medger and Myrlie Evers for film screening
Prior to the screening, the Meridian chapter of the NAACP will offer a civic engagement workshop for Meridian-area youth about opportunities to participate as active citizens in a democracy.
Letters: Citizens United upended politics | Uncle Lou and the rule of law | UFC is a step too far
The 2010 court case, which brought corporate influence squarely into the middle of elections, tipped the scales.
Congratulations to the latest Boost Your Business awardees
Official website of the City of Philadelphia, includes information on municipal services, permits, licenses, and records for citizens and businesses.
City launches latest round of Boost Your Business Program
Official website of the City of Philadelphia, includes information on municipal services, permits, licenses, and records for citizens and businesses.
Justice Department moves to strip citizenship from 17 people in unprecedented denaturalization push
The Justice Department announced Monday that it will move to revoke citizenship from 17 people nationwide, marking the latest move in the Trump administration’s unprecedented push to target naturalized citizens.
We moved to Italy for citizenship. Then Italy changed the rules.
An American family had originally qualified to become Italian citizens and moved to Turin to speed up the process. Then, the government changed the law.
Medically tailored meals cut costs and health emergencies, study finds
In the US, the first large statewide analysis of Medicaid Massachusetts data reveals that hospital patients with diabetes, heart disease, depression, and other conditions who received home-delivered, dietitian-designed meals experienced significantly fewer health emergencies and lower costs of care than those who did not. At least a dozen US states are rolling out medically tailored meals in pilot projects through the federal-state health insurance program, which serves 71 million citizens who qualify based on income or disability status. Massachusetts is the first to offer this to citizens with diet-related diseases.
OPINION: Civility where art thou in today’s politics?
I've been asked of late if we as United States citizens, and even here at home in Arkansas, have seen a vast and downward decline in civility.
Hasan Piker and Cenk Uygur blocked from entering UK by Home Office
The US citizens and left-wing content creators with huge online followings were due to speak at the SXSW London festival and Oxford this week.
Political commentators Cenk, Piker say UK bars them over Israel remarks
The US citizens allege that they have been denied entry to Britain due to their outspoken criticism of Israel.
WALB Sports Director Aaron Meaux recaps GIAA baseball state championships
Citizens Christian Academy wins second straight Class A championship, Valwood captures first state title
Trump Squeezes Immigrants by Cutting Them Off From Jobs, Healthcare and Housing
The methodically planned strategy is intended to pressure noncitizens, including many with legal status, to leave the United States.
Judge says New Hampshire must loosen proof-of-citizenship rules for voter registration
A federal judge has said that New Hampshire must make voter registration easier by allowing applicants to attest to their U.S. citizenship if they don’t have the documents to prove it.
'SAVE' America Act raises confusion as Republicans continue push
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility – or “SAVE” America Act – was passed by the House earlier this year along a mostly party-line vote. It would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and impose new ID requirements to cast a ballot.
'SAVE' America Act raises confusion as Republicans continue push
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility – or “SAVE” America Act – was passed by the House earlier this year along a mostly party-line vote. It would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and impose new ID requirements to cast a ballot.
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Disease Screening – May 28, 2026 - U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Italy
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Disease Screening – May 28, 2026 Event: U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through designated airports for enhanced screening. Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan for the list of designated airports. The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at the designated airports in response to the Ebola disease outbreak. This requirement applies to all U.S. citizen and U.S. national passengers who were present in those countries. For travel information regarding non-U.S. citizens, including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports – May 21, 2026. Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports – May 24, 2026. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Disease Screening – May 28, 2026 - U.S. Embassy in the Dominican Republic
Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Disease Screening – May 28, 2026 Event: U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through designated airports for enhanced screening. Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan for the list of designated airports. The CDC and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at the designated airports in response to the Ebola disease outbreak. This requirement applies to all U.S. citizen and U.S. national passengers who were present in those countries. For travel information regarding non-U.S. citizens, including lawful permanent residents (LPRs), review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports – May 21, 2026. Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports – May 24, 2026. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Mayfield-Graves County Senior Center fundraiser auction to feature food, entertainment
The Mayfield-Graves County Senior Citizens Center will host impersonators, an artist and a world-renowned auctioneer for its June fundraiser auction.
Secretary of State Bellows removes/keeps transgender sports referendum from/on November ballot
The Secretary of State's Office says the referendum, "An Act to Designate School Sports Participation and Facilities by Sex," will not make its way to voters following a hearing questioning the validity of its signatures.
STEP - Health Alert: Worldwide Caution - U.S. Embassy in Luxembourg
STEP – Health Alert: Worldwide Caution STEP Alert Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 22, 2026 Event: U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through the following airports for enhanced screening: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 21, 2026 Hartfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 22, 2026 George Bush Intercontinental Airport, (IAH), Houston, for flights departing after 11:59 PM on May 26, 2026 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. This requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports Regarding Arrival Restrictions Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
U.S. Business Leaders are Quietly Plotting Their Escape to Europe: How Will They Get There?
A growing number of wealthy Americans are exploring dual citizenship or Golden Visas in an attempt to escape the U.S. for what they consider a better life in Europe. These are the options.
