The United Farm Workers announced Tuesday that it will not participate in any Cesar Chavez Day activities this year, confirming that allegations of abuse involving young women and minors have been made against the former labor union leader whose name adorns a federal holiday.
The announcement arrived ahead of what would have been Chavez's 99th birthday, as several local organizations across the country began canceling their own celebrations in anticipation of an upcoming story detailing what the UFW described as "deeply troubling allegations."
The details remain sparse. The UFW acknowledged it has no firsthand knowledge of the claims. But the union's own language tells you how seriously the organization is treating them:
"However, the allegations are serious enough that we feel compelled to take urgent steps to learn more and provide space for people who may have been victimized to find support and to share their stories if that is what they choose."
It is unclear at this time what the source of the allegations is and the specific details surrounding them. What is clear is that the institutions built in Chavez's name are moving fast to distance themselves from the man himself.
According to Fox News, the Cesar Chavez Foundation released its own statement Tuesday, announcing a joint effort with the UFW to create what it called "a safe and confidential process for those who wish to share their experiences of historic harm." The Foundation also said it is investing resources to ensure its workplace culture is "safe and welcoming for all."
"We ask for our community's patience as we learn more. Throughout this process, our organization and our partners in the movement will continue our work together to protect and uplift the families and communities that we serve."
Read that again carefully. The Foundation isn't denying anything. It isn't pushing back. It is building an infrastructure for victims to come forward. That is not the posture of an organization that believes these allegations will evaporate.
Cesar Chavez has occupied a singular place in the progressive pantheon for decades. Streets bear his name. Schools bear his name. A federal holiday bears his name. His image has been deployed by the left as shorthand for moral authority on labor, immigration, and civil rights.
The irony is thick enough to cut. Chávez himself previously spoke out against illegal immigration, a fact the modern left has spent years quietly burying because it complicates their open-borders narrative. The man they turned into a symbol for mass immigration actually opposed it. Now the man they turned into a symbol of justice for the vulnerable may have victimized the most vulnerable people imaginable.
This is a pattern the left never seems to learn from. Build a cult of personality around a political figure. Suppress any inconvenient facts about them. Use their name as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with your policy agenda. Then act shocked when the full truth surfaces, 22 years after his death.
Conservatives have watched this cycle before:
The UFW's pivot is instructive. Rather than address the Chavez allegations directly, the union urged supporters to redirect their energy toward "immigration justice events and acts of service to support farmworkers." The iconography crumbles, but the political project must continue. The messenger changes; the message stays the same.
The upcoming story that triggered this wave of preemptive cancellations has not yet been published. When it lands, it will test whether the institutions that canonized Chavez are willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, or whether they'll manage the fallout just enough to preserve his political usefulness.
If the allegations involve the abuse of minors during his time leading the UFW, the questions won't stop at Chavez. They'll extend to everyone who knew, everyone who stayed silent, and every institution that wrapped itself in his legacy without asking hard questions.
The UFW says it has no firsthand knowledge. The Foundation says it wants patience. Across the country, events are going dark. Nobody is defending Chavez on the merits. That silence carries its own weight.
The street signs are still up. The holiday is still on the calendar. But the man behind them is about to be examined in a light his allies spent decades making sure never reached him.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled Monday that the Trump administration may continue deporting illegal immigrants to countries where they have no ties while a legal challenge plays out. The 2-1 decision lifts limits imposed by a lower court judge and keeps his order halted until the appeal is fully resolved.
The panel also expedited the schedule for the next stage of the case, signaling that a final resolution may come faster than the usual appellate crawl. The ruling contained no explanation from the majority, which let the action speak for itself.
According to The Hill, the two judges in the majority were Jeffrey Howard, nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Seth Aframe, nominated by former President Biden. The sole dissenter was Lara Montecalvo, a Biden nominee. That a Biden appointee joined the majority is notable. It suggests the administration's legal position carries weight beyond partisan lines.
The case originated with U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, another Biden nominee, who oversees a class action lawsuit filed by four noncitizens a year ago. Murphy had required the administration to first attempt removal to a migrant's home country or country of citizenship before sending them elsewhere. He also ruled that migrants must receive a "meaningful opportunity" to contest their deportation once a third country is selected.
In his final ruling last month, Murphy said material differences had emerged in the case and blocked the policy once again. His own words were blunt:
"It is not fine, nor is it legal."
The appeals court disagreed. Or at minimum, it decided Murphy's restrictions should not stand while the government makes its case.
As part of its aggressive immigration crackdown, the Trump administration has ramped up sending illegal immigrants to places other than their home countries. It has struck deals with Cameroon, South Sudan, and Eswatini, among other nations, to take in deportees. The strategy targets a persistent logjam in immigration enforcement: countries that refuse to accept their own citizens back. If a home country won't cooperate, the administration now has alternatives.
This is not a new fight. Last year, the Trump administration went to the Supreme Court and won after Murphy limited third-country removals at an earlier stage of the case. Monday's ruling continues that pattern of appellate courts siding with the executive branch's authority to enforce removal.
A DHS spokesperson said the administration had "once again been vindicated" and framed the stakes in direct terms:
"The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and the Trump Administration has the authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare."
DHS also aimed the lower court resistance:
"If these activists judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets."
The broader dynamic here is one conservatives have watched for years. A district judge, often appointed by a Democratic president, issues a sweeping injunction against immigration enforcement. The administration appeals. A higher court stays the injunction or overturns it. Repeat.
It is a cycle designed to delay, not to adjudicate. Each injunction buys weeks or months during which enforcement is frozen, and the status quo of non-removal continues. Even when the government wins on appeal, the time lost is enforcement that never happened, deportations that never occurred, and illegal immigrants who remained in the country while lawyers argued about the process.
Murphy's insistence that migrants receive a "meaningful opportunity" to contest removal to a specific third country sounds reasonable in a law school seminar. In practice, it creates another procedural chokepoint in a system already drowning in them. Every additional hearing requirement is another delay. Every delay is another month someone remains in the United States instead of being removed.
Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents the migrants in the case, acknowledged the setback while highlighting the expedited timeline:
"While the order unfortunately delays implementation of the decision, we appreciate that the First Circuit ordered a swift resolution of the merits of the government's appeal."
Note the framing. The ruling that allows deportations to continue is characterized as a "delay" of the decision blocking deportations. In this worldview, the default state is that enforcement is halted, and any period where the government actually exercises its removal authority is a temporary aberration. That tells you everything about the assumptions driving the legal challenge.
The expedited schedule means the 1st Circuit will hear the merits of the government's appeal on a faster track. The administration has mainly argued that federal judges have no authority to intervene in these removal decisions at all, a position that, if accepted, would shut down the entire line of attack.
For now, the policy stands. Illegal immigrants can be removed to third countries. The deals with Cameroon, South Sudan, Eswatini, and others remain operational. And the administration's record in appellate courts on this question continues to build.
Canadian police have charged two Iranian residents of Vancouver with first-degree murder in connection with the killing of Masoud Masjoudi, an activist who opposed the Islamic Republic. The remains of Masjoudi, an Iranian-born mathematician who lived in British Columbia, were discovered on March 6 in the city of Mission, near Vancouver.
The suspects, 48-year-old Mehdi Ahmadzadeh Razavi of Maple Ridge and 45-year-old Arezoo Soltani of North Vancouver, were arrested on Friday, March 13. Investigators believe the killing appears to have been "targeted." The investigation is still ongoing.
Police are also examining whether Masjoudi's disappearance and murder may be connected to political activities related to Iran, although no conclusion has been announced.
According to Iranwire, Masjoudi was among the earliest members of "Farashgard," a group that supported a prominent role for Prince Reza Pahlavi, although he later distanced himself from the group. His opposition to the Iranian regime made him a figure of interest in the Canadian-Iranian community, and his disappearance triggered immediate alarm among those who understood what it might mean.
Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay, a prominent member of the Canadian-Iranian community and well-known human rights activist, wrote on social media shortly after Masjoudi's disappearance that he had been "under threat for months." MacKay, the wife of former Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay, claimed Masjoudi had been trying to expose affiliates of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Canada.
That claim has not been officially corroborated. But the speed with which the community connected Masjoudi's disappearance to the Iranian regime tells its own story. These fears don't materialize from nothing.
Sergeant Fereda Fong of the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team acknowledged the weight of this case in a statement:
"We know this case has impacted the Iranian community and has sparked widespread public concern and attention."
That's a careful statement from law enforcement in an active investigation. But read what it concedes: the Iranian community felt the impact immediately, and the public concern was "widespread." When a dissident who opposed the Islamic Republic turns up dead in a Western democracy, and investigators call the killing "targeted," the political implications don't require a final police conclusion to be visible.
Western nations have spent years grappling with the reality that authoritarian regimes do not respect borders when it comes to silencing their critics. Iran, in particular, has a well-documented history of pursuing dissidents abroad. Canada, with its large Iranian diaspora and its historically permissive immigration posture, presents an obvious environment for such operations.