Worldwide Caution: Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening - U.S. Embassy in Madagascar
Worldwide Caution: Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening Event: U.S.-bound American citizens who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through the following airports for enhanced screening: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 21, 2026 Hartfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 22, 2026 George Bush Intercontinental Airport, (IAH), Houston, for flights departing after 11:59 PM on May 26, 2026 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at the above listed airports in response to the Ebola outbreak. This requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports Regarding Arrival Restrictions (opens in a new tab) Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Review the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening (opens in a new tab). Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak (opens in a new tab). If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: +1-888-407-4747 (opens in a new tab) or +1-202-501-4444 (opens in a new tab) Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
What to Know About the Citizenship Lists Trump Wants to Create
President Trump is trying to create individual lists of citizens by state to determine who can vote, even as his administration acknowledges they would be unreliable.
Worldwide Caution: Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening - U.S. Embassy in Chile
Worldwide Caution: Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening Event: U.S.-bound American citizens who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through the following airports for enhanced screening: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 21, 2026 Hartfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 22, 2026 George Bush Intercontinental Airport, (IAH), Houston, for flights departing after 11:59 PM on May 26, 2026 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at the above listed airports in response to the Ebola outbreak. This requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports Regarding Arrival Restrictions (opens in a new tab) Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Review the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening (opens in a new tab). Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak (opens in a new tab). If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: +1-888-407-4747 (opens in a new tab) or +1-202-501-4444 (opens in a new tab) Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Worldwide Caution: Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening - U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Germany
Worldwide Caution: Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening Event: U.S.-bound American citizens who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through the following airports for enhanced screening: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 21, 2026 Hartfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 22, 2026 George Bush Intercontinental Airport, (IAH), Houston, for flights departing after 11:59 PM on May 26, 2026 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at the above listed airports in response to the Ebola outbreak. This requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports Regarding Arrival Restrictions (opens in a new tab). Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Review the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening (opens in a new tab). Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak (opens in a new tab). If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: +1-888-407-4747 (opens in a new tab) or +1-202-501-4444 (opens in a new tab) Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 22, 2026 - U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Thailand
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Updated Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 22, 2026 Event: U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through the following airports for enhanced screening: Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 21, 2026 Hartfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) for flights after 11:59 PM on May 22, 2026 George Bush Intercontinental Airport, (IAH), Houston, for flights departing after 11:59 PM on May 26, 2026 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. This requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Modification of List of Designated Airports Regarding Arrival Restrictions Review the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) information on what travelers need to know about returning to the United States from DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan. Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates. If you are a registered user, you can manage your subscriptions by clicking the link below. Guest subscribers cannot manage subscriptions but can create a Login.gov account to manage future subscriptions. Manage Your Subscriptions
Philly is “a beast,” but it will always be special to Rhys Hoskins
Rhys Hoskins returns to Citizens Bank Park for his seventh visit, this time with the Cleveland Guardians.
Foreigners in U.S. must apply for green cards abroad, new Trump administration rule says
The announcement from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is the latest step by the Trump administration making legal immigration more difficult for foreigners already in the U.S. and for those hoping to come here.
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 - U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Thailand
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 Event: As of May 21, 2026, all U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for enhanced screening. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. The Dulles requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Health Alert – Worldwide Caution - U.S. Embassy in Argentina
Health Alert – Worldwide Caution Health Alert – Worldwide Caution Health Alert May 21, 2026 Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening Event: As of May 21, 2026, all U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for enhanced screening. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. The Dulles requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening(opens in a new tab). Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates. For updates on the situation, click here.
Judge recommends Maine transgender sports referendum be invalidated
A judge has ruled that the proponents of the referendum, “An Act to Designate School Sports Participation and Facilities by Sex” has too many invalid signatures. It will be up to Secretary of State Shenna Bellows to make a final decision on whether or not it will appear on the November ballot.
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 - U.S. Embassy in the Dominican Republic
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 Event: As of May 21, 2026, all U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for enhanced screening. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. The Dulles requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 - U.S. Embassy In Nicaragua
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening Event: As of May 21, 2026, all U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for enhanced screening. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. The Dulles requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: Phone: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 - U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Brazil
Health Alert: Worldwide Caution – Public Health Arrival Restrictions and Enhanced Ebola Screening – May 21, 2026 Event: As of May 21, 2026, all U.S.-bound American citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who have been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, or South Sudan within 21 days of arrival in the United States must only enter through Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for enhanced screening. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will apply enhanced public health screening at IAD in response to the Ebola outbreak. The Dulles requirement applies to all passengers, including U.S. citizens and LPRs, who were present in those countries. Please be prepared for flight changes or cancellations. Actions to take: Read the Department of Homeland Security Alert on Enhanced Ebola Screening. Review Consular Information for Americans Regarding the Ebola Outbreak. If you are planning to travel to the United States, contact your airline to confirm your flight and route. You may also contact the State Department – Consular Affairs: +1-888-407-4747 or +1-202-501-4444 Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive safety and security updates.
Trump orders banks to take closer look at clients' citizenship
The order instructs bank regulators and government departments to identify signs of people without legal status opening accounts or obtaining loans
Trump orders banks to take closer look at clients' citizenship
The order instructs bank regulators and government departments to identify signs of people without legal status opening accounts or obtaining loans