The question is not whether hostile foreign governments attempt to intimidate and harm dissidents on Western soil. The question is what Western governments are prepared to do about it.
Canada has long positioned itself as a haven for refugees, dissidents, and those fleeing persecution. That brand means nothing if the people who flee to Canada end up dead at the hands of agents connected to the regimes they escaped. A country that cannot protect political dissidents within its own borders is not a sanctuary. It is a hunting ground with better scenery.
The arrests of Razavi and Soltani are a necessary step. First-degree murder charges indicate premeditation, which aligns with the "targeted" characterization from investigators. But arrests are the floor, not the ceiling. If this killing is ultimately connected to a foreign state's campaign of repression, the response must extend far beyond a criminal prosecution of two individuals.
Conservative critics of Canada's national security posture have raised these concerns for years. The IRGC has operated with alarming freedom in Western countries, building networks that serve Tehran's interests while host governments debate whether to designate them as the threat they plainly are. Every delay in confronting that reality creates space for exactly this kind of outcome.
The investigation remains ongoing. Police have not drawn a conclusion about the political dimensions of Masjoudi's killing. That caution is appropriate for law enforcement. It should not, however, become an excuse for political inaction.
If a man can be killed in British Columbia for opposing the Iranian regime, and the suspects are Iranian nationals living freely in Canadian cities, then Canada's immigration vetting, its intelligence posture, and its willingness to confront state-sponsored threats all deserve scrutiny. Not after the investigation concludes. Now.
Masoud Masjoudi came to Canada and used his freedom to oppose tyranny. That freedom was supposed to be the whole point.
A 39-year-old man who reportedly worked as a member of Rep. Jasmine Crockett's security team was shot and killed by Dallas police after he pointed a gun at officers during a standoff in a hospital parking lot.
Officers with the Dallas Fugitive Unit were investigating a "wanted suspect" when the man barricaded himself in a vehicle at the Children's Medical Center parking lot. Dallas Police Chief Daniel C. Comeaux said the man exited the vehicle with a gun, pointed it at officers, and was shot. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
The man was later formally identified by sources, through CBS News Texas, as Diamon-Mazairre Robinson. He reportedly went by the alias "Mike King."
Robinson reportedly used the alias Mike King to establish several businesses and oversaw teams of security officers at several downtown Dallas hotels and at his church. According to CBS News Texas, he had a history of arrests leading to misdemeanor and felony charges.
That a man with that kind of background was reportedly entrusted with the physical safety of a sitting member of Congress raises questions that deserve answers. Crockett, 44, is a Democrat from Texas and a U.S. Senate candidate. The connection between Robinson and her security operation was reported by CBS News Texas and Fox 4, citing sources, as People reports.
Neither Crockett's press office nor the Dallas Police Department responded to requests for comment from PEOPLE, which first reported the story.
The silence from Crockett's office is notable. A member of your security team dies in a police shootout in a children's hospital parking lot, and the public gets nothing. No statement. No acknowledgment. No explanation of the vetting process that put this individual in a position of trust around a federal lawmaker.
This is a woman running for the United States Senate. Voters in Texas are entitled to know how her team selects the people responsible for her protection, whether those individuals undergo background checks, and what her office knew about Robinson's criminal history and use of an alias.
If the roles were reversed, if a Republican member of Congress had a former security team member killed in a standoff with police after drawing a weapon on officers, there would already be demands for a full accounting from every major newsroom in the country. The asymmetry is predictable at this point, but it doesn't make it less instructive.
The location of this incident deserves its own moment of recognition. This was the Children's Medical Center parking lot. Families bring their sick children there. The Dallas Fugitive Unit tracked a wanted suspect to that location, and the confrontation that followed unfolded in a space where parents walk their kids to oncology appointments and surgical consultations.
The officers involved made the call they had to make when a man pointed a firearm at them. That is the reality of law enforcement when a suspect forces the situation. Every officer who responded went home that day. The man who pointed a gun at them did not. That sequence of events has a cause, and it starts with the choices Robinson made.
Chief Comeaux held a press conference that was shared on social media on Wednesday, March 11, laying out the basic facts. The investigation will continue through normal channels. But the political dimension of this story is only beginning.
Crockett is in the middle of a Senate campaign. She spoke at a Texas primary election night event on March 3. The timeline means this story landed in the middle of an active political operation, which makes her office's silence a strategic choice, not an oversight.
Texas voters should expect more from a candidate who wants to represent 30 million people. When someone on your team dies in a shootout with police, you don't get to say anything. You owe the public an explanation of who he was, how he got hired, and what your office knew. That is not an unfair standard. It is the minimum.
The facts here are still emerging, and Robinson's precise role and the full scope of his background have yet to be confirmed beyond sourced reporting. But the confirmed details alone, a wanted suspect, a criminal history, an alias used to run businesses, a fatal confrontation with law enforcement, paint a picture that demands scrutiny, not silence.
Crockett's office can answer questions now, or answer them later under far less favorable conditions. That choice is hers.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt unloaded on CNN Friday, calling a report that President Trump's national security team failed to anticipate Iran's potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz "100% FAKE NEWS."
The rebuke came after CNN reported Thursday that Trump's national security team "failed to fully account for the potential consequences" of U.S. strikes, specifically the possibility that Iran would move to shut down the strait, through which roughly one-fifth of the world's oil shipments pass.
Leavitt didn't mince words on X:
"The idea that chairman Cain and Secretary Hegseth weren't prepared for this possibility is PREPOSTEROUS."
She went further, pointing out that neutralizing Iran's ability to threaten the strait was baked into the operation itself:
"The President was fully briefed on it, and a goal of the Operation itself, to annihilate the terrorist Iranian regime's navy, missiles, drone production infrastructure, and other threat capabilities is quite literally intended to deprive them of their ability to close the Strait."
Read that again. The entire point of Operation Epic Fury was to destroy the Iranian regime's capacity to hold global shipping hostage. CNN's thesis is that the administration never considered the very thing the operation was designed to prevent, as Fox News reports.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth blasted the report during remarks at the Pentagon Friday, calling it "more fake news from CNN" and "patently ridiculous."
Hegseth framed the threat in terms that anyone paying attention for the last several decades would recognize:
"For decades, Iran has threatened shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This is always what they do, hold the strait hostage."
Then the line that landed hardest: "CNN doesn't think we thought of that."
Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, added his own assessment on X, and it wasn't subtle:
"As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, let me make clear: whoever leaked this lied."
He followed up with a suggestion CNN might want to consider: "CNN should do some fact-checking."
Here's where it gets interesting. CNN issued a clarification to the story on Friday. The updated version now acknowledges that "top Trump administration officials briefed lawmakers on long-standing military plans to address a major disruption to the Strait, according to one official." That's a significant concession buried inside an update.
But the clarification also tried to thread a needle, noting that "multiple sources familiar with the session said there was no indication there were any near-term solutions." The original report leaned on anonymous sources claiming the administration was blindsided. The updated version concedes there were plans. Those are two very different stories.
When Fox News Digital reached CNN for comment, the network responded: "We stand by our reporting." CNN Chairman and CEO Mark Thompson echoed the sentiment on X: "We stand by our journalism."
Standing by a story you've already materially amended is a choice.
The CNN dustup wasn't an isolated incident. The White House has repeatedly clashed with major news outlets this week over coverage of the Iran conflict. On Thursday, Leavitt called for ABC News to retract a separate story, accusing the network of spreading "false information to intentionally alarm the American people."
According to Leavitt, the ABC report was based on "one email that was sent to local law enforcement in California about a single, unverified tip." ABC News has since updated its story with an editor's note acknowledging that the FBI's alert included the detail that the information was unverified, a fact the original story apparently failed to emphasize.
Two major networks. Two stories require significant corrections or clarifications. One week.
The pattern here isn't complicated. Anonymous sources feed breathless claims to outlets already predisposed to frame military action as reckless. The claims get published. The administration pushes back with named officials making on-the-record denials. The outlets quietly update their stories while insisting nothing was wrong in the first place.
Cotton's point deserves weight. He chairs the Intelligence Committee. He has access to the classified briefings CNN's anonymous sources claim to be describing. And he says whoever leaked to CNN lied. That's not a vague denial from a communications staffer. That's the senator with the most direct oversight authority calling the sourcing fraudulent.
The Strait of Hormuz has been a flashpoint in U.S. strategic planning for decades. Every military planner who has ever war-gamed a conflict with Iran has accounted for it.
The suggestion that an administration actively striking Iranian naval and missile infrastructure somehow forgot about the strait those assets are designed to threaten is not serious analysis. It's narrative construction.
CNN wanted the story to be about incompetence. The story is actually about an operation designed to eliminate the very threat CNN accused the administration of ignoring. The clarification they were forced to publish proves it.
The most decorated woman in bobsled history walked into the White House on Thursday and did something no Olympic athlete has ever done for a sitting president. Kaillie Humphries, fresh off a bronze medal at the 2026 Winter Games in Italy, presented President Donald Trump with her Order of Ikkos medal during a Women's History Month event hosted by the president and first lady Melania Trump.
Trump, according to Humphries, is the first president in history to receive one.
The Order of Ikkos isn't a trinket. Every U.S. Olympic medalist receives one to award to someone who made a meaningful contribution to their journey to the podium. Humphries chose the President of the United States.
Humphries didn't mince words about her reasons, according to the Washington Examiner. She cited Trump's "support and the impact" he has had on women's sports, specifically "standing up to keep biological women in women's sports, to keep the field of play safe and allow for fair competition."
She also pointed to his administration's work on IVF access. As Humphries put it:
"Furthermore, because your policies are creating greater access to IVF, so families like mine can continue to grow."
Then she turned to the crowd and asked, "Isn't he just the best?"
Trump's response was characteristically succinct: "Wow." Followed by, "I knew I liked her."
Humphries isn't a newcomer leveraging a political moment. She's an athlete whose resume commands respect in any room. She won gold at the 2010 and 2014 Winter Games as a member of the Canadian bobsled team before eventually competing for the United States. She took monobob bronze at the 2018 Games, then gold in the same event at the 2022 Winter Games in Beijing. Last month, she added another bronze in monobob at the 2026 Games in Italy.
That's a career spanning nearly two decades at the highest level of one of the most physically demanding sports on earth. When someone with that pedigree hands you a medal and explains why, it carries weight.
What makes this moment resonate beyond the ceremony itself is what it represents. For years, female athletes who objected to biological males competing in women's sports were told to sit down. They were called bigots. They were warned that speaking up would cost them sponsorships, teammates, and careers. Many stayed quiet. Some didn't, and paid the price.
Humphries chose a different path. She stood in the White House, on a platform built by a lifetime of elite competition, and publicly thanked the president for defending the category that made her career possible. She framed fair competition not as a culture war talking point but as the foundation of women's athletic achievement.
That framing matters. The left has spent years insisting that protecting women's sports is somehow an attack on progress. Humphries, a woman who has competed at the highest level across four separate Olympic Games, just called it what it is: keeping the field of play safe and fair.
It's harder to dismiss that message when it comes from someone who has actually stood on the podium.
There's a pattern developing that the legacy sports media would rather not cover. Elite female athletes, the ones with the medals and the miles and the scars to prove it, are increasingly willing to say publicly what they've long said privately. They want to compete against other biological women. They want rules that reflect basic physiological reality. And they're willing to thank the people in power who agree.
Humphries explained the significance of the Order of Ikkos before she handed it over:
"Every Olympic medalist in the United States gets an Order of Ikkos that they get to hand to somebody in honor and recognition of somebody who's made a meaningful contribution to their journey to the podium, because Olympic medals are never achieved alone."
She could have given that medal to a coach, a trainer, a family member. She gave it to the president. Not as a political stunt, but as recognition of something concrete: policies that protect the competitive environment she has dedicated her life to.
The ceremony was brief. The message was not. A world-class athlete looked at the landscape of women's sports, assessed who was actually fighting to preserve it, and made her choice in front of the entire country.
No hedging. No apology. No anonymous quotes to a friendly reporter afterward, walking it back.
Just an Olympic champion, a medal, and a "thank you" that landed exactly where she intended it.
Dr. Mehmet Oz fired back at New York Attorney General Letitia James in a March 10 letter, defending NYU Langone Medical Center's decision to permanently shut down its transgender youth health program and dismantling James's threat to force the hospital to restart it.
The letter landed one day before a deadline James herself had imposed. Her office gave NYU Langone until Wednesday, March 11, to resume the procedures or face legal action. Oz made clear that wouldn't be happening without a fight.
"Our children are not guinea pigs."
That was the centerpiece of Oz's message, and it framed everything that followed: a methodical, medically grounded rejection of the attorney general's claim that canceling these interventions amounts to unlawful discrimination.
According to the New York Post, NYU Langone permanently axed its transgender youth health program in February, after the Trump administration threatened to pull federal funding from the hospital if it continued providing gender-affirming care for minors. James responded on February 25 with a letter accusing the hospital of abandoning patients.
"NYU Langone appears to be suddenly and indefinitely cancelling transgender children's future appointments thereby jeopardizing access to medically necessary healthcare for some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers."
That phrase, "medically necessary," is doing an enormous amount of work in James's argument. It presumes settled science where none exists. It treats an active, international medical debate as though one side has already won. And it forms the entire legal basis for the attorney general of New York to threaten a major medical institution into performing procedures on children.
Neither the AG's office nor NYU Langone officials returned requests for comment.
Oz didn't just disagree. He went after the foundation of James's position, calling it both scientifically irresponsible and ethically indefensible. His letter cited a report ordered by the Trump administration and pointed to the growing body of evidence from European health authorities that have pulled back from the same interventions James wants to compel.
"Given that emerging medical evidence continues to demonstrate the harm these procedures inflict on children, it is both irresponsible and false to declare the other side of this ongoing scientific debate definitively 'medically necessary.'"
He went further, addressing the coercion directly:
"It is worse still to compel doctors to perform procedures that remain the subject of substantial dispute. It is also unethical. Your claim that discontinuing these interventions constitutes unlawful discrimination is irresponsible."
Oz described the procedures in question as "surgical and chemical interventions on vulnerable children with potentially irreversible consequences." He called NYU Langone's decision "a serious and necessary course correction." And he made his position unambiguous: "My office stands behind NYU's decision."
One of the most devastating elements of Oz's letter is the international comparison. Several European health authorities acknowledged years ago what American progressives still refuse to concede. The UK, for example, imposed restrictions on prescribing puberty blockers. Other European governments followed suit.
Oz noted that those decisions weren't driven by politics:
"Those governments framed their decisions as grounded in formal evidence reviews and evolving assessments of the clinical data — not politics and baseless pressure campaigns."
The irony is sharp. The American left routinely invokes European models when it suits them: healthcare systems, climate policy, labor protections. But when Sweden, Finland, and the UK conduct rigorous evidence reviews and conclude that these interventions on minors lack sufficient scientific support, suddenly, Europe has nothing to teach us.
That selective deafness tells you everything about what's actually driving this debate.
Strip away the legal language, and what you have is a state attorney general attempting to override medical judgment at a private hospital. James isn't arguing that NYU Langone committed malpractice. She isn't alleging fraud. She's arguing that a hospital choosing not to perform contested procedures on children is, in itself, discrimination.
Think about what that standard would mean if applied broadly. Any hospital that declines a disputed treatment based on evolving evidence could face legal action from a state AG with a political agenda. Medical institutions would not be free to follow the science. They would be compelled to follow politics.
Oz put it plainly:
"As a doctor, I am appalled that your office would attempt to force a hospital to perform potentially life-altering medical procedures on children that are not solidly grounded in science to make a political point."
James's self-imposed deadline has arrived. Whether her office follows through with legal action remains to be seen. But the dynamics have shifted. NYU Langone now has explicit federal backing. The Trump administration has made its position clear through both funding threats and the report Oz cited. And the medical evidence continues to accumulate on the side of caution.
James is welcome to take this to court. She should be prepared to explain to a judge why the attorney general of New York knows better than NYU Langone's medical staff, better than European health authorities, and better than the growing chorus of clinicians who are raising alarms about irreversible procedures performed on children who cannot fully consent to them.
The Empire State's chief lawyer set a deadline. The answer came back a day early, and it wasn't the one she wanted.
Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran's newly appointed supreme leader, failed to appear at his own succession rally in Tehran on Monday. Thousands gathered at Enghelab Square to celebrate his appointment, and the man they came to honor was represented by a portrait. Just a portrait. One that was half the size of the one displayed for his late father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
State media footage of the event confirmed the absence. No explanation was offered. The new supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has yet to be spotted in public since the war with the US and Israel began.
According to the New York Post, the portrait of the dead leader took up the center of the stage while his son's smaller image hung nearby, a visual hierarchy that told the story better than any analyst could. The regime staged the rally. The crowds showed up. The supreme leader did not.
Khosro Isfahani, the research director for the National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI), offered a blunt assessment of what's going on:
"It's either he's out cold in a hospital, or he's scared and hiding in the deepest bunker they have after seeing his dad be turned into red mist."
Isfahani told The Post that Khamenei lacks public support and was only appointed to the position because of pressure from the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC needed a figurehead. They got one who won't leave his bunker.
Isfahani's most memorable line deserves its full airing:
"He has the charisma of a boiled potato."
Observers speculate that Mojtaba is either wounded or hiding out in fear. Neither option inspires confidence in a regime that styles itself as a divinely ordained revolutionary state. Supreme leaders are supposed to project strength. This one projects absence.
The more interesting story may not be who's missing, but who's watching. Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, is widely viewed as the most powerful man in Iran following the ayatollah's death at the start of the war. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf leads the other major faction. Together, they represent the two poles of Iranian power politics.
Neither seems particularly bothered by Mojtaba's installation. According to Isfahani, they see it as a strategic gift:
"Those two want to sit this out and are happy to see Mojtaba be the one to beat his chest and take the reins."
In other words, Larijani and Ghalibaf are content to let Khamenei's son absorb the incoming fire while they position themselves for whatever comes next. Isfahani put it plainly:
"Mojtaba is irrelevant, and they see it as a short-term appointment because it's not going to last very long."
That framing matters. When the people closest to power inside a regime view the new supreme leader as a temporary placeholder, the regime is not projecting strength. It is managing decline.
President Trump has repeatedly warned Tehran not to pick a leader without seeking his approval first, specifically naming Khamenei an "unacceptable" candidate. The regime installed him anyway, and Trump responded with characteristic directness.
"They are wasting their time. Khamenei's son is a lightweight."
He added that the new leader was "not going to last long."
That assessment lines up almost perfectly with what Isfahani and other analysts are saying from the opposition side. When the American president and Iranian opposition researchers reach the same conclusion independently, it's not spin. It's pattern recognition.
Larijani has reportedly been recently threatening President Trump, though no details of those threats have been made public. Whatever leverage Iran's security council believes it holds, the spectacle in Enghelab Square didn't strengthen its hand.
There's a particular kind of weakness that authoritarian regimes cannot survive: the kind everyone can see. Democracies absorb embarrassment. Strongman states cannot. When the supreme leader of Iran skips his own rally, every faction inside the country recalculates. Every ally reconsiders. Every enemy takes note.
The IRGC pushed Mojtaba Khamenei into the role because they needed continuity. They needed the Khamenei name on the door. What they got instead is a leader who:
The regime held a coronation. The king didn't show. The portrait was smaller than his father's. The factions that actually run the country are already looking past him.
Tehran filled a square. It couldn't fill a throne.
An inmate at Pima County Jail has filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Chris Nanos and his department, claiming deputies endangered his life by ignoring COVID-19 quarantine protocols. Christopher Michael Marx filed the suit in the US District Court for the District of Arizona on March 5, seeking $1,350,000 and a formal apology.
Marx alleges a sheriff's deputy moved freely between jail units, including one housing an inmate quarantined with COVID-19, without taking basic sanitation precautions. According to the lawsuit, the deputy "did not wipe down his body" while rotating between the units, exposing other inmates to the virus.
"This deputy was going back and forth working both units … our unit was on lockdown because this deputy was working both units."
Marx claims this conduct violated Article Two of the Arizona State Constitution, the Declaration of Rights, and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Beyond the seven-figure payout, he wants Nanos and the department to guarantee that deputies "properly disinfect their bodies while working between quarantined units."
The lawsuit lands on Nanos at a particularly inconvenient moment. The sheriff is already facing pointed criticism over his department's handling of the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the 84-year-old mother of "Today" show host Savannah Guthrie. Nancy Guthrie was reported missing on Feb. 1, and a months-long investigation has produced, according to critics, no real leads.
Sgt. Aaron Cross, president of the Pima County Deputies Organization, offered a blunt assessment of the situation to the New York Post:
"It is a common belief in this agency that this case has become an ego case for Sheriff Nanos."
When the people inside your own agency are saying that publicly, the problem isn't external perception. It's internal confidence. Cross's statement suggests a department where rank-and-file deputies have lost faith in the leadership directing their work.
Marx is not a sympathetic plaintiff by any stretch. He was found guilty of shoplifting in late 2024, according to Newsweek. He's an inmate suing the county for over a million dollars because a deputy allegedly walked between two units without sanitizing. The claim itself reads like the kind of jailhouse litigation that floods federal courts every year.
But that's precisely what makes the broader picture worth watching. When a sheriff's department can't keep a routine COVID protocol complaint from escalating to federal court, and simultaneously can't produce results in a high-profile missing persons case involving a nationally known family, the question stops being about any single incident. It becomes a question about competence.
The Pima County Sheriff's Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. That silence is becoming a pattern.
The demands in the suit are worth listing plainly:
The money is one thing. The apology demand tells you something about the nature of the complaint. Marx isn't just alleging negligence. He's alleging indifference.
"This put my life in jeopardy with their action, constantly."
Pima County sits in southern Arizona, a region that has dealt with enormous strain on law enforcement resources in recent years. Sheriffs in border-adjacent counties are expected to manage routine jail operations, complex investigations, and the downstream consequences of border policy failures, all at once. That's a real challenge, and it deserves honest acknowledgment.
But resource strain doesn't excuse basic institutional dysfunction. If deputies are rotating between quarantined and non-quarantined units without following sanitation protocols, that's a supervision failure. If a months-long missing persons investigation has stalled to the point where your own sergeants are calling it an "ego case" in the press, that's a leadership failure.
Marx may or may not have a meritorious legal claim. Federal courts will sort that out. What can't be sorted out in a courtroom is the growing chorus of voices, from inmates to deputies to the families of missing persons, all pointing at the same office and asking the same question.
Who's running this department?
United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz delivered a pointed rebuke to "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker on Sunday after she repeatedly pressed him on whether the United States was "at war" with Iran. Waltz refused to play the semantic game, redirecting the conversation to the decades of American blood spilled by Iranian proxies and the administration's resolve to finally end the threat.
The exchange came days after President Donald Trump announced in a video posted to Truth Social early Feb. 28 that the United States military and Israel Defense Forces had launched strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime. Six American service members were killed on March 1 when an Iranian strike hit a technical operations center in Kuwait.
According to the Daily Caller, Welker opened by framing the question around language, telling Waltz that "words matter" and asking whether the Trump administration described its operations as a war against Iran. Waltz didn't bite.
"Well, I describe it as Iran's been at war with us, as I just said, and thankfully—"
Welker cut in: "So, it's a war? Is it a war?"
Waltz finished the thought with a line that drew the sharpest contrast of the interview:
"President Trump is ending it. Look, I'll leave it to the lawyers and those who deal with Congress in terms of the War Powers Act, which every administration has viewed as unconstitutional. That said, Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio has been there day after day and week after week in the recent months to appropriately brief congressional leaders."
The framing of Welker's question is worth pausing on. The implication was clear: pin the administration down with a single word so it can be weaponized in the next news cycle. If Waltz says "war," Democrats get a talking point about unilateral escalation. If he says it's not a war, the press gets to call the strikes disproportionate to whatever lesser term he uses. It's a familiar trap, and Waltz walked right past it.
Where Waltz landed instead was on the human cost that the Washington press corps has spent decades treating as background noise. He invoked the Marines killed in Beirut in 1983, the hundreds of American troops killed in Iraq by Iranian-supplied improvised explosive devices, and the full constellation of Tehran's proxies: Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others.
"But I'll tell you, you know, who does believe that they're being attacked? It's the soldiers that have been buried for many, many years as a result of Iranian attacks and their proxy attacks — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others, in Beirut in 1983 and Iraq through those years — over 600 American soldiers, so, I mean, we have to take a step back, Kristen, and look at how many billions, how much time, how much treasure that administration after administration has spent dealing with this."
Over 600 American soldiers. That number rarely surfaces in mainstream coverage of Iran policy. It should be the starting point of every conversation about whether the United States is justified in striking the regime. Instead, the press prefers procedural questions about the War Powers Act and congressional notifications, as though the real scandal is paperwork rather than dead Americans.
Efforts by Democrats to halt American military operations against the Iranian regime were defeated in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That fact deserves more attention than it has received.
Consider the sequence: Iran strikes a U.S. facility in Kuwait and kills six American service members. The administration responds with force. And the Democratic caucus moves to shut those operations down. Not to demand a broader strategy. Not to offer an alternative. To stop.
This is the party that spent years insisting America must maintain "credibility" on the world stage. Apparently, that credibility evaporates the moment a Republican president decides to use it.
The first Trump administration killed Qasem Soleimani, a notorious commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and a crucial figure in providing advanced improvised explosive device components used against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a January 2020 strike. The same hysterics followed then. World War III was supposedly imminent. It wasn't.
What happened instead was a period of relative Iranian restraint, because deterrence works when adversaries believe you'll act. The years that followed that strike, under a different administration, saw deterrence erode, and proxies grow bolder. Administration after administration spent billions and decades managing the Iran problem rather than confronting it.
Waltz's core point on Sunday was not complicated. Iran has been waging a shadow war against the United States for over forty years. The question was never whether America would fight back. It was when.
Six families in America are grieving service members lost in Kuwait. Over 600 more have grieved for years. The debate in Washington is about terminology